Study on the functioning of judicial systems in the EU Member States : facts and figures from the CEPEJ questionnaires 2012 to 2020. Part 2, Country fiches for each EU Member States (2020).
Date: 2022-08-03
Institutions: Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers
Subjects: EU Member State, EU budget, alternative dispute resolution, data processing, digital technology, information technology, jurisdiction, lawyer, legal aid, legal system, staff

Strasbourg, 

06/01/2022

CEPEJ(2021)18rev1
Part 2

EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR THE EFFICIENCY OF JUSTICE (CEPEJ)

Study on the functioning of judicial 
systems in the EU Member States

Facts and figures from the CEPEJ questionnaires 2012 to 2020

Study prepared under the authority of the Working Group on the evaluation of judicial systems 
(CEPEJ-GT-EVAL)
for the attention of the European Commission (Directorate General Justice)

Part 2 - Country fiches for each EU Member States (2020)

The information and views set out in this study are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official 
opinion of the Commission. The Commission does not guarantee the accuracy of the data included in this study. 
Neither the Commission nor any person acting on the Commission’s behalf may be held responsible for the use 
which may be made of the information contained therein.

******

Les informations et les opinions exprimées dans cette étude ne lient que leurs auteurs et ne peuvent en aucun cas 
être considérées comme reflétant la position officielle de la Commission en la matière. La Commission ne garantit 
pas l’exactitude des données intégrées dans cette étude. Ni la Commission, ni aucune autre personne agissant en 
son nom ne peuvent être tenues responsables de l’éventuelle utilisation de l’information contenue dans le présent 
document.

Generated on 06/01/2022 09:30

Population:

8 932 664

Judiciary at a glance in Austria

General data

GDP 

per capita:

42 502 €

Professionals

Average annual 

salary:

35 240 €

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Austria

Austria

EU Median

EU Median

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual 
salary in the country

EU Median

Austria

Professional judges

Professional judges

29,49
29,49
23,92

23,92

Non-judge staff

59,00

59,00

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

59,00

59,00

4,46

9,91

4,46

9,91

4,07

15,22

4,07

15,22

Lawyers

Lawyers

75,08

75,08
122,09

Austria

EU Median

Judge at the beginning of a career 

1,61

4,09

3,90

Judge of the highest court 3,90
2,02

3,90

3,61

2,02

4,09

1,61

1,71
Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 
1,71

1,70

1,70

Public prosecutor at highest instance

3,90

3,61

122,09

Judge at the
beginning of a career

Judge of the highest
court

Prosecutor at the
beginning of a career

Public prosecutor at
highest instance

Efficiency

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

1st instance 2nd instance

Supreme Court
Supreme 
Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance 2nd instance Supreme Court

100%

,

,

%
Civil and
1
%
2
8
0
commercial
9
Administrativ
1
9
e
cases
Total 
criminal law 
cases

,

%
0
6
2
1

99,8%

,

%
8
3
0
1

,

%
3
0
0
1

%
102,1%
2
8
9

,

%
5
9
9

,

,

%
5
103,8%
2
0
1

100,3%

126,0% NAP

98,2%

99,5%

102,5%

P
A
N

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

Administrative
cases

Total criminal law
cases

1
1

1

1
1

Civil and commercial litigious cases
Administrative cases 388 NAP

156

176

Total criminal law cases133

NAP

118

77

156

388

77

55

118
176

150

150

55

133

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

Information and communication technology

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

Assistance toolsCase management system
2018

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the workload
2019

Electronic communication

EU Median 2020

2020

2018
2019
2020

2,50
2,50
2,78

6,22
6,44
6,44

0,00
0,00
0,00

4,00
4,00
4,00

8,43
9,31
10,00

EU Median 2020

2,00

5,17

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

6,22

6,44

6,44

2,50

2,50

2,78

2,00

1,25

0,00

0,00

0,00

4,00

4,00

4,00

2,50

10,00

9,31

8,43

6,94

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

*ICT calculations are described in more details in Annex 5 - IT Calculation methodology

2

2020

Synthesis table for the main indicators for:

Austria

Economic and demographic data

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Variations

Population

GDP per capita

Exchange rate (local currency needed to 
obtain 1€)

8 451 860

8 485 300

8 584 926

8 700 471

8 739 806

8 795 073

8 822 267

8 901 064

8 932 664

5,7%

36 430

36 930

38 540

39 390

40 420

42 010

43 680

44 900

42 502

16,7%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

Average annual salary

29 723

30 655

31 752

33 221

34 167

35 240

18,6%

1,8%

4,9%

NAP

3,6%

0,9%

8,1%

NAP

4,6%

0,3%

4,0%

0,9%

2,8%

0,4%

-5,3%

NAP NAP

NAP

2,8%

3,1%

Resources

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Professional judges per 100 000 inhab.

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhab.

Lawyers per 100 000 inh.

Mediators

ICT overall assesment

First instance incoming cases per 100 
inhab.

18,3

54,8

68,1

28,4

18,4

55,4

68,4

28,3

18,9

54,8

69,2

28,6

18,6

54,4

70,5

26,6

27,4

63,4

70,2

29,3

28,2

63,0

71,9

25,4

27,3

56,3

73,5

25,8

7,6

29,5

57,5

74,9

19,0

7,9

29,0

59,0

75,1

19,5

8,3

58,4%

45,3%

-0,4%

-3,0%

7,7%

15,7%

-11,3%

-10,7%

10,3%

-31,4%

1,4%

2,5%

4,7%

-12,1%

2,2%

1,4%

7,9%

2,1%

1,9%

-26,2%

5,2%

-1,7%

2,6%

0,2%

2,5%

4,4%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Civil and commercial litigious cases

1,235

1,192

1,111

1,047

0,969

0,963

0,945

0,937

0,826

-33,1%

-12,8%

-2,5%

-1,9%

-0,9%

-11,9%

Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

0,647

0,844

0,811

0,617

0,513

NAP

NAP

25,3%

-3,9%

-24,0%

-16,9%

Total criminal law cases

0,747

First instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

101%

101%

103%

102%

102%

CR administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

91%

99%

80%

101%

100%

100%

90%

111%

126%

-0,78

NAP

-0,96

NAP

-1,21

-1,14

1,86

10,16

-0,34

20,97

-0,64

15,32

CR total criminal law cases

98%

First instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
cases (days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

First instance pending cases per 100 
inhab. on 31 dec.

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

 Supreme court 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Supreme court
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

135

NAP

135

NAP

130

NAP

131

NAP

133

380

141

446

138

449

137

440

15,6%

NAP

2,2%

NAP

3,6%

-2,3%

-0,8%

14,3%

18,3%

0,7%

-2,2%

-11,9%

156

388

133

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

0,46

NAP

0,45

NAP

0,41

NAP

0,38

NAP

0,36

0,61

0,37

0,82

0,36

0,90

0,35

0,82

-23,3%

-11,7%

-0,2%

NAP

NAP

46,4%

-2,3%

9,1%

-2,0%

0,1%

-8,2%

-16,6%

0,35

0,69

0,27

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

102%

NAP

100%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

DT administrative law cases (days)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

77

NAP

55

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

104%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NAP

NAP

109%

94%

100%

92%

100%

103%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

NA

NAP

NA

-9,44

NA

5,96

NA

-7,76

NA

8,31

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

DT administrative law cases (days)

NAP

NAP

138

DT total criminal law cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

147

NA

119

NA

157

118

176

150

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

-14,1%

-19,6%

32,5%

11,8%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

3 / 1555

1. Judicial organisation in Austria

In 2020 in Austria, the number of courts considered as legal entities is 152. Namely, there are 133 courts of general jurisdiction and 19 specialised courts. 

Among the 133 legal entities of general jurisdiction, 128 act at first instance, 4 at second instance and one at third instance. 

More precisely, the 115 District courts and the 13 Regional courts of general jurisdiction intervene as first instance courts. It is noteworthy that the 7 other regional courts that have 
specialised jurisdiction are not taken into consideration here, but are counted as specialised first instance courts (infra) . It is to be mentioned that the peculiarity of the 20 Austrian 
Regional courts is that even though these are first instance courts, some of them are also competent in respect of appeals against District courts’ decisions. 

The 4 Higher Regional Courts have appeal competence in respect of all civil and criminal cases.

The Supreme court is the highest instance court in civil and criminal matters. 

Among the 19 legal entities of specialised jurisdiction, 18 are of first instance and are competent for all legal matters not reserved to District courts. WIthin this total we have the 7 
Regional courts of specialised competence.

The Supreme Administrative court is the highest instance in administrative matters.  

In terms of geographic locations, there are 164 courts among which 158 are of first instance.

Distribution of general courts in Austria

Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Austria - 1st instance

EU Median - 1st instance

EU Median - Higher instances

According to 2020 data, the distribution between 1st instance and higher instances courts of general 
jurisdiction in Austria is somewhat different of 87% - 13% that is the EU calculated tendency.

Austria - Higher instances

AustriaDistribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Austria - 1st instanceAustria - Higher instances
96%

General courts - Austria

4%

General courts - Austria
EU Median

96%
87%

4%
13%

EU Median

87%

13%

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Austria

Geographic 
locations

Legal entities

General jurisdiction

Specialised 
jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

149

135

103

103

103

103

102

102

164

154

132

129

129

129

129

128

128

128

7

7

19

19

19

19

18

18

18

200

150

100

50

0

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Austria

Geographic locations

Legal entities General jurisdiction

Legal entities Specialised jurisdiction

For this cycle, data on geographic locations is presented in respect of different locations for different instances, in compliance with the methodology developed in the Explanatory Note. 
The variation observed with previous cycles is only of a methodological nature. 
Austria

Distribution of first instance general jurisdiction and specialised courts

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Ratio general jurisdiction vs specialised

12%

Austria

General jurisdiction Specialised courts

88%

75%

12%

25%

88%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

EU Median

25%

75%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

The distribution between number of general jurisdiction courts and specialised courts of 87,7% - 12,3% is somewhat different from the EU median (distribution 
tendency in EU: 75,5% - 24,5%).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

4 / 1555

Specialised courts
Total

Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

Insolvency courts

Labour courts

Family courts

Rent and tenancies courts

Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

Internet related disputes

Administrative courts

Insurance and / or social welfare courts

Military courts

Juvenile courts

Other specialised 1st instance courts

First instance

Higher instance

18

2

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

2

NAP

NAP

11

1

NAP

NAP

2

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

Concerning the 18 specialised first instance courts, as a rule, every court has to deal with all judicial issues. However, in the biggest Austrian cities certain courts are specialised, i.e., 
five in Vienna (civil cases, criminal cases, commercial cases [2 x], labour and social welfare cases) and two in Graz (civil cases, criminal cases). Because of the Court for labour and 
social welfare cases in Vienna having competence for labour and (some) social welfare cases (Arbeits- und Sozialgericht Wien) the sum of the individual courts does not correspond to 
the total number of specialised courts. 

From January 1st, 2014 there are 11 newly found courts for administrative law in Austria, namely 9 regional administrative courts, 1 Federal administrative court and 1 Federal Tax 
Court. The Supreme Administrative court is the highest instance in administrative matters.  

The other specialized first instance courts are 2 criminal courts and 2 civil law courts (in Vienna and Graz). 

It is noteworthy that one commercial court in Vienna, both courts (in Vienna and Graz) specialised on civil cases and both courts (in Vienna and Graz) specialised on the enforcement of 
criminal sanctions also act as second instance courts.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

5 / 1555

2. Professionals of justice in Austria

● Professional judges and non-judge staff

Evolution of the number of professional judges since 2012 (Q46)

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Absolute 
number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

1 547

1 565

1 620

1 621

2 397

2 478

2 411

2 625

2 589

18,30

18,44

18,87

18,63

27,43

28,17

27,33

29,49

28,98

EU median

23,9

Professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants

27,43

28,17

27,33

29,49

28,98

23,9

18,30

18,44

18,87

18,63

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

According to 2020 data, the total number of professional judges sitting in courts (all instances) in Austria is 2 589, which is -1,4% less than in previous cycle.

More precisely, in Austria, there are 28,98 professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants (this figure is above the EU median of 23,92 judges per 100 000 inhabitants) and about 2,04 non-
judge staff per judge .

There has been a small increase compared with previous cycle when this ratio was at 1,95 non-judge staff per judge.

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and gender

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

2 153

305

131

2 589

Distribution by 
instance

83,2%

11,8%

5,1%

Male

1 012

165

84

1 261

Female

% Male

% Female

1 141

140

47

1 328

47,0%

54,1%

64,1%

48,7%

53,0%

45,9%

35,9%

51,3%

Distribution of professional judges by instance

Austria

EU Median

83,2%

72,39%

EU Median

72,39%

23,98%

4,03%

23,98%

11,8%

5,1%

4,03%

Distribution of professional judges by gender and by instance

% Female

53,0%

47,0%

45,9%

54,1%

35,9%

64,1%

% Male

51,3%

48,7%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female professional judges (all instances) is 1 328, which represents 51,3% of the total number of judges.

Female judges have the majority only at first instance level.

The total number of judges is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 2 153 are sitting in first instance courts (of which 1 141 are female); 305 are sitting in 
second instance courts (of which 140 are female)  and 131 are sitting in Supreme Court (of which 47 are female).  

Compared with the EU distribution of professional judges per instance, the trend established in Austria is similar. The main nuance is that the predominance of 1st instance judges is 
more pronounced. At second instance, there are less judges than at the European level, while at third instance there are more. 

As regards the distribution of the number of judges among the different judicial instances, Austria presents some peculiarities which should be mentioned. Namely, first instance judges 
sit in District and partly Regional courts, while second instance judges sit in partly Regional courts and Courts of appeal. 

For all evaluation exercises, data have been provided in full time equivalent.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

6 / 1555

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Total

Civil and commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

2 153

305

131

2 589

922

225

46

1 193

308

80

17

405

923

NAP

68

991

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

In Austria, the distribution of judges per categories of cases is possible as presented in the graph below. 

Distribution of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Civil and 
commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

46,1% Civil and commercial

Distribution of the total number of professional judges by matter

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

42,8%

73,8%

35,1%

46,1%

Non-judge staff

Year

2012

Number of non-judge staff

4 631

Per 100 000 inhabitants

54,79

14,3%

26,2%

13,0%

15,6%

2013

4 698

55,37

42,9%

NAP

51,9%

38,3%

2014

4 705

54,81

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2015

4 735

54,42

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

0

46%

16%

38% NAP

0%

15,6% Criminal

38,3% Administrative

2016

5 544

63,43

2017

5 544

63,04

2018

4 966

56,29

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants

54,79

55,37

54,81

54,42

63,43

63,04

56,29

57,49

59,00

59,00

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

2020

Total

Rechtspfleger

Non-judge staff assisting the judge

Staff in charge of administrative tasks

Technical staff

Other

2019

5 117

57,49

Absolute 
number

5 270

801

432

873

50

3 114

E
U 
m

2020

5 270

59,00

in %

15,2%

8,2%

16,6%

0,9%

59,1%

In 2020, Austria has 5 270 non-judge staff (of which 3 727 are females). The total number of non-judge staff in comparison with the previous cycle reveals an increase of 3,0%.

In this cycle, the non-judge staff is broken down as follows:

◦ 801 Rechtspfleger (or similar bodies) with judicial or quasi-judicial tasks having autonomous competence and whose decisions could be subject to appeal (among which 
495 are women);

◦ 432 non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges such as registrars (of which 338 are women);

◦ 873 staff in charge of different administrative tasks and of the court management (of which 570 are women);

◦ 50 technical staff (of which 21 are women);

◦ 3 114 other (of which 2 303 are women);

In 2020, the number of non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants has increased (from 57,5 in 2019 to 59,0 in 2020).

During the same period, the number of judges per 100 000 inhabitants evolves from 29,5 judges per 100 000 inhabitants in 2019 to 29,0 in 2020.

The category “other non-judge staff” includes Kanzlei responsible for handling of case files. 

In respect of the category "Non-judge (judicial) staff whose task is to assist the judges", the increased number concerns administrative courts.

It should be noticed that trainees are not taken into consideration. The trainees, which – if included - would be concerned by this question, are nearly all trained for the handling of case 
files. A small number of trainees is trained for IT-support.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

7 / 1555

Professional judges, non-judge staff and their ratio (Q46, Q52)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Austria

EU median

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

28,98

59,00

Non-judge staff per judge

2,04

23,92

59,00

3,30

Professional judges and non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Non-judge staff per judge

59,00

59,00

3,30

28,98

2,04

23,92

Austria

EU median

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff  (Q46, Q52)

Judges 
per 100 000 inh.

Non-judge staff per
100 000 inh.

Ratio between professional judges and 
non-judge staff

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff 
Non-judge staff per 100 000 inh.
(Q46, Q52)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

18,30

18,44

18,87

18,63

27,43

28,17

27,33

29,49

28,98

54,79

55,37

54,81

54,42

63,43

63,04

56,29

57,49

59,00

EU median 2020

3,30

2,99

3,00

2,90

2,92

2,31

2,24

2,06

1,95

2,04

2,99

3,00

2,90

2012

2013

2014

2,99
3,00
2,90
2,92
2,31
2,24
2,06
1,95
2,04

2,92

2,31

2,24

2,06

1,95

2,04

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

8 / 1555

● Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff

Absolute number of public prosecutors by instance and gender (Q55)

2020

Total

Distribution by 
instance

Male

Female

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

358

22

18

398

89,9%

5,5%

4,5%

166

14

10

190

192

8

8

208

Male

46,4%

63,6%

55,6%

47,7%

Female

53,6%

36,4%

44,4%

52,3%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance

Austria

EU Median

89,9%

73,30%
EU Median

73,30%

21,28%

4,66%

5,5%

21,28%

4,5%

4,66%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance and gender

Female

Male

53,6%

46,4%

36,4%

63,6%

44,4%

55,6%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

52,3%

47,7%

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female prosecutors (all instances) is 208, which represents 52,3% of the total number of prosecutors.

Female prosecutors have the majority only at first instance.

The total number of prosecutors is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 358 in first instance (of which 192 are female); 22 are in second instance (of 
which 8 are female)  and 18 in final instance (of which 8 are female). 

As regards the methodology of presentation of data in respect of the number of prosecutors, data is presented in full time equivalent.

Non-prosecutor staff by gender (Q60)

Non-prosecutor staff

Total

2020

364

Male

71

Female

293

Non-prosecutor staff by gender

20%

Male

Female

80%

Public prosecutors, non-prosecutor staff and their ratio (Q55, Q60)

Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Austria

EU median

Public prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per 
prosecutor

4,46

4,07

0,91

9,91

15,22

1,11

Public prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per prosecutor

0,91

4,46

4,07

15,22

9,91

1,11

Austria

EU median

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

9 / 1555

● Salaries of professional judges and prosecutors at beginning of a career and at the highest instance (Q132, Q4)

Salaries of professional judges and 
prosecutors (Q132, Q4)

Average gross annual 
salary 
in €

Average net annual 
salary 
in €

Ratio with national 
average annual 
gross salary

Judge at the beginning of a career 

56 638 €

Judge of the highest court 

137 586 €

Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

60 084 €

Public prosecutor at highest instance

137 586 €

NA

NA

NA

NA

1,61

3,90

1,70

3,90

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual salary in the 
country

Salaries of 
judges and 
prosecutors in 
Judge

4,09

EU Median

3,90

2,02

2,02

1,61
4,09

1,71

at the beginning 
of a career

3,90

3,61

56638

1,70

at the highest 
1,71
instance

Prosecutor

at the beginning 
of a career

137586

60084

Judge at the beginning of
career

Judge on highest instance

3,61

Austria

Prosecutor at the
beginning of career

EU Median

at the highest 
instance

Prosecutor at highest
instance

137586

According to 2020 data, the absolute gross salary of a judge at the begining of a career in Austria of 56 638€ is somewhat above when compared to the EU median of 51 946€. As a ratio 
with the annual average salary of the country, the salary for a judge at the begining of career is: 1,61 compared with EU median of : 2,02.

In respect of administrative courts, the gross annual salary of a first instance professional judge at the begining of his/her career is 75000€, while the net annual salary is 46600€.
The gross annual salary of a judge of the Administrative Supreme Court is 130000€.

● Lawyers

Lawyers

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

Number of lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

5 756

5 801

5 940

6 138

6 132

6 325

6 483

6 667

6 707

68,10

68,37

69,19

70,55

70,16

71,92

73,48

74,90

75,08

EU median 2020

122,09

In 2020, there are 6 707 lawyers, which is 0,6% more than in 2019.

68,10

68,37

69,19

70,55

70,16

71,92

73,48

74,90

75,08

122,09

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median
2020

Austria has 75,1 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants, which is below the EU median of 122,1 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

10 / 1555

● Judicial professionals (summary)

Judicial professionals in absolute number and per 100 000 inhabitants (Q46, Q52, Q55, Q60, Q146)

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

EU Median

Professional judges

2 625

29,49

Non-judge staff

5 270

59,00

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

398

364

4,46

4,07

23,92

59,00

9,91

15,22

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Austria

EU Median

122,09

75,08

59,00

59,00

29,49

23,92

4,46

9,91

4,07

15,22

Lawyers

6 707

75,08

122,09

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

Austria % Male Austria % Femalelabels

Austria % Male

Austria % Female

Professional judges

-48,7%
EU Median  % Male

51,3%

EU Median  % Female

48,7%

% Male

% Female

Professional judges

-39,0%
48,7%

61,0%

39,0%

51,3%

Professional judges

48,7%

51,3%

39,0%

61,0%

Non judge staff

29,3%

70,7%

Prosecutors

47,7%

52,3%

Non judge staff

Non judge staff

-29,3%

29,3%

70,7%

0,0%

29,3%

Non-prosecutor staff

19,5%

80,5%

Prosecutors

Lawyers

76,5%

23,5%

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Lawyers

76,5%

24,0%

-24,0%

76,0%

24,0%

47,7%

40,5%

-47,7%
-40,5%

-19,5%
-28,1%

-76,5%
-52,3%

52,3%

19,5%

28,1%

52,3%
59,5%

80,5%
71,9%

23,5%
47,7%

0,0%

47,7%
40,5%
0,0%
19,5%
28,1%
0,0%
23,5%
76,5%
52,3%

52,3%

59,5%

70,7%

76,0%

80,5%

71,9%

47,7%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

11 / 1555

3. Legal aid and court fees in Austria

In Austria, legal aid includes:

◦ Coverage of court fees: 

◦ Exemption from court fees: 

1

1

As far as civil cases are concerned, according to sec 64 of the Austrian Civil Procedure Code (Zivilprozessordnung, ZPO) legal aid may cover a (provisional) exemption from court 
fees, fees for witnesses, experts, interpreters and guardians, costs of the necessary announcements and the cash expenditure of guardians or lawyers, representation by a court 
official or – if necessary – a lawyer.

In criminal cases: in general the expenses of criminal proceedings that have to be reimbursed by the party required to do so include also a flat-rate contribution as part of those 
costs of the criminal proceedings that are not further specified in the following provisions, including the costs associated with the investigative work of the criminal investigation 
authority and the costs associated with the execution of directions given by the prosecution authority or by the necessary official acts of the court (sec 381 para 1 sub-para 1 CCP). 
In cases of a guilty verdict, the defendant must further be required to cover the costs of the criminal proceedings.
According to sec 391 para 1 CCP the enforcement of the court’s decision on costs has to take into account the ability of the convicted person to bear the costs for the daily life for 
him/herself and the family as well as the obligation of compensation in regard of the offence. The court may, if the costs cannot be enforced because of an impecunious 
defendant, declare the costs unrecoverable. If the court assumes that in the future the costs will be recoverable but for the time being, they are not, the economic capacity of the 
person concerned has to be re-examined after a certain period. The statute for limitation to recover the costs is five years after the final decision in the proceeding. If the court 
decides that the convicted person has to bear the costs of the proceeding and further on, he or she is not able to pay the costs the authorities, responsible to recover costs, may 
prolong the payment deadline, allow to pay instalments, or to abate the costs.

As far as administrative cases are concerned, according to sec 8a of the Proceedings of Administrative Courts Act – VwGVG and the Austrian Civil Procedure Order 
(Zivilprozessordnung, ZPO) legal aid may cover a provisional exemption from court fees, fees for witnesses, experts, interpreters and guardians, costs of the necessary 
announcements and the cash expenditure of guardians or lawyers, representation by a court official or – if necessary – a lawyer.

In Austria, legal aid is avaiable for :

> Representation in court:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

> Legal advice, ADR and other legal services:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

>

Fees related to enforcement of judicial decisions as fees for enforcement agents (Q18) 

>

 Other costs than above (Q19) 

1

1

1

1

1

1

In principle, every person who retains a defence lawyer or another representative, has to bear the costs him or herself even if the lawyer was appointed ex officio. By virtue of the 
Code of Criminal Procedure, the court has to decide on total or partial legal aid on the request of the defendant if the defendant cannot bear the total costs for the defence lawyer 
without impairment of his/her own or his/her family’s maintenance which enables him/her to a simple lifestyle and if it is necessary in the interest of justice in particular in the 
interest of an adequate defence. Where in any case the defendant needs a defence lawyer, the court has to decide on legal aid ex officio even if the defendant does not request 
for it but further requirements to provide legal aid are given.Legal aid is denied if the claim or defence of the applicant is manifestly unfounded or manifestly not brought in good 
faith. Legal aid is granted in all civil and commercial court proceedings regardless of the applicant's nationality or place of residence.

Where legal representation is provided, legal aid also covers the pre-trial advice given by the lawyer.  

Legal aid covers all stages of the proceedings. As long as it has not been withdrawn because of a change in the applicant's circumstances or annulled by the court if it is 
established that the conditions under which the aid was granted were not borne out, legal aid covers any appeal (or appeal procedure).

If legal aid is granted in the main proceeding, the same also applies to the enforcement proceeding. According to the Austrian Civil Procedure Order, the requirements for granting 
legal aid have only to be re-examined, if the enforcement proceeding will be opened one year after the main proceeding has been closed. If legal aid is granted in the main 
proceeding, the same also applies to the enforcement proceedings. A party which was granted legal aid for a particular legal dispute in another EU Member State is also entitled 
to legal aid in Austria for a proceeding concerning the recognition and enforcement of the decision given in that dispute. 

If an application for legal aid is submitted concerning an urgent case (e.g. legal representation in the case of interim measures) the court has to decide speedily. If the court 
decides that the legal aid includes the assistance of a lawyer, the regional Bar Association selects a lawyer from among its members, by alphabetical order.

In civil matters, the Austrian Civil Procedure Order provides for that legal aid may cover not only the (provisional) exemption from court fees but also the exemption from fees for 
witnesses, experts, interpreters and guardians, costs of the necessary announcements and the cash expenditure of guardians or lawyers, representation by a court official or – if 
necessary – a lawyer. If the personal presence of the parties at a hearing is ordered by the court, their necessary travel expenses are also replaced. Where legal representation is 
provided, legal aid also covers the pre-trial advice given by the lawyer. If legal aid is granted in the main proceeding, the same also applies to the enforcement proceedings. A 
party which was granted legal aid for a particular legal dispute in another EU Member State is also entitled to legal aid in Austria for a proceeding concerning the recognition and 
enforcement of the decision given in that dispute. In criminal matters, there are no costs to bear for the parties, until the court has taken a final decision, which also encompasses 
a decision on the costs. In case of an acquittal, the State has to bear all the costs. The Public Prosecutor does not have to bear any costs in any case. The Code of Criminal 
Procedure pinpoints only one exception to this rule, if a person, different from the Public Prosecutor, i.e. “Privatankläger” holds the accusation and loses the case because of an 
acquittal. In this case, the so called Privatankläger (private prosecutor) has to bear the costs. In case of a false accusation, the person who knowingly accused the (acquitted) 
perpetrator would have to bear the costs of the trial.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

12 / 1555

 Number of cases for which legal aid has been granted

Total

Cases brought to court

Cases not brought to 
court

Ratio of number of cases brought to court for which legal aid 
has been granted

Absolute number 
(in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

14 001

18 959

4 958

18 959

4 958

14 001

NAP

NAP

NAP

In criminal cases

100,0% NAP

In other than criminal
cases

100,0% NAP

100,0% NAP

Per 100 000 inhabitants
 (in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

Austria

EU Median

212,2

55,5

156,7

734,2

330,9

402,7

Number of cases for which legal has been granted per 100 000 
inhabitants

Austria

EU Median

734,2

212,2

330,9

55,5

402,7

156,7

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

Timeframes of the procedure for granting legal aid (in relation to the duration from the initial legal aid request to the final approval of the legal aid request)

◦ Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulations: 

◦ Actual average duration: 

NA

NA

Concerning the actual average duration, the reply varies depending on the legal matter. Thus, in criminal law the actual average duration is of 3,67 days; in civil law - 34,48 days; 
total - 24,87 days; Supreme Administrative court: 23 days. 

Concerning the regional administrative courts, the maximum duration prescribed in law/regulation is of 6 months, while the actual average duration is of 40 days.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

13 / 1555

● Efficiency indicators

◦ Clearance Rate (CR) and Disposition Time (DT)

4. Performance of courts in Austria

The Clearance Rate shows the capacity of a judicial system to deal with the incoming cases. A Clearance Rate of 100% and higher does not generate backlog. 

The Disposition Time determines the estimated number of days necessary for a pending case to be solved in a court. 

At the outset, it is important to specify that, generally, no courts were closed during the lockdowns. During the first lockdown (middle of March until the end of April 2020) 
the number of incoming cases dropped significantly. Nearly all court hearings had to be postponed during the first lockdown. In total (all case types) in April 2020 there 
were 89.25 % less court hearings than in April 2019. In general, litigious civil matters of first instance there were even 94.59 % less hearings. A comparison of the total 
number of court hearings held in the period of March 2019 to February 2020 on the one hand and of March 2020 to February 2021 on the other hand shows that there 
were 22.22 % less hearings since the first lockdown. The significant drop in incoming cases and held court hearings in April 2020 resulted in the opportunity to 
concentrate on finishing pending cases in which all hearings had already been held. The statistical data shows that the number of judgments pending more than 2 
months since the final hearing declined considerably (1st of July 2020: -75 % compared to 1st of April 2020). 

It should be pinpointed that in Austria, judges did always (even before the Covid-19 pandemic) have the opportunity to work from home. Many have made use of this 
option during the lockdowns. The Federal Ministry of Justice does not keep statistics on this matter (number of judges working from home) since judges are not obliged to 
record their working times or places.

First instance Total of other than criminal cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Evolution of number of all other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants
Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Incoming

41,28

39,91

41,13

40,21

,

8
2
1
4

,

3
1
1
4

,

1
9
9
3

,

1
2
0
4

,

8
7
7
3

,

6
8
7
3

,

8
5
7
3

,

4
7
7
3

,

2
7
6
3

,

4
9
6
3

,

3
0
7
3

,

2
1
7
3

NA

,

6
3
6
3

,

1
2
6
3

37,78

,

7
9
4
3

NA

,

7
8
4
3

37,86

2
1
6

,

9
7
5

,

7
4
5

,

4
8
5

,

5
9
5

,

4
8
5

,

A
N

A
N

A
N

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

37,58

36,72

37,03

36,21

34,97

2019

6,82

4
8
5

,

37,74

36,94

37,12

4
0
6

,

36,36

34,87
2020
6,60

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Austria (34,97 per 100 inhabitants) is well above the EU median (6,82 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Austria (34,87 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (6,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Austria (6,04 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (2,66 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Other than criminal cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Other than criminal 
cases

6,12

5,79

NA

5,47

5,84

5,95

2
8
6

,

5,84

0
6
6

,

5,84

6
6
2

,

6,04
EU median
2,66

100%

101%

100%

100%

101%

100%

100%

100%

DT (days)

CR (%)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

100%

101%

NA

100%

100%

101%

100%

100%

100%

54

53

NA

53

57

59

57

59

63

EU median
With a Clearance Rate calculated at 99,7% in 2020 Austria seems to be able to deal with its other than criminal cases.

99%

109

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

54

53

NA

53

57

59

57

2018

59

2019

63

2020

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -0,7 points.

In 2020, other than criminal cases are solved in approximately 63 days, which is somewhat below the EU median of 109 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 7,7% increase of the Disposition Time.

Two peculiarities have to be highlighted in the light of the extraordinary circumstances in 2020. 

On the one hand, sec. 3a para. 2 of the COVID-19 Act concerning corporate law (“Gesellschaftsrechtliches COVID-19-Gesetz”) allows corporations to file their annual 
accounts and other documents, that have to be published by law, not only within 9 but within 12 months from the account date (mostly: December 31st of a year). 
Usually, the duty to file these reports within 9 months leads to a high number of incoming files in September. The 2020 special rules lead to such high incoming file 
numbers in December and thereby to an increase in pending non litigious business registry cases at the end of the year.

On the other hand, the number of general civil proceedings increased because the district administrative authorities (Bezirksverwaltungsbehörden) had to notify the 
district courts of every single person against which a quarantine measure (SARS-CoV-2) had been taken. In concerns of statistical data every such notification resulted in 
an incoming (and resolved) case.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

14 / 1555

First instance Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of civil and commercial litigious cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

3
2
1

,

4
2
1

,

9
1
1

,

0
2
1

,

4
1
1

,

1
1
1

,

5
0
1

,

7
0
1

,

7
9
0

,

9
9
0

,

6
9
0

,

5
9
0

,

5
9
0

,

5
9
0

,

4
9
0

,

4
9
0

,

1,23
1,19
1,11
1,05
0,97
0,96
0,95
0,94
0,83
1,56

3
8
0

,

2
8
0

,

0
5
1

,

,

6
5
1

1,24
1,20
1,14
1,07
0,99
0,95
0,95
0,94
0,82
1,50

0,46
0,45
0,41
0,38
0,36
0,37
0,36
0,35
0,35
1,05

5
0
1

,

6
4
0

,

5
4
0

,

1
4
0

,

8
3
0

,

6
3
0

,

7
3
0

,

6
3
0

,

5
3
0

,

5
3
0

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Austria (0,83 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below the EU median (1,56 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Austria (0,82 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below the EU median (1,50 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Austria (0,35 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below the EU median (1,05 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

100,6%

101,0%

103,0%

102,0%

102,0%

98,9%

100,8%

100,4%

99,8%

135

135

130

131

133

141

138

137

156

EU Median

98%

221

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

DT (days)

CR (%)

100,6%

101,0%

103,0%

102,0%

102,0%

98,9%

100,8%

100,4%

99,8%

98%

135

2012

135

2013

130

2014

131

2015

133

2016

141

2017

138

2018

137

2019

156

221

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 99,8% in 2020, Austria seemsto be able to deal with its civil and commercial litigious cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -0,6 points.

In 2020, the civil and commercial litigious cases are solved in approximately 156 days, which is somewhat below the EU median of 221 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 14,3% increase of the Disposition Time.

The number of civil and commercial litigious cases older than 2 years is not available.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

15 / 1555

First instance Administrative cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of administrative cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

4
8
0

,

2
8
0

,

7
6
0

,

0
9
0

,

1
8
0

,

3
7
0

,

5
6
0

,

9
5
0

,

1
6
0

,

2
8
0

,

8
6
0

,

2
6
0

,

1
5
0

,

NAP
NAP
NAP
NAP
0,65
0,84
0,81
0,62
0,51
0,30

5
6
0

,

9
6
0

,

NAP
NAP
NAP
NAP
0,59
0,67
0,73
0,68
0,65
0,26

0
3
0

,

NAP
NAP
NAP
NAP
0,61
0,82
0,90
0,82
0,69
0,21

6
2
0

,

1
2
0

,

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Austria (0,51 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly above the EU median (0,30 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Austria (0,65 per 100 inhabitants) is well above the EU median (0,26 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Austria (0,69 per 100 inhabitants) is well above the EU median (0,21 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Administrative cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

90,8%

79,5%

89,7%

110,7%

126,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

380

446

449

440

388

EU Median

100%

388

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Administrative cases

DT (days)

CR (%)

126,0%

110,7%

90,8%

89,7%

79,5%

100%

380

2016

446

2017

449

2018

440

2019

388

2020

388

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 126,0% in 2020, Austria seems  to deal efficiently with its administrative cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased for 15,3 points.

In 2020, the administrative cases are solved in approximately 388 days, which is the EU median of 388 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a -11,9% decrease of the Disposition Time.

In Austria, there are 22 923 administrative law cases older than 2 years. This is 37,4% of the total number of pending cases at the end of the year.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

16 / 1555

Insolvency cases

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Insolvency cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Insolvency cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

100,7%

102,1%

102,8%

100,1%

102,6%

98,3%

99,6%

100,5%

120,4%

157

156

151

152

144

164

148

144

149

EU Median

105%

281

DT (days)

CR (%)

100,7%

102,1%

102,8%

100,1%

102,6%

98,3%

99,6%

100,5%

120,4%

105%

157

2012

156

2013

151

2014

152

2015

144

2016

164

2017

148

2018

144

2019

149

281

2020

EU Median

The Clearance Rate was calculated at 120,4% in 2020 for insolvency cases, Austria seems to deal efficiently with its insolvency cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased by 19,9 points.

In 2020, insolvency cases are solved in a approximately 149 days, which is somewhat below the EU median of 281 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 3,2% increase of the Disposition Time.

The observed decreases between 2019 and 2020 in the number of insolvency cases are due to the pandemic. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

17 / 1555

● First instance Criminal Law Cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

22 930

Severe criminal cases 

5 469

Misdemeanour and/or 
minor cases

Other cases

8 283

NAP

66 767

21 966

24 453

NAP

65 549

22 120

23 966

NAP

23 968

5 315

8 770

NAP

Incoming cases

Austria

EU Median

5
7
0

,

3
7
0

,

7
2
0

,

Total criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases Resolved casesPending 
Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

0,75

0
6
1

,

8
4
1

,

0,73

0,27

1,60

1,48

0,46

6
4
0

,

Per 100 inhabitants

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 
Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

0,26

0,06

0,09

NAP

0,75

0,25

0,27

NAP

0,73

0,25

0,27

NAP

0,27

0,06

0,10

NAP

Austria

EU Median

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, and other 
criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases

Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

0,75
0,73

Total

Severe criminal
cases

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

0,27

0,25
0,25

0,27
0,27

0,06

0,10

The number of total incoming criminal cases in 2020 in Austria (0,75 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below the EU median (1,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total resolved criminal cases in 2020 in Austria (0,73 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below the EU median (1,48 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total pending criminal cases at the end of 2020 in Austria (0,27 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below the EU median (0,46 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT)

Total criminal law cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

DT (days)

CR (%)

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 

Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

98,2%

100,7%

98,0%

NAP

133

88

134

NAP

Total Criminal law cases

98,2%

95,2%

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, 
and other criminal law cases 

100,7%

98,0%

EU Median

95,2%

139

EU Median

133

Total

139

EU Median

88

Severe criminal
cases

134

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

With the Clearance Rate calculated at 98,2% in 2020 for total criminal cases, Austria seems to be able to deal with its total criminal cases.

In 2020, criminal law cases were solved in approximately 133 days, which is slightly below the EU median of 139 days.

It is noteworthy that the distinction between misdemeanour criminal cases and severe criminal cases is possible only for the ciminal courts. However, the total number 
includes administrative criminal law cases as well, where distinction is not possible.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

18 / 1555

Overall efficiency by instance and by case matter

CR (%)

DT (days)

CR (%)

DT (days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases

99,8%

102,1%

103,8%

Administrative cases

126,0%

NAP

100,3%

Total criminal law cases

98,2%

99,5%

102,5%

156

388

133

77

NAP

55

118

176

150

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)
2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

100%

%
Civil and commercial 
8
9
litigious cases
9
Administrative cases

,

,

%
1
2
0
1

,

%
8
3
0
1

,

%
0
6
2
1

,

%
3
0
0
1

99,8%

126,0% NAP

Total criminal law cases

P
A
N

%
5
102,1%
9
9

%
2
8
9

,

,

,

%
5
2
0
1

103,8%
100,3%

1

1
1

118

77

156

176

388

150

55

133

Civil and commercial
litigious cases

98,2%

Administrative cases Total criminal law

99,5%
cases

102,5%

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

1
1

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

Generally speaking, the efficiency indicators of the Austrian courts for 2020 prove to be satisfactory. On the one hand, the Clearance Rate is above or close to the 100% 
threshold at all instances, for all matters. On the other hand, the Disposition Time remains most of the time below the respective European medians established in the 
different legal fields at the different court levels. 

More precisely, the Clearance rate is beyond the 100% threshold except for civil and criminal first instance cases for which the threshold is almost reached, allowing 
keeping a positive analyse. 

As to the Disposition Time indicator, the Austrian value is slightly above the European median of 120 days only with regard to last instance criminal cases. The 
Disposition Time for first instance administrative cases is aligned to the European median of 388 days. As a matter of fact, at first instance level in Austria, the length of 
administrative proceedings is quite longer compared to the length of civil and criminal proceedings which Disposition Time indicators are respectively 156 days (the 
European median being of 221 days) and 133 days (the European median being of 139 days). Conversely, at last instance, administrative proceedings prove to be the 
longest, civil proceedings being the fastest.  

Thus, despite the pandemic, the Austrian courts continue operating efficiently and promptly. In this regard, it is important recalling here that in Austria, judges did always 
(even before the Covid-19 pandemic) have the opportunity to work from home. Many have made use of this option during the lockdowns.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

19 / 1555

5. Public prosecution services in Austria

● Role and powers of the public prosecutor

In the criminal procedure, the public prosecutor in Austria has the following 8 out of 11 possible roles and powers:

To conduct or supervise police investigation

To appeal

To conduct investigations

To supervise the enforcement procedure

When necessary, to request investigation measures from the judge

To discontinue a case without needing a decision by a judge

To charge

To present the case in the court

To propose a sentence to the judge

To end the case by imposing or negotiating a penalty or measure 
without requiring a judicial decision

Other significant powers

With the entry into force of the Code of Criminal Procedures Amending Act on 1st January 2008, the public prosecutor has got the right to conduct investigations himself/herself. 
The public prosecutor has to refrain from requesting a concrete term of sentence. However, he/she has the right to plea with regard to the sentence, thus meaning inter alia he/she 
can refer to the mitigating and aggravating grounds to be applied or if a sentence under probation is admissible or not. In Austria, the public prosecutor cannot impose or negotiate 
a penalty. However, measures of diversion, which are proposed to the suspect by the public prosecutor without a judicial decision, can be regarded as sanctions (but not penalties) 
and should be mentioned in this context. The suspect is free to accept such a proposal or to reject it (there is no room for negotiations, for example if the suspect would prefer 
another type of measure of diversion). In the latter case, the proceeding is continued, that means the suspect is indicted.

The public prosecutor also has a role in  civil cases.

More precisely, only in few, certain, exactly defined cases, the public prosecutor has the right to file an action before a civil court to have a marriage declared null and void, inter 
alia in the case of bigamy or if the marriage was merely or predominantly concluded to obtain the nationality or the family name of one spouse by the other. Furthermore, the public 
prosecutor represents the public interest in judicial proceedings, with which a person is declared dead. Inter alia he/she has the opportunity to give a statement before such a 
decision and has to request the nullification or the amendment of such a declaration, if a person has been declared dead but still is alive or has died on a different day than the day 
stated in the declaration of death.

● Public prosecutors: Number of first instance criminal cases

Type of cases

Absolute 
number

Per 100 
inhabitants

1. Pending cases on 1 Jan. ref. year 

27 279

0,31

Public prosecutors: Total number of first instance criminal 
cases per 100 inhabitants

2. Incoming/received cases

407 162

4,56

4,56

4,63

Incoming/received cases

Processed cases

Incoming/rec
eived cases

Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. Year
Pendin
g cases 
on 31 

Processed 
cases

3. Processed cases (3.1 + 3.2 + 3.3 + 3.4)

413 905

4,63

Austria

2,85
4,56 4,63

2,84

0,23

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year (3.1.1 + 3.1.2 + 3.1.3 
+ 3.1.4)

307 431

3,44

3.1.1 Discontinued by the public prosecutor because the 
offender could not be identified 

181 242

2,03

3.1.2 Discontinued by the public prosecutor due to the lack 
of an established offence or a specific legal situation 

94 249

1,06

3.1.3 Discontinued by the public prosecutor for reasons of 
opportunity

NA

NA

3.1.4 Discontinued for other reasons 

31 940

0,36

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated 
by the public prosecutor

37 178

0,42

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons

24 928

0,28

3.4. Cases brought to court

44 368

0,50

EU Median

2,85 2,84

0,84

0,84

0,23

Austria

EU Median

Processed cases per 100 inhabitants
EU Median

Austria

Processed cases

Austria

EU Median

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

3,44

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

1,05

-3,44

1,05

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed
or negotiated by the public prosecutor

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor

0,42

0,12

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other
reasons

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons
0,30

-0,28

0,28

0,30

-0,42

0,12

4. Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. year

20 536

0,23

3.4. Cases brought to court

3.4. Cases brought to court

0,50

0,53

-0,50

0,53

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

20 / 1555

 
Few methodological clarifications should be carried out here. 

As concerns “3.1.3 Discontinued by the public prosecutor for reasons of opportunity”, it is noteworthy mentioning that discontinued investigations for reasons of opportunity are 
only counted by persons against which the investigation was discontinued. In one case, more than one person can be accused and the investigation can be discontinued for 
reasons of opportunity against more than one accused person. Therefore, the person-count was not delivered because it is inconsistent with the case-count (3.1.1, 3.1.2 and 
3.1.4). The number of cases in which an investigation was discontinued for reasons of opportunity is included in the number provided for 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 but cannot be evaluated 
separately with the standard statistic tools of the Federal Ministry of Justice of Austria.

The provided number of cases discontinued for other reasons (3.1.4) contains cases discontinued because the offender is fugitive or an investigation may not be instituted or 
continued by law (e.g. because of diplomatic immunity of the offender), also cases (investigations) that were not instituted in the first place because the of a lack of an initial 
suspicion and all other cases that were discontinued but cannot be allocated to one of the above mentioned reasons or the other reasons under 3.1.

Under 3.3, closed cases against unidentified offenders were counted which were discontinued because of another reason than not identifying the offender in the end (mostly cases 
in which at least one formerly unidentified offender could be identified and therefore the case against the unidentified offender(s) is closed and another (new) case against the 
known offender(s) is opened).

The Austrian code of criminal procedure knows measures that the public prosecutor can take in cases of minor criminal offences (“Diversion”). Comparable measures have to be 
taken by the public prosecutor under certain circumstances under the addictive drug act (“Suchtmittelgesetz”). Until 2019, the last-mentioned cases were counted as files 
“discontinued by the public prosecutor due to the lack of an established offence or a specific legal situation” (3.1.2). Since 2020, these cases are now counted as “concluded by a 
penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor” (3.2). These changes explain the higher number of cases under 3.1.2. Cases brought to court declined 
mainly because in 2020 there were far less incoming cases (-13 % compared to 2018).

The number of persons against which an investigation was discontinued by the public prosecutor for reasons of opportunity in 2020 is 9 672.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

21 / 1555

6. Existence and use of alternative dispute resolution in Austria

Number of mediators

Mediators

Total

Per 100 000 inhabitants

EU Median
2020

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2400

2400

2456

2313

2562

2234

2273

1692

1741

28,4

28,3

28,6

26,6

29,3

25,4

25,8

19,0

19,5

EU Median 2020

EU median in 2019

14,4

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

Number of mediators per 100 000 inhabitants

14,4

19,5

19,0

25,8

25,4

29,3

26,6

28,6

28,3

28,4

In 2020, there are 1 741 accredited or registered mediators who practise court related mediation which represents 19,5 accredited or registered mediators per 100 

The variation between  2019 and  2020 is about 2,9%.

Number of court related mediations

Type of cases

Number of cases 
for which the parties
agreed to start 
mediation

Number of finished 
court-related
mediations

Number of cases 
in which there is a 
settlement agreement

All cases

Civil and commercial

Family cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Administrative

NAP

NAP

Employment dismissal

Criminal cases

Consumer cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

23881

20922

743

NAP

2216

NA

NA

There is no data available if the settlement agreements are the results of court-related mediations. Parties may agree on a settlement agreement without 
mediation (Datewarehouse (register data of the case management application “Verfahrensautomation Justiz”)).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

22 / 1555

7. ICT tools of courts in Austria

●The ICT tools of courts and for court users

The use of ICT in courts in 2020 has been evaluated as  :

EU Median

Total 
(0 to 10)

Assistance tools (0 to 3)

Case management system (0 to 7)
Financial management tools (0 to 3)

Measurement tools to assess the workload (0 to 5)
Electronic communication (0 to 10)

8,3
2,8

6,4

0,0
4,0

10,0

6,6
2,0

5,2

1,3
2,5

6,9

The calculation of this values for each field is based on the answers for that question/s and weighted according the avaiability 
or deployment rate. The total value is normalised to max 10 points for readability and comparison.

The details of the calculation are given in Annex 5 - IT calculations

The result by area may be summarized in these graphics, where each field has been evaluated from 0 to 4 points.

Note: index is modified based on the available questions. This cycle the recalculation was made for the last three cycles to be 
able to follow the development.

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

2018

2019

2020

EU Median 2020

Case 
management 
system

Financial 
management 
tools

Measurement 
tools to assess 
the workload

Electronic 
communication

Assistance 
tools

Year
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
EU Median 20202,00

2,50

2,78

2,50

6,22

6,44

6,44

6,44

6,22

0,00

6,44

0,00

0,00

4,00

4,00

5,17

4,00

8,43

9,31

10,00

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

2,50

2,50

2,78

2,00

1,25

0,00

0,00

0,00

10,00

9,31

8,43

6,94

4,00

4,00

4,00

2,50

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

Concerning the possibility to submit a case to courts by electronic means, as an exception to the general rule applicable in all legal fields, in 
administrative proceedings in matters of taxes, costums duties and respective penalties there is no possibility to submit a case to courts or to 
request legal aid by electronic means. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

23 / 1555

8. Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and public prosecution services in Austria

In Austria, quality standards are not detemined for the judicial system at the national level.

● Systems for measuring and evaluating courts' performance

A regular monitoring system of court activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

In Austria, there is a system to regularly evaluate the court performance based primarily on defined indicators and the reporting is more frequent than annual.

More precisely, in Austria monthly statistics about incoming and closed cases are carried out. Besides, there are periodic check lists on annual basis. Finally, an internal audit 
examination takes place all 4 to 7 years.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each court.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

The evaluation of the courts' activities is used for the later allocation of means in the courts.

● Systems for measuring and evaluating public prosecution services' performance

A regular monitoring system of public prosecution services activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases 

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs 

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecution) 

Costs of the judicial procedures 

Clearance rate 

Disposition time 

Percentage of convictions and aquittals

Other

In Austria, there is a system to evaluate regularly the activity of each public prosecution service and the reporting is more frequent than annual.

As mentionned above, in Austria monthly statistics about incoming and closed cases are carried out. Besides, there are periodic check lists on annual basis. Finally, an 
internal audit examination takes place all 4 to 7 years.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each public prosecution service.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Satisfaction of prosecution staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecutors)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Percentage of convictions and acquittals

Other

The evaluation of the public prosecution services' activities is used for the later allocation of means in the public prosecution services.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

24 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table General Data: Economic and demographic data, in absolute values (Q1, Q3, Q5)

Q1 Number of inhabitants

8 451 860

8 485 300

8 584 926

8 700 471

8 739 806

8 795 073

8 822 267

8 901 064

8 932 664

5,7%

0,4%

1,2%

1,3%

0,5%

0,6%

0,3%

0,9%

0,4%

Q.3 GDP Per capita (in €) in current prices

36 430

36 930

38 540

39 390

40 420

42 010

43 680

44 900

42 502

16,7%

1,4%

4,4%

2,2%

2,6%

3,9%

4,0%

2,8%

-5,3%

Q5. Exchange rate of Nat currency to € on 1 Jan

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Indicator 1: Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and prosecution services  (Indicator 4 in 2019)

Table 1.1 to Table 1.10 (Q66, Q67, Q77, Q78, Q77-1, Q78-1, Q73, Q73-0, Q73-1, Q73-2, Q73-3, Q73-4, Q73-5, Q73-6, Q70, Q70-1, Q71, Q72, Q83-2, Q83-3, Q120 
and Q120-1)

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

66 Qlty standards formulated_jud system

67 Specialised court staff entrusted_qlty standards

77 Performance and quality indicators of court activities

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

False

False

True

078.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078.1.5 Backlogs 

078.1.6 Productivity of judges and court staff

078.1.7 Satisfaction of court staff 

078.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts) 

078.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078.1.10 Number of appeals

078.1.11 Appeal ratio

078.1.12 Clearance rate 

078.1.13 Disposition time 

078.1.14 Other

077-1.1.1 Defined performance and quality indicators

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

25 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

078-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078-1.1.5 Backlogs 

078-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

078-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

078-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

078-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

078-1.1.11 Disposition time 

078-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

078-1.1.13 Other

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

True

True

False

True

False

73 Regular system_evaluation_performance_each court

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

073-0.1.1 Annual

073-0.1.2 Less frequent

073-0.1.3 More frequent

073-1.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
court

073-2.1.1 Courses of action taken in the evaluation is used for the 
allocation of resources

073-2.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-2.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-2.1.4 Other

073-3.1.1 Regular evaluation of the public prosecution services 
performance

Yes

Yes

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

26 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

073-4.1.1 Annual

073-4.1.2 Less frequent

073-4.1.3 More frequent

073-5.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
public prosecution services

073-6.1.1 Identifying the causes of improved or deteriorated 
performance

073-6.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-6.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-6.1.4 Other

070.1.1 number of incoming cases

070.1.2 length of proceedings (timeframes)

070.1.3 number of resolved cases

070.1.4 number of pending cases

070.1.5 backlogs

070.1.6 productivity of judges and court staff

070.1.7 satisfaction of court staff

070.1.8 satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts)

070.1.9 costs of the judicial procedures

070.1.10 number of appeals

070.1.11 appeal ratio

070.1.12 clearance rate

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

27 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

070-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases 

070-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

070-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

070-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

070-1.1.5 Backlogs 

070-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

070-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

070-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

070-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

070-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

070-1.1.11 Disposition time 

070-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

070-1.1.13 Other

071.1.1 Monitoring backlogs in Civil law cases

071.1.2 Monitoring backlogs in Criminal law cases

071.1.3 Monitoring backlogs in Administrative law cases

072.1.1 Monitoring timeframes Within the courts

072.1.2 Monitoring timeframes Within the public prosecution services

083-2.1.1 Quantitative performance tagets defined for each 
prosecutors

083-3.1.1 Body responsible - Executive power (for example the 
Ministry of Justice)

083-3.1.2 Body responsible - Prosecutor General /State public 
prosecutor

083-3.1.3 Body responsible - Public Prosecutorial Council

083-3.1.4 Body responsible - Head of the organisational unit or 
hierarchically superior public prosecutor

083-3.1.5 Body responsible - Other

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

28 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

120.1.1 Qualitative individual assessment of the public prosecutors' 
work

120-1.1.1 Feequency - Annual

120-1.1.2 Feequency - Less frequent

120-1.1.3 Feequency - More frequent

True

False

True

False

Indicator 2: The judicial organisation

Tables 2.1a; 2.1b; 2.2a; 2.2b; 2.3a; 2.3b; 2.4 and 2.5(EC) (Q42, Q43 and Q44)

Q42.1.1Total number of all courts - legal entities 

Q42.1.2 Total number of courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

152

133

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Q42.1.3 First instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

154

132

129

129

129

129

128

128

128

-16,9%

-14,3%

-2,3%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-0,8%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

7

2

-

1

-

-

2

-

-

NAP

1

Q42.1.4 Second instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.5 Highest instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.6 Total number of specialised courts - legal entities

43.1.1 Total number of specialised courts of first instance

43.1.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.1.3 Insolvency courts

43.1.4 Labour courts

43.1.5 Family courts

43.1.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.1.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.1.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.1.9 Internet related disputes

43.1.10 Administrative courts

43.1.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.1.12 Military courts

43.1.13 Juvenile courts

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

7

2

-

1

-

-

2

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

19

2

-

-

-

19

2

-

-

-

19

2

-

-

-

19

2

-

-

-

18

2

-

-

-

18

2

4

1

19

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

18

157,1%

0,0%

171,4%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-5,3%

0,0%

0,0%

2

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

NAP

NAP

2

NAP

NAP

11

1

1

NAP

NAP

2

NAP

NAP

11

1

1

NAP

NAP

2

NAP

NAP

11

1

1

NAP

NAP

2

NAP

NAP

11

1

1

NAP

NAP

2

NAP

NAP

11

1

1

NAP

NAP

2

NAP

NAP

11

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

NAP

NAP

11

1

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

29 / 1555

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

43.1.14 Other specialised courts

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

43.2.1 Total number of specialised courts of higher instances

43.2.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.2.3 Insolvency courts

43.2.4 Labour courts

43.2.5 Family courts

43.2.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.2.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.2.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.2.9 Internet related disputes

43.2.10 Administrative courts

43.2.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.2.12 Military courts

43.2.13 Juvenile courts

43.2.14 Other specialised courts

44.1.1 First instance courts geographic locations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

158

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

44.1.2 All courts geographic locations

149

135

103

103

103

103

102

102

164

10,1%

-9,4%

-23,7%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-1,0%

0,0%

60,8%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

30 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 3: The performance of courts at all stages of the proceedings

Tables 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.4 (all years) Number of other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 Variation of first instance other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants (Q1, Q91)

Table 3.13.7 (EC) to 3.13.12 (EC) First instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

504 481

517 264

NA

482 779

524 240

530 969

522 569

522 141

531 048

5,3%

2,5%

-

-

8,6%

1,3%

-1,6%

-0,1%

1,7%

39 530

38 918

37 885

35 068

33 222

31 532

32 437

31 779

31 407

-20,5%

-1,5%

-2,7%

-7,4%

-5,3%

-5,1%

2,9%

-2,0%

-1,2%

-

-

NA

397 794

388 908

390 281

366 196

357 258

372 350

-

-

-

-

-2,2%

0,4%

-6,2%

-2,4%

4,2%

397 948

386 305

381 808

372 342

356 361

350 894

324 166

324 114

335 714

-15,6%

-2,9%

-1,2%

-2,5%

-4,3%

-1,5%

-7,6%

0,0%

3,6%

-

-

NA

25 452

32 556

39 387

42 030

33 144

36 636

-

-

-

-

27,9%

21,0%

6,7%

-21,1%

10,5%

17 205

41 484

23 356

21 827

28 491

18 711

16 644

15 495

20 086

16,7%

141,1%

-43,7%

-6,5%

30,5%

-34,3%

-11,0%

-6,9%

29,6%

NA

-

-

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

3 223

3 625

4 056

20 676

25 386

17 649

16 550

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

48 297

57 010

71 648

79 024

73 172

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

12,5%

11,9%

409,8%

22,8%

-30,5%

-6,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

18,0%

25,7%

10,3%

-7,4%

49 798

50 557

48 324

49 917

53 813

52 146

52 288

54 080

54 119

8,7%

1,5%

-4,4%

3,3%

7,8%

-3,1%

0,3%

3,4%

0,1%

3 489 286

3 386 071

NA

3 287 147

3 284 414

3 229 560

3 267 183

3 223 321

3 123 339

-10,5%

-3,0%

-

-

-0,1%

-1,7%

1,2%

-1,3%

-3,1%

104 365

101 157

95 412

91 057

84 708

84 716

83 403

83 399

73 755

-29,3%

-3,1%

-5,7%

-4,6%

-7,0%

0,0%

-1,5%

0,0%

-11,6%

-

-

NA

2 684 699

2 641 124

2 569 287

2 598 742

2 587 121

2 208 341

-

-

-

-

-1,6%

-2,7%

1,1%

-0,4%

-14,6%

1 775 035

1 777 887

1 741 644

1 721 024

1 670 674

1 644 273

1 669 386

1 629 337

1 273 208

-28,3%

0,2%

-2,0%

-1,2%

-2,9%

-1,6%

1,5%

-2,4%

-21,9%

-

-

NA

963 675

970 450

925 014

929 356

957 784

935 133

-

-

-

-

0,7%

-4,7%

0,5%

3,1%

-2,4%

689 005

643 064

648 601

684 737

683 624

633 837

621 199

640 454

643 942

-6,5%

-6,7%

0,9%

5,6%

-0,2%

-7,3%

-2,0%

3,1%

0,5%

335 857

307 976

285 996

278 938

286 826

291 177

308 157

317 330

291 191

-13,3%

-8,3%

-7,1%

-2,5%

2,8%

1,5%

5,8%

3,0%

-8,2%

91.1.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.1.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.1.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.1.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.1.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.1.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.1.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.1.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

91.1.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.1.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

91.1.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

91.2.1 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.2.2 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.2.3 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.2.4 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.2.5 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.2.6 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.2.7 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.2.8 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

91.2.9 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

91.2.10 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

56 583

74 227

71 553

54 894

45 806

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

31,2%

-3,6%

-23,3%

-16,6%

91.2.11 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

585 024

555 987

513 877

511 391

501 999

501 330

513 485

497 907

795 437

36,0%

-5,0%

-7,6%

-0,5%

-1,8%

-0,1%

2,4%

-3,0%

59,8%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

31 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

3 476 472

3 411 960

NA

3 293 774

3 298 090

3 248 636

3 274 813

3 236 623

3 115 226

-10,4%

-1,9%

-

-

0,1%

-1,5%

0,8%

-1,2%

-3,8%

104 977

102 190

98 229

92 903

86 398

83 811

84 061

83 771

73 611

-29,9%

-2,7%

-3,9%

-5,4%

-7,0%

-3,0%

0,3%

-0,3%

-12,1%

-

-

NA

2 693 376

2 656 631

2 604 602

2 614 882

2 594 238

2 222 330

-

-

-

-

-1,4%

-2,0%

0,4%

-0,8%

-14,3%

1 786 647

1 782 384

1 751 110

1 737 005

1 676 141

1 682 179

1 676 640

1 639 927

1 299 718

-27,3%

-0,2%

-1,8%

-0,8%

-3,5%

0,4%

-0,3%

-2,2%

-20,7%

-

-

NA

956 371

980 490

922 423

938 242

954 311

922 612

-

-

-

-

2,5%

-5,9%

1,7%

1,7%

-3,3%

664 726

661 192

626 850

678 073

693 404

635 904

622 348

635 863

643 959

-3,1%

-0,5%

-5,2%

8,2%

2,3%

-8,3%

-2,1%

2,2%

1,3%

335 857

307 976

285 594

278 298

287 086

286 519

315 894

318 448

278 653

-17,0%

-8,3%

-7,3%

-2,6%

3,2%

-0,2%

10,3%

0,8%

-12,5%

91.3.1 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.3.2 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.3.3 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.3.4 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.3.5 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.3.6 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.3.7 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.3.8 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

91.3.9 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

91.3.10 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

51 395

59 035

64 177

60 746

57 707

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

14,9%

8,7%

-5,3%

-5,0%

91.3.11 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

91.4.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.4.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.4.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.4.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.4.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.4.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.4.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.4.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

91.4.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.4.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

91.4.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

584 265

558 218

512 284

507 495

503 666

501 188

511 693

497 868

761 578

30,3%

-4,5%

-8,2%

-0,9%

-0,8%

-0,5%

2,1%

-2,7%

53,0%

517 295

491 375

NA

476 152

510 564

523 071

514 939

520 057

539 161

4,2%

-5,0%

-

-

7,2%

2,4%

-1,6%

1,0%

3,7%

38 918

37 885

35 068

33 222

31 532

32 437

31 779

31 407

31 551

-18,9%

-2,7%

-7,4%

-5,3%

-5,1%

2,9%

-2,0%

-1,2%

0,5%

-

-

NA

389 117

373 401

366 144

350 056

361 359

358 361

-

-

-

-

-4,0%

-1,9%

-4,4%

3,2%

-0,8%

386 336

381 808

372 342

356 361

350 894

324 166

316 912

324 742

309 204

-20,0%

-1,2%

-2,5%

-4,3%

-1,5%

-7,6%

-2,2%

2,5%

-4,8%

-

-

NA

32 756

22 507

41 978

33 144

36 617

49 157

-

-

-

-

-31,3%

86,5%

-21,0%

10,5%

34,2%

41 484

23 356

21 827

28 491

18 711

16 644

15 495

20 086

20 069

-51,6%

-43,7%

-6,5%

30,5%

-34,3%

-11,0%

-6,9%

29,6%

-0,1%

NA

-

-

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

3 625

4 265

3 796

25 334

17 649

16 531

29 088

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

53 485

72 202

79 024

73 172

61 271

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

17,7%

-11,0%

567,4%

-30,3%

-6,3%

76,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

35,0%

9,4%

-7,4%

-16,3%

50 557

48 326

49 917

53 813

52 146

52 288

54 080

54 119

87 978

74,0%

-4,4%

3,3%

7,8%

-3,1%

0,3%

3,4%

0,1%

62,6%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

32 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.2 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.4 to 3.3.7 Variation of Clearence Rate and Disposition Time of first instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

Table 3.13.1 (EC) to 3.13.6 (EC) First instance courts: Disposition time and clearance rate for other than criminal cases  (Q91)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

99,6%

100,8%

NA

100,2%

100,4%

100,6%

100,2%

100,4%

99,7%

0,11

1,14

-

-

0,21

0,17

(0,36)

0,18

(0,67)

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

100,6%

101,0%

103,0%

102,0%

102,0%

98,9%

100,8%

100,4%

99,8%

(0,78)

0,43

1,91

(0,90)

(0,03)

(3,00)

1,88

(0,34)

(0,64)

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

-

-

NA

100,3%

100,6%

101,4%

100,6%

100,3%

100,6%

-

-

-

-

0,26

0,78

(0,74)

(0,34)

0,36

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

100,7%

100,3%

100,5%

100,9%

100,3%

102,3%

100,4%

100,6%

102,1%

1,42

(0,40)

0,29

0,38

(0,60)

1,97

(1,83)

0,21

1,42

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

-

-

NA

99,2%

101,0%

99,7%

101,0%

99,6%

98,7%

-

-

-

-

1,81

(1,30)

1,24

(1,31)

(0,98)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

96,5%

102,8%

96,6%

99,0%

101,4%

100,3%

100,2%

99,3%

100,0%

3,66

6,57

(6,00)

2,46

2,43

(1,09)

(0,14)

(0,90)

0,72

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

100,0%

100,0%

99,9%

99,8%

100,1%

98,4%

102,5%

100,4%

95,7%

(4,31)

-

(0,14)

(0,09)

0,32

(1,69)

4,18

(2,11)

(4,64)

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

CR Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

90,8%

79,5%

89,7%

110,7%

126,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(12,44)

12,77

23,38

13,84

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

99,9%

100,4%

99,7%

99,2%

100,3%

100,0%

99,7%

100,0%

95,7%

(4,13)

0,53

(0,71)

(0,45)

1,10

(0,36)

(0,32)

0,34

(4,25)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

54

135

-

79

-

23

NA

-

-

NAP

32

53

135

-

78

-

13

-

-

-

NAP

32

NA

130

NA

78

NA

13

5

NA

NA

NAP

36

53

131

53

75

13

15

6

NAP

NAP

NAP

39

57

133

51

76

8

10

5

NAP

NAP

380

38

59

141

51

70

17

10

32

NAP

NAP

446

38

57

138

49

69

13

9

20

NAP

NAP

449

39

59

137

51

72

14

12

19

NAP

NAP

440

40

63

16,3%

-3,2%

-

-

7,1%

4,0%

-2,3%

2,2%

7,7%

156

15,6%

0,0%

-3,7%

0,2%

2,1%

6,0%

-2,3%

-0,8%

14,3%

59

87

19

-

-

-

-

-2,7%

0,0%

-4,8%

4,1%

15,8%

10,0%

-0,9%

-0,7%

-3,5%

2,0%

-7,9%

-1,9%

4,8%

20,1%

-

-

-

-

-33,0%

98,3%

-22,4%

8,6%

38,9%

11

-50,1%

-43,4%

-1,4%

20,7%

-35,8%

-3,0%

-4,9%

26,9%

-1,3%

38

NAP

NAP

388

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

20,7%

-13,7%

568,7%

-36,8%

-7,1%

101,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

17,5%

0,7%

-2,2%

-11,9%

42

33,5%

0,0%

12,6%

8,8%

-2,4%

0,8%

1,3%

2,9%

6,3%

33 / 1555

         
         
         
         
        
         
        
        
         
         
        
        
        
         
        
        
         
         
        
        
         
         
        
         
         
        
         
        
         
         
         
        
         
        
        
         
         
        
         
         
        
        
        
         
        
           
        
        
         
        
         
        
        
      
       
       
       
        
         
        
        
         
        
        
         
        
Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.4.1 (all years) First instance courts, number of cases for specific case categories (Q101)

101.1.1 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Litigious divorce case

2 920

2 830

3 004

2 872

2 765

2 617

2 700

2 511

2 648

-9,3%

-3,1%

6,1%

-4,4%

-3,7%

-5,4%

3,2%

-7,0%

5,5%

101.1.2 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Employment dismissal case

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

101.1.3 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Insolvency

11 557

11 365

10 841

10 179

10 150

9 548

9 922

10 033

9 905

-14,3%

-1,7%

-4,6%

-6,1%

-0,3%

-5,9%

3,9%

1,1%

-1,3%

101.2.1 Incoming cases_Litigious divorce case

6 354

6 237

6 214

5 992

5 782

5 767

5 497

5 531

4 906

-22,8%

-1,8%

-0,4%

-3,6%

-3,5%

-0,3%

-4,7%

0,6%

-11,3%

101.2.2 Incoming cases_Employment dismissal case

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

101.2.3 Incoming cases_Insolvency

26 152

24 861

23 944

24 365

23 556

22 406

24 910

24 900

14 236

-45,6%

-4,9%

-3,7%

1,8%

-3,3%

-4,9%

11,2%

0,0%

-42,8%

101.3.1 Resolved cases_Litigious divorce case

6 444

6 063

6 346

6 099

5 930

5 684

5 686

5 394

4 886

-24,2%

-5,9%

4,7%

-3,9%

-2,8%

-4,1%

0,0%

-5,1%

-9,4%

101.3.2 Resolved cases_Employment dismissal case

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

101.3.3 Resolved cases_Insolvency

26 344

25 385

24 606

24 394

24 158

22 032

24 799

25 028

17 140

-34,9%

-3,6%

-3,1%

-0,9%

-1,0%

-8,8%

12,6%

0,9%

-31,5%

101.4.1 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Litigious divorce case

2 830

3 004

2 872

2 765

2 617

2 700

2 511

2 648

2 668

-5,7%

6,1%

-4,4%

-3,7%

-5,4%

3,2%

-7,0%

5,5%

0,8%

101.4.2 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Employment dismissal case

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

101.4.3 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Insolvency

11 365

10 841

10 179

10 150

9 548

9 922

10 033

9 905

7 001

-38,4%

-4,6%

-6,1%

-0,3%

-5,9%

3,9%

1,1%

-1,3%

-29,3%

Table 3.5.1 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for specific case categories (Q101)

Table 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 Variations of CR and DT for specific case categories of first instance cases (Q101)

CR Litigious divorce cases

101,4%

97,2%

102,1%

101,8%

102,6%

98,6%

103,4%

97,5%

99,6%

(1,80)

(4,15)

5,06

(0,33)

0,76

(3,90)

4,95

(5,72)

2,12

CR Employment dismissal cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CR Insolvency cases

100,7%

102,1%

102,8%

100,1%

102,6%

98,3%

99,6%

100,5%

120,4%

19,52

1,36

0,64

(2,57)

2,43

(4,12)

1,24

0,96

19,78

DT Litigious divorce cases

DT Employment dismissal cases

DT Insolvency cases

160

NA

157

181

NA

156

165

NA

151

165

NA

152

161

NA

144

173

NA

164

161

NA

148

179

NA

144

199

24,3%

12,8%

-8,7%

0,2%

-2,7%

7,6%

-7,0%

11,2%

11,2%

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

149

-5,3%

-1,0%

-3,1%

0,6%

-5,0%

13,9%

-10,2%

-2,2%

3,2%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

34 / 1555

        
        
         
        
         
        
         
        
         
       
         
         
        
         
        
         
         
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.1.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.1.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.1.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.1.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.1.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.1.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.1.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.1.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

97.1.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.1.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

97.1.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases 

97.2.1 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.2.2 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.2.3 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.2.4 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.2.5 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.2.6 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.2.7 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.2.8 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

97.2.9 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.2.10 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

97.2.11 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases 

Table 3.7.1 to 3.7.5 (2019 and 2020) Second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Table 3.9.1 to 3.9.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

5 312

5 180

5 248

5 001

5 003

4 732

4 675

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

3 037

1 638

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

28 328

27 818

27 320

26 398

25 461

25 523

23 070

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

12 862

10 208

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,5%

1,3%

-4,7%

0,0%

-5,4%

-1,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-1,8%

-1,8%

-3,4%

-3,5%

0,2%

-9,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

35 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.3.1 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.3.2 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.3.3 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.3.4 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.3.5 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.3.6 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.3.7 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.3.8 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

97.3.9 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.3.10 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

97.3.11 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases 

97.4.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.4.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.4.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.4.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.4.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.4.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.4.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.4.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

97.4.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.4.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

97.4.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases

97.5.1 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.5.2 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.5.10 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

28 460

27 750

27 567

26 396

25 703

25 580

23 469

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

13 127

10 342

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

5 180

5 248

5 001

5 003

4 761

4 675

4 276

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

19

NA

NA

7

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

2

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

5

NA

NA

2 772

1 504

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

2

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,5%

-0,7%

-4,2%

-2,6%

-0,5%

-8,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,3%

-4,7%

0,0%

-4,8%

-1,8%

-8,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-63,2%

-71,4%

150,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

36 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 (2019 and 2020): Second instance clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.9.4 and 3.9.5 (2019 and 2020): Variation of second clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

100,5%

99,8%

100,9%

100,0%

101,0%

100,2%

101,7%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

66

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

69

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

66

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

69

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

68

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

67

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

102,1%

101,3%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

67

77

53

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(0,71)

1,15

(0,90)

0,96

(0,72)

1,50

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,9%

-4,1%

4,5%

-2,3%

-1,3%

-0,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

37 / 1555

        
         
        
         
        
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.10.1 to 3.10.5 (2019 and 2020) Supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Table 3.12.1 to 3.12.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of the supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

730

889

2 935

2 621

2 818

2 966

21,8%

230,1%

-10,7%

7,5%

5,3%

99.1.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.1.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.1.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.1.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.1.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.1.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.1.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.1.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

99.1.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.1.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

99.1.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.2.1 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.2.2 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.2.3 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.2.4 High inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.2.5 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.2.6 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.2.7 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.2.8 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

99.2.9 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.2.10 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

99.2.11 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

2 148

1 834

2 191

2 206

3 064

-14,6%

19,5%

0,7%

38,9%

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

2 396

2 516

6 703

8 233

8 885

9 335

5,0%

166,4%

22,8%

7,9%

5,1%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

848

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

2 278

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4 250

5 780

6 802

6 968

6 300

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

36,0%

17,7%

2,4%

-9,6%

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

38 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

17,0%

173,2%

10,9%

11,6%

-1,8%

99.3.1 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.3.2 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.3.3 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.3.4 High inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.3.5 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.3.6 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.3.7 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.3.8 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

99.3.9 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

2 237

2 618

7 152

7 933

8 850

8 691

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

2 364

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

99.3.10 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

4 642

5 423

6 787

6 412

6 321

99.3.11 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.4.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.4.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.4.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.4.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.4.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.4.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.4.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.4.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry 
cases

99.4.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.4.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative 
law cases

99.4.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.5.1 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.5.2 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.5.10 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

889

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

-

-

-

NA

787

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

2 486

2 921

2 853

3 610

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

762

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1 756

2 191

2 206

2 762

3 043

NA

NA

NA

118

NA

NA

NA

93

NA

57

NA

57

NA

96

NA

96

NA

NA

NA

205

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

16,8%

25,2%

-5,5%

-1,4%

-

-

-

-11,5%

215,9%

17,5%

-2,3%

26,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

24,8%

0,7%

25,2%

10,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

68,4%

-

-

-

-

-21,2%

-38,7%

68,4%

113,5%

39 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 Supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.12.4 and 3.12.5 Variation of the supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

93,4%

104,1%

106,7%

96,4%

99,6%

93,1%

NA

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

103,8%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

109,2%

93,8%

99,8%

92,0%

100,3%

NA

145

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

110

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

127

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

138

NA

NA

134

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

147

NA

NA

118

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

119

NA

NA

152

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

157

NA

NA

NA

118

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

176

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

11,45

2,54

(9,69)

3,37

(6,53)

(14,10)

6,35

(7,78)

9,03

-

-

-

-

-24,4%

15,6%

5,9%

-12,4%

28,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6,8%

-19,6%

32,5%

11,8%

-

-

-

-

40 / 1555

       
         
        
         
        
      
         
        
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.14.1 to 3.14.5 First instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

094.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

094.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

094.2.1 Total -incoming

094.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

094.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

094.2.4 Other - incoming

094.3.1 Total - resolved

094.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

094.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

094.3.4 Other - resolved

094.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

094.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

094.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

094.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

22 930

5 469

8 283

NAP

66 767

21 966

24 453

NAP

65 549

22 120

23 966

NAP

23 968

5 315

8 770

NAP

870

201

405

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

41 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.15.1 to 3.10.2 CR and DT for first instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

098.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

098.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

098.2.1 Total -incoming

098.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

098.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

098.2.4 Other - incoming

098.3.1 Total - resolved

098.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

098.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

098.3.4 Other - resolved

Table 3.16.1 to 3.16.5 Second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

98,2%

100,7%

98,0%

NAP

133

88

134

NAP

1 488

820

668

NAP

10 216

6 752

3 464

NAP

10 170

6 699

3 471

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

42 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

098.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

098.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

098.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

098.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

1 534

873

661

NAP

1

1

-

NAP

Table 3.17.1 to 3.17.2 CR and DT for second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

99,5%

99,2%

100,2%

NAP

55

48

70

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

43 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.18.1 to 3.18.5 Supreme court criminal law cases (Q100)

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

100.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

100.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

100.2.1 Total -incoming

100.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

100.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

100.2.4 Other - incoming

100.3.1 Total - resolved

100.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

100.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

100.3.4 Other - resolved

100.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

100.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

100.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

100.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

621

165

NAP

NAP

1 393

679

NAP

NAP

1 428

698

NAP

NAP

586

146

NAP

NAP

9

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

44 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.19.1 to 3.19.2 CR and DT for supreme court  criminal law cases (Q100)

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

102,5%

102,8%

NAP

NAP

150

76

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

45 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 5: Access to justice

Legal aid

Table 5.1 to Table 5.6 (Q12-2, Q16, Q18, Q19, Q20, Q20-1)

12-2.1.1 Coverage of court fees

12-2.1.2 Exemption from court fees

16.1.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (criminal cases)

16.1.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (criminal cases)

16.2.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (other than criminal 
cases)

16.2.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (other than criminal cases)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

-

-

-

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

18.1.1 Legal aid for the enforcement of judicial decisions

19.1.1  Legal aid granted for other costs - criminal cases

19.1.2  Legal aid granted for other costs - other than criminal cases

020.1.1 Total

020.1.2 Total - criminal cases

020.1.3 Total - other than criminal cases

020.2.1 Total brought to court

020.2.2 Broight to court - criminal cases

020.2.3 Brought to court - other then criminal

020.3.1 Total not brought to court

020.3.2 Not broight to court - criminal cases

020.3.3 Not brought to court - other then criminal

020-1.1.1 Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulation

020-1.1.2 Average duration

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

18 959

4 958

14 001

18 959

4 958

14 001

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

46 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

System for compensating users

Table 5.7.1 and Table 5.7.2 (Q37)

037.1.1 Requests for compensation - Total

037.1.2 Requests for compensation - Excessive length of 
proceedings

037.1.3 Requests for compensation - Non-execution of court 
decisions

037.1.4 Requests for compensation - Wrongful arrest

037.1.5 Requests for compensation - Wrongful conviction

037.1.6 Requests for compensation - Other

037.2.1 Condemnations - Total

037.2.2 Condemnations - Excessive length of proceedings

037.2.3 Condemnations - Non-execution of court decisions

037.2.4 Condemnations - Wrongful arrest

037.2.5 Condemnations - Wrongful conviction

037.2.6 Condemnations - Other

037.3.1 Amount - Total

037.3.2 Amount - Excessive length of proceedings

037.3.3 Amount - Non-execution of court decisions

037.3.4 Amount - Wrongful arrest

037.3.5 Amount - Wrongful conviction

037.3.6 Amount - Other

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1 310 376 €

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

47 / 1555

    
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 6.1 to Table 6.11 (Q62-7, Q62-7-1, Q62-8,  Q62-8-1, Q63-1, Q63-1-1, Q63-2 Q63-6, Q63-7, Q63-7-1, Q64-2,  Q64-4, Q64-6, Q64-3, Q64-3-1, Q64-7, Q64-7-1, 
Q64-9)

Indicator 6: The ICT tools of courts and for court users

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

62-7 Writing assistance tools coordinated at national level

62-7-1.1 Deployment rate in civil matter

62-7-1.2 Deployment rate in criminal matter

62-7-1.3 Deployment rate in administrative matter

62-8 Voice recording tools

62-8-1.1.1 Availability of simple dictation tools in civil matter

62-8-1.1.2 Availability of simple dictation tools in criminal matter

62-8-1.1.3 Availability of simple dictation tools in administrative 
matter

62-8-1.2.1 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in civil 
matter

62-8-1.2.2 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in criminal 
matter

62-8-1.2.3 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in 
administrative matter

62-8-1.3.1 Availability of voice recognition in civil matter

62-8-1.3.2 Availability of voice recognition in criminal matter

62-8-1.3.3 Availability of voice recognition in administrative matter

062-9 Availability of intranet site within the judicial system for 
distribution of news/novelties

63.1 Is there a case management system? 

63.1-1.1 CMS for civil matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for criminal matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for administrative matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.2 CMS for civil matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for criminal matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for administrative matter (status of case onlinee)

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases

in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases

in most of the 
courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases

in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases

in most of the 
courts

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

-

-

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Not accessible 
at all

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

48 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63.1-1.3 CMS for civil matter (Centralised or interoperable database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for criminal matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for administrative matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.4 CMS for civil matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for criminal matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for administrative matter (Early warning signals)

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS civil matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS criminal matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS administrative matter

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - land registry

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - business registry

63-2.2 Data consolidated at national level for land registry

63-2.2  Data consolidated at national level for business registry

63-2.3 Service available online for land registry

63-2.3  Service available online for business registry

63-2.4 Statistical module integrated or connected for land registry

63-2.4  Statistical module integrated or connected for business 
registry

063-6.1.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (deployment 
rate)

063-6.1.2 Justice expenses management (deployment rate)

063-6.1.3 Other financial management tools (deployment rate)

063-6.2.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (Data 
consolidated at national level)

063-6.2.2 Justice expenses management (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.2.3 Other financial management tools (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.3.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (System 
communicating with other ministries)

063-6.3.2 Justice expenses management (System communicating 
with other ministries)

063-6.3.3 Other financial management tools (System communicating 
with other ministries)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

True

True

True

NA

NA

NA

True

True

True

True

True

True

NA

NA

NA

True

True

True

True

True

True

NA

NA

NA

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

49 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63-7.1 Measurement tools to assess the workload

63-7-1.1.1 Deployment rate - workload of judges

63-7-1.1.2 Deployment rate - workload of prosecutors

63-7-1.1.3 Deployment rate - workload of non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.2.1 Monitoring on national level - judges

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - prosecutors

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.3.1 Monitoring on court level - judges

63-7-1.3.2 Monitoring on court level - prosecutors

63-7-1.3.3 Monitoring on court level - non-judge and non-prosecutor 
staff

064-2 - Possibility to submit a case to courts by electronic means

064-2 - Civil and/or commercial

064-2 - Criminal

064-2 - Administrative

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - civil

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - criminal

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory  - administrative

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - civil

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - criminal

064-2 - Specific legislative framework  - administrative

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - civil

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - criminal

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - administrative

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

50 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-3 - Is it possible to request for granting legal aid by electronic 
means? 

064-3-1.1 - Equipment rate

064-3-1.2 - Request in paper mandatory

064-3-1.3 - Specific legislative framework

064-3-1.4 - Granting LA is also electronic

064-3-1.5 - Information available in CMS

064-4 - Possibility to transmit summons to a judicial meeting or a 
hearing by electronic means

064-4-1.1.1 - Summons produced by CMS- civil

064-4-1.1.2 - Summons produced by CMS- criminal

064-4-1.1.3 - Summons produced by CMS- administrative

064-4-1.2.1 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- civil

064-4-1.2.2 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- criminal

064-4-1.2.3 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- administrative

064-4-1.3.1 - Consent of the user - civil

064-4-1.3.2 - Consent of the user - criminal

064-4-1.3.3 - Consent of the user - administrative

064-6.1.1 - Civil and/or commercial (deployment rate)

064-6.1.2 - Criminal (deployment rate)

064-6.1.3 - Administrative (deployment rate)

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

True

True

False

True

True

True

False

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

51 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-6.2.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.2 - Criminal (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.3 - Administrative (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.3.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Modalities)

064-6.3.2 - Criminal (Modalities)

064-6.3.3 - Administrative (Modalities)

064-6.4.1 - Civil and/or commercial (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.2 - Criminal (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.3 - Administrative (specific legal framework)

064-6.5.1 - Civil and/or commercial (availability for)

064-6.5.2 - Criminal (availability for)

064-6.5.3 - Administrative (availability for)

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer
Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer
Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

52 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-7.1.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (deployment rate)

064-7.1.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.2.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (Modalities)

064-7.2.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.3.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (specific legal framework)

064-7.32.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-7.3.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts (specific 
legal framework)

064-7.3.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-9 - Existance of online processing devices of specialised 
litigation

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

10-49%

50-99%

100%

-

100%

100%

100%

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

53 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

46.1.1 Total Number of professional judges

46.1.2 Number of 1st inst professional judges

46.1.3 Number of 2nd inst professional judges

46.1.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges

46.2.1 Number of professional judges_males

46.2.2 Number of 1st instance professional judges_males

46.2.3 Number of 2nd instance professional judges_males

46.2.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges_males

46.3.1  Number of professional judges_females

46.3.2  Number of 1st inst professional judges_females

46.3.3  Number of 2nd inst professional judges_females

46.3.4  Number of Supreme court professional judges_females

046-2.1.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Total

046-2.2.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Civil and commercial

046-2.2.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.3.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Criminal

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

Indicator 7: Professionals of justice  (Indicator 9 in 2019)

Table 7.1.1 to 7.5.6 for judges, non judge staff, prosecutors, non prosecutor staff and salaries

1 547

1 325

1 565

1 341

1 620

1 224

1 621

1 223

157

65

791

653

94

45

755

672

64

20

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

160

63

784

647

94

43

781

694

66

21

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

330

66

790

556

191

43

830

668

139

23

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

331

67

791

559

188

44

830

664

143

23

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 397

1 935

328

134

2 478

2 411

2 625

2 589

67,4%

1,2%

3,5%

0,1%

47,9%

3,4%

-2,7%

8,9%

-1,4%

1 952

1 957

2 176

2 153

62,5%

1,3%

-8,7%

-0,1%

58,2%

0,9%

0,3%

11,2%

-1,1%

326

133

321

133

316

133

305

94,1%

1,8%

106,4%

0,3%

-0,9%

-0,6%

-1,5%

-1,6%

-3,5%

131

101,8%

-2,2%

4,0%

1,5%

100,0%

-0,7%

0,0%

0,0%

-1,5%

1 215

1 260

1 190

1 298

1 261

59,3%

-1,0%

0,8%

0,1%

53,6%

3,7%

-5,6%

9,1%

-2,9%

938

183

94

939

181

92

926

174

90

1 039

1 012

55,0%

-0,9%

-14,1%

0,5%

67,8%

0,1%

-1,4%

12,2%

-2,6%

172

87

165

76,5%

0,2%

103,9%

-1,6%

-2,7%

-1,1%

-3,9%

-1,1%

-4,1%

84

86,5%

-5,0%

0,5%

2,3%

113,6%

-2,1%

-2,2%

-3,3%

-3,4%

1 182

1 218

1 221

1 327

1 328

75,8%

3,4%

6,3%

0,0%

42,4%

3,0%

0,2%

8,7%

0,1%

997

145

40

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 013

1 031

1 137

1 141

69,9%

3,3%

-3,8%

-0,6%

50,2%

1,6%

1,8%

10,3%

0,4%

145

41

147

43

144

46

140

120,1%

4,1%

109,8%

2,9%

1,4%

0,0%

1,4%

-2,0%

-2,8%

47

136,7%

4,0%

11,3%

0,0%

73,9%

2,5%

4,9%

7,0%

2,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 589

2 153

305

131

1 193

922

225

46

405

308

80

17

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

54 / 1555

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

046-2.4.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - 
Administrative

046-2.4.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.5.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Other

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

991

923

NAP

68

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 52.1.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in courts 

4 631

4 698

4 705

4 735

5 544

5 544

4 966

5 117

5 270

13,8%

1,4%

0,1%

0,6%

17,1%

0,0%

-10,4%

3,0%

3,0%

52.1.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)

52.1.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges

52.1.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks

52.1.5 Number of Technical staff

760

20

437

33

771

20

434

28

52.1.6 Number of Other non judge staff

3 381

3 445

52.2.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(men)

52.2.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(men)

52.2.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(men)

52.2.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(men)

52.2.5 Number of Technical staff(men)

52.2.6 Number of Other non judge staff(men)

52.3.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(women)

52.3.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(women)

52.3.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(women)

52.3.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(women)

52.3.5 Number of Technical staff(women)

785

19

439

23

3 439

1 388

320

1

160

10

897

798

19

440

22

3 456

1 408

332

1

156

10

909

837

494

686

52

3 475

1 623

335

98

241

28

921

857

406

783

57

833

342

764

53

818

415

888

53

801

5,4%

1,4%

1,8%

1,7%

4,9%

2,4%

-2,8%

-1,8%

-2,1%

432

2060,0%

0,0%

-5,0%

0,0% 2500,0%

-17,8%

-15,8%

21,3%

4,1%

873

99,8%

-0,7%

1,2%

0,2%

55,9%

14,1%

-2,4%

16,2%

-1,7%

50

51,5%

-15,2%

-17,9%

-4,3%

136,4%

9,6%

-7,0%

0,0%

-5,7%

3 366

2 974

2 943

3 114

-7,9%

1,9%

-0,2%

0,5%

0,5%

-3,1%

-11,6%

-1,0%

5,8%

1 623

1 481

1 497

1 543

334

83

258

31

892

322

83

253

33

790

313

89

309

33

753

306

94

303

29

811

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,4%

15,3%

0,0%

-8,7%

1,1%

3,1%

3,8%

0,9%

-0,3%

-3,6%

-2,8%

-2,2%

0,0% 9700,0%

-15,3%

0,0%

7,2%

5,6%

-2,5%

54,5%

7,1%

-1,9%

22,1%

-1,9%

0,0%

180,0%

10,7%

6,5%

0,0%

-12,1%

1,3%

1,3%

-3,1%

-11,4%

-4,7%

7,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3 256

3 313

3 317

3 327

3 921

3 921

3 485

3 620

3 727

14,5%

1,8%

0,1%

0,3%

17,9%

0,0%

-11,1%

3,9%

3,0%

441

19

277

24

447

19

276

19

465

18

279

13

466

18

284

12

502

396

445

24

523

323

525

26

511

259

511

20

505

326

579

20

495

12,2%

1,4%

4,0%

0,2%

7,7%

4,2%

-2,3%

-1,2%

-2,0%

338

1678,9%

0,0%

-5,3%

0,0% 2100,0%

-18,4%

-19,8%

25,9%

3,7%

570

105,8%

-0,4%

1,1%

1,8%

56,7%

18,0%

-2,7%

13,3%

-1,6%

21

-12,5%

-20,8%

-31,6%

-7,7%

100,0%

8,3%

-23,1%

0,0%

5,0%

52.3.6 Number of Other non judge staff(women)

2 495

2 551

2 542

2 547

2 554

2 474

2 184

2 190

2 303

-7,7%

2,2%

-0,4%

0,2%

0,3%

-3,1%

-11,7%

0,3%

5,2%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

55 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

052-1.1.1 Non-judge staff (Total)

052-1.1.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (total)

052-1.1.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (total)

052-1.1.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (total)

052-1.2.1 Non-judge staff  (Males)

052-1.2.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (males)

052-1.2.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (males)

052-1.2.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (males)

052-1.3.1 Non-judge staff  (females)

052-1.3.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (females)

052-1.3.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (females)

052-1.3.4 Non-judge staff  at supreme court (females)

055.1.1 Prosecutors (total)

055.1.2 Prosecutors (1st inst.)

055.1.3 Prosecutors (2nd inst.)

055.1.4 Prosecutors (Highest instance)

055.2.1 Prosecutors - Males -total

055.2.2 Prosecutors - Males, 1st inst.

055.2.3 Prosecutors - Males, 2nd inst.

055.2.4 Prosecutors - Males, Supreme courts

055.3.1 Prosecutors - Females, Total

055.3.2 Prosecutors - Females, 1st inst.

055.3.3 Prosecutors - Females, 2nd inst.

055.3.4 Prosecutors - Females, Supreme courts

5 270

4 508

598

164

1 543

1 279

205

59

3 727

3 229

393

105

398

358

22

18

190

166

14

10

208

192

8

8

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

56 / 1555

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

060.1.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Total

060.2.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Males

060.3.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Females

004 Annual average salary in the country

132.1.1 Gross annual salary, in €  - Professional judge at the 
beginning of career

132.1.2 Gross annual salary, in €  - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.1.3 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor at the beginning 
of career

132.1.4 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

132.2.1 Net annual salary, in € - Professional judge at the beginning 
of career

132.2.2 Net annual salary, in € - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.2.3 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor at the beginning of 
career

132.2.4 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

133.1.1.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Reduced taxation

133.1.2.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Special pension

133.1.3.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Housing

133.1.4.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Other financial benefit

133.2.1.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Reduced taxation

133.2.2.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Special pension

133.2.3.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Housing

133.2.4.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Other financial benefit

364

71

293

35 240 €

56 638 €

137 586 €

60 084 €

137 586 €

NA

NA

NA

NA

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

57 / 1555

         
         
       
         
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

144.1.1 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - Total number (1+2+3+4)

144.1.2 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 1. Breach of professional 
ethics 

144.1.3 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.1.4 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 3. Criminal offence 

144.1.5 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 4. Other

144.2.1 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - Total number 
(1+2+3+4)

144.2.2 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 1. Breach of 
professional ethics 

144.2.3 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.2.4 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 3. Criminal offence

144.2.5 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 4. Other 

145.1.1 Sanctions against Judges - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.1.2 Sanctions against Judges - 1. Reprimand

145.1.3 Sanctions against Judges - 2. Suspension

145.1.4 Sanctions against Judges - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.1.5 Sanctions against Judges - 4. Fine

145.1.6 Sanctions against Judges - 5. Temporary reduction of salary

145.1.7 Sanctions against Judges - 6. Position downgrade

145.1.8 Sanctions against Judges - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.1.9 Sanctions against Judges - 8. Resignation

145.1.10 Sanctions against  Judges - 9. Other

145.1.11 Sanctions against  Judges - 10. Dismissal

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

NAP

NAP

1

0

NAP

0

0

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

58 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

145.2.1 Sanctions against Prosecutors - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.2.2 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 1. Reprimand

145.2.3 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 2. Suspension

145.2.4 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.2.5 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 4. Fine

145.2.6 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 5. Temporary reduction of 
salary

145.2.7 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 6. Position downgrade

145.2.8 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.2.9 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 8. Resignation

145.2.10 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 9. Other

145.2.11 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 10. Dismissal

0

0

NAP

NAP

0

0

NAP

0

0

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lawyers

Tables 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.7 and 7.8

146.1.1 Total number of lawyers practising

5 756

5 801

5 940

6 138

6 132

6 325

6 483

6 667

6 707

16,5%

0,8%

2,4%

3,3%

-0,1%

3,1%

2,5%

2,8%

0,6%

146.2.1 Practicing lawyers - man

146.3.1 Practicing lawyers - woman

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5 023

5 122

5 129

1 460

1 545

1 578

147 Does this figure include “legal advisors” who cannot represent 
their clients in court (for example, some solicitors or in-house 
counsellors)? 

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,0%

0,1%

5,8%

2,1%

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

59 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Austria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

166 Number of accredited or registered mediators who practice 
judicial mediation: 

167.1.1 Total number started

167. 1.2 Civil and commercial cases(cid:9) - started

167. 1.2 Family cases - started

167.1.4 Administrative cases - started

167.1.5 Labour cases including employment dismissal cases - started

167.1.6. Criminal cases - started

167.1.7 Consumer cases - started

Indicator 8: The existence and use of alternative dispute resolution methods

Table 8.1 8.2 and 8.3

2 400

2 400

2 456

2 313

2 562

2 234

2 273

1 692

1 741

-27,5%

0,0%

2,3%

-5,8%

10,8%

-12,8%

1,7%

-25,6%

2,9%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Key: Variation of more than (+ -) 20% 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

60 / 1555

Population:

11 521 238

Judiciary at a glance in Belgium

General data

GDP 

per capita:

39 160 €

Professionals

Average annual 

salary:

41 938 €

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Belgium

Belgium

EU Median

EU Median

Professional judges

Professional judges

13,35

23,92

13,35

23,92

Non-judge staff

43,95

59,00

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Prosecutors

7,60

9,91

43,95

59,00

7,60

9,91

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

21,04

15,22

21,04

15,22

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual 
salary in the country

EU Median

Belgium

Belgium

EU Median

Judge at the beginning of a career 

1,61

4,09

2,93

Judge of the highest court 2,93
2,02

2,02

4,09

3,61

2,98

1,61

1,71
Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 
1,71

1,61

1,61

Public prosecutor at highest instance

2,98

3,61

Lawyers

Lawyers

163,83

122,09

163,83

122,09

Judge at the
beginning of a career

Judge of the highest
court

Prosecutor at the
beginning of a career

Public prosecutor at
highest instance

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

Efficiency

1st instance

2nd instance

1st instance 2nd instance

%
4
7
9

,

,

%
5
8
0
1

98,8%

%
6
1
8

,

%
7
4
9

,

104,1%

108,5% NAP

Supreme Court
Supreme 
Court

,

%
6
0
0
1

,

%
4
1
0
1

97,4%

81,6%

100%

,

,

%
1
%
4
8
0
1
8
Civil and
9
commercial
Administrativ
e
cases
Total 
criminal law 
cases

94,7%

100,6%

101,4%

P
A
N

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

Administrative
cases

Total criminal law
cases

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance 2nd instance Supreme Court

Civil and commercial litigious cases
NA
Administrative cases 399 NAP

NA

415

Total criminal law cases

NA

NA

504
415

96

504

NAP

399

1
1

1

1
1

NA
NA
Civil and commercial litigious
cases

Administrative cases

96
NA
NA
Total criminal law cases

Information and communication technology

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

Assistance toolsCase management system
2018

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the workload
2019

Electronic communication

EU Median 2020

2020

2018
2019
2020

1,11
1,11
0,78

5,33

5,33
5,33
5,25
5,25

5,33

5,17

0,75
0,75
1,50

0,83
0,83
0,83

2,82
3,59
6,08

6,94

6,08

EU Median 2020

2,00

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

2,00

1,11

1,11

0,78

1,50

1,25

0,75

0,75

0,83

0,83

0,83

3,59

2,82

2,50

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

*ICT calculations are described in more details in Annex 5 - IT Calculation methodology

61

2020

Synthesis table for the main indicators for:

Belgium

Economic and demographic data

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Variations

Population

GDP per capita

Exchange rate (local currency needed to 
obtain 1€)

11 161 642

11 150 516

11 209 044

11 267 910

11 322 088

11 376 070

11 431 406

11 431 406

11 521 238

3,2%

34 000

34 500

36 000

36 500

37 407

38 500

39 500

41 200

39 160

15,2%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

Average annual salary

40 980

41 544

41 604

43 497

44 544

41 938

1,0%

3,9%

NAP

0,1%

1,0%

5,6%

NAP

4,6%

0,5%

2,6%

0,0%

4,3%

0,8%

-5,0%

NAP NAP

NAP

2,4%

-5,9%

NAP

2,3%

Resources

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Professional judges per 100 000 inhab.

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhab.

14,3

48,9

14,4

47,6

14,3

47,2

14,3

46,2

14,1

44,6

13,8

43,4

13,3

43,5

13,3

49,1

13,2

44,0

-7,6%

-10,1%

Lawyers per 100 000 inh.

155,3

159,6

161,8

163,3

163,7

163,5

163,2

165,4

163,8

5,5%

Mediators

10,2

10,4

12,1

12,9

12,8

15,3

18,6

3,9

21,0

4,1

22,4

120,2%

5,2

-1,1%

-5,4%

1,2%

6,5%

-5,7%

-2,5%

-0,3%

-3,2%

0,2%

-0,9%

0,2%

12,9%

-10,5%

-0,2%

1,3%

-0,9%

44,5%

21,1%

13,1%

6,6%

7,0%

24,3%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Civil and commercial litigious cases

6,828

6,689

6,716

6,815

6,423

1,886

6,712

6,134

6,063

-11,2%

-4,4%

4,5%

255,9%

-8,6%

-1,2%

Administrative law cases

NA

NA

0,2

0,200

0,172

0,174

0,146

0,149

0,151

NA

-23,3%

-15,1%

-16,4%

2,3%

1,1%

Total criminal law cases

1,659

ICT overall assesment

First instance incoming cases per 100 
inhab.

First instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

First instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
cases (days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

First instance pending cases per 100 
inhab. on 31 dec.

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

Second instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

 Supreme court 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Supreme court
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

NA

NA

NA

NA

98%

88%

99%

102%

112%

112%

101%

99%

117%

121%

101%

119%

112%

108%

NA

NA

4,60

32,68

10,00

-2,07

0,14

-11,65

18,09

-7,09

-2,04

-3,29

95%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

625

87

444

NA

429

NA

497

NA

370

NA

418

NA

NA

NA

399

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-31,4%

-13,6%

-25,5%

12,9%

-4,6%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0,34

1,60

0,28

NA

0,24

NA

0,24

NA

0,18

NA

0,19

NA

0,18

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-27,8%

-27,9%

-26,5%

NA

8,6%

NA

-6,4%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

103%

105%

110%

110%

104%

110%

104%

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

101%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

7,30

NAP

-6,09

NAP

-6,04

NAP

6,30

NAP

-6,23

NAP

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

NA

NAP

541

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

107%

107%

111%

102%

113%

101%

107%

109%

96%

81%

89%

95%

97%

82%

101%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

4,90

-15,35

-6,37

-7,19

8,46

-5,60

-26,52

-28,11

14,43

-13,74

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

480

148

482

159

464

176

414

195

473

316

545

299

504

415

96

-3,4%

1,9%

14,2%

15,3%

-7,5%

18,6%

80,2%

62,5%

-5,4%

38,8%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

62 / 1555

1. Judicial organisation in Belgium

At the outset, it is noteworthy highlighting that the methodology of presentation of data on number of courts changed for the current evaluation cycle. Thus, the observed 
variations between 2019 and 2020 do not stem from a reform of the judicial reorganization but have a methodological explanation. More precisely, for the current evaluation 
round (2020 data), justices of the peace and police courts are counted as courts of general jurisdiction, while in previous cycles, they were categorized as first instance 
specialized courts. Besides, as of 2020, the 11 assize courts are also included in the data. 

In 2020 in Belgium, the number of courts considered as legal entities is 230. Namely, there are 207 courts of general jurisdiction and 23 specialised courts. 

Among the 207 legal entities of general jurisdiction, 201 intervene at first instance, namely: 13 courts of first instance, 162 justices of the peace, 11 assize courts (one per 
province and two in Brussels) and 15 police courts. The 13 courts of first instance as well as the 5 Appeal courts have competence at second instance. The Cassation 
Court is the highest instance court of general jurisdiction in Belgium.

Among the 23 legal entities of specialised jurisdiction, 23 are of first instance. However, it has to be pointed out that the Council of State (Conseil d'Etat) intervenes both in 
first instance and on appeal in administrative matters. It is the highest instance court in administrative matters.  

In terms of geographic locations, there are 225 courts among which 218 are of first instance. Put differently, in 2020, there are 225 buildings in which all court premises are 
housed. In Eupen, the court of first instance combines the court of first instance, the labour court and the company court, which gives 8 for the labour and company courts 
(Law of 14 February 2014). It can be useful to recall that the reform of the justices of the peace, with a decrease in geographical locations, was consolidated by the law of 
December 25, 2017.The implementation of the reform was carried out between 2016 and 2019. 

Distribution of general courts in Belgium

Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Belgium - 1st instance
Belgium - Higher instances

EU Median - 1st instance

EU Median - Higher instances

BelgiumDistribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

According to 2020 data, the distribution between 1st instance and higher instances courts of 
general jurisdiction in Belgium is somewhat different from the EU median of 87% - 13%.

Belgium - 1st instanceBelgium - Higher instances

General courts - Belgium

91%

General courts - Belgium
EU Median

91%
87%

9%
13%

EU Median

87%

9%

13%

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Belgium

Geographic 
locations

Legal entities

General jurisdiction

Specialised 
jurisdiction

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Belgium

288

288

288

288

267

264

253

232

225

27

27

13

13

13

13

13

13

201

262

262

225

225

225

200

200

200

23

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Belgium

Geographic locations
Legal entities General jurisdiction
Legal entities Specialised jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Distribution of first instance general jurisdiction and specialised courts

EU Median

25%

Ratio general jurisdiction vs specialised

10%

Belgium

General jurisdiction Specialised courts

90%

75%

10%

25%

90%

75%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

The distribution between number of general jurisdiction courts and specialised courts of 89,7% - 10,3% is somewhat different from the EU median 
(distribution tendency in EU: 75,5% - 24,5%).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

63 / 1555

  
The distribution between number of general jurisdiction courts and specialised courts of 89,7% - 10,3% is somewhat different from the EU median 
(distribution tendency in EU: 75,5% - 24,5%).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

64 / 1555

Specialised courts
Total

Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

Insolvency courts

Labour courts

Family courts

Rent and tenancies courts

Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

Internet related disputes

Administrative courts

Insurance and / or social welfare courts

Military courts

Juvenile courts

Other specialised 1st instance courts

First instance

Higher instance

23

9

NAP

9

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

5

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

In Belgium, in 2020 there are 9 commercial courts, 9 labour courts and 5 administartive courts considered as first instance specialised courts.

The administrative courts are: the Council of State, the Aliens Litigation Council, Raad voor Vergunningsbetwistingen, het Milieuhandhavingscollege and Raad voor 
Verkiezingsbetwistingen. As mentionned above, the Council of State (Conseil d'Etat) intervenes both in first instance and on appeal in administrative matters and 
constitutes the Highest instance in the field of administrative law. 

It should be specified that six courts of first instance have specialized enforcement chambers. The name 'enforcement court' is used, but in reality it is a specialized 
chamber. Moreover, all courts of first instance (13) have a specialized family and youth section. The name 'family court' is used, but in reality it is a specialized section. 

For the current evaluation round (2020 data), justices of the peace and police courts are counted as courts of general jurisdiction. In previous cycles, they were categorized 
as specialized courts of first instance. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

65 / 1555

2. Professionals of justice in Belgium

● Professional judges and non-judge staff

Evolution of the number of professional judges since 2012 (Q46)

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Absolute 
number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

1 598

1 604

1 602

1 614

1 600

1 566

1 523

1 526

1 524

14,32

14,38

14,29

14,32

14,13

13,77

13,32

13,35

13,23

EU median

23,9

Professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants

23,9

14,32

14,38

14,29

14,32

14,13

13,77

13,32

13,35

13,23

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

According to 2020 data, the total number of professional judges sitting in courts (all instances) in Belgium is 1 524, which is -0,1% less than in previous cycle.

More precisely, in Belgium, there are 13,23 professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants (this figure is below the EU median of 23,92 judges per 100 000 inhabitants) and about 3,32 non-
judge staff per judge .

There is no significant difference compared with previous cycle when this ratio was at 3,68 non-judge staff per judge.

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and gender

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

1 193

301

30

1 524

Distribution by 
instance

78,3%

19,8%

2,0%

Male

Female

% Male

% Female

484

135

21

640

709

166

9

884

40,6%

44,9%

70,0%

42,0%

59,4%

55,1%

30,0%

58,0%

Distribution of professional judges by instance

Belgium

EU Median

78,3%

72,39%

EU Median

72,39%

23,98%

4,03%

19,8%

23,98%

2,0%

4,03%

Distribution of professional judges by gender and by instance

% Female

59,4%

55,1%

40,6%

44,9%

30,0%

70,0%

% Male

58,0%

42,0%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female professional judges (all instances) is 884, which represents 58,0% of the total number of judges.
The total number of judges is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 1 193 are sitting in first instance courts (of which 709 are female); 301 are sitting in 
second instance courts (of which 166 are female)  and 30 are sitting in Supreme Court (of which 9 are female).  

Compared with the EU distribution of professional judges per instance, the trend in Belgium is similar. The predomination of first instance judges is more pronounced, while second and 
third instance judges are less numerous.

As regards the methodology of presentation of data in respect of the number of judges, it should be noticed that, as in previous cycles, the table contains data for civil and criminal courts. 
The number of judges in the Council of State is 44 members and for the Aliens Litigation Council it is 54 judges. 

As regards the distribution male/female, it has to be specified that female judges do not have the majority only at third instance. There is no particular reason for the increase in the 
number of female second instance judges that stems from the natural evolution (more women in the first degree implies a larger base for recruitment to the appellate degree).

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Total

Civil and commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

In Belgium, the distribution of judges per categories of cases is not possible.
Data by type of case are not available. Judges are appointed at the court level, and the head of the court assigns them to the different chambers of the court and allocates cases.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

66 / 1555

Non-judge staff

Year

2012

Number of non-judge staff

5 458

Per 100 000 inhabitants

48,90

2013

5 307

47,59

2014

5 290

47,19

2015

5 204

46,18

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants

48,90

47,59

47,19

46,18

44,64

43,42

43,51

43,95

49,11

2016

5 054

44,64

59,00

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

2017

4 940

43,42

2018

4 974

43,51

2020

Total

Rechtspfleger

Non-judge staff assisting the judge

Staff in charge of administrative tasks

Technical staff

Other

2019

5 614

49,11

Absolute 
number

5 064

NAP

1 882

2 470

713

0

E
U 
m

2020

5 064

43,95

in %

NAP

37,2%

48,8%

14,1%

0,0%

In 2020, Belgium has 5 064 non-judge staff (of which 3 839 are females). The total number of non-judge staff in comparison with the previous cycle reveals a decrease of -9,8%.

In this cycle, the non-judge staff is broken down as follows:

◦ 1 882 non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges such as registrars (of which 1 401 are women);
◦ 2 470 staff in charge of different administrative tasks and of the court management (of which 1 791 are women);
◦ 713 technical staff (of which 647 are women);
◦ 0 other;

In 2020, the number of non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants has decreased (from 49,1 in 2019 to 44,0 in 2020).

During the same period, the number of judges per 100 000 inhabitants evolves from 13,3 judges per 100 000 inhabitants in 2019 to 13,2 in 2020.

Professional judges, non-judge staff and their ratio (Q46, Q52)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Belgium

EU median

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

13,23

43,95

Non-judge staff per judge

3,32

23,92

59,00

3,30

Professional judges and non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

3,32

43,95

Non-judge staff per judge

13,23

59,00

3,30

23,92

Belgium

EU median

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff  (Q46, Q52)

Judges 
per 100 000 inh.

Non-judge staff per
100 000 inh.

Ratio between professional judges and 
non-judge staff

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff 
Non-judge staff per 100 000 inh.
(Q46, Q52)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

14,32

14,38

14,29

14,32

14,13

13,77

13,32

13,35

13,23

48,90

47,59

47,19

46,18

44,64

43,42

43,51

49,11

43,95

EU median 2020

3,30

3,42

3,31

3,30

3,22

3,16

3,15

3,27

3,68

3,32

3,42

3,31

3,30

2012

2013

2014

3,42
3,31
3,30
3,22
3,16
3,15
3,27
3,68
3,32

3,22

3,16

3,15

3,27

3,68

3,32

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

67 / 1555

● Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff

Absolute number of public prosecutors by instance and gender (Q55)

2020

Total

Distribution by 
instance

Male

Female

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

705

159

12

876

80,5%

18,2%

1,4%

259

88

10

357

446

71

2

519

Male

36,7%

55,3%

83,3%

40,8%

Female

63,3%

44,7%

16,7%

59,2%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance

Belgium

EU Median

80,5%

73,30%
EU Median

73,30%

21,69%

18,2%

21,69%

4,66%

1,4%

4,66%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance and gender

Female

Male

63,3%

36,7%

44,7%

55,3%

16,7%

83,3%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

59,2%

40,8%

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female prosecutors (all instances) is 519, which represents 59,2% of the total number of prosecutors.

The total number of prosecutors is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 705 in first instance (of which 446 are female); 159 are in second instance (of 
which 71 are female)  and 12 in final instance (of which 2 are female).  

As regards the distribution male/female, it has to be specified that female prosecutors have the majority only at first instance.

Non-prosecutor staff by gender (Q60)

Non-prosecutor staff

2020

Total

2 424

Male

730

Female

1 694

Non-prosecutor staff by gender

30%

Male

Female

70%

Public prosecutors, non-prosecutor staff and their ratio (Q55, Q60)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Belgium

EU median

Public prosecutors

7,60

Non-prosecutor staff

21,04

Non-prosecutor staff per 
prosecutor

2,77

9,91

15,22

1,11

Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

2,77

21,04

Public prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per prosecutor

7,60

15,22

9,91

1,11

Belgium

EU median

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

68 / 1555

● Salaries of professional judges and prosecutors at beginning of a career and at the highest instance (Q132, Q4)

Salaries of professional judges and 
prosecutors (Q132, Q4)

Average gross annual 
salary 
in €

Average net annual 
salary 
in €

Ratio with national 
average annual 
gross salary

Judge at the beginning of a career 

67 532 €

37 714 €

Judge of the highest court 

122 877 €

60 497 €

Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

67 532 €

37 714 €

Public prosecutor at highest instance

125 183 €

61 489 €

1,61

2,93

1,61

2,98

2,93

2,02

EU Median

2,02

1,61
4,09

1,71

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual salary in the 
country

Salaries of 
judges and 
prosecutors in 
Judge

4,09

at the beginning 
of a career

2,98

1,61

at the highest 
1,71
instance

3,61

67532

122877

67532

Prosecutor

at the beginning 
of a career

Judge at the beginning of
career

Judge on highest instance

3,61

Belgium

Prosecutor at the
beginning of career

EU Median

at the highest 
instance

Prosecutor at highest
instance

125183

According to 2020 data, the absolute gross salary of a judge at the begining of a career in Belgium of 67 532€ is quite above when compared to the EU median of 51 946€. As a ratio with 
the annual average salary of the country, the salary for a judge at the begining of career is: 1,61 compared with EU median of : 2,02.

● Lawyers

Lawyers

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

Number of lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

17 336

17 795

18 134

18 402

18 532

18 604

18 658

18 905

18 875

155,32

159,59

161,78

163,31

163,68

163,54

163,22

165,38

163,83

155,32

159,59

161,78

163,31

163,68

163,54

163,22

165,38

163,83

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

122,09

EU median
2020

EU median 2020

122,09

In 2020, there are 18 875 lawyers, which is -0,2% less than in 2019.

Belgium has 163,8 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants, which is above the EU median of 122,1 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants.

The total of 18 875 lawyers encompasses: 8 160 lawyers for the Order of the French- and German-speaking Bars and 10715 for the Orde van Vlaamse Balies (Order of the Flemish Bars). 
According to a recent study (2020), in December 2019, 64.8% of trainee lawyers were women. On the other hand, 57.6% of the lawyers on the roll (who have completed the traineeship) 
were men. However, if these percentages are compared with those in previous similar studies, it must be concluded that the legal profession in Belgium is becoming more female. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

69 / 1555

● Judicial professionals (summary)

Judicial professionals in absolute number and per 100 000 inhabitants (Q46, Q52, Q55, Q60, Q146)

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

EU Median

Professional judges

1 526

13,35

Non-judge staff

5 064

43,95

Prosecutors

876

7,60

23,92

59,00

9,91

Non-prosecutor staff

2 424

21,04

15,22

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Belgium

EU Median

163,83

122,09

59,00

43,95

23,92

13,35

7,60

9,91

21,04

15,22

Lawyers

18 875

163,83

122,09

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

% Male

% Female

Professional judges

42,0%

58,0%

Non judge staff

24,2%

75,8%

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

Belgium % Male Belgium % Femalelabels
Belgium % Male

Belgium % Female

Professional judges

-42,0%
EU Median  % Male

58,0%

42,0%

EU Median  % Female

Professional judges

42,0%

39,0%

-39,0%

61,0%

39,0%

58,0%

0,0%

61,0%

Non judge staff

-24,2%

75,8%

24,2%

Prosecutors

40,8%

59,2%

Non judge staff

Non-prosecutor staff

30,1%

69,9%

Lawyers

NA

NA

24,2%

24,0%

-24,0%

76,0%

24,0%

75,8%

76,0%

Prosecutors

Prosecutors

40,8%

40,5%

Non-prosecutor staff

-40,8%
-40,5%

-30,1%
-28,1%

59,2%
59,5%

69,9%
71,9%

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

30,1%

#VALUE!

NA

0,0%

40,8%
40,5%
0,0%
30,1%
28,1%
0,0%

#VALUE!

-52,3%

47,7%

52,3%

28,1%

59,2%

59,5%

69,9%

71,9%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

70 / 1555

3. Legal aid and court fees in Belgium

1

0

In Belgium, legal aid includes:

◦ Coverage of court fees: 

◦ Exemption from court fees: 

In Belgium, legal aid is available for :

> Representation in court:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

> Legal advice, ADR and other legal services:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

>

>

Fees related to enforcement of judicial decisions as fees for enforcement agents (Q18) 

 Other costs than above (Q19) 

In Belgium there are three types of legal aid: first-line legal aid, second-line legal aid and legal assistance.

1

1

1

1

1

1

First-line legal aid consists of practical information, legal information, a first legal opinion or referral to a specialised body (Article 508/1 of the Judicial Code).

Second-line legal aid implies legal aid provided to a natural person in the form of detailed legal advice or legal assistance in or out of court or assistance in court proceedings 
including legal representation. 

Legal assistance consists of exempting, in whole or in part, those who do not have the necessary income to meet the costs of a procedure, from paying the related costs, which 
will therefore be covered by the State budget (Article 664 of the Judicial Code). Legal assistance can be obtained in civil or criminal matters and in any proceedings (civil, 
criminal, administrative or arbitral).

According to article 665 (2) of the Belgian Judicial Code, legal aid covers acts relating to the execution of judgments.

As mentioned above, legal aid, namely legal assistance, consists in exempting, in whole or in part, those who do not have the necessary means of existence to meet the costs 
of a procedure, even an extrajudicial one, from paying the various fees, registration, clerk's office and dispatch fees and other costs that it entails. It also ensures that the 
interested parties benefit from the free services of public and ministerial officers. It also allows the interested parties to benefit from the free assistance of a technical adviser 
during judicial expertise. According to Article 665 (2) of the Belgian Judicial Code, legal aid is applicable to acts relating to the enforcement of judgments and decisions.

More precisely, legal aid is applicable:
1° to all acts relating to claims to be brought or pending before a judge of the civil, criminal or administrative order or before arbitrators;
2° to acts relating to the execution of judgments and decisions;
3° proceedings on request;
4° to procedural acts that fall within the competence of a member of the civil and criminal order or require the intervention of a public or ministerial officer
5° to mediation procedures, extrajudicial or judicial, conducted by a certified mediator
6° to all extrajudicial procedures imposed by law or the judge
7° for the enforcement of authentic instruments in another Member State of the European Union within the framework of Article 11 of Council Directive 2003/8/EC of 27 
January 2003 to improve access to justice in cross-border disputes by establishing minimum common rules relating to legal aid for such disputes, under the conditions defined 
by this Directive
8° to the assistance of a technical adviser in the case of judicial expertise.

 Number of cases for which legal aid has been granted

In other than criminal cases

126 744

Absolute number 
(in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

Per 100 000 inhabitants
 (in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

Total

Cases brought to court

Cases not brought to 
court

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

203 305

76 561

1 764,6

664,5

Belgium

EU Median

734,2

330,9

402,7

In other than criminal cases

1 100,1

Number of cases for which legal has been granted per 100 000 
inhabitants

Belgium

EU Median

1 764,6

734,2

664,5

330,9

1 100,1

402,7

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

71 / 1555

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

72 / 1555

For second-line legal aid, the number of cases closed for the year 2019-2020 amounts to 203,305. The figures for the 2018-2019 year were 196,840.
For the year 2019-2020, the number of cases closed in criminal matters is 76,561 and 126,744 for other matters.
Regarding "legal assistance", it can be noted that the figure of 16,266 corresponds to cases brought before the following courts: court of first instance (civil and family sections), 
company court and labor court, court of appeal, criminal section (in criminal matters), and court of appeal, civil section, and labor court (in other than criminal matters).The 
number of closed cases for which legal assistance was granted is included in the figures each time. 

Timeframes of the procedure for granting legal aid (in relation to the duration from the initial legal aid request to the final approval of the legal aid request)

◦ Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulations: 

◦ Actual average duration: 

The data is not available. 

NA

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

73 / 1555

4. Performance of courts in Belgium

● Efficiency indicators

◦ Clearance Rate (CR) and Disposition Time (DT)

The Clearance Rate shows the capacity of a judicial system to deal with the incoming cases. A Clearance Rate of 100% and higher does not generate backlog. 

The Disposition Time determines the estimated number of days necessary for a pending case to be solved in a court. 

First instance Total of other than criminal cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Evolution of number of all other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants
Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Incoming

5
7
8

,

4
9
8

,

8
3
4

,

,

6
0
0
1

8
2
9

,

0
6
8

,

7
6
8

,

8
9
7

,

2016

2017

2018

2019

NA

NA

NA

NA

3
8
7

,

8,75

NA

NA

NA

NA

8,94

2
8
6

,

0
6
6

,

4,38

9,28

8,60

7,98

2020

6,82

NA

10,06

8,67

7,83

EU median

6,60

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

6
6
2

,

NA

NA

NA

2,66

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Belgium (7,98 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly above the EU median (6,82 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Belgium (7,83 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly above the EU median (6,60 per 100 inhabitants).

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Other than criminal 
cases

102%

CR (%)

108%

101%

98%

99%

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Other than criminal cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NA

NA

NA

NA

102%

NA

108%

101%

98%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

EU median

99%

109

2016

NA

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 98,1% in 2020 Belgium seems to be able to deal with its other than criminal cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -2,7 points.

The Disposition Time of other than criminal cases cannot be calculated given that the data on pending cases for Belgium is not available.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

74 / 1555

First instance Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of civil and commercial litigious cases per 100 inhabitants

3
8
6

,

9
6
6

,

2
7
6

,

7
5
6

,

1
8
6

,

4
7
6

,

8
5
6

,

2
4
6

,

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec
5
5
7

,

1
7
6

,

3
1
6

,

8
1
6

,

0
6
1

,

2
1
2

,

9
8
1

,

6,83
6,69
6,72
6,81
6,42
1,89
6,71
6,13
6,06
1,56

6
0
6

,

9
9
5

,

NA
NA
6,57
6,74
6,58
2,12
7,55
6,18
5,99
1,50

NA
NA
NA
1,60
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,05

6
5
1

,

0
5
1

,

5
0
1

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Belgium (6,06 per 100 inhabitants) is well above the EU median (1,56 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Belgium (5,99 per 100 inhabitants) is well above the EU median (1,50 per 100 inhabitants).

The data on pending civil litigious cases for Belgium is not available. In fact, civil, family and youth courts are not able to provide data for pending cases. Similarly, in the 
commercial courts, pending and resolved cases cannot be counted for bankruptcies because of a too low degree of reliability. 

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97,9%

98,9%

102,5%

100,8%

98,8%

98%

DT (days)

112,3%

CR (%)
112,5%

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NA

NA

97,9%

98,9%

102,5%

112,3%

112,5%

100,8%

98,8%

NA

NA

NA

87

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

EU Median

98%

221

2014

87

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU Median

221

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 98,8% in 2020, Belgium seems to be able to deal with its civil and commercial litigious cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -2,0 points.

The Disposition Time of the civil and commercial litigious cases cannot be calculated.

The number of civil and commercial litigious cases older than 2 years is not available.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

75 / 1555

First instance Administrative cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

4
3
0

,

2
2
0

,

0
2
0

,

8
2
0

,

3
2
0

,

0
2
0

,

Evolution of number of administrative cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

4
2
0

,

1
2
0

,

7
1
0

,

4
2
0

,

7
1
0

,

8
1
0

,

7
1
0

,

8
1
0

,

5
1
0

,

9
1
0

,

7
1
0

,

5
1
0

,

NA
NA
0,22
0,20
0,17
0,17
0,15
0,15
0,15
0,30

8
1
0

,

6
1
0

,

5
1
0

,

NA
NA
0,20
0,23
0,21
0,18
0,17
0,17
0,16
0,26

0
3
0

,

6
2
0

,

NA
NA
0,34
0,28
0,24
0,24
0,18
0,19
0,18
0,21

1
2
0

,

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Belgium (0,15 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below the EU median (0,30 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Belgium (0,16 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below the EU median (0,26 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Belgium (0,18 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below the EU median (0,21 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Administrative cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NA

NA

88,2%

116,8%

120,9%

100,8%

118,8%

111,8%

108,5%

NA

NA

625

444

429

497

370

418

399

EU Median

100%

388

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Administrative cases

DT (days)

CR (%)

116,8%

120,9%

118,8%

100,8%

111,8%

108,5%

100%

88,2%

625

2014

444

2015

429

2016

497

2017

370

2018

418

2019

399

2020

388

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 108,5% in 2020, Belgium seems to deal efficiently with its administrative cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased for -3,3 points.

In 2020, the administrative cases are solved in approximately 399 days, which is slightly above the EU median of 388 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a -4,6% decrease of the Disposition Time.

In Belgium, there are 1 489 administrative law cases older than 2 years. This is 7,2% of the total number of pending cases at the end of the year.

The administrative cases are those of the Council of State in the first instance, the Aliens Litigation Council and the Flemish administrative courts Raad voor 
Vergunningsbetwistingen, het Milieuhandhavingscollege and Raad voor Verkiezingsbetwistingen. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

76 / 1555

Insolvency cases

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Insolvency cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Insolvency cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NA

NA

70,1%

110,5%

NA

NA

NA

NA

29,0%

NA

NA

3012

2319

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

EU Median

105%

281

70,1%

3012

2014

DT (days)

CR (%)

110,5%

2319

2015

29,0%

2020

105%

281

EU Median

The Clearance Rate was calculated at 29,0% in 2020 for insolvency cases, Belgium seems to having faced serious difficulties to deal with its insolvency cases.

The exceptional circumstances create by the covid-19 pandemic explain the difficulties encountered by courts in dealing with cases in 2020.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

77 / 1555

● First instance Criminal Law Cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

Severe criminal cases 

Misdemeanour and/or 
minor cases

NA

NA

NA

191 132

180 946

33 531

35 035

157 601

145 911

NA

NA

NA

Other cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

Per 100 inhabitants

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 
Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

NA

NA

NA

Other cases

NAP

1,66

0,29

1,37

NAP

1,57

0,30

1,27

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

Total criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases Resolved casesPending 
Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

Incoming cases

Belgium

6
6
1

,

7
5
1

,

EU Median

1,66

0
6
1

,

8
4
1

,

1,57

NA

1,60

1,48

0,46

6
4
0

,

Belgium

EU Median

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, and other 
criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases

Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

Total

1,66

1,57

Severe criminal
cases

0,29
0,30

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

1,37

1,27

The number of total incoming criminal cases in 2020 in Belgium (1,66 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly above the EU median (1,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total resolved criminal cases in 2020 in Belgium (1,57 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly above the EU median (1,48 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total pending criminal cases at the end of 2020 in Belgium is not available.

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT)

Total criminal law cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

DT (days)

CR (%)

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 

Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

94,7%

104,5%

92,6%

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

Total Criminal law cases

94,7%

95,2%

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, 
and other criminal law cases 

104,5%

92,6%

EU Median

95,2%

139

EU Median

139

Total

EU Median

Severe criminal
cases

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

NAP
NAP

Other cases

With the Clearance Rate calculated at 94,7% in 2020 for total criminal cases, Belgium seems facing difficulties in dealing with its total criminal cases.

The Disposition Time for criminal law cases cannot be calculated, given that data on pending first instance criminal cases is not available.

Are considered as serious offences all cases that are dealt with in the first instance by the correctional courts of first instance. Minor offences are all cases that are dealt 
with by the police court.

It should be noted that figures for homicide have not been included as the Belgian statistics include cases of attempted homicide and (attempted) manslaughter (including 
attempted and manslaughter). Similarly, cases involving child pornography, sexual abuse, or minors cannot be uniquely identified in the general category of sexual 
offenses. In camera (council chamber) cases are not included. 

As in other legal matters, the health crisis has had an impact on the numbers of criminal cases in 2020.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

78 / 1555

Overall efficiency by instance and by case matter

CR (%)

DT (days)

CR (%)

DT (days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases

98,8%

104,1%

97,4%

Administrative cases

108,5%

NAP

81,6%

Total criminal law cases

94,7%

100,6%

101,4%

NA

399

NA

NA

NAP

NA

504

415

96

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)
2nd instance

1st instance

2nd instance

1st instance
%
1
4
0
1

,

%
4
7
9

,

,

%
5
8
0
1

98,8%

108,5% NAP

%
7
4
9

,

%
104,1%
6
1
8

,

Supreme Court
Supreme Court
%
4
1
0
1

%
6
0
0
1

,

,

97,4%
81,6%

%
8
8
9

,

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases
Administrative cases

100%

Total criminal law cases

P
A
N

Civil and commercial
litigious cases

Administrative cases Total criminal law
100,6%

94,7%

101,4%

cases

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1

1
1

504

NA
Civil and commercial litigious
cases

1
1

415

NAP

399

Administrative cases

96
NA
Total criminal law cases

Generally speaking, in 2020 the number of incoming cases decreased before the Belgian courts, as well as the number of resolved cases, due to the pandemic that 
affected courts' operation. 

In terms of Clearance Rate, this situation had a more pronounced negative impact on first instance criminal courts and the Highest courts, namely the Cassation Court in 
civil matters and the Council of State in administrative matters. More precisely, in respect of the Council of State it should be indicated that in 2020, the number of 
incoming administrative cases increased compared to 2019. However, due to the exceptional circumstances caused by COVID, the State Council could not keep up with 
the flow of cases and even though the number of resolved cases increased compared to 2019, the number of pending cases at the end of 2020 increased. 

As to the Disposition Time indicator, in civil and criminal matters it can be calculated only in respect of the Cassation Court. The latter proved to be more prompt in 
criminal matters for which the Disposition Time is  below the EU median of 120 days. By contrast, in civil matters, the Disposition Time of the Cassation Court is 
significantly above the EU median of 224 days. In administrative matters, the Disposition Time indicator is slightly above the EU median of 388 days at first instance and 
meaningfully above the EU median of 281 days with regard to the highest instance. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

79 / 1555

5. Public prosecution services in Belgium

● Role and powers of the public prosecutor

In the criminal procedure, the public prosecutor in Belgium has the following 10 out of 11 possible roles and powers:

To conduct or supervise police investigation

To appeal

To conduct investigations

To supervise the enforcement procedure

When necessary, to request investigation measures from the judge

To discontinue a case without needing a decision by a judge

To charge

To present the case in the court

To propose a sentence to the judge

To end the case by imposing or negotiating a penalty or measure 
without requiring a judicial decision

Other significant powers

The public prosecutor also has a role in civil and insolvency cases.

Namely, public prosecutors intervene in family matters, status of persons, service in bankruptcy.

● Public prosecutors: Number of first instance criminal cases

Type of cases

Absolute 
number

Per 100 
inhabitants

1. Pending cases on 1 Jan. ref. year 

189 151

1,64

2. Incoming/received cases

642 678

5,58

3. Processed cases (3.1 + 3.2 + 3.3 + 3.4)

600 531

5,21

5,58

5,21

Belgium

5,58 5,21

2,01

Public prosecutors: Total number of first instance criminal 
Incoming/rec
cases per 100 inhabitants
eived cases

Processed 
cases

Pendin
g cases 
on 31 
Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. Year

Processed cases

Incoming/received cases

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year (3.1.1 + 3.1.2 + 3.1.3 
+ 3.1.4)

342 062

2,97

EU Median

2,85 2,84
2,85

2,84

0,84

3.1.1 Discontinued by the public prosecutor because the 
offender could not be identified 

73 555

0,64

2,01

0,84

3.1.2 Discontinued by the public prosecutor due to the lack 
of an established offence or a specific legal situation 

144 393

1,25

Belgium

EU Median

3.1.3 Discontinued by the public prosecutor for reasons of 
opportunity

124 082

1,08

Processed cases per 100 inhabitants
EU Median

Belgium

3.1.4 Discontinued for other reasons 

32

0,00

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated 
by the public prosecutor

88 614

0,77

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

Processed cases

Belgium
2,97

EU Median

1,05

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed
or negotiated by the public prosecutor

-2,97

0,77

1,05

0,12

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons

122 581

1,06

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other
reasons

-0,77

1,06

0,12

0,30

3.4. Cases brought to court

47 274

0,41

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons
0,30

-1,06

3.4. Cases brought to court

0,41

0,53

4. Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. year

231 298

2,01

3.4. Cases brought to court

-0,41

0,53

Since the reform of the judicial map that came into effect on April 1, 2014, our country has 15 "first degree" public prosecutors' offices (14 public prosecutors' offices + federal 
prosecutor's office). The data of the federal prosecutor's office are not included here.

The data only concern correctional offenses committed by persons of legal age and persons who are not (yet) identified. Proceedings against minors are handled by the youth 
section of the public prosecutor's office. 

The unit of account is a criminal case: a case can imply none, one or more defendants and/or one or more offences.

Dismissals for 'other reasons' refer only to cases in which it was possible to determine in the database that they had been closed by a dismissal for which the reason was not 
entered or was not correctly registered. In fact, when the reason is correctly recorded, the case is then entered under headings 3.1.1, 3.1.2 or 3.1.3. Therefore, the 'other reasons' 
heading is for 'unknown reasons' and therefore does not include 'special' reasons.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

80 / 1555

 
Useful notes for the interpretation of the data:
Of the 88,614 cases that ended with a sanction or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor 48,205 cases were closed following the payment of a penal 
transaction, - 22,091 cases were closed following an administrative sanction; 15.969 cases were closed as a result of pre-trial probation; 2.308 cases were closed following a 
successful criminal mediation procedure; 41 cases were closed after referral to the head of the corps.
Of the 122,581 cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons: 
-6,249 cases in which the suspect is the subject of an alert. Once the suspect has been discovered, the case can be reopened; 
-40,748 cases that were referred for disposition. A case that has been sent for disposal is a closed case for the prosecutor's office (its division) that made the decision. The 
recipient of this case will open a new case and start the judicial investigation.
- 75,584 cases were joined. If one or more cases are joined to a parent case, all subsequent decisions are registered in the parent case. The daughter case receives the joinder 
decision.

In order to count the number of cases brought before the courts (47,274 cases), in contrast to previous years, we counted on the one hand all cases that were closed as a result of 
a direct summons (33,105 cases) and on the other hand all cases that were closed as a result of a first fixation before the council chamber within the framework of the settlement 
of the proceedings (14,169 cases). In fact, all these cases are also counted as cases closed by the public prosecutor's office in the annual statistics of the public prosecutor's 
office.

The numbers of new, closed and pending cases have all increased for the same reason, namely the health crisis in 2020. The government took measures to combat this crisis, 
including several periods of lockdown. The Public Prosecutor's Office was responsible for taking criminal action against non-compliance with these measures, which explains the 
sharp increase in the number of new cases and the fact that, at the same time, the flow of other types of cases did not decrease in the same proportions. As the inflow increased 
significantly, the number of pending cases also increased.
The increase in the "concluded by a penalty" and "brought to court" headings is also related to the health crisis. The primary response to a COVID-19 non-compliance violation 
was a settlement (recorded under "concluded by a penalty"). In the case of non-payment of the settlement, repeat offenses, or serious violations of these measures, the criminal 
policy was to bring the case to court, given the importance of compliance with these measures. About half of the increase in court cases is due to the new methodology. The other 
half is explained by citations in health crisis cases, as explained above.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

81 / 1555

6. Existence and use of alternative dispute resolution in Belgium

Number of mediators

Mediators

Total

Per 100 000 inhabitants

EU Median
2020

Number of mediators per 100 000 inhabitants

14,4

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

1134

1157

1352

1457

1454

1744

2122

2399

2577

10,2

10,4

12,1

12,9

12,8

15,3

18,6

21,0

22,4

EU Median 2020

EU median in 2019

14,4

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

22,4

21,0

18,6

15,3

12,8

12,9

12,1

10,4

10,2

In 2020, there are 2 577 accredited or registered mediators who practise court related mediation which represents 22,4 accredited or registered mediators per 100 

The variation between  2019 and  2020 is about 7,4%.

On 31/12/2020, 2577 mediators were accredited by the Federal Mediation Commission (CFM) and more than 3400 accreditations were made by the same CFM 
(some mediators have several accreditations in family, civil and commercial, social and administrative matters).

Number of court related mediations

Type of cases

All Cases

Civil and commercial

Family cases

Administrative

Employment dismissal

Criminal cases

Consumer cases

Number of cases 
for which the parties
agreed to start 
mediation

Number of finished 
court-related
mediations

Number of cases 
in which there is a 
settlement agreement

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

In Belgium, no statistics are carried out on the number of mediations per year.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

82 / 1555

7. ICT tools of courts in Belgium

●The ICT tools of courts and for court users

The use of ICT in courts in 2020 has been evaluated as  :

EU Median

Total 
(0 to 10)

Assistance tools (0 to 3)

Case management system (0 to 7)
Financial management tools (0 to 3)

Measurement tools to assess the workload (0 to 5)
Electronic communication (0 to 10)

5,2
0,8

5,3

1,5
0,8

6,1

6,6
2,0

5,2

1,3
2,5

6,9

The calculation of this values for each field is based on the answers for that question/s and weighted according the avaiability 
or deployment rate. The total value is normalised to max 10 points for readability and comparison.

The details of the calculation are given in Annex 5 - IT calculations

The result by area may be summarized in these graphics, where each field has been evaluated from 0 to 4 points.

Note: index is modified based on the available questions. This cycle the recalculation was made for the last three cycles to be 
able to follow the development.

Assistance 
tools

Year
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
EU Median 20202,00

1,11

0,78

1,11

Case 
management 
system

Financial 
management 
tools

Measurement 
ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 
tools to assess 
the workload
2018

Electronic 
communication
2019

EU Median 2020

2020

5,33

5,33

5,25

5,33

0,75

5,33

5,25

0,83

5,17

0,75

1,50

0,83

0,83

2,82

3,59

6,08

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

6,94

6,08

3,59

2,82

2,50

2,00

1,11

1,11

0,78

1,50

1,25

0,75

0,75

0,83

0,83

0,83

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

Comments on writing assistance tools

For civil and/or commercial and criminal matters: local modification of the models is always possible. As regards the Council of State (the 
highest administrative court in the country), administrative matters:
1. For each type of procedure, there are templates of judgments which include certain standardized paragraphs. This standardization 
concerns in particular the part relating to the course of the procedure. A constant work of harmonization is carried out under the impulse of the 
First President and with the help of the Chief Clerk.
Some documents are now generated automatically on the basis of information taken from our internal databases (e.g. setting orders and 
hearing tables).
However, there are no "judgment drafting tools" as such.
2. It should be noted that, following an evolution initiated in 2007, the judgments of the Council of State are - since 2017 - all written in direct 
style. This generalization of the direct style has made it possible to ensure greater uniformity in the presentation of judgments.
3. Judges of the Belgian Council of State have many tools at their disposal:
- legal databases are maintained internally and made available to the public as well (Juridict www.juridict.be , refLex www.reflex.be , etc.);
- access is provided to private, paying legal databases (StradaLex www.stradalex.be , Jurisquare www.jurisquare.be , etc.);
- an intranet managed by the Council of State also centralizes all documents produced by the Council of State (judgments, orders, reports, 
etc.). It is called Documap.
- The website of the Council of State also offers numerous search possibilities www.raadvst-consetat.be.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

83 / 1555

Comments on CMS

For the Council of State (administrative matters):
1. All files validly introduced before the Council of State are enrolled (= a roll number is assigned) and encoded in a database called 
Proadmin+. It is important to specify that this is an internal database to which the parties do not have access. This database contains all the 
information relating to a given case: date of registration, names of the parties, type of procedure, type of dispute, stage of the procedure, 
contested act, addresses of the lawyers, calculation of the time limits for introducing the various procedural acts, location of the case within 
the Council of State, etc.
2. Although this was not its original purpose, Proadmin+ is increasingly becoming a tool for compiling statistics on the activity of the 
Administrative Litigation section of the Council of State.
3. This tool also allows for monitoring in certain circumstances. Control mechanisms are also put in place to automatically detect cases that 
remain, for example, for a long time at the stage of deliberation" proceedings. The average processing time of cases is also monitored in this 
way. Other monitoring possibilities could be implemented in the future.

Comments on communication tools 

For civil and/or commercial matters: the possibility exists but cannot be quantified.

For the Council of State (administrative matters) : since February 1, 2014, appeals to the Council of State can be filed electronically, according to 
the procedure organized by the Royal Decree of January 13, 2014 'amending the Decree of the Regent of August 23, 1948 determining the 
procedure before the Administrative Litigation Section of the Council of State, the Royal Decree of December 5, 1991 determining the summary 
procedure before the Council of State and the Royal Decree of November 30, 2006 determining the cassation procedure before the Council of 
State, with a view to introducing the electronic procedure.'
The regulation is contained in article 85bis of the Regent's Decree of 23 August 1948 'determining the procedure before the Administrative 
Litigation section of the Council of State'.
Today, more than 70% of the pending cases are at least partially electronic.
The identification on the electronic platform of the Council of State of Belgium is done by means of the electronic identity card. This system 
guarantees the traceability of the connections made to a specific file. To access the file, you also need an e-ticket (alphanumeric key) that the 
clerk's office sends only to the parties to the file. The electronic procedure has taken the form of a secure online platform on which the procedural 
documents are filed and exchanged.

It is noteworthy that in 2020, the "deployment rate" has changed positively in all legal matters because the pandemic accelerated the deployment 
of communication tools. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, more opportunities were able to take place through e-Deposit.
The communications are scenarios in both directions + the total of opportunities (maximum situation), even when not all phases or ""modalities"" 
are offered in a combined way in a given jurisdiction.
As regards criminal matters, the referral is not done electronically, but only the preparation and transmission of decisions; entry into force of article 
792 of the Judicial Code (notification by electronic means) on 01.01.2021. For the Council of State, this is done via the electronic procedure.

Concerning the police department a reference is made to the e-pv.

Legal experts and translators/interpreters can use e-Deposit for electronic filing of documents or to go through the registration procedure.

Notary's office: communication between notaries themselves and between notaries and clients is done by electronic email (100%) and through the 
secure notary network (in 2019, 56% of the offices had the system and almost 90% in 2020) which allows video conferences between notaries in 
the presence of the parties.

Bailiffs: Electronic service of documents.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

84 / 1555

8. Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and public prosecution services in Belgium

In Belgium, quality standards are not detemined for the judicial system at the national level.

● Systems for measuring and evaluating courts' performance

A regular monitoring system of court activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

In Belgium, there is no system to regularly evaluate the court performance based on defined indicators.

Performance and quality indicators are not defined for the activity of each court.

None of the following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

The evaluation of the courts' activities is not used for the later allocation of means in the courts.

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

85 / 1555

● Systems for measuring and evaluating public prosecution services' performance

A regular monitoring system of public prosecution services activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases 

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs 

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecution) 

Costs of the judicial procedures 

Clearance rate 

Disposition time 

Percentage of convictions and aquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

In Belgium, there is a system to evaluate regularly the activity of each public prosecution service and the reporting is more frequent than annual.

 The evaluation is carried out:
- by means of monthly statistics on the number of resolved cases (general prosecutors' offices)
- on the basis of bi-monthly dashboards (public prosecutors' offices)
- quarterly at the meetings of the Attorney general with the king public prosecutors and the labour auditors.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each public prosecution service.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecutors)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Percentage of convictions and acquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff

The evaluation of the public prosecution services' activities is used for the later allocation of means in the public prosecution services.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

86 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table General Data: Economic and demographic data, in absolute values (Q1, Q3, Q5)

Q1 Number of inhabitants

11 161 642

11 150 516

11 209 044

11 267 910

11 322 088

11 376 070

11 431 406

11 431 406

11 521 238

3,2%

-0,1%

0,5%

0,5%

0,5%

0,5%

0,5%

0,0%

0,8%

Q.3 GDP Per capita (in €) in current prices

34 000

34 500

36 000

36 500

37 407

38 500

39 500

41 200

39 160

15,2%

1,5%

4,3%

1,4%

2,5%

2,9%

2,6%

4,3%

-5,0%

Q5. Exchange rate of Nat currency to € on 1 Jan

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 1: Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and prosecution services  (Indicator 4 in 2019)

Table 1.1 to Table 1.10 (Q66, Q67, Q77, Q78, Q77-1, Q78-1, Q73, Q73-0, Q73-1, Q73-2, Q73-3, Q73-4, Q73-5, Q73-6, Q70, Q70-1, Q71, Q72, Q83-2, Q83-3, Q120 
and Q120-1)

66 Qlty standards formulated_jud system

67 Specialised court staff entrusted_qlty standards

77 Performance and quality indicators of court activities

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

078.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078.1.5 Backlogs 

078.1.6 Productivity of judges and court staff

078.1.7 Satisfaction of court staff 

078.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts) 

078.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078.1.10 Number of appeals

078.1.11 Appeal ratio

078.1.12 Clearance rate 

078.1.13 Disposition time 

078.1.14 Other

077-1.1.1 Defined performance and quality indicators

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

87 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

078-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078-1.1.5 Backlogs 

078-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

078-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

078-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

078-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

078-1.1.11 Disposition time 

078-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

078-1.1.13 Other

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

True

False

73 Regular system_evaluation_performance_each court

No

No

No

No

073-0.1.1 Annual

073-0.1.2 Less frequent

073-0.1.3 More frequent

073-1.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
court

073-2.1.1 Courses of action taken in the evaluation is used for the 
allocation of resources

073-2.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-2.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-2.1.4 Other

073-3.1.1 Regular evaluation of the public prosecution services 
performance

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

88 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

073-4.1.1 Annual

073-4.1.2 Less frequent

073-4.1.3 More frequent

073-5.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
public prosecution services

073-6.1.1 Identifying the causes of improved or deteriorated 
performance

073-6.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-6.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-6.1.4 Other

070.1.1 number of incoming cases

070.1.2 length of proceedings (timeframes)

070.1.3 number of resolved cases

070.1.4 number of pending cases

070.1.5 backlogs

070.1.6 productivity of judges and court staff

070.1.7 satisfaction of court staff

070.1.8 satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts)

070.1.9 costs of the judicial procedures

070.1.10 number of appeals

070.1.11 appeal ratio

070.1.12 clearance rate

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

89 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

070-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases 

070-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

070-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

070-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

070-1.1.5 Backlogs 

070-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

070-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

070-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

070-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

070-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

070-1.1.11 Disposition time 

070-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

070-1.1.13 Other

071.1.1 Monitoring backlogs in Civil law cases

071.1.2 Monitoring backlogs in Criminal law cases

071.1.3 Monitoring backlogs in Administrative law cases

072.1.1 Monitoring timeframes Within the courts

072.1.2 Monitoring timeframes Within the public prosecution services

083-2.1.1 Quantitative performance tagets defined for each 
prosecutors

083-3.1.1 Body responsible - Executive power (for example the 
Ministry of Justice)

083-3.1.2 Body responsible - Prosecutor General /State public 
prosecutor

083-3.1.3 Body responsible - Public Prosecutorial Council

083-3.1.4 Body responsible - Head of the organisational unit or 
hierarchically superior public prosecutor

083-3.1.5 Body responsible - Other

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

True

False

True

True

False

False

True

False

False

False

False

True

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

90 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

120.1.1 Qualitative individual assessment of the public prosecutors' 
work

120-1.1.1 Feequency - Annual

120-1.1.2 Feequency - Less frequent

120-1.1.3 Feequency - More frequent

Q42.1.1Total number of all courts - legal entities 

Q42.1.2 Total number of courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.3 First instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.4 Second instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.5 Highest instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.6 Total number of specialised courts - legal entities

-

-

27

-

-

-

43.1.1 Total number of specialised courts of first instance

262

43.1.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.1.3 Insolvency courts

43.1.4 Labour courts

43.1.5 Family courts

43.1.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.1.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.1.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.1.9 Internet related disputes

43.1.10 Administrative courts

43.1.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.1.12 Military courts

43.1.13 Juvenile courts

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

23

NA

21

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

True

False

True

False

Indicator 2: The judicial organisation

Tables 2.1a; 2.1b; 2.2a; 2.2b; 2.3a; 2.3b; 2.4 and 2.5(EC) (Q42, Q43 and Q44)

-

-

27

-

-

-

262

23

NAP

21

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

-

-

-

13

-

-

-

225

9

-

-

13

-

-

-

225

9

-

-

13

-

-

-

225

9

-

-

13

-

-

-

200

9

-

-

13

-

-

-

200

9

-

-

13

-

-

-

200

9

230

207

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

201

644,4%

0,0%

-51,9%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0% 1446,2%

18

1

23

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

23

-91,2%

0,0%

-14,1%

0,0%

0,0%

-11,1%

0,0%

0,0%

-88,5%

9

-60,9%

0,0%

-60,9%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

5

NAP

NAP

-

9

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

5

NAP

NAP

-

9

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

5

NAP

NAP

-

9

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

5

NAP

NAP

-

9

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

5

NAP

NAP

-

9

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

5

NAP

NAP

-

9

-57,1%

0,0%

-57,1%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

5

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

91 / 1555

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

43.1.14 Other specialised courts

218

218

202

202

202

177

177

177

NAP

43.2.1 Total number of specialised courts of higher instances

43.2.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.2.3 Insolvency courts

43.2.4 Labour courts

43.2.5 Family courts

43.2.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.2.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.2.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.2.9 Internet related disputes

43.2.10 Administrative courts

43.2.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.2.12 Military courts

43.2.13 Juvenile courts

43.2.14 Other specialised courts

44.1.1 First instance courts geographic locations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

218

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

-7,3%

0,0%

0,0%

-12,4%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

44.1.2 All courts geographic locations

288

288

288

288

267

264

253

232

225

-21,9%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-7,3%

-1,1%

-4,2%

-8,3%

-3,0%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

92 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 3: The performance of courts at all stages of the proceedings

Tables 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.4 (all years) Number of other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 Variation of first instance other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants (Q1, Q91)

Table 3.13.7 (EC) to 3.13.12 (EC) First instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

91.1.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.1.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.1.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.1.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.1.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.1.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.1.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.1.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

91.1.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.1.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

91.1.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

91.2.1 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.2.2 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.2.3 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.2.4 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.2.5 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.2.6 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.2.7 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.2.8 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

91.2.9 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

91.2.10 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

91.2.11 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

NA

-

NA

NA

-

NAP

NAP

-

NA

-

NA

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

180 894

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

32 255

37 624

32 080

27 615

21 318

23 838

21 794

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

990 337

498 495

1 060 896

983 230

919 205

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

16,6%

-14,7%

-13,9%

-22,8%

11,8%

-8,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-49,7%

112,8%

-7,3%

-6,5%

762 164

745 883

752 769

767 875

727 238

214 533

767 255

701 218

698 480

-8,4%

-2,1%

0,9%

2,0%

-5,3%

-70,5%

257,6%

-8,6%

-0,4%

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

NA

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

263 653

253 629

267 025

264 970

211 717

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

240 044

243 653

253 629

267 025

264 970

211 717

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

240 044

243 653

253 629

267 025

264 970

211 717

-

-

NA

NAP

-

-

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

25 092

22 577

19 446

19 835

16 665

17 042

17 364

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

10 498

9 951

NA

9 008

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-3,8%

5,3%

-0,8%

-20,1%

-

-

-

-

1,5%

4,1%

5,3%

-0,8%

-20,1%

-

-

-

-

-

1,5%

4,1%

5,3%

-0,8%

-20,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-10,0%

-13,9%

2,0%

-16,0%

2,3%

1,9%

-

-

-

-5,2%

-

-

93 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

91.3.1 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.3.2 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.3.3 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

NA

NA

-

NA

NA

-

91.3.4 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

NAP

NAP

91.3.5 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.3.6 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.3.7 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.3.8 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

91.3.9 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

91.3.10 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

91.3.11 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

91.4.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.4.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.4.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.4.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.4.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.4.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.4.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.4.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

91.4.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.4.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

91.4.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

-

NA

-

NA

-

-

NA

NAP

NA

NA

-

-

-

NA

NAP

NA

NA

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

NA

-

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

1 012 332

NA

1 149 719

990 917

901 575

736 693

759 712

745 166

240 963

862 888

706 901

689 858

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

263 653

253 629

267 025

264 970

211 717

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

240 044

243 653

253 629

267 025

264 970

211 717

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

240 044

243 653

253 629

267 025

264 970

211 717

-

-

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

22 139

26 377

23 513

19 986

19 806

19 046

18 834

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

180 480

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

37 880

32 080

27 615

27 213

20 089

21 807

20 569

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-13,8%

-9,0%

3,1%

-1,9%

-67,7%

258,1%

-18,1%

-2,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-3,8%

5,3%

-0,8%

-20,1%

-

-

-

-

1,5%

4,1%

5,3%

-0,8%

-20,1%

-

-

-

-

-

1,5%

4,1%

5,3%

-0,8%

-20,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

19,1%

-10,9%

-15,0%

-0,9%

-3,8%

-1,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-15,3%

-13,9%

-1,5%

-26,2%

8,6%

-5,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

94 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.2 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.4 to 3.3.7 Variation of Clearence Rate and Disposition Time of first instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

Table 3.13.1 (EC) to 3.13.6 (EC) First instance courts: Disposition time and clearance rate for other than criminal cases  (Q91)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

NA

NA

-

NA

NA

-

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

NAP

NAP

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

-

NA

-

NA

NA

NA

102,2%

NA

108,4%

100,8%

98,1%

97,9%

98,9%

102,5%

112,3%

112,5%

100,8%

98,8%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

NAP

NAP

NA

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

-

-

NA

NAP

NA

NA

-

NA

NA

-

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

NAP

NAP

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

-

NA

-

NA

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

NAP

NAP

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

-

-

NA

NAP

-

-

NA

NAP

-

-

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

88,2%

116,8%

120,9%

100,8%

118,8%

111,8%

108,5%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

625

NA

87

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

444

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

429

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

497

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

370

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

418

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

399

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(7,00)

(2,68)

1,10

3,57

9,62

0,13

(10,36)

(2,03)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

32,41

3,49

(16,67)

17,95

(5,96)

(2,95)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-28,9%

-3,4%

15,9%

-25,5%

12,9%

-4,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

95 / 1555

        
        
         
         
         
         
      
        
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
           
       
         
      
       
        
        
Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.4.1 (all years) First instance courts, number of cases for specific case categories (Q101)

101.1.1 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Litigious divorce case

101.1.2 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Employment dismissal case

101.1.3 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Insolvency

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

15 744

15 039

14 905

14 984

14 641

14 926

82 398

74 483

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-4,5%

-0,9%

0,5%

-2,3%

1,9%

-9,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

101.2.1 Incoming cases_Litigious divorce case

37 497

34 588

33 396

29 656

14 332

9 727

13 483

14 338

11 006

-70,6%

-7,8%

-3,4%

-11,2%

-51,7%

-32,1%

38,6%

6,3%

-23,2%

101.2.2 Incoming cases_Employment dismissal case

101.2.3 Incoming cases_Insolvency

NA

NA

NA

NA

7 762

7 756

7 535

6 769

6 549

5 886

5 460

15 023

10 881

68 681

60 207

53 796

57 613

53 706

-

-

-

-

-

-

-0,1%

-2,8%

-10,2%

-3,3%

-10,1%

-7,2%

-27,6%

531,2%

-12,3%

-10,6%

7,1%

-6,8%

101.3.1 Resolved cases_Litigious divorce case

37 635

33 355

32 173

33 317

15 111

11 947

14 926

14 839

8 566

-77,2%

-11,4%

-3,5%

3,6%

-54,6%

-20,9%

24,9%

-0,6%

-42,3%

101.3.2 Resolved cases_Employment dismissal case

101.3.3 Resolved cases_Insolvency

101.4.1 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Litigious divorce case

101.4.2 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Employment dismissal case

101.4.3 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Insolvency

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

8 523

8 052

7 497

7 100

6 381

6 015

5 839

10 530

12 021

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

14 983

14 743

14 943

14 653

14 839

14 797

86 891

76 381

NA

NA

NA

NA

15 567

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-5,5%

-6,9%

-5,3%

-10,1%

-5,7%

-2,9%

14,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-1,6%

1,4%

-1,9%

1,3%

-0,3%

-12,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Table 3.5.1 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for specific case categories (Q101)

Table 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 Variations of CR and DT for specific case categories of first instance cases (Q101)

CR Litigious divorce cases

100,4%

96,4%

96,3%

112,3%

105,4%

122,8%

110,7%

103,5%

77,8%

(22,46)

(3,92)

(0,10)

16,62

(6,15)

16,49

(9,87)

(6,51)

(24,80)

CR Employment dismissal cases

CR Insolvency cases

DT Litigious divorce cases

DT Employment dismissal cases

DT Insolvency cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

109,8%

103,8%

99,5%

104,9%

97,4%

102,2%

106,9%

70,1%

110,5%

NA

642

NA

668

3 012

2 319

NA

NA

728

NA

NA

NA

753

NA

NA

NA

849

NA

NA

NA

898

NA

29,0%

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(5,45)

(4,16)

5,42

(7,11)

4,88

4,65

57,62

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4,2%

8,9%

3,5%

12,7%

5,8%

-23,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

96 / 1555

      
        
        
       
        
       
        
        
      
        
        
         
        
         
         
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.7.1 to 3.7.5 (2019 and 2020) Second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Table 3.9.1 to 3.9.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.1.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.1.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.1.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.1.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.1.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.1.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.1.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.1.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

97.1.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.1.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

97.1.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases 

97.2.1 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.2.2 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.2.3 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.2.4 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.2.5 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.2.6 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.2.7 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.2.8 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

97.2.9 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.2.10 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

97.2.11 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases 

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

44 140

44 140

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

27 784

25 697

23 435

25 619

24 177

22 195

28 319

27 784

25 697

23 435

25 619

24 177

22 195

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-7,5%

-8,8%

9,3%

-5,6%

-8,2%

-1,9%

-7,5%

-8,8%

9,3%

-5,6%

-8,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

97 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.3.1 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.3.2 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.3.3 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.3.4 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.3.5 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.3.6 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.3.7 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.3.8 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

97.3.9 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.3.10 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

97.3.11 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases 

97.4.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.4.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.4.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.4.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.4.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.4.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.4.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.4.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

97.4.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.4.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

97.4.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases

97.5.1 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.5.2 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.5.10 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

29 283

28 286

25 784

26 640

26 663

23 095

29 106

29 283

28 286

25 784

26 640

26 663

23 095

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

43 390

43 390

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-3,4%

-8,8%

3,3%

0,1%

-13,4%

0,6%

-3,4%

-8,8%

3,3%

0,1%

-13,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

98 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 (2019 and 2020): Second instance clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.9.4 and 3.9.5 (2019 and 2020): Variation of second clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

NA

105,4%

110,1%

110,0%

104,0%

110,3%

104,1%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

102,8%

105,4%

110,1%

110,0%

104,0%

110,3%

104,1%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

541

541

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4,44

(0,05)

(5,49)

6,06

(5,65)

2,55

4,44

(0,05)

(5,49)

6,06

(5,65)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

99 / 1555

         
        
        
         
        
         
         
        
        
         
        
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.10.1 to 3.10.5 (2019 and 2020) Supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Table 3.12.1 to 3.12.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of the supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.1.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.1.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.1.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.1.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.1.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.1.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.1.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.1.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

99.1.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.1.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

99.1.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.2.1 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.2.2 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.2.3 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.2.4 High inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.2.5 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.2.6 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.2.7 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.2.8 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

99.2.9 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.2.10 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

99.2.11 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

NA

1 367

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

345

NA

NA

931

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

698

NA

1 624

1 304

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

320

NAP

1 554

1 243

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

311

NAP

1 429

1 316

1 463

1 532

1 151

1 084

1 119

1 155

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

278

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

232

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

344

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

363

14

1 593

1 350

1 369

1 381

1 392

1 475

881

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

712

NAP

812

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

538

NAP

970

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

399

NAP

899

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

482

NAP

920

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

472

NAP

876

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

587

11

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-4,3%

-8,0%

-7,9%

11,2%

4,7%

-4,6%

-4,7%

-7,4%

-5,8%

3,2%

3,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-7,2%

-2,8%

-10,6%

-16,5%

48,3%

5,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-15,3%

1,4%

0,9%

0,8%

6,0%

-5,4%

-7,8%

19,5%

-7,3%

2,3%

-4,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,0%

-24,4%

-25,8%

20,8%

-2,1%

24,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

100 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.3.1 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.3.2 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.3.3 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.3.4 High inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.3.5 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.3.6 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.3.7 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.3.8 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

99.3.9 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.3.10 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

99.3.11 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.4.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.4.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.4.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.4.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.4.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.4.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.4.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.4.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry 
cases

99.4.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.4.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative 
law cases

99.4.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.5.1 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.5.2 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.5.10 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1 781

1 658

1 483

1 429

1 095

1 268

1 343

992

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

789

NAP

NA

1 305

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

320

NA

-

-

-

942

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

716

NAP

1 554

1 243

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

311

NAP

-

-

-

905

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

578

NAP

1 428

1 150

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

278

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

994

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

435

NAP

864

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

390

NAP

818

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

450

NAP

853

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

479

11

1 359

1 457

1 590

1 737

1 127

1 119

1 221

1 178

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

232

NAP

NA

NA

4

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

338

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

369

NAP

NA

NA

1 280

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

545

14

217

164

47

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-6,9%

-10,6%

-3,6%

-23,4%

15,8%

5,9%

-5,0%

-3,9%

9,8%

-13,1%

-5,3%

4,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-9,3%

-19,3%

-24,7%

-10,3%

15,4%

6,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-8,1%

-4,8%

7,2%

9,1%

9,2%

-4,8%

-7,5%

-2,0%

-0,7%

9,1%

-3,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,8%

-10,6%

-16,5%

45,7%

9,2%

47,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-96,3%

101 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 Supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.12.4 and 3.12.5 Variation of the supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

NA

104,1%

109,9%

104,4%

79,3%

91,1%

91,1%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

106,6%

106,9%

111,5%

102,5%

96,1%

88,9%

97,4%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

113,0%

100,6%

107,4%

109,0%

80,9%

95,3%

81,6%

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

100,0%

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

480

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

148

NA

342

482

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

159

NAP

351

464

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

176

NAP

347

414

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

195

NAP

486

473

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

316

NAP

458

545

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

299

NAP

472

504

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

415

465

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5,55

(4,98)

(24,04)

14,88

(0,05)

0,35

4,24

(8,06)

(6,21)

(7,49)

9,52

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(11,04)

6,83

1,48

(25,78)

17,83

(14,41)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,7%

-1,2%

39,9%

-5,8%

3,1%

0,3%

-3,7%

-10,8%

14,2%

15,3%

-7,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7,1%

10,7%

10,9%

62,5%

-5,4%

38,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

102 / 1555

         
        
      
       
        
         
         
        
        
        
         
      
         
         
      
       
      
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.14.1 to 3.14.5 First instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

094.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

094.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

094.2.1 Total -incoming

094.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

094.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

094.2.4 Other - incoming

094.3.1 Total - resolved

094.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

094.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

094.3.4 Other - resolved

094.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

094.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

094.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

094.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

NA

NA

NA

NAP

191 132

33 531

157 601

NAP

180 946

35 035

145 911

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

103 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.15.1 to 3.10.2 CR and DT for first instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

098.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

098.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

098.2.1 Total -incoming

098.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

098.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

098.2.4 Other - incoming

098.3.1 Total - resolved

098.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

098.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

098.3.4 Other - resolved

Table 3.16.1 to 3.16.5 Second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

94,7%

104,5%

92,6%

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

26 499

16 530

9 969

NAP

26 656

16 644

10 012

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

104 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

098.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

098.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

098.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

098.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

Table 3.17.1 to 3.17.2 CR and DT for second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

100,6%

100,7%

100,4%

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

105 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.18.1 to 3.18.5 Supreme court criminal law cases (Q100)

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

100.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

100.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

100.2.1 Total -incoming

100.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

100.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

100.2.4 Other - incoming

100.3.1 Total - resolved

100.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

100.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

100.3.4 Other - resolved

100.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

100.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

100.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

100.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

380

NA

NA

NA

1 353

NA

NA

NA

1 372

NA

NA

NA

361

NA

NA

NA

61

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

106 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.19.1 to 3.19.2 CR and DT for supreme court  criminal law cases (Q100)

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

101,4%

NA

NA

NA

96

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

107 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 5: Access to justice

Legal aid

Table 5.1 to Table 5.6 (Q12-2, Q16, Q18, Q19, Q20, Q20-1)

12-2.1.1 Coverage of court fees

12-2.1.2 Exemption from court fees

16.1.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (criminal cases)

16.1.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (criminal cases)

16.2.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (other than criminal 
cases)

16.2.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (other than criminal cases)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

-

-

-

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

18.1.1 Legal aid for the enforcement of judicial decisions

19.1.1  Legal aid granted for other costs - criminal cases

19.1.2  Legal aid granted for other costs - other than criminal cases

020.1.1 Total

020.1.2 Total - criminal cases

020.1.3 Total - other than criminal cases

020.2.1 Total brought to court

020.2.2 Broight to court - criminal cases

020.2.3 Brought to court - other then criminal

020.3.1 Total not brought to court

020.3.2 Not broight to court - criminal cases

020.3.3 Not brought to court - other then criminal

020-1.1.1 Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulation

020-1.1.2 Average duration

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

NAP

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

203 305

76 561

126 744

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

108 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

System for compensating users

Table 5.7.1 and Table 5.7.2 (Q37)

037.1.1 Requests for compensation - Total

037.1.2 Requests for compensation - Excessive length of 
proceedings

037.1.3 Requests for compensation - Non-execution of court 
decisions

037.1.4 Requests for compensation - Wrongful arrest

037.1.5 Requests for compensation - Wrongful conviction

037.1.6 Requests for compensation - Other

037.2.1 Condemnations - Total

037.2.2 Condemnations - Excessive length of proceedings

037.2.3 Condemnations - Non-execution of court decisions

037.2.4 Condemnations - Wrongful arrest

037.2.5 Condemnations - Wrongful conviction

037.2.6 Condemnations - Other

037.3.1 Amount - Total

037.3.2 Amount - Excessive length of proceedings

037.3.3 Amount - Non-execution of court decisions

037.3.4 Amount - Wrongful arrest

037.3.5 Amount - Wrongful conviction

037.3.6 Amount - Other

NA

NA

NAP

70

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

13

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

150 905 €

NA

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

109 / 1555

       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 6.1 to Table 6.11 (Q62-7, Q62-7-1, Q62-8,  Q62-8-1, Q63-1, Q63-1-1, Q63-2 Q63-6, Q63-7, Q63-7-1, Q64-2,  Q64-4, Q64-6, Q64-3, Q64-3-1, Q64-7, Q64-7-1, 
Q64-9)

Indicator 6: The ICT tools of courts and for court users

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

62-7 Writing assistance tools coordinated at national level

62-7-1.1 Deployment rate in civil matter

62-7-1.2 Deployment rate in criminal matter

62-7-1.3 Deployment rate in administrative matter

62-8 Voice recording tools

62-8-1.1.1 Availability of simple dictation tools in civil matter

62-8-1.1.2 Availability of simple dictation tools in criminal matter

62-8-1.1.3 Availability of simple dictation tools in administrative 
matter

62-8-1.2.1 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in civil 
matter

62-8-1.2.2 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in criminal 
matter

62-8-1.2.3 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in 
administrative matter

62-8-1.3.1 Availability of voice recognition in civil matter

62-8-1.3.2 Availability of voice recognition in criminal matter

62-8-1.3.3 Availability of voice recognition in administrative matter

062-9 Availability of intranet site within the judicial system for 
distribution of news/novelties

63.1 Is there a case management system? 

63.1-1.1 CMS for civil matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for criminal matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for administrative matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.2 CMS for civil matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for criminal matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for administrative matter (status of case onlinee)

True

True

True

100%

100%

50-99%

100%

100%

50-99%

100%

100%

10-49%

True

True

True

in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases
not available 
for this matter

in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases
not available 
for this matter

in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases
not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

-

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

-

-

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

110 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63.1-1.3 CMS for civil matter (Centralised or interoperable database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for criminal matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for administrative matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.4 CMS for civil matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for criminal matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for administrative matter (Early warning signals)

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS civil matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS criminal matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS administrative matter

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - land registry

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - business registry

63-2.2 Data consolidated at national level for land registry

63-2.2  Data consolidated at national level for business registry

63-2.3 Service available online for land registry

63-2.3  Service available online for business registry

63-2.4 Statistical module integrated or connected for land registry

63-2.4  Statistical module integrated or connected for business 
registry

063-6.1.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (deployment 
rate)

063-6.1.2 Justice expenses management (deployment rate)

063-6.1.3 Other financial management tools (deployment rate)

063-6.2.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (Data 
consolidated at national level)

063-6.2.2 Justice expenses management (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.2.3 Other financial management tools (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.3.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (System 
communicating with other ministries)

063-6.3.2 Justice expenses management (System communicating 
with other ministries)

063-6.3.3 Other financial management tools (System communicating 
with other ministries)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Integrated

Integrated

Not integrated 
but connected

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

1-9%

1-9%

0% (NAP)

False

NAP

NA

False

False

False

False

NAP

NA

False

False

False

False

NAP

NA

False

False

False

0% (NAP)

1-9%

50-99%

50-99%

10-49%

50-99%

0% (NAP)

50-99%

False

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

NA

True

True

NA

True

True

NA

111 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63-7.1 Measurement tools to assess the workload

63-7-1.1.1 Deployment rate - workload of judges

63-7-1.1.2 Deployment rate - workload of prosecutors

63-7-1.1.3 Deployment rate - workload of non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.2.1 Monitoring on national level - judges

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - prosecutors

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.3.1 Monitoring on court level - judges

63-7-1.3.2 Monitoring on court level - prosecutors

63-7-1.3.3 Monitoring on court level - non-judge and non-prosecutor 
staff

064-2 - Possibility to submit a case to courts by electronic means

064-2 - Civil and/or commercial

064-2 - Criminal

064-2 - Administrative

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - civil

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - criminal

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory  - administrative

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - civil

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - criminal

064-2 - Specific legislative framework  - administrative

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - civil

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - criminal

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - administrative

True

True

True

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

1-9%

1-9%

1-9%

1-9%

1-9%

1-9%

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

NA

NA

50-99%

50-99%

100%

True

True

True

True

False

True

False

False

False

True

False

True

True

True

True

False

False

True

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

112 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-3 - Is it possible to request for granting legal aid by electronic 
means? 

064-3-1.1 - Equipment rate

064-3-1.2 - Request in paper mandatory

064-3-1.3 - Specific legislative framework

064-3-1.4 - Granting LA is also electronic

064-3-1.5 - Information available in CMS

064-4 - Possibility to transmit summons to a judicial meeting or a 
hearing by electronic means

064-4-1.1.1 - Summons produced by CMS- civil

064-4-1.1.2 - Summons produced by CMS- criminal

064-4-1.1.3 - Summons produced by CMS- administrative

064-4-1.2.1 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- civil

064-4-1.2.2 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- criminal

064-4-1.2.3 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- administrative

064-4-1.3.1 - Consent of the user - civil

064-4-1.3.2 - Consent of the user - criminal

064-4-1.3.3 - Consent of the user - administrative

064-6.1.1 - Civil and/or commercial (deployment rate)

064-6.1.2 - Criminal (deployment rate)

064-6.1.3 - Administrative (deployment rate)

True

True

True

1-9%

NA

100%

False

False

True

True

False

False

True

NA

NA

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

10-49%

10-49%

50-99%

0% (NAP)

10-49%

10-49%

50-99%

50-99%

100%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

113 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-6.2.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.2 - Criminal (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.3 - Administrative (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.3.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Modalities)

064-6.3.2 - Criminal (Modalities)

064-6.3.3 - Administrative (Modalities)

064-6.4.1 - Civil and/or commercial (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.2 - Criminal (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.3 - Administrative (specific legal framework)

064-6.5.1 - Civil and/or commercial (availability for)

064-6.5.2 - Criminal (availability for)

064-6.5.3 - Administrative (availability for)

  Hearing 
preparatory 

phases    

  Hearing 
preparatory 

phases     

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 

Decision 
transmission

phases     

Decision 
transmission

  Hearing 
preparatory 

phases    

  Hearing 
preparatory 

phases     

Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
E-mail  
Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

True

True

True

True

True

True

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

True

True

True

Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer
Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer
Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

114 / 1555

      
    
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-7.1.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (deployment rate)

064-7.1.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.2.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (Modalities)

064-7.2.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.3.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (specific legal framework)

064-7.32.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-7.3.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts (specific 
legal framework)

064-7.3.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-9 - Existance of online processing devices of specialised 
litigation

10-49%

10-49%

10-49%

1-9%

50-99%

100%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

-

100%

100%

NA

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

E-mail    

  Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

115 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

46.1.1 Total Number of professional judges

46.1.2 Number of 1st inst professional judges

46.1.3 Number of 2nd inst professional judges

46.1.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges

46.2.1 Number of professional judges_males

46.2.2 Number of 1st instance professional judges_males

46.2.3 Number of 2nd instance professional judges_males

46.2.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges_males

46.3.1  Number of professional judges_females

46.3.2  Number of 1st inst professional judges_females

46.3.3  Number of 2nd inst professional judges_females

46.3.4  Number of Supreme court professional judges_females

046-2.1.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Total

046-2.2.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Civil and commercial

046-2.2.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.3.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Criminal

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

Indicator 7: Professionals of justice  (Indicator 9 in 2019)

Table 7.1.1 to 7.5.6 for judges, non judge staff, prosecutors, non prosecutor staff and salaries

1 598

1 293

1 604

1 271

1 602

1 271

1 614

1 284

1 600

1 274

1 566

1 523

1 526

1 524

-4,6%

0,4%

-0,1%

0,7%

-0,9%

-2,1%

-2,7%

0,2%

-0,1%

1 226

1 229

1 206

1 193

-7,7%

-1,7%

0,0%

1,0%

-0,8%

-3,8%

0,2%

-1,9%

-1,1%

305

30

819

622

173

24

779

641

132

6

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

305

28

806

616

168

22

798

655

137

6

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

302

29

776

592

161

23

826

679

141

6

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

303

27

768

595

152

21

846

689

151

6

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

297

29

752

582

149

21

848

692

148

8

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

310

30

723

546

156

21

843

680

154

9

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

264

30

668

516

131

21

855

713

133

9

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

292

28

652

497

135

20

874

709

157

8

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

301

-1,3%

0,0%

-1,0%

0,3%

-2,0%

4,4%

-14,8%

10,6%

3,1%

30

0,0%

-6,7%

3,6%

-6,9%

7,4%

3,4%

0,0%

-6,7%

7,1%

640

-21,9%

-1,6%

-3,7%

-1,0%

-2,1%

-3,9%

-7,6%

-2,4%

-1,8%

484

-22,2%

-1,0%

-3,9%

0,5%

-2,2%

-6,2%

-5,5%

-3,7%

-2,6%

135

-22,0%

-2,9%

-4,2%

-5,6%

-2,0%

4,7%

-16,0%

3,1%

0,0%

21

-12,5%

-8,3%

4,5%

-8,7%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-4,8%

5,0%

884

13,5%

2,4%

3,5%

2,4%

0,2%

-0,6%

1,4%

2,2%

1,1%

709

10,6%

2,2%

3,7%

1,5%

0,4%

-1,7%

4,9%

-0,6%

0,0%

166

25,8%

3,8%

2,9%

7,1%

-2,0%

4,1%

-13,6%

18,0%

5,7%

9

50,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

33,3%

12,5%

0,0%

-11,1%

12,5%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

116 / 1555

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

046-2.4.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - 
Administrative

046-2.4.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.5.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Other

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 52.1.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in courts 

5 458

5 307

5 290

5 204

5 054

4 940

4 974

5 614

5 064

-7,2%

-2,8%

-0,3%

-1,6%

-2,9%

-2,3%

0,7%

12,9%

-9,8%

52.1.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)

52.1.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges

52.1.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks

52.1.5 Number of Technical staff

52.1.6 Number of Other non judge staff

52.2.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(men)

52.2.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(men)

52.2.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(men)

52.2.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(men)

52.2.5 Number of Technical staff(men)

52.2.6 Number of Other non judge staff(men)

52.3.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(women)

52.3.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(women)

52.3.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(women)

52.3.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(women)

52.3.5 Number of Technical staff(women)

52.3.6 Number of Other non judge staff(women)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NAP

1 708

2 766

984

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

NAP

1 752

2 700

855

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

NAP

1 928

2 474

889

NAP

NAP

1 881

2 408

915

NAP

NAP

1 946

2 335

773

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 692

1 692

1 889

1 882

10,2%

2,6%

10,1%

-2,4%

3,5%

-13,1%

0,0%

11,6%

-0,4%

2 484

2 500

2 786

2 470

-10,7%

-2,4%

-8,4%

-2,7%

-3,0%

6,4%

0,6%

11,4%

-11,3%

764

NAP

782

NAP

939

NAP

-

713

-27,5%

-13,1%

4,0%

2,9%

-15,5%

-1,2%

2,4%

20,1%

-24,1%

1 466

1 540

1 413

1 311

1 396

1 461

1 225

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

585

634

248

562

689

289

557

620

236

468

662

181

466

675

255

488

711

262

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

481

679

66

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5,0%

-8,2%

-7,2%

6,5%

4,7%

-16,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-3,9%

-0,9%

-16,0%

-0,4%

4,7%

-1,4%

8,7%

-10,0%

6,8%

2,0%

5,3%

-4,5%

16,5%

-18,3%

-23,3%

40,9%

2,7%

-74,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

3 930

3 839

3 824

3 664

3 641

3 629

3 578

4 153

3 839

-2,3%

-2,3%

-0,4%

-4,2%

-0,6%

-0,3%

-1,4%

16,1%

-7,6%

NAP

1 167

2 076

688

NAP

NAP

1 213

2 032

595

NAP

NAP

1 343

1 840

641

NAP

NAP

1 319

1 719

626

NAP

NAP

1 389

1 715

537

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 224

1 226

1 401

1 401

20,1%

4,0%

10,8%

-1,8%

5,3%

-11,9%

0,2%

14,3%

0,0%

1 822

1 825

2 075

1 791

-13,7%

-2,1%

-9,4%

-6,6%

-0,2%

6,2%

0,2%

13,7%

-13,7%

583

NAP

527

NAP

677

NAP

647

-6,0%

-13,5%

7,7%

-2,3%

-14,2%

8,6%

-9,6%

28,5%

-4,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

117 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

052-1.1.1 Non-judge staff (Total)

052-1.1.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (total)

052-1.1.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (total)

052-1.1.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (total)

052-1.2.1 Non-judge staff  (Males)

052-1.2.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (males)

052-1.2.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (males)

052-1.2.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (males)

052-1.3.1 Non-judge staff  (females)

052-1.3.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (females)

052-1.3.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (females)

052-1.3.4 Non-judge staff  at supreme court (females)

055.1.1 Prosecutors (total)

055.1.2 Prosecutors (1st inst.)

055.1.3 Prosecutors (2nd inst.)

055.1.4 Prosecutors (Highest instance)

055.2.1 Prosecutors - Males -total

055.2.2 Prosecutors - Males, 1st inst.

055.2.3 Prosecutors - Males, 2nd inst.

055.2.4 Prosecutors - Males, Supreme courts

055.3.1 Prosecutors - Females, Total

055.3.2 Prosecutors - Females, 1st inst.

055.3.3 Prosecutors - Females, 2nd inst.

055.3.4 Prosecutors - Females, Supreme courts

5 064

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

876

705

159

12

357

259

88

10

519

446

71

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

118 / 1555

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

060.1.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Total

060.2.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Males

060.3.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Females

004 Annual average salary in the country

132.1.1 Gross annual salary, in €  - Professional judge at the 
beginning of career

132.1.2 Gross annual salary, in €  - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.1.3 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor at the beginning 
of career

132.1.4 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

132.2.1 Net annual salary, in € - Professional judge at the beginning 
of career

132.2.2 Net annual salary, in € - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.2.3 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor at the beginning of 
career

132.2.4 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

133.1.1.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Reduced taxation

133.1.2.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Special pension

133.1.3.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Housing

133.1.4.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Other financial benefit

133.2.1.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Reduced taxation

133.2.2.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Special pension

133.2.3.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Housing

133.2.4.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Other financial benefit

2 424

730

1 694

41 938 €

67 532 €

122 877 €

67 532 €

125 183 €

37 714 €

60 497 €

37 714 €

61 489 €

False

True

False

False

False

True

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

119 / 1555

         
         
       
         
       
         
         
         
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

144.1.1 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - Total number (1+2+3+4)

144.1.2 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 1. Breach of professional 
ethics 

144.1.3 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.1.4 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 3. Criminal offence 

144.1.5 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 4. Other

144.2.1 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - Total number 
(1+2+3+4)

144.2.2 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 1. Breach of 
professional ethics 

144.2.3 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.2.4 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 3. Criminal offence

144.2.5 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 4. Other 

145.1.1 Sanctions against Judges - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.1.2 Sanctions against Judges - 1. Reprimand

145.1.3 Sanctions against Judges - 2. Suspension

145.1.4 Sanctions against Judges - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.1.5 Sanctions against Judges - 4. Fine

145.1.6 Sanctions against Judges - 5. Temporary reduction of salary

145.1.7 Sanctions against Judges - 6. Position downgrade

145.1.8 Sanctions against Judges - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.1.9 Sanctions against Judges - 8. Resignation

145.1.10 Sanctions against  Judges - 9. Other

145.1.11 Sanctions against  Judges - 10. Dismissal

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3

1

1

1

NAP

3

0

2

1

NAP

3

0

1

NAP

NAP

1

0

NAP

1

NAP

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

120 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

145.2.1 Sanctions against Prosecutors - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.2.2 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 1. Reprimand

145.2.3 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 2. Suspension

145.2.4 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.2.5 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 4. Fine

145.2.6 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 5. Temporary reduction of 
salary

145.2.7 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 6. Position downgrade

145.2.8 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.2.9 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 8. Resignation

145.2.10 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 9. Other

145.2.11 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 10. Dismissal

2

0

1

NAP

NAP

0

0

NAP

1

NAP

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lawyers

Tables 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.7 and 7.8

146.1.1 Total number of lawyers practising

17 336

17 795

18 134

18 402

18 532

18 604

18 658

18 905

18 875

8,9%

2,6%

1,9%

1,5%

0,7%

0,4%

0,3%

1,3%

-0,2%

146.2.1 Practicing lawyers - man

146.3.1 Practicing lawyers - woman

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

147 Does this figure include “legal advisors” who cannot represent 
their clients in court (for example, some solicitors or in-house 
counsellors)? 

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

121 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Belgium (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

166 Number of accredited or registered mediators who practice 
judicial mediation: 

167.1.1 Total number started

167. 1.2 Civil and commercial cases(cid:9) - started

167. 1.2 Family cases - started

167.1.4 Administrative cases - started

167.1.5 Labour cases including employment dismissal cases - started

167.1.6. Criminal cases - started

167.1.7 Consumer cases - started

Indicator 8: The existence and use of alternative dispute resolution methods

Table 8.1 8.2 and 8.3

1 134

1 157

1 352

1 457

1 454

1 744

2 122

2 399

2 577

127,2%

2,0%

16,9%

7,8%

-0,2%

19,9%

21,7%

13,1%

7,4%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Key: Variation of more than (+ -) 20% 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

122 / 1555

Population:

6 916 548

Judiciary at a glance in Bulgaria

General data

GDP 

per capita:

8 845 €

Professionals

Average annual 

salary:

8 509 €

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Bulgaria

Bulgaria

EU Median

EU Median

Professional judges

Professional judges

31,86

23,92

31,86

23,92

Non-judge staff

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

15,22

Lawyers

Lawyers

201,89

91,51

59,00

91,51

21,98

9,91

21,98
43,68
43,68

59,00

9,91

15,22

122,09

122,09

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual 
salary in the country

EU Median

Bulgaria

Bulgaria

EU Median

Judge at the beginning of a career 

2,94

5,20

2,02

5,20

4,09

3,61

2,94

Judge of the highest court 5,20

2,94

4,09

2,02
Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 
1,71
1,71

2,94

Public prosecutor at highest instance

5,20

3,61

201,89

Judge at the
beginning of a career

Judge of the highest
court

Prosecutor at the
beginning of a career

Public prosecutor at
highest instance

Efficiency

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

1st instance 2nd instance

,

%
7
2
0
1

NA

,

%
1
0
0
1

,

%
2
0
1
1

,

%
2
0
0
1

NA

Supreme Court
Supreme 
Court

%
4
8
9

,

%
2
9
9

,

,

%
6
2
0
1

102,7%

100,1%

100,2%

110,2%

98,4%

99,2%

102,6%

100%

Civil and
commercial
Administrativ
e
cases
Total 
criminal law 
cases

1
1

1

1
1

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance 2nd instance Supreme Court

Civil and commercial litigious cases
83
Administrative cases 124

NA

NA

Total criminal law cases 66
64

205

124

64

56

205
83

91
91

56

66

A
N

A
N

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

Administrative
cases

Total criminal law
cases

NA
NA
Civil and commercial litigious
cases

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

Information and communication technology

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

Assistance toolsCase management system
2018

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the workload
2019

Electronic communication

EU Median 2020

2020

2018
2019
2020

0,33
0,33
0,67

4,78

5,00

EU Median 2020

2,00

2,00

0,33

0,33

0,67

4,78
5,00
5,00
5,00

5,17

1,00
2,00
1,38

5,17

2,50
2,50
2,50

1,11
2,43
3,26

6,94

1,25

2,50

6,94

2,00

1,00

1,38

1,25

2,50

2,50

2,50

2,50

3,26

2,43

1,11

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

*ICT calculations are described in more details in Annex 5 - IT Calculation methodology

123

2020

Synthesis table for the main indicators for:

Bulgaria

Economic and demographic data

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Variations

Population

GDP per capita

Exchange rate (local currency needed to 
obtain 1€)

7 284 552

7 245 677

7 202 198

7 153 784

7 101 859

7 050 034

7 000 039

6 951 482

6 916 548

-5,1%

-1,4%

-1,4%

-0,7%

-0,7%

-0,5%

5 436

5 493

5 808

6 152

6 645

7 099

7 855

8 779

8 845

62,7%

14,4%

18,2%

10,6%

11,8%

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

Average annual salary

4 486

5 078

5 900

6 964

7 814

8 509

89,7%

16,2%

18,0%

12,2%

0,8%

0,0%

8,9%

Resources

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Professional judges per 100 000 inhab.

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhab.

30,7

82,6

30,2

82,2

30,8

83,5

31,1

85,9

31,8

86,9

31,7

88,1

31,8

89,5

31,9

91,0

31,6

91,5

2,7%

10,8%

Lawyers per 100 000 inh.

164,9

165,8

176,3

181,9

190,1

194,6

194,9

199,7

201,9

22,5%

Mediators

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

3,5

NA

4,4

NA

4,6

NA

3,0%

4,1%

7,8%

NA

0,0%

2,9%

2,5%

NA

0,2%

1,5%

0,1%

NA

0,3%

1,7%

2,5%

NA

26,1%

-0,9%

0,6%

1,1%

NA

4,4%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

NA

0,394

NA

0,4

NA

0,3

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0,370

0,353

0,444

0,445

0,500

0,424

7,6%

2,7%

26,0%

0,1%

12,3%

-15,1%

1,884

ICT overall assesment

First instance incoming cases per 100 
inhab.

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

First instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

CR administrative law cases

92%

109%

101%

99%

104%

95%

100%

99%

100%

CR total criminal law cases

98%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

NA

8,01

NA

3,37

NA

-4,50

NA

4,99

NA

-1,11

NA

1,57

First instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
cases (days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

First instance pending cases per 100 
inhab. on 31 dec.

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

NA

150

NA

110

NA

124

NA

122

NA

108

NA

116

NA

112

NA

107

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-17,6%

-12,7%

3,9%

-3,2%

-4,7%

15,9%

NA

124

66

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

NA

0,15

NA

0,12

NA

0,12

NA

0,12

NA

0,11

NA

0,13

NA

0,14

NA

0,14

NA

NA

NA

-3,6%

-7,4%

25,3%

NA

2,0%

NA

5,8%

NA

0,0%

NA

0,14

0,34

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

104%

102%

102%

101%

101%

101%

100%

-2,59

-0,79

-0,31

99%

NA

0,24

NA

-0,80

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

 Supreme court 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Supreme court
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

NA

65

NA

70

NA

62

NA

62

NA

59

NA

57

NA

64

56

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-3,3%

-4,8%

-3,7%

-4,5%

12,9%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

NA

95%

NA

96%

97%

95%

101%

96%

98%

103%

105%

100%

114%

110%

NA

-0,13

-1,95

5,41

-4,99

-4,80

2,36

14,12

4,84

-4,29

103%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

NA

133

NA

159

172

181

161

143

184

141

190

84

205

83

91

NA

6,9%

14,4%

3,4%

7,9%

36,0%

-22,1%

-1,7%

-40,3%

-1,4%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

124 / 1555

1. Judicial organisation in Bulgaria

In Bulgaria in 2020, the number of courts considered as legal entities is 182. Namely, there are 147 courts of general jurisdiction and 35 specialised courts. 

According to article 65 of the Judiciary System Act, “all courts are legal entities funded by the budget and shall be represented by the administrative head or another designated person. In the 
discharge of the functions of administrative head, orders, instructions and rules shall be issued in accordance with the statutory competence. The general assembly, the plenum of the Supreme 
Cassation Court and the Plenum of the Supreme Administrative Court shall be bodies of the respective court, which rule only in the cases specified in the law, give opinions, adopt rules and 
decisions by open ballot and a majority of more than half of the judges present”. 

Among the 147 legal entities of general jurisdiction, 113 District courts act as main first instance courts. They have jurisdiction over all cases except those which are statutorily assigned to 
another court. They deal with civil, criminal and administrative-criminal cases. The decisions of the district courts are subject to appeal before the respective Regional court. 

The 28 Provincial/Regional Courts act as courts of first and second instance. As courts of first instance, they examine a precisely defined category of cases involving significant sums or 
substantial societal interest. When acting as a second (appellate) instance, they re-examine decisions taken by the District courts. 

At second instance, besides the Regional courts, there are in Bulgaria 5 Courts of appeal.

The Supreme Cassation Court is the highest instance court of general jurisdiction. Its equivalent in administrative matters is the Supreme Administrative Court.

Among the 35 specialised courts, 33 act at first instance, while 3 are higher instance courts (see below for more details).  

In terms of geographic locations, there are 182 courts among which 145 are of first instance. 

Distribution of general courts in Bulgaria

Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Bulgaria - 1st instance

Bulgaria - Higher instances

BulgariaDistribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

EU Median - 1st instance

EU Median - Higher instances

According to 2020 data, the distribution between 1st instance and higher instances courts of general 
jurisdiction in Bulgaria is around the EU median of 87% - 13%.

Bulgaria - 1st instance

General courts - Bulgaria

Bulgaria - Higher instances

77%

23%

General courts - Bulgaria
EU Median

77%
87%

23%
13%

EU Median

87%

13%

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Bulgaria

Geographic 
locations

Legal entities

General jurisdiction

Specialised 
jurisdiction

170

170

168

175

182

182

182

182

182

113

113

113

113

113

113

113

113

113

34

34

32

32

32

32

32

32

32

200

150

100

50

0

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Bulgaria

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Bulgaria

Geographic locations
Legal entities General jurisdiction
Legal entities Specialised jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Distribution of first instance general jurisdiction and specialised courts

Ratio general jurisdiction vs specialised

22%

Bulgaria

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

78%

75%

22%

25%

78%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

EU Median

25%

75%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

The distribution between number of general jurisdiction courts and specialised courts of 77,9% - 22,1% is somewhat different from the EU median (distribution tendency 
in EU: 75,5% - 24,5%).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

125 / 1555

Specialised courts
Total

Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

Insolvency courts

Labour courts

Family courts

Rent and tenancies courts

Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

Internet related disputes

Administrative courts

Insurance and / or social welfare courts

Military courts

Juvenile courts

Other specialised 1st instance courts

First instance

Higher instance

32

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

28

NAP

3

NAP

1

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

1

NAP

1

The 35 specialised courts encompass the 28 Administrative courts as well as the Supreme Administrative Court; 3 military courts dealing with criminal cases of crimes committed by servicemen 
or officials of the Interior Ministry at first instance; 1 Military Court of Appeal; 2 other specialised courts.

More precisely, the category “other specialised courts” encompasses the Specialized Criminal Court of Republic of Bulgaria and the Specialized Court of appeal. The former has been 
established in 2011, is situated in Sofia and treated as a Provincial/Regional Court. Its jurisdiction covers criminal cases of a general nature for crimes carried out throughout the Republic of 
Bulgaria. Its competence is determined on the basis of the subject of the case and not the quality of the perpetrator. The Criminal Procedure Code exhaustively enumerates cases within the 
competence of this Court, namely crimes committed by organized criminal groups, or on behalf of them and following their decision. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

126 / 1555

 
2. Professionals of justice in Bulgaria

● Professional judges and non-judge staff

Evolution of the number of professional judges since 2012 (Q46)

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Absolute 
number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

2 239

2 191

2 220

2 225

2 255

2 235

2 223

2 215

2 184

30,74

30,24

30,82

31,10

31,75

31,70

31,76

31,86

31,58

EU median

23,9

30,74

30,24

30,82

31,10

31,75

31,70

31,76

31,86

31,58

Professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants

23,9

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

According to 2020 data, the total number of professional judges sitting in courts (all instances) in Bulgaria is 2 184, which is -1,4% less than in previous cycle.

More precisely, in Bulgaria, there are 31,58 professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants (this figure is above the EU median of 23,92 judges per 100 000 inhabitants) and about 2,90 non-
judge staff per judge .

There has been a small increase compared with previous cycle when this ratio was at 2,85 non-judge staff per judge.

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and gender

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

1 246

760

178

2 184

Distribution by 
instance

57,1%

34,8%

8,2%

Male

Female

% Male

% Female

435

255

42

732

811

505

136

1 452

34,9%

33,6%

23,6%

33,5%

65,1%

66,4%

76,4%

66,5%

Distribution of professional judges by instance

Bulgaria

EU Median

72,39%

EU Median

57,1%

72,39%

23,98%

4,03%

34,8%

23,98%

65,1%

66,4%

8,2%

4,03%

34,9%

33,6%

76,4%

23,6%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

% Male

66,5%

33,5%

Total

Distribution of professional judges by gender and by instance

% Female

In this cycle, the total number of female professional judges (all instances) is 1 452, which represents 66,5% of the total number of judges.

More generally, as regards the distribution male/female, it has to be pointed out that female judges have the majority at all court instances. 

The total number of judges is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 1 246 are sitting in first instance courts (of which 811 are female); 760 are sitting in 
second instance courts (of which 505 are female)  and 178 are sitting in Supreme Court (of which 136 are female).  

Compared with the EU distribution of professional judges per instance, the trend established in Bulgaria is similar. The main nuance is that the predominance of 1st instance judges is 
less pronounced. 

As regards the distribution of the number of judges among the different judicial instances, Bulgaria presents some peculiarities which should be mentioned11/01/2022 amely, the number 
of first instance professional judges encompasses the judges of the first instance courts as follows - 113 district, 28 administrative, 3 military-district and the Specialised Criminal Court; 
as well as the courts of second instance to be considered the 28 regional/provincial, 5 appellate, the Military Court of Appeal and the Specialised Criminal Court of Appeal.

A summary information on the data as of 31.12.2020, has been received by all regional courts and all administrative courts, regarding the number of judges working in the first instance 
panels and the number of judges, who administer justice in the appellate / cassation panels, as well as data on how many of them are men and how many of them are women. It should 
be borne in mind that, according to the information received, in almost all courts, a large number of judges sit both as first instance and as second instance judges. Therefore, the sum of 
the number of first instance judges and the number of second instance judges should not give the total number of magistrates in the respective region/ administrative court. 

In 2020, the number of professional judges from district courts is 959, incl. men - 354 and women - 605. The number of professional judges from the Court of Appeal is 124, incl. men - 43 
and women - 81.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

127 / 1555

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Total

Civil and commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

1 246

760

178

2 184

NA

NA

66

NA

NA

NA

28

NA

171

NAP

83

254

12

5

NAP

17

In Bulgaria, the distribution of judges per categories of cases is possible for some categories only as presented in the graph below.

Distribution of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Civil and 
commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

NA

NA

37,1%

NA

NA

NA

15,7%

NA

13,7%

NAP

46,6%

11,6%

1,0%

0,7%

NAP

0,8%

TRUE

TRUE

FALSE

FALSE

NA

2

NA

NA

NA

NA

The column "others" refers to the military judges - 12 regional/provincial and 5 appellate - a total of 17.

The total number of judges in the district courts is 959, and the same, with the exception of the Sofia District Court, are not divided by subject matter. Therefore, data related to the number 
of first instance judges dealing with civil / commercial and criminal cases are not available. 

A summary information on the data as of 31.12.2020 has been received by all regional/provincial courts (first and second instance) regarding the number of judges in them, who work in 
the civil, commercial and criminal divisions. It should be borne in mind that, according to the information received, in almost all courts, a large number of judges sit in more than one 
division, therefore the summation of the number of judges from the three divisions should not give the total number of judges in the respective court.  

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

128 / 1555

Non-judge staff

Year

2012

Number of non-judge staff

6 014

Per 100 000 inhabitants

82,56

2013

5 958

82,23

2014

6 014

83,50

2015

6 143

85,87

2016

6 174

86,93

2017

6 212

88,11

2018

6 262

89,46

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants

82,56

82,23

83,50

85,87

86,93

88,11

89,46

90,96

91,51

2020

Total

59,00

Rechtspfleger

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

Non-judge staff assisting the judge

Staff in charge of administrative tasks

Technical staff

Other

2019

6 323

90,96

Absolute 
number

6 329

NAP

4 697

968

627

37

E
U 
m

2020

6 329

91,51

in %

NAP

74,2%

15,3%

9,9%

0,6%

In 2020, Bulgaria has 6 329 non-judge staff (data on gender breakdown is not available). The total number of non-judge staff in comparison with the previous cycle reveals an increase of 
0,1%.

In this cycle, the non-judge staff is broken down as follows:

◦ 4 697 non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges such as registrars;
◦ 968 staff in charge of different administrative tasks and of the court management;
◦ 627 technical staff;
◦ 37 other;

In 2020, the number of non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants has increased (from 91,0 in 2019 to 91,5 in 2020).

During the same period, the number of judges per 100 000 inhabitants evolves from 31,9 judges per 100 000 inhabitants in 2019 to 31,6 in 2020.

Since 2012, the category “other” encompasses the number of non-judge staff employees working in the recreational field, while in 2010 it subsumes the number of court assistants. The 
Judicial Administration Commission does not keep statistics of those who are trained, as well as of trainee judges. There are junior judges in the courts in the country, for whom Judicial 
Administration Commission has no relation, no data. Accordingly, the total number of judicial employees in the courts does not include trainee judges. 

Professional judges, non-judge staff and their ratio (Q46, Q52)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Bulgaria

EU median

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

31,58

91,51

Non-judge staff per judge

2,90

23,92

59,00

3,30

Professional judges and non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Non-judge staff per judge

91,51

2,90

31,58

3,30

59,00

23,92

Bulgaria

EU median

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff  (Q46, Q52)

Judges 
per 100 000 inh.

Non-judge staff per
100 000 inh.

Ratio between professional judges and 
non-judge staff

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff 
Non-judge staff per 100 000 inh.
(Q46, Q52)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

30,74

30,24

30,82

31,10

31,75

31,70

31,76

31,86

31,58

82,56

82,23

83,50

85,87

86,93

88,11

89,46

90,96

91,51

EU median 2020

3,30

2,69

2,72

2,71

2,76

2,74

2,78

2,82

2,85

2,90

2,69

2,72

2,71

2012

2013

2014

2,69
2,72
2,71
2,76
2,74
2,78
2,82
2,85
2,90

2,76

2,74

2,78

2,82

2,85

2,90

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

129 / 1555

● Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff

Absolute number of public prosecutors by instance and gender (Q55)

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

884

514

122

1 520

Distribution by 
instance

Male

Female

58,2%

33,8%

8,0%

389

297

54

740

495

217

68

780

Male

44,0%

57,8%

44,3%

48,7%

Female

56,0%

42,2%

55,7%

51,3%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance

Bulgaria

EU Median

73,30%
EU Median

58,2%

73,30%

21,28%

4,66%

33,8%

21,28%

8,0%

4,66%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance and gender

Female

Male

56,0%

44,0%

42,2%

57,8%

55,7%

44,3%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

51,3%

48,7%

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female prosecutors (all instances) is 780, which represents 51,3% of the total number of prosecutors.

As regards the distribution male/female, it has to be specified that female prosecutors do not have the majority only at second instance level. 

The total number of prosecutors is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 884 in first instance (of which 495 are female); 514 are in second instance (of 
which 217 are female)  and 122 in final instance (of which 68 are female).  

As regards the methodology of presentation of data in respect of the number of prosecutors, it should be noticed that the provided data refers to the actual number of employed persons for 
the year of reference.

Non-prosecutor staff by gender (Q60)

Non-prosecutor staff

2020

Total

3 021

Male

NA

Female

NA

Public prosecutors, non-prosecutor staff and their ratio (Q55, Q60)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Bulgaria

EU median

Public prosecutors

21,98

Non-prosecutor staff

43,68

Non-prosecutor staff per 
prosecutor

1,99

9,91

15,22

1,11

Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Public prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per prosecutor

43,68

1,99

21,98

1,11

15,22

9,91

Bulgaria

EU median

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

130 / 1555

● Salaries of professional judges and prosecutors at beginning of a career and at the highest instance (Q132, Q4)

Salaries of professional judges and 
prosecutors (Q132, Q4)

Average gross annual 
salary 
in €

Average net annual 
salary 
in €

Ratio with national 
average annual 
gross salary

Judge at the beginning of a career 

24 990 €

22 491 €

Judge of the highest court 

44 214 €

39 793 €

Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

24 990 €

22 491 €

Public prosecutor at highest instance

44 214 €

39 793 €

2,94

5,20

2,94

5,20

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual salary in the 
country

EU Median

5,20

2,02

2,02
2,94

4,09

1,71

Salaries of 
judges and 
prosecutors in 
Judge

4,09

5,20

at the beginning 
of a career

24990

3,61

2,94

at the highest 
1,71
instance

44214

24990

Prosecutor

at the beginning 
of a career

Judge at the beginning of
career

Judge on highest instance

3,61

Bulgaria

Prosecutor at the
beginning of career

EU Median

at the highest 
instance

Prosecutor at highest
instance

44214

According to 2020 data, the absolute gross salary of a judge at the begining of a career in Bulgaria of 24 990€ is quite below when compared to the EU median of 51 946€. As a ratio with 
the annual average salary of the country, the salary for a judge at the begining of career is: 2,94 compared with the EU median of : 2,02.

At the end of career Bulgarian judges have the smallest absolute gross salary - 44 214€. In contrast, the highest value is recorded in Denmark - 236 387€.

It should be recalled that in 2019, with a decision of the Plenum of the SJC under item 6 of Protocol № 2 / 24.01.2019, an updated Table № 1 of the SJC was approved to determine the 
maximum basic monthly salaries of judges, prosecutors and investigators pursuant to Art. 218, para 2 and para 3 of the JSA with an increase of 10%, as of 01.01.2019. With the same 
decision the ranks for magistrates were increased by BGN 100 per rank, as of 01.03.2019.

In 2020, with a decision of the Plenum of the SJC under item 2 of Protocol № 2 / 30.01.2020, an updated Table 1 of the SJC was approved for determining the maximum basic monthly 
salaries of judges, prosecutors and investigators on the grounds of Article 218. , para 2 and para 3 of JSA with an increase of 10%, as of 01.01.2020. With the same decision the ranks for 
magistrates were increased by BGN 50 per rank, as of 01.03.2020.

● Lawyers

Lawyers

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

Number of lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

12 010

12 010

12 696

13 013

13 500

13 720

13 640

13 880

13 964

164,87

165,75

176,28

181,90

190,09

194,61

194,86

199,67

201,89

EU median 2020

122,09

In 2020, there are 13 964 lawyers, which is 0,6% more than in 2019.

164,87

165,75

176,28

181,90

190,09

194,61

194,86

199,67

201,89

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

122,09

EU median
2020

Bulgaria has 201,9 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants, which is above the EU median of 122,1 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

131 / 1555

● Judicial professionals (summary)

Judicial professionals in absolute number and per 100 000 inhabitants (Q46, Q52, Q55, Q60, Q146)

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

EU Median

Professional judges

2 215

31,86

Non-judge staff

6 329

91,51

Prosecutors

1 520

21,98

23,92

59,00

9,91

Non-prosecutor staff

3 021

43,68

15,22

Lawyers

13 964

201,89

122,09

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Bulgaria

EU Median

201,89

122,09

91,51

59,00

31,86

23,92

21,98

9,91

43,68

15,22

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

Professional judges

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

Bulgaria % Male Bulgaria % Femalelabels
Bulgaria % Male
EU Median  % Male

-33,5%

Bulgaria % Female
EU Median  % Female

66,5%

33,5%

% Male

% Female

Professional judges

33,5%

-39,0%

61,0%

39,0%

Professional judges

33,5%

66,5%

Non judge staff

NA

NA

Prosecutors

48,7%

51,3%

Non-prosecutor staff

NA

NA

Lawyers

47,2%

52,8%

66,5%

61,0%

59,5%

39,0%

0,0%

Non judge staff

#VALUE!

NA

#VALUE!

Prosecutors

48,7%

-24,0%

76,0%

24,0%

51,3%

40,5%

Prosecutors

-48,7%
-40,5%

Lawyers

47,2%

Non-prosecutor staff #VALUE!

NA

52,3%

Lawyers

-28,1%

-47,2%
-52,3%

0,0%

48,7%
40,5%
0,0%

#VALUE!

28,1%
0,0%
47,2%
52,3%

51,3%
59,5%

71,9%

52,8%
47,7%

52,8%

47,7%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

132 / 1555

3. Legal aid and court fees in Bulgaria

0

0

In Bulgaria, legal aid includes:

◦ Coverage of court fees: 

◦ Exemption from court fees: 

In Bulgaria, legal aid is available for :

> Representation in court:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

> Legal advice, ADR and other legal services:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

>

Fees related to enforcement of judicial decisions as fees for enforcement agents (Q18) 

>

 Other costs than above (Q19) 

1

1

1

1

0

1

Legal aid is granted only to natural persons, in criminal, civil and administrative matters before courts of all instances. 

Legal aid authorities are the Ministry of Justice which conducts the State policy in the sphere of legal aid; the National Legal Aid Bureau /NLAB/ which provides general and 
methodological guidance of the activity concerning the granting of legal aid by issuing mandatory instructions on the application of the Act and the statutory instruments of 
secondary legislation; the Bar Councils which organize and administer legal aid within the respective geographical jurisdiction (network of Regional Counseling Centers / RCCs /, 
established at thirteen bar councils in the country); the authority directing the procedural steps, the court or the relevant police or customs authority which decide whether to grant 
legal aid or not in civil or administrative cases. Consultations are provided as well as through the National Telephone for Legal Aid at the NLAB. The NLAB grants or refuses 
granting legal aid for a consultation with a view to reaching a settlement prior to bringing legal proceedings or to bringing a case before a court and/or preparation of documents 
for a trial. 

The types of legal aid are: pre-litigation advice with a view to reaching a settlement prior to bringing legal proceedings or to bringing a case before a court; preparation of 
documents for bringing a case before a court; representation in court by legal counsel; representation upon detention under Article 72 of the Ministry of Interior Act and under 
Article 16a of the Customs Act and under Art. 124b, para. 1 of the Law on the State Agency for National Security. 

The legal aid system covers cases in which the assistance of a lawyer, a stand-by defence counsel or representation is mandatory as provided for by the Criminal Procedure 
Code, the Civil Procedure Code and the Administrative Procedure Code. Legal aid system covers also cases in which the applicant is unable to pay for a lawyer, wishes to benefit 
of a legal assistance, and the interests of the justice require such legal assistance. Legal aid for alternative dispute resolution (ADR) does not apply.

The travel expenses of an official defence counsel are covered by the budget for legal aid administering. 

According to article 38 (5) of the Legal Aid Act, the appointed lawyer shall furthermore be reimbursed for the necessary expenses on the defence, incurred for visit to the places of 
deprivation of liberty or to detention facilities and on defence in another nucleated settlement according to the procedure established by the Ordinance on Domestic Business 
Trips.

 Number of cases for which legal aid has been granted

Absolute number 
(in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

Total

Cases brought to court

Cases not brought to 
court

NA

NA

NA

31 866

29 002

2 864

NA

NA

NA

Ratio of number of cases brought to court for which legal aid 
has been granted

In criminal cases

######### NA

In other than criminal
cases

######### NA

286400,0% NA

According to the Bulgarian Law on Legal Aid / LPA / there are four types of legal aid: 1. preliminary legal aid for consultation with a view to reaching an agreement before the 
commencement of court proceedings or for filing a case; 2. preparation of documents for filing a case; 3. legal aid for procedural representation in an already initiated case in the 
court or in the pre-trial bodies; 4. legal assistance in case of detention under the Law on the Ministry of Interior and under the Law on Customs, which is a representation by a 
lawyer before pre-trial criminal proceedings are instituted. 

Against the background of the above clarification, it should be noted that the provided data is only in respect of the legal aid for procedural representation in an already initiated 
case in the court or in the pre-trial bodies.

Timeframes of the procedure for granting legal aid (in relation to the duration from the initial legal aid request to the final approval of the legal aid request)

◦ Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulations: 

◦ Actual average duration: 

14

7

The term of 14 days is provided in the Law on Legal Aid, in force from January 1, 2006 / SG no. 79 of 2005. The actual average duration- up to 7 days

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

133 / 1555

4. Performance of courts in Bulgaria

● Efficiency indicators

◦ Clearance Rate (CR) and Disposition Time (DT)

The Clearance Rate shows the capacity of a judicial system to deal with the incoming cases. A Clearance Rate of 100% and higher does not generate backlog. 

The Disposition Time determines the estimated number of days necessary for a pending case to be solved in a court. 

First instance Total of other than criminal cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Evolution of number of all other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants
Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Incoming

9
3
5

,

2
3
5

,

8
8
4

,

2
9
4

,

3
4
4

,

2
5
4

,

3
8
4

,

8
7
4

,

9
7
4

,

3
7
4

,

4
6
5

,

9
4
5

,

1
4
5

,

8
2
5

,

3
4
5

,

8
0
1

,

5
0
1

,

7
9
0

,

3
0
1

,

9
0
1

,

5
2
1

,

1
3
1

,

5,39

4,88

4,43

4,83

8
3
5

,

4,79

5,64

5,32

4,92

4,52

4,78

4,73

5,49

1
5
4

,

5
5
4

,

5,41

7
3
1

,

5,43

5,28

4
3
1

,

5,38

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

4,51

2019

6,82

2020

4,55

6,60

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Bulgaria (4,51 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below the EU median (6,82 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Bulgaria (4,55 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below the EU median (6,60 per 100 inhabitants).

1,08

1,05

0,97

0
6
6

,

1,03

1,09

2
8
6

,

1,25

6
6
2

,

1,31

1,37

1,34

EU median

2,66

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Bulgaria (1,34 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below the EU median (2,66 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Other than criminal cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Other than criminal 
cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

99%

101%

102%

99%

99%

97%

98%

99%

74

78

78

78

84

83

91

93

101%

107

EU median

99%

109

99%

101%

102%

99%

99%

97%

98%

99%

101%

99%

DT (days)

CR (%)

74

78

78

78

84

83

91

93

107

109

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 100,9% in 2020 Bulgaria seems to be able to deal with its other than criminal cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased by 1,8 points.

In 2020, other than criminal cases are solved in approximately 107 days, which is slightly below the EU median of 109 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 15,3% increase of the Disposition Time.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

134 / 1555

First instance Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

Data on civil (and commercial) litigious cases is not available. In fact, the division by types of cases in the statistical forms published by the Supreme Judicial Council of 
Bulgaria is quite different from the CEPEJ categorisation and for that reason breakdown cannot be made. Only administrative cases are possible to differentiate due to 
existence of administrative courts. 

As it is impossible to distinguish between litigious and non-litigious civil cases for the present, for 2020 the following data is available as to the sum of all civil and 
commercial litigious and non-litigious cases: pending at the beginning 85 460; incoming 282 768, resolved 285 461 and pending at the end of the year 82 767. 

It is noteworthy that since 2020, the Unified Court Information System (UIS) has been gradually introduced in all courts, developed within the project “Creating a Model for 
Optimizing the Court Card of Bulgarian Courts and Prosecutor's Offices and Developing a Unified Court Information System” with the financial support of Operational 
Program "Good Governance" 2014-2020. Depending on the functionalities of the system, it is possible to collect information on the next cycle according to the indicators 
in question 91.

Accordingly, no efficiency indicator can be calculated for Bulgaria for 2020 in respect of this case category.  

First instance Administrative cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of administrative cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

9
3
0

,

6
3
0

,

0
4
0

,

6
3
0

,

4
3
0

,

5
3
0

,

7
3
0

,

7
3
0

,

7
3
0

,

5
3
0

,

4
4
0

,

2
4
0

,

4
4
0

,

4
4
0

,

0
5
0

,

,

9
4
0

0,39
0,36
0,34
0,37
0,35
0,44
0,44
0,50
0,42
0,30

5
1
0

,

2
1
0

,

2
1
0

,

2
1
0

,

1
1
0

,

3
1
0

,

4
1
0

,

4
1
0

,

2
4
0

,

2
4
0

,

0,36
0,40
0,35
0,37
0,37
0,42
0,44
0,49
0,42
0,26

4
1
0

,

0
3
0

,

0,15
0,12
0,12
0,12
0,11
0,13
0,14
0,14
0,14
0,21

1
2
0

,

6
2
0

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Bulgaria (0,42 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat above the EU median (0,30 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Bulgaria (0,42 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly above the EU median (0,26 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Bulgaria (0,14 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below the EU median (0,21 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Administrative cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

92,1%

108,6%

100,8%

99,0%

104,2%

94,7%

99,7%

98,6%

100,1%

150

110

124

122

108

116

112

107

124

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Administrative cases

108,6%

100,8%

99,0%

104,2%

92,1%

94,7%

99,7%

98,6%

100,1%

100%

DT (days)

CR (%)

EU Median
With a Clearance Rate calculated at 100,1% in 2020, Bulgaria seems to be able to deal with its administrative cases.

100%

388

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

150

110

124

122

108

116

112

2018

107

2019

124

388

2020

EU Median

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased for 1,6 points.

In 2020, the administrative cases are solved in approximately 124 days, which is significantly below the EU median of 388 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 15,9% increase of the Disposition Time.

The number of administrative law cases older than 2 years is not available.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

135 / 1555

Insolvency cases

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Insolvency cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Insolvency cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

82,8%

99,8%

112,9%

110,1%

95,2%

110,2%

124,0%

100,2%

89,2%

323

282

304

282

308

283

238

237

281

EU Median

105%

281

DT (days)

CR (%)

124,0%

99,8%

82,8%

112,9%

110,1%

110,2%

95,2%

100,2%

89,2%

105%

323

2012

282

2013

304

2014

282

2015

308

2016

283

2017

238

2018

237

2019

281

281

2020

EU Median

The Clearance Rate was calculated at 89,2% in 2020 for insolvency cases, Bulgaria seems to encounter difficulties in dealing with its insolvency cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -10,9 points.

In 2020, insolvency cases are solved in a approximately 281 days, which is the EU median of 281 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 18,7% increase of the Disposition Time.

The increased number of pending “insolvency cases” affecting negatively the efficiency indicators for 2020 could be the result of the epidemiological situation in the 
country related to the spread of COVID - 19, as well as to the emergency measures introduced by the Government of the Republic of Bulgaria.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

136 / 1555

● First instance Criminal Law Cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

21 184

130 282

128 186

23 280

Incoming cases Resolved casesPending 

Bulgaria

1,88

1,85

0,34

Total criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

EU Median

1,60

1,48

0,46

Severe criminal cases 

Misdemeanour and/or 
minor cases

Other cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Incoming cases

Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

8
8
1

,

5
8
1

,

0
6
1

,

8
4
1

,

Per 100 inhabitants

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

4
3
0

,

6
4
0

,

Total

0,31

1,88

1,85

0,34

Severe criminal 
cases 
Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Bulgaria

EU Median

The number of total incoming criminal cases in 2020 in Bulgaria (1,88 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly above the EU median (1,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total resolved criminal cases in 2020 in Bulgaria (1,85 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat above the EU median (1,48 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total pending criminal cases at the end of 2020 in Bulgaria (0,34 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below the EU median (0,46 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Total criminal law cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Total

98,4%

Severe criminal 
cases 

Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

NA

NA

NA

66

NA

NA

NA

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT)

DT (days)

CR (%)

Total Criminal law cases

98,4%

95,2%

EU Median

95,2%

139

EU Median

66

Total

139

EU Median

With the Clearance Rate calculated at 98,4% in 2020 for total criminal cases, Bulgaria seems to be able to deal with its total criminal cases.

In 2020, criminal law cases were solved in approximately 66 days, which is significantly below EU median of 139 days.

For most of the crimes, the Bulgarian Criminal Code provides for a deprivation of liberty, which makes the distinction hard to be made. The offences could be divided into 
two categories: common offences and offences subject to private prosecution. For the common offences, the search of responsibility is subordinated to the common 
regime (there is a public interest concerned or public interest and personal goods). Such are the crimes against individuals (homicide, grievous or intermediate bodily 
harm, rape, fornication and etc.), crimes against the property (the list is not exhaustive). As to the offences subject to private prosecution, the criminal proceedings are 
initiated upon a complaint by the affected person (personal interests of the affected person, and usually the affected person and the perpetrator are close relatives). 
Those offences have a lower degree of public danger and affect less the rights of the concerned person. Such offences are the minor bodily injury, the insult, the slander 
and etc.

 It should be noticed that since 2020, the Unified Court Information System (UIS) has been gradually introduced in all courts, developed within the project “Creating a 
Model for Optimizing the Court Card of Bulgarian Courts and Prosecutor's Offices and Developing a Unified Court Information System” with the financial support of 
Operational Program "Good Governance" 2014-2020. Depending on the functionalities of the system, it may be possible to collect information on the next cycle according 
to the indicators mentioned in question 94.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

137 / 1555

Overall efficiency by instance and by case matter

CR (%)

DT (days)

CR (%)

DT (days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases

NA

NA

102,7%

Administrative cases

100,1%

100,2%

110,2%

Total criminal law cases

98,4%

99,2%

102,6%

NA

124

66

NA

64

56

205

83

91

1st instance

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)
2nd instance
1st instance
%
7
2
0
1

2nd instance
%
2
0
1
1

,

,

,

,

%
2
0
0
1

%
1
0
0
1

100%

Civil and
commercial
Administrative cases

NA

NA

100,1%

100,2%

Supreme Court

Supreme Court

%
4
8
9

,

%
2
9
9

,

,

%
6
2
0
1

102,7%
110,2%

A
Total criminal law cases
N

A
N

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1

1
1

205

83

64

124

91

56

66

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

Administrative cases
99,2%

98,4%

Total criminal law cases
102,6%

Civil and commercial litigious
cases
1

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

For the reasons explained above, concerning civil and commercial litigious cases, the efficiency indicators can be calculated only with regard to the Supreme Cassation 
Court. The latter proved to be efficient in these matters as well as in the criminal law field in 2020 with a Clearance Rate above the 100% threshold and a Disposition 
Time of respectively 205 days and 91 days which are below the EU medians of 224 and 120 days. 

In 2020, Bulgarian courts seem to be particularly efficient and prompt in administrative matters. As the graph above shows it, at all court instances, the Clearance Rate is 
above 100%, while the Disposition Time is considerably below the respective EU medians (388 days at first instance; 362 days at second instance and 281 days at third 
instance). More specifically, regarding the Supreme Administrative Court (SAC), the number of pending administrative cases decreased meaningfully in 2020 due to the 
reorganization of the work process. Namely, by issuing an internal order, the Chairman/President of the SAC increased the workload of each judge to achieve these 
results.

As to the criminal law field, the efficiency indicators are satisfactory at all instances in 2020, with a Clearance Rate above or close to the 100% and a Disposition Time 
considerably below the respective EU medians (139 days at first instance, 101 days at second instance and 120 days at third instance).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

138 / 1555

5. Public prosecution services in Bulgaria

● Role and powers of the public prosecutor

In the criminal procedure, the public prosecutor in Bulgaria has the following 10 out of 11 possible roles and powers:

To conduct or supervise police investigation

To appeal

To conduct investigations

To supervise the enforcement procedure

When necessary, to request investigation measures from the judge

To discontinue a case without needing a decision by a judge

To charge

To present the case in the court

To propose a sentence to the judge

To end the case by imposing or negotiating a penalty or measure 
without requiring a judicial decision

Other significant powers

Pursuant to the Constitution of the Republic of Bulgaria (art.127), the Prosecutor’s Office shall ensure that legality is observed by exercising other powers as well: by taking actions 
for revoking all unlawful acts; by participating in civil and administrative proceedings under the cases provided by the law.

In accordance with the Judicial System Act (art.145), in discharging the functions stipulated by the law, the prosecutor may: conduct checks in person; if there are data on criminal 
offences or legally non-conforming instruments and actions, assign the respective authorities to conduct checks and audits within a time limit set by the prosecutor, submitting 
thereto conclusions and, upon request, the full set of materials as well; transmit the materials to the competent authority, where establishing that there are grounds to enforce 
liability or to apply coercive administrative measures, which the prosecutor cannot implement in person; apply the measures provided for by the law if there are data that a publicly 
prosecutable offence or another breach of the law may be committed. Within the competence thereof and in accordance with the law, a prosecutor may give binding written orders 
to the police authorities. The prosecutor shall appeal and motion for the reversal or modification of legally non-conforming instruments within the time limit and according to the 
procedure provided for by law. The prosecutor may stay the enforcement of an instrument until the appeal is examined by the authority concerned, if so provided for by law.

Besides, the public prosecutor may: suspend criminal proceedings in certain cases; assign the respective bodies of the Ministry of Interior, the State Agency for National Security, 
the Commission for Combating Corruption and Confiscation of Illegally Acquired Property or the Customs Agency with establishing the identity of, and tracing down the perpetrator 
when the perpetrator of a criminal offence is unknown; the prosecutor may take the materials concerning non-identified and non-located individuals in a separate case where 
evidence is collected in the case of the involvement of more individuals; the prosecutor may take materials concerning some of the offences in a separate case where evidence is 
collected in the case of several criminal offences committed by one and the same individual. A prosecutor at a higher position and a prosecutor with a higher prosecution office 
may revoke in writing or amend the decrees of prosecutors directly reporting to him/her. In such cases s/he may take the necessary investigative or other procedural action alone. 
The Prosecutor-General exercises supervision for legality of and provide methodological guidance for the operation of all prosecutors.

The public prosecutor also has a role in civil, administrative and insolvency cases, namely concerning the submission of claims for the dissolution of non-profit associations and 
political parties, if the legal prerequisites for this are present.

In regard to insolvency cases, the prosecutor participates in the examination of commercial cases in the case of the termination of trading companies.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

139 / 1555

 
● Public prosecutors: Number of first instance criminal cases

Type of cases

Absolute 
number

Per 100 
inhabitants

1. Pending cases on 1 Jan. ref. year 

4 695

0,07

2. Incoming/received cases

100 508

1,45

3. Processed cases (3.1 + 3.2 + 3.3 + 3.4)

142 299

2,06

Bulgaria

Incoming/received cases

Processed cases

Public prosecutors: Total number of first instance criminal 
Incoming/rec
cases per 100 inhabitants
eived cases

Processed 
cases

Pendin
g cases 
on 31 
Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. Year
2,85
1,45 2,06

0,06

2,84

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year (3.1.1 + 3.1.2 + 3.1.3 
+ 3.1.4)

74 567

1,08

3.1.1 Discontinued by the public prosecutor because the 
offender could not be identified 

NAP

NAP

3.1.2 Discontinued by the public prosecutor due to the lack 
of an established offence or a specific legal situation 

74 567

1,08

3.1.3 Discontinued by the public prosecutor for reasons of 
opportunity

NAP

NAP

3.1.4 Discontinued for other reasons 

NAP

NAP

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated 
by the public prosecutor

NAP

NAP

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons

39 853

0,58

3.4. Cases brought to court

27 879

0,40

2,06

1,45

EU Median

2,85 2,84

0,84

0,84

0,06

Bulgaria

EU Median

Processed cases per 100 inhabitants
EU Median

Bulgaria

Processed cases

Bulgaria

EU Median

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

1,08

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

1,05

-1,08

1,05

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed
or negotiated by the public prosecutor

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor

NAP

0,12

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other
reasons

0,30
3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons
0,30

0,58
-0,58

0,00

0,12

4. Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. year

4 119

0,06

3.4. Cases brought to court

3.4. Cases brought to court

0,40
-0,40

0,53

0,53

Few methodological clarifications have to be carried out here.

The number of pending cases at the beginning of the year refers to the unresolved pre-trial proceedings (PTPs) by a prosecutor as of 1 January of the reference year. 

The number of incoming cases encompasses the closed PTPs. 

The processed cases are the decided PTPs by a prosecutor. 

The discontinued during the reference year cases are the terminated PTPs (including those by prescription).

Discontinued by the public prosecutor cases due to the lack of an established offence or a specific legal situation are the terminated PTPs, incl. those by prescription.

Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons are the suspended PTPs, as well as the PTPs sent by competence (for the respective prosecutor's office, although these 
cases are essentially unresolved, they are closed). It is not obligatory for the prosecutor's office, which sent the case within its competence, to conduct a full investigation. If a 
ground for the competence of another prosecutor's office is established under the rules of local, functional or special competence, the case shall be sent to the respective 
prosecutor's office for continuation of the investigation. The grounds for determining the competence are exhaustively specified in the CPC (Chapter Four, Section II of the CPC, 
Article 35 et seq. Of the CPC, Article 195 of the CPC, Articles 396-398 of the CPC, Article 411a of the CPC). Regarding the cases sent by competence, the mathematical 
calculation for collecting the values is not applicable for the two prosecutor's offices - one that sent it by competence (according to the rules of local, functional or special 
competence), for which the case was decided “closed case for other reasons“and the other, which accepted it within its competence, if at the end of the year the same case 
remained pending, the latter is included in the above data.

Cases brought to court are the submitted PDs in the court.

The number of pending cases at the end of the year refers to the unresolved pre-trial proceedings by a prosecutor. 

Concerning the increase in the number of processed cases between 2018 and 2020, the number of "cases closed by the prosecutor for other reasons", taken into consideration for 
this cycle, makes the difference.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

140 / 1555

 
6. Existence and use of alternative dispute resolution in Bulgaria

Number of mediators

The information about the number of registered court-related mediators is not available (NA). As of July 2021 the total number of mediators registered in the 
Unified Register of Mediators at the Ministry of Justice is 2767 (for 2020 the number of newly registered is 233). 

Number of court related mediations

Type of cases

All cases

Civil and commercial

Family cases

Administrative

Employment dismissal

Criminal cases

Consumer cases

Number of cases 
for which the parties
agreed to start 
mediation

Number of finished 
court-related
mediations

Number of cases 
in which there is a 
settlement agreement

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

141 / 1555

7. ICT tools of courts in Bulgaria

●The ICT tools of courts and for court users

The use of ICT in courts in 2020 has been evaluated as  :

EU Median

Total 
(0 to 10)

Assistance tools (0 to 3)

Case management system (0 to 7)
Financial management tools (0 to 3)

Measurement tools to assess the workload (0 to 5)
Electronic communication (0 to 10)

4,6
0,7

5,0

1,4
2,5

3,3

6,6
2,0

5,2

1,3
2,5

6,9

The calculation of this values for each field is based on the answers for that question/s and weighted according the avaiability 
or deployment rate. The total value is normalised to max 10 points for readability and comparison.

The details of the calculation are given in Annex 5 - IT calculations

The result by area may be summarized in these graphics, where each field has been evaluated from 0 to 4 points.

Note: index is modified based on the available questions. This cycle the recalculation was made for the last three cycles to be 
able to follow the development.

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

2018

2019

2020

EU Median 2020

Case 
management 
system

2,00

Assistance 
tools

Year
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
EU Median 20202,00

0,33

0,33

0,33

0,67

0,33
Assistance tools
0,67

Financial 
management 
5,00
tools
4,78

5,00

Measurement 
tools to assess 
5,17
the workload

Electronic 
communication

6,94

4,78

5,00

5,00

1,00

2,00

2,50

2,50

Case management system

1,38

2,50

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

1,38

1,25

1,00

2,00

1,11

2,43

Financial management tools

3,26

2,50

2,50

2,50

2,50

3,26

2,43

1,11

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

Concerning the existence of writing assistance tools, pursuant to Article 55 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Minister of Justice issues an 
ordinance approving the samples of all papers related to service. The amendment of the samples is done by amending and supplementing the 
ordinance.

As concerns the existence of measurement tools on workload, it is noteworthy that with a decision of the Prosecutors Chamber with the Supreme 
Judicial Council of Bulgaria (SJC) dated 18.12.2019, as of 01.01.2020, Rules for measuring the workload of the prosecutor's offices and the 
individual workload of each prosecutor and investigator have been adopted. With a decision of the SJC of 16.12.2015, Rules for assessment of the 
workload of judges have been adopted.

The instruments do not refer to court employees, but only to judges, prosecutors and investigators within the prosecutor's offices and courts in the 
Republic of Bulgaria.

In terms of electronic communication, the possibility for summoning and receiving documents and communications electronically in the 
administrative proceedings is provided in Art. 18a, para. 4 of the APC with amendment and supplement of the code, promulgated. in SG, no. 77 of 
2018, in force since October 10, 2019.

With regard to civil/coomercial proceedings, an important update of the legislation was made in connection with the regulation of the possibility to 
serve summonses, notices and court papers by e-mail. On December 29, 2020, the Law for amendment and supplement of the Civil Procedure 
Code was promulgated, which for the most part enters into force on June 30, 2021.

In respect of criminal proceedings, the latest amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code stipulate that a message containing information for 
downloading the summons, the message or the papers from the information system for secure service or from the single portal for e-justice is sent 
to the e-mail address indicated by the person. ( in force from 30.06.2021).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

142 / 1555

8. Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and public prosecution services in Bulgaria

In Bulgaria, quality standards are determined for the judicial system at national level (e.g. quality systems for the judiciary and/or judicial quality policies). Specialised personnel 
within the courts and the public prosecution services is entrusted with implementation of these national level quality standards.

The Supreme Judicial Council, through its Commission for Attestation/Appraisal and Competitions at the Judges College/Chamber of the Supreme Judicial Council and the 
Commission for Attestation/Appraisal and Competitions at the Prosecutorial College/Chamber, are the bodies that perform an objective assessment of the professional, business 
and moral qualities of magistrates.

According to its article 4, the Ordinance № 2 from 23.02.2017 on the indicators, methodology and procedure for appraisal of a judge, chairman and deputy chairman of a court 
aims: 1. to affirm the rule of law and ensure effective protection of the rights of judges; 2. to ensure a lawful, transparent and fair procedure for career growth; 3. to increase the 
personal motivation for professional development of the judges, to maintain and improve the quality of their work; 4. to prevent corruption in the system of the judiciary; 5. to 
contribute to increasing the trust in the judiciary. The appraisal is an objective assessment of the professional, business and moral qualities of a judge, chairman and deputy 
chairman of a court, demonstrated in the performance of his position. A unified appraisal form for a judge, chairman and deputy chairman of a court shall be filled in according to a 
sample pursuant to the appendix for the assessment as a result of the appraisal (art.5). The appraisal guarantees professional self-improvement, equal and fair opportunities for 
the career growth of judges, based on the principles of legality, equality, objectivity and transparency (art.6). The appraisal may not affect the independence and fundamental rights 
of judges (art.7). The appraisal shall refer to the qualification, the achievements and the professional suitability, as well as the observance of the rules for ethical behavior by a 
judge, chairman and deputy chairman of a court. The qualification is a set of the acquired professional knowledge, skills and personal abilities of the appraised. The achievements 
are the personal qualitative and quantitative results, achieved by the appraised in his practical activity. Professional suitability is the specific qualification for a specifically defined 
position. The observance of the rules for ethical conduct is a conduct, compliant with the rules of the respective code of ethics (art.8).

According to art. 196 of the Judiciary System Act, the appraisal shall be carried out: 1. initial - for a three-year period as of the appointment of a judge, prosecutor or investigator - 
when participating in a competition or in case of a proposal for promotion in ranking; 2. for the purpose of acquiring tenure: upon completion of five years’ service as a judge, 
prosecutor or investigating magistrate; 3. periodic - for a 5-year period as of the attestation for tenure of a judge, prosecutor and investigator, of an administrative head and a 
deputy administrative head; 4. extraordinarily: in the cases under Article 197 (5). Junior judges, junior prosecutors and junior investigators shall not undergo initial appraisal. A 
report on their work shall be drawn up by the supervisor for the second year of their appointment.

According to article 198 of the Judiciary system Act, the criteria for the appraisal of a judge, prosecutor or an investigating magistrate shall be: legal knowledge and skills of 
applying it; skill of analysing legally relevant facts; skill of making optimum working arrangements; efficiency and discipline; compliance with the rules of ethical behaviour. In the 
course of the appraisal the following indicators shall be taken into account: keeping deadlines; number of instruments upheld and reversed and the grounds for this; the results of 
inspections carried out by the Inspectorate with the Supreme Judicial Council; the overall caseload of the respective judicial district and judicial authority, as well as the workload of 
the appraised judge, prosecutor or investigating magistrate compared to other judges, prosecutors or investigating magistrates in the same judicial authority. The time served by 
the judge, prosecutor or investigating magistrate as a permanent trainer at the National Institute of Justice shall also be included in the appraisal period. The evaluation of the work 
performance as a trainer shall be given by the Managing Board. The time served by the judge, prosecutor or investigating magistrate as a European Delegated Prosecutor shall 
also be included in the appraisal period. The evaluation of the results of their work under Regulation (EU) 2017/1939 shall become part of their appraisal.

Article. 199 specifies that a judge shall be appraised under the following specific criteria:  complying with the schedule for conduct of court hearings; skill of conducting a court 
hearing and drawing up a record of proceedings; administrating cases and appeals, preparing for a court hearing; number of appealed judicial instruments from among the 
appealable judicial instruments, appealed judicial instruments upheld, judicial instruments reversed or invalidated, in whole or in part, and the grounds for it; the ability to reason 
and justify judicial instruments and to analyse evidence shall be subject to evaluation. A prosecutor shall be appraised under the following specific criteria: skills of planning and 
structuring steps in pre-trial and trial proceedings; complying with the written instructions and orders of the superior prosecutor; ability to make working arrangements and direct the 
investigating authorities and the teams participating in pre-trial proceedings; number of non-appealed prosecutorial instruments, including warrants to terminate and suspend 
criminal proceedings, number of final judicial instruments rendered on instruments submitted by the prosecutor appraised, as well as the final judicial instruments returning cases 
for the rectification of procedural breaches, and the reasons for this, number of appeals granted, the prosecutorial instruments upheld, modified and reversed upon an instance and 
ex officio review. An investigating magistrate shall be appraised under the following specific criteria: skills of planning and structuring steps in pre-trial proceedings; complying with 
the written instructions and orders of the prosecutor; correspondence of the prosecutorial instruments with the opinion of the investigating magistrate after the conclusive 
completion of the investigation and final disposal of the cases returned for further investigation.

● Systems for measuring and evaluating courts' performance

A regular monitoring system of court activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

In Bulgaria, there is a system to regularly evaluate the court performance based primarily on defined indicators and the frequency of the reporting is annual.

The Inspectorate to the Supreme Judicial Council (ISJC) is a body of the judicial system of the Republic of Bulgaria established under art. 132a of the Constitution of the Republic 
of Bulgaria /published in State Gazette N.12 from 6th February 2007/. The Inspectorate to the Supreme Judicial Council is an independent body with the primary function of 
examining the operation of the judicial bodies without affecting their independence. Art. 54, para. 1 of the Judicial Power Act assigns powers to the Inspectorate to the Supreme 
Judicial Council.

The Inspectorate annually, not later than the end of March of the current year, adopts a program for the planned inspections.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each court.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

The evaluation of the courts' activities is not used for the later allocation of means in the courts.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

143 / 1555

● Systems for measuring and evaluating public prosecution services' performance

A regular monitoring system of public prosecution services activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases 

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs 

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecution) 

Costs of the judicial procedures 

Clearance rate 

Disposition time 

Percentage of convictions and aquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

Monitoring, through the reports and analyzes of the Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Bulgaria and individual prosecutors, of the activities of the Prosecutor's Office is carried 
out only in terms of number of incoming cases, length of proceedings (timeframes), number of resolved cases, number of pending cases, backlogs and percentage of convictions 
and acquittals.

In Bulgaria, there is a system to evaluate regularly the activity of each public prosecution service and the reporting is more frequent than annual.
With the Guidance for the Organization of the Information Activities at the Prosecutor’s Office of the Republic of Bulgaria, all indicators for the activity of the Prosecutor’s Office are 
regulated, as well as the obligation of all prosecutor’s offices to prepare only a statistical report for the first half of the year, as well as analytical annual reports for their activity. The 
Rules for Measuring the Workload of the Prosecutor’s Offices and the Individual Workload of Each Prosecutor and Investigator, adopted by a Decision of the Supreme Judicial 
Council under Protocol No. 60/11.12.2014, are applied in all prosecutor’s offices, investigation departments and in the National Investigation Service. The use of the Unified 
Information System of the Prosecutor’s Office ensures that the data is retrieved in real time and allows for its verification and reliability. Data on the administrative and managerial 
workload of the administrative heads, their deputies and the heads of the investigation departments is also provided through the system. The ratio of the number of law 
enforcement acts to one administrative act at the levels of the prosecutor’s offices is also taken into account. The analysis of this relation is important for the efficiency/resource 
ratio analysis.

Within the Prosecutor’s Office’s Annual Report, an analysis is made for the workload of the public prosecutor’s offices and the investigative bodies and it is compared to the 
workload of authorities of the same type and degree.

Data on the workload of public prosecutor’s offices and investigative bodies is also collected every six months.

Ordinance No. 3 of 23.02.2017 on the Indicators and Methods for Assessment and the Criteria for Reporting the Workload Degree of Prosecutors, Investigators, Administrative 
Heads and Their Deputies can also be mentioned (adopted by a decision of the Plenum of the Supreme Judicial Council under Protocol No. 7 of 23.02.2017, promulgated in SG 
21/10.03.2017). Workload reporting is designated to ensure fairness of the assessment in terms of the volume of actual work. The evaluation takes into account the actual 
workload of the relevant judicial authority, as well as the individual workload of the assessed prosecutor, investigator, administrative head, deputy administrative head and head of 
department. The workload of the respective judicial authority is compared to the workload of the bodies of the same type and degree, and the individual workload is compared to 
the set out workload norm and the workload of other prosecutors or investigators from the same body of the judiciary.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each public prosecution service.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecutors)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Percentage of convictions and acquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff

With the Guidance of Organization of the Information Activities at the Prosecutor’s Office, issued by the Prosecutor General, the performance and quality indicators were defined, 
outside of the given ones, and covered the acts and actions of the public prosecutor for all types of supervisions that are carried out by the Prosecutor’s Office:

In criminal proceedings, including the supervision of the enforcement of penalties, the following may be additionally, but not exhaustively mentioned: prosecutor’s acts filed with the 
court; terminated cases; objections against judicial acts; acts for the enforcement of sentences that have already entered into force; acts for supervision over the sentence 
enforcement.

Actions for resolving the competition between administrative criminal liability and criminal liability;

Within civil proceedings – claims submitted under the cases provided by the law; Within administrative proceedings – participation in trials under the cases provided by the law; 
Acts on the supervision of legality

The evaluation of the public prosecution services' activities is used for the later allocation of means in the public prosecution services.

The implementation of optimization within the Prosecutor's Office is in view of the data on the volume of prosecutorial activity, the workload of prosecutors, as well as the territorial 
scope and specifics of the region served by the respective prosecutor's office. Decisions on this optimization are made by the Supreme Judicial Council (SJC)on the basis of 
information periodically provided by the prosecution. On the basis of an analysis of the above indicators, the staff for the respective prosecutor's office is determined (in case of 
need for increase or reduction of staff, resp. in case of transfer of a full-time position from one to another prosecutor's office). 

The answer for 2020 takes into account the process of optimization of the court card started on 01.01.2019, as the Prosecutor's Office started the transformation of district 
prosecutor's offices into territorial divisions to district prosecutor's offices in the regional centers. Out of a total of 113 district prosecutor's offices at the end of 2018 - 11 were 
transformed into territorial departments from 01.01.2019, 28 were transformed into territorial departments from 01.01.12020, and as of January 1, 2021 another 38 district 
prosecutor's offices have been transformed into territorial divisions. The data on the workload and a set of other indicators were used for decision-making by the SJC for the 
indicated consolidation.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

144 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table General Data: Economic and demographic data, in absolute values (Q1, Q3, Q5)

Q1 Number of inhabitants

7 284 552

7 245 677

7 202 198

7 153 784

7 101 859

7 050 034

7 000 039

6 951 482

6 916 548

-5,1%

-0,5%

-0,6%

-0,7%

-0,7%

-0,7%

-0,7%

-0,7%

-0,5%

Q.3 GDP Per capita (in €) in current prices

5 436

5 493

5 808

6 152

6 645

7 099

7 855

8 779

8 845

62,7%

1,0%

5,7%

5,9%

8,0%

6,8%

10,6%

11,8%

0,8%

Q5. Exchange rate of Nat currency to € on 1 Jan

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

Indicator 1: Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and prosecution services  (Indicator 4 in 2019)

Table 1.1 to Table 1.10 (Q66, Q67, Q77, Q78, Q77-1, Q78-1, Q73, Q73-0, Q73-1, Q73-2, Q73-3, Q73-4, Q73-5, Q73-6, Q70, Q70-1, Q71, Q72, Q83-2, Q83-3, Q120 
and Q120-1)

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

66 Qlty standards formulated_jud system

67 Specialised court staff entrusted_qlty standards

77 Performance and quality indicators of court activities

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

False

False

True

078.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078.1.5 Backlogs 

078.1.6 Productivity of judges and court staff

078.1.7 Satisfaction of court staff 

078.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts) 

078.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078.1.10 Number of appeals

078.1.11 Appeal ratio

078.1.12 Clearance rate 

078.1.13 Disposition time 

078.1.14 Other

077-1.1.1 Defined performance and quality indicators

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

145 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

078-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078-1.1.5 Backlogs 

078-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

078-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

078-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

078-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

078-1.1.11 Disposition time 

078-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

078-1.1.13 Other

73 Regular system_evaluation_performance_each court

No

No

No

No

073-0.1.1 Annual

073-0.1.2 Less frequent

073-0.1.3 More frequent

073-1.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
court

073-2.1.1 Courses of action taken in the evaluation is used for the 
allocation of resources

073-2.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-2.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-2.1.4 Other

073-3.1.1 Regular evaluation of the public prosecution services 
performance

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

True

True

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

146 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

073-4.1.1 Annual

073-4.1.2 Less frequent

073-4.1.3 More frequent

073-5.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
public prosecution services

073-6.1.1 Identifying the causes of improved or deteriorated 
performance

073-6.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-6.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-6.1.4 Other

070.1.1 number of incoming cases

070.1.2 length of proceedings (timeframes)

070.1.3 number of resolved cases

070.1.4 number of pending cases

070.1.5 backlogs

070.1.6 productivity of judges and court staff

070.1.7 satisfaction of court staff

070.1.8 satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts)

070.1.9 costs of the judicial procedures

070.1.10 number of appeals

070.1.11 appeal ratio

070.1.12 clearance rate

False

False

True

True

False

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

147 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

070-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases 

070-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

070-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

070-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

070-1.1.5 Backlogs 

070-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

070-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

070-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

070-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

070-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

070-1.1.11 Disposition time 

070-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

070-1.1.13 Other

071.1.1 Monitoring backlogs in Civil law cases

071.1.2 Monitoring backlogs in Criminal law cases

071.1.3 Monitoring backlogs in Administrative law cases

072.1.1 Monitoring timeframes Within the courts

072.1.2 Monitoring timeframes Within the public prosecution services

083-2.1.1 Quantitative performance tagets defined for each 
prosecutors

083-3.1.1 Body responsible - Executive power (for example the 
Ministry of Justice)

083-3.1.2 Body responsible - Prosecutor General /State public 
prosecutor

083-3.1.3 Body responsible - Public Prosecutorial Council

083-3.1.4 Body responsible - Head of the organisational unit or 
hierarchically superior public prosecutor

083-3.1.5 Body responsible - Other

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

148 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

120.1.1 Qualitative individual assessment of the public prosecutors' 
work

120-1.1.1 Feequency - Annual

120-1.1.2 Feequency - Less frequent

120-1.1.3 Feequency - More frequent

True

False

True

False

Indicator 2: The judicial organisation

Tables 2.1a; 2.1b; 2.2a; 2.2b; 2.3a; 2.3b; 2.4 and 2.5(EC) (Q42, Q43 and Q44)

Q42.1.1Total number of all courts - legal entities 

Q42.1.2 Total number of courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

182

147

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Q42.1.3 First instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

113

113

113

113

113

113

113

113

113

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

Q42.1.4 Second instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.5 Highest instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.6 Total number of specialised courts - legal entities

43.1.1 Total number of specialised courts of first instance

43.1.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.1.3 Insolvency courts

43.1.4 Labour courts

43.1.5 Family courts

43.1.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.1.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.1.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.1.9 Internet related disputes

43.1.10 Administrative courts

43.1.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.1.12 Military courts

43.1.13 Juvenile courts

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

34

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

28

NAP

5

-

-

-

-

34

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

28

NAP

5

-

-

-

-

32

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

28

NAP

3

-

-

-

-

32

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

28

NAP

3

-

-

-

-

32

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

28

NAP

3

-

-

-

-

32

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

28

-

-

-

32

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

28

-

-

-

32

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

28

33

1

35

32

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-5,9%

0,0%

-5,9%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

28

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3

-

3

-

3

-

3

-40,0%

0,0%

-40,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

149 / 1555

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

43.1.14 Other specialised courts

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

43.2.1 Total number of specialised courts of higher instances

43.2.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.2.3 Insolvency courts

43.2.4 Labour courts

43.2.5 Family courts

43.2.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.2.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.2.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.2.9 Internet related disputes

43.2.10 Administrative courts

43.2.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.2.12 Military courts

43.2.13 Juvenile courts

43.2.14 Other specialised courts

44.1.1 First instance courts geographic locations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

1

NAP

1

145

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

44.1.2 All courts geographic locations

170

170

168

175

182

182

182

182

182

7,1%

0,0%

-1,2%

4,2%

4,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

150 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 3: The performance of courts at all stages of the proceedings

Tables 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.4 (all years) Number of other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 Variation of first instance other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants (Q1, Q91)

Table 3.13.7 (EC) to 3.13.12 (EC) First instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

91.1.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.1.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.1.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.1.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.1.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.1.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.1.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.1.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

91.1.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.1.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

91.1.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

91.2.1 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.2.2 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.2.3 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.2.4 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.2.5 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.2.6 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.2.7 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.2.8 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

91.2.9 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

74 505

79 157

76 155

69 865

73 159

77 396

82 931

91 896

95 459

28,1%

6,2%

-3,8%

-8,3%

4,7%

5,8%

7,2%

10,8%

3,9%

NA

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

NA

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

8 622

10 909

8 642

8 460

8 759

7 743

9 426

9 509

9 999

16,0%

26,5%

-20,8%

-2,1%

3,5%

-11,6%

21,7%

0,9%

5,2%

65 883

68 248

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

3,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

392 320

353 415

319 414

345 327

340 272

397 399

378 948

377 325

312 117

-20,4%

-9,9%

-9,6%

8,1%

-1,5%

16,8%

-4,6%

-0,4%

-17,3%

NA

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

NA

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

91.2.10 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

28 726

26 441

24 757

26 472

25 072

31 333

31 146

34 724

29 349

2,2%

-8,0%

-6,4%

6,9%

-5,3%

25,0%

-0,6%

11,5%

-15,5%

91.2.11 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

363 594

326 974

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-10,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

151 / 1555

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

91.3.1 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.3.2 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.3.3 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.3.4 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.3.5 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.3.6 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.3.7 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.3.8 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

91.3.9 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

387 832

356 677

325 754

341 715

336 056

386 923

369 915

373 760

314 849

-18,8%

-8,0%

-8,7%

4,9%

-1,7%

15,1%

-4,4%

1,0%

-15,8%

NA

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

NA

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

91.3.10 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

26 462

28 727

24 955

26 196

26 117

29 666

31 044

34 226

29 388

11,1%

8,6%

-13,1%

5,0%

-0,3%

13,6%

4,6%

10,2%

-14,1%

91.3.11 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

91.4.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.4.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.4.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.4.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.4.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.4.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.4.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.4.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

91.4.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.4.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

91.4.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

361 370

327 950

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-9,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

78 993

75 895

69 815

73 477

77 375

87 872

91 964

95 461

92 727

17,4%

-3,9%

-8,0%

5,2%

5,3%

13,6%

4,7%

3,8%

-2,9%

NA

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

NA

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

10 886

8 623

8 444

8 736

7 714

9 410

9 528

10 007

9 960

-8,5%

-20,8%

-2,1%

3,5%

-11,7%

22,0%

1,3%

5,0%

-0,5%

68 107

67 272

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-1,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

152 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.2 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.4 to 3.3.7 Variation of Clearence Rate and Disposition Time of first instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

Table 3.13.1 (EC) to 3.13.6 (EC) First instance courts: Disposition time and clearance rate for other than criminal cases  (Q91)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

98,9%

100,9%

102,0%

99,0%

98,8%

97,4%

97,6%

99,1%

100,9%

2,04

2,09

1,05

(2,97)

(0,20)

(1,41)

0,26

1,47

1,84

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

NA

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

NA

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CR Administrative law cases

92,1%

108,6%

100,8%

99,0%

104,2%

94,7%

99,7%

98,6%

100,1%

8,70

17,94

(7,22)

(1,83)

5,27

(9,11)

5,27

(1,11)

1,59

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

99,4%

100,3%

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

74

NA

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

150

69

78

NA

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

110

75

NA

78

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

124

NA

NA

78

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

122

NA

NA

84

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

108

NA

NA

83

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

116

NA

NA

91

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

112

NA

NA

93

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

107

NA

NA

-

0,92

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

107

44,6%

4,5%

0,7%

0,3%

7,1%

-1,4%

9,5%

2,7%

15,3%

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

124

-17,6%

-27,0%

12,7%

-1,4%

-11,4%

7,4%

-3,2%

-4,7%

15,9%

NA

-

8,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

153 / 1555

         
         
         
        
        
        
         
         
         
         
       
        
        
         
        
         
        
         
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.4.1 (all years) First instance courts, number of cases for specific case categories (Q101)

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

101.1.1 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Litigious divorce case

101.1.2 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Employment dismissal case

101.1.3 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Insolvency

101.2.1 Incoming cases_Litigious divorce case

101.2.2 Incoming cases_Employment dismissal case

101.2.3 Incoming cases_Insolvency

101.3.1 Resolved cases_Litigious divorce case

101.3.2 Resolved cases_Employment dismissal case

101.3.3 Resolved cases_Insolvency

101.4.1 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Litigious divorce case

101.4.2 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Employment dismissal case

101.4.3 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Insolvency

2 378

936

887

6 239

2 331

1 583

6 151

2 242

1 311

2 466

1 025

1 159

2 463

1 032

1 173

6 032

1 741

1 523

6 210

1 908

1 520

2 285

865

2 280

2 252

2 332

2 346

2 272

2 396

2 371

-0,3%

3,6%

-7,4%

-1,2%

3,6%

0,6%

-3,2%

5,5%

-1,0%

871

1 227

5 822

1 551

1 146

5 848

1 693

1 294

2 254

729

731

1 087

5 729

1 364

1 143

5 795

1 483

1 258

2 186

612

972

661

967

5 663

1 604

1 281

5 622

1 527

1 219

2 373

738

1 029

737

1 087

775

977

710

762

749

-20,0%

10,3%

-15,6%

-16,1%

-9,6%

11,5%

5,2%

-8,4%

5,5%

750

-15,4%

32,2%

4,6%

-11,4%

-11,0%

12,4%

-10,1%

-22,0%

-1,6%

5 393

5 554

5 600

4 830

-22,6%

-3,3%

-3,5%

-1,6%

-1,2%

-4,8%

3,0%

0,8%

-13,8%

1 202

1 168

1 075

1 301

-44,2%

-25,3%

-10,9%

-12,1%

17,6%

-25,1%

-2,8%

-8,0%

21,0%

1 135

931

1 169

1 293

-18,3%

-3,8%

-24,8%

-0,3%

12,1%

-11,4%

-18,0%

25,6%

10,6%

5 343

5 421

5 621

4 629

-24,7%

1,0%

-5,8%

-0,9%

-3,0%

-5,0%

1,5%

3,7%

-17,6%

1 281

1 230

1 036

1 121

-50,0%

-14,9%

-11,3%

-12,4%

3,0%

-16,1%

-4,0%

-15,8%

8,2%

1 251

1 154

1 171

1 154

-12,0%

15,9%

-14,9%

-2,8%

-3,1%

2,6%

-7,8%

1,5%

-1,5%

2 396

2 405

2 375

2 572

4,3%

-7,3%

-1,4%

-3,0%

8,6%

1,0%

0,4%

-1,2%

8,3%

658

971

713

754

749

760

929

-9,4%

-15,6%

-15,7%

-16,0%

20,6%

-10,8%

8,4%

5,0%

24,0%

889

-23,3%

1,5%

-8,2%

-9,9%

5,9%

-5,6%

-22,3%

0,8%

17,0%

1 176

1 079

Table 3.5.1 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for specific case categories (Q101)

Table 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 Variations of CR and DT for specific case categories of first instance cases (Q101)

CR Litigious divorce cases

98,6%

103,0%

100,4%

101,2%

99,3%

99,1%

97,6%

100,4%

95,8%

(2,79)

4,42

(2,43)

0,70

(1,85)

(0,20)

(1,48)

2,84

(4,52)

CR Employment dismissal cases

96,2%

109,6%

109,2%

108,7%

95,2%

106,6%

105,3%

96,4%

86,2%

(10,42)

13,94

(0,40)

(0,39)

(12,44)

11,95

(1,19)

(8,49)

(10,59)

CR Insolvency cases

82,8%

99,8%

112,9%

110,1%

95,2%

110,2%

124,0%

100,2%

89,2%

7,77

20,51

13,14

(2,53)

(13,54)

15,83

12,46

(19,19)

(10,90)

DT Litigious divorce cases

DT Employment dismissal cases

DT Insolvency cases

146

167

323

134

165

282

141

157

304

138

151

282

154

176

308

164

187

283

162

212

238

154

264

237

203

38,6%

-8,2%

4,7%

-2,1%

11,9%

6,2%

-1,1%

-4,8%

31,5%

302

81,3%

-0,8%

-5,0%

-4,2%

17,1%

6,3%

12,9%

24,7%

14,6%

281

-12,9%

-12,5%

7,8%

-7,3%

9,3%

-8,1%

-15,8%

-0,7%

18,7%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

154 / 1555

        
         
        
         
        
        
        
         
        
      
       
        
        
      
       
        
        
      
         
       
       
        
      
       
       
      
      
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.1.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.1.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.1.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.1.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.1.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.1.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.1.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.1.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

97.1.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.1.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

Table 3.7.1 to 3.7.5 (2019 and 2020) Second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Table 3.9.1 to 3.9.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

16 261

14 841

12 788

12 457

12 512

13 611

15 876

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

3 972

3 239

2 932

2 688

2 526

2 411

2 264

97.1.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases 

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

97.2.1 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.2.2 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.2.3 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.2.4 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.2.5 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.2.6 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.2.7 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.2.8 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

97.2.9 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

64 305

60 271

59 309

58 503

57 281

59 922

56 644

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

97.2.10 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

17 598

14 979

15 481

14 793

14 705

14 421

12 717

97.2.11 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases 

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-8,7%

-13,8%

-2,6%

0,4%

8,8%

16,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-18,5%

-9,5%

-8,3%

-6,0%

-4,6%

-6,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-6,3%

-1,6%

-1,4%

-2,1%

4,6%

-5,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-14,9%

3,4%

-4,4%

-0,6%

-1,9%

-11,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

155 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.3.1 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.3.2 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.3.3 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.3.4 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.3.5 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.3.6 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.3.7 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.3.8 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

97.3.9 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

65 730

61 852

59 636

58 446

56 180

57 658

53 814

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

97.3.10 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

18 330

15 286

15 724

14 954

14 819

14 567

12 744

97.3.11 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases 

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

97.4.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.4.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.4.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.4.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.4.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.4.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.4.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.4.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

97.4.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.4.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

14 836

13 260

12 461

12 514

13 613

15 875

18 706

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

3 240

2 932

2 689

2 527

2 412

2 265

2 237

97.4.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases

NA

NA

97.5.1 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.5.2 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.5.10 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-5,9%

-3,6%

-2,0%

-3,9%

2,6%

-6,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-16,6%

2,9%

-4,9%

-0,9%

-1,7%

-12,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-10,6%

-6,0%

0,4%

8,8%

16,6%

17,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-9,5%

-8,3%

-6,0%

-4,6%

-6,1%

-1,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

156 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 (2019 and 2020): Second instance clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.9.4 and 3.9.5 (2019 and 2020): Variation of second clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

102,2%

102,6%

100,6%

99,9%

98,1%

96,2%

95,0%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

104,2%

102,0%

101,6%

101,1%

100,8%

101,0%

100,2%

NA

82

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

65

NA

NA

78

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

70

NA

NA

76

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

62

NA

NA

78

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

62

NA

NA

88

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

59

NA

NA

100

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

57

NA

NA

127

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

64

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,40

(2,02)

(0,65)

(1,83)

(1,89)

(1,27)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(2,03)

(0,47)

(0,47)

(0,31)

0,24

(0,79)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-5,0%

-2,5%

2,5%

13,2%

13,6%

26,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

8,5%

-10,8%

-1,2%

-3,7%

-4,5%

12,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

157 / 1555

         
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
         
        
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.10.1 to 3.10.5 (2019 and 2020) Supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Table 3.12.1 to 3.12.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of the supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.1.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.1.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.1.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.1.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.1.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.1.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.1.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.1.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

99.1.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.1.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

99.1.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.2.1 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.2.2 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.2.3 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.2.4 High inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.2.5 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.2.6 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.2.7 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.2.8 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

99.2.9 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

8 796

9 462

9 956

10 912

9 934

10 063

8 988

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

3 736

3 940

3 732

3 917

4 048

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

3

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

3

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

3

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

4 788

5 590

6 220

6 972

6 199

6 146

4 937

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

27 476

25 012

23 443

23 479

24 176

23 075

20 862

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

8 605

8 441

8 138

8 015

6 693

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

151

58

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

93

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

139

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

99.2.10 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

16 149

14 931

14 838

15 038

15 887

15 060

14 030

99.2.11 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7,6%

5,2%

9,6%

-9,0%

1,3%

-10,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5,5%

-5,3%

5,0%

3,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

16,8%

11,3%

12,1%

-11,1%

-0,9%

-19,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-9,0%

-6,3%

0,2%

3,0%

-4,6%

-9,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-1,9%

-3,6%

-1,5%

-16,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-7,5%

-0,6%

1,3%

5,6%

-5,2%

-6,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

158 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.3.1 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.3.2 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.3.3 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.3.4 High inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.3.5 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.3.6 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.3.7 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.3.8 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

99.3.9 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

26 662

24 571

22 474

24 297

23 868

25 085

22 473

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

8 388

8 485

7 774

7 846

6 876

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

152

58

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

94

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

139

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

99.3.10 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

15 351

14 301

14 086

15 812

15 942

17 239

15 458

99.3.11 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.4.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.4.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.4.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.4.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.4.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.4.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.4.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.4.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry 
cases

99.4.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.4.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative 
law cases

99.4.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.5.1 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.5.2 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.5.10 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

9 610

9 903

10 925

9 934

10 061

8 053

7 375

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

3 953

3 735

3 915

4 086

3 863

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

3

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

5 586

6 220

6 972

6 199

6 144

3 967

3 509

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

479

NA

NA

248

NA

NA

81

NA

NA

85

NA

NA

53

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-7,8%

-8,5%

8,1%

-1,8%

5,1%

-10,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,2%

-8,4%

0,9%

-12,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-6,8%

-1,5%

12,3%

0,8%

8,1%

-10,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,0%

10,3%

-9,1%

1,3%

-20,0%

-8,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-5,5%

4,8%

4,4%

-5,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

11,3%

12,1%

-11,1%

-0,9%

-35,4%

-11,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-48,2%

-67,3%

4,9%

-37,6%

159 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 Supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.12.4 and 3.12.5 Variation of the supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

97,0%

98,2%

95,9%

103,5%

98,7%

108,7%

107,7%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

97,5%

100,5%

95,5%

97,9%

102,7%

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

100,7%

NAP

100,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

101,1%

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

100,0%

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

95,1%

95,8%

94,9%

105,1%

100,3%

114,5%

110,2%

NA

132

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

133

NA

NA

147

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

159

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

177

172

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

181

NAP

149

161

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

143

NAP

154

184

5

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

8

141

117

190

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

84

120

205

8

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

83

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,24

(2,41)

7,95

(4,60)

10,11

(0,91)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,12

(4,97)

2,47

4,95

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,76

(0,89)

10,76

(4,57)

14,07

(3,75)

-

-

-

-

-

-

11,8%

20,6%

-15,9%

3,1%

-23,8%

2,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-6,6%

14,4%

3,4%

7,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

19,5%

13,8%

-20,8%

-1,7%

-40,3%

-1,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

160 / 1555

         
        
         
        
       
        
         
        
         
         
         
        
       
        
       
        
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.14.1 to 3.14.5 First instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

094.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

094.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

094.2.1 Total -incoming

094.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

094.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

094.2.4 Other - incoming

094.3.1 Total - resolved

094.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

094.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

094.3.4 Other - resolved

094.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

094.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

094.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

094.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

21 184

NA

NA

NA

130 282

NA

NA

NA

128 186

NA

NA

NA

23 280

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

161 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.15.1 to 3.10.2 CR and DT for first instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

098.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

098.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

098.2.1 Total -incoming

098.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

098.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

098.2.4 Other - incoming

098.3.1 Total - resolved

098.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

098.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

098.3.4 Other - resolved

Table 3.16.1 to 3.16.5 Second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

98,4%

NA

NA

NA

66

NA

NA

NA

1 611

NA

NA

NAP

11 268

NA

NA

NAP

11 174

NA

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

162 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

098.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

098.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

098.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

098.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

1 705

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

Table 3.17.1 to 3.17.2 CR and DT for second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

99,2%

NA

NA

NAP

56

NA

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

163 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.18.1 to 3.18.5 Supreme court criminal law cases (Q100)

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

100.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

100.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

100.2.1 Total -incoming

100.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

100.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

100.2.4 Other - incoming

100.3.1 Total - resolved

100.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

100.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

100.3.4 Other - resolved

100.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

100.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

100.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

100.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

293

231

22

40

1 035

525

88

422

1 062

541

81

440

266

215

29

22

4

4

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

164 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.19.1 to 3.19.2 CR and DT for supreme court  criminal law cases (Q100)

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

102,6%

103,0%

92,0%

104,3%

91

145

131

18

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

165 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 5: Access to justice

Legal aid

Table 5.1 to Table 5.6 (Q12-2, Q16, Q18, Q19, Q20, Q20-1)

12-2.1.1 Coverage of court fees

12-2.1.2 Exemption from court fees

16.1.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (criminal cases)

16.1.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (criminal cases)

16.2.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (other than criminal 
cases)

16.2.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (other than criminal cases)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

-

-

-

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

18.1.1 Legal aid for the enforcement of judicial decisions

False

False

False

False

False

19.1.1  Legal aid granted for other costs - criminal cases

19.1.2  Legal aid granted for other costs - other than criminal cases

020.1.1 Total

020.1.2 Total - criminal cases

020.1.3 Total - other than criminal cases

020.2.1 Total brought to court

020.2.2 Broight to court - criminal cases

020.2.3 Brought to court - other then criminal

020.3.1 Total not brought to court

020.3.2 Not broight to court - criminal cases

020.3.3 Not brought to court - other then criminal

020-1.1.1 Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulation

020-1.1.2 Average duration

True

True

NA

NA

NA

31 866

29 002

2 864

NA

NA

NA

14

7

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

166 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

System for compensating users

Table 5.7.1 and Table 5.7.2 (Q37)

037.1.1 Requests for compensation - Total

037.1.2 Requests for compensation - Excessive length of 
proceedings

037.1.3 Requests for compensation - Non-execution of court 
decisions

037.1.4 Requests for compensation - Wrongful arrest

037.1.5 Requests for compensation - Wrongful conviction

037.1.6 Requests for compensation - Other

037.2.1 Condemnations - Total

037.2.2 Condemnations - Excessive length of proceedings

037.2.3 Condemnations - Non-execution of court decisions

037.2.4 Condemnations - Wrongful arrest

037.2.5 Condemnations - Wrongful conviction

037.2.6 Condemnations - Other

037.3.1 Amount - Total

037.3.2 Amount - Excessive length of proceedings

037.3.3 Amount - Non-execution of court decisions

037.3.4 Amount - Wrongful arrest

037.3.5 Amount - Wrongful conviction

037.3.6 Amount - Other

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

167 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 6.1 to Table 6.11 (Q62-7, Q62-7-1, Q62-8,  Q62-8-1, Q63-1, Q63-1-1, Q63-2 Q63-6, Q63-7, Q63-7-1, Q64-2,  Q64-4, Q64-6, Q64-3, Q64-3-1, Q64-7, Q64-7-1, 
Q64-9)

62-7 Writing assistance tools coordinated at national level

False

False

False

Indicator 6: The ICT tools of courts and for court users

62-7-1.1 Deployment rate in civil matter

62-7-1.2 Deployment rate in criminal matter

62-7-1.3 Deployment rate in administrative matter

62-8 Voice recording tools

62-8-1.1.1 Availability of simple dictation tools in civil matter

62-8-1.1.2 Availability of simple dictation tools in criminal matter

62-8-1.1.3 Availability of simple dictation tools in administrative 
matter

62-8-1.2.1 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in civil 
matter

62-8-1.2.2 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in criminal 
matter

62-8-1.2.3 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in 
administrative matter

62-8-1.3.1 Availability of voice recognition in civil matter

62-8-1.3.2 Availability of voice recognition in criminal matter

62-8-1.3.3 Availability of voice recognition in administrative matter

062-9 Availability of intranet site within the judicial system for 
distribution of news/novelties

63.1 Is there a case management system? 

63.1-1.1 CMS for civil matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for criminal matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for administrative matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.2 CMS for civil matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for criminal matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for administrative matter (status of case onlinee)

True

True

True

in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases

in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in most of the 
courts

in most of the 
courts

in most of the 
courts

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

-

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

100%

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

-

-

Both

Both

Publication of 
decision online

Both

Both

Both

Both

Both

Both

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

168 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63.1-1.3 CMS for civil matter (Centralised or interoperable database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for criminal matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for administrative matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.4 CMS for civil matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for criminal matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for administrative matter (Early warning signals)

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS civil matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS criminal matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS administrative matter

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - land registry

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - business registry

63-2.2 Data consolidated at national level for land registry

63-2.2  Data consolidated at national level for business registry

63-2.3 Service available online for land registry

63-2.3  Service available online for business registry

63-2.4 Statistical module integrated or connected for land registry

63-2.4  Statistical module integrated or connected for business 
registry

063-6.1.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (deployment 
rate)

063-6.1.2 Justice expenses management (deployment rate)

063-6.1.3 Other financial management tools (deployment rate)

063-6.2.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (Data 
consolidated at national level)

063-6.2.2 Justice expenses management (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.2.3 Other financial management tools (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.3.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (System 
communicating with other ministries)

063-6.3.2 Justice expenses management (System communicating 
with other ministries)

063-6.3.3 Other financial management tools (System communicating 
with other ministries)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

False

False

False

Not connected 
at all

Not connected 
at all

Not connected 
at all

True

True

True

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

True

True

True

NA

NA

NA

Not connected 
at all

Not connected 
at all

Not connected 
at all

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

False

False

False

False

False

False

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

100%

100%

100%

NA

100%

50-99%

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

True

True

False

True

True

True

NAP

True

False

False

False

NAP

True

True

NA

True

NA

NA

169 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63-7.1 Measurement tools to assess the workload

63-7-1.1.1 Deployment rate - workload of judges

63-7-1.1.2 Deployment rate - workload of prosecutors

63-7-1.1.3 Deployment rate - workload of non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.2.1 Monitoring on national level - judges

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - prosecutors

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.3.1 Monitoring on court level - judges

63-7-1.3.2 Monitoring on court level - prosecutors

63-7-1.3.3 Monitoring on court level - non-judge and non-prosecutor 
staff

064-2 - Possibility to submit a case to courts by electronic means

064-2 - Civil and/or commercial

064-2 - Criminal

064-2 - Administrative

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - civil

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - criminal

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory  - administrative

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - civil

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - criminal

064-2 - Specific legislative framework  - administrative

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - civil

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - criminal

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - administrative

True

True

True

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

NA

NA

0% (NAP)

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

False

False

False

False

False

True

NA

NA

NA

False

False

False

True

True

True

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

170 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-3 - Is it possible to request for granting legal aid by electronic 
means? 

064-3-1.1 - Equipment rate

064-3-1.2 - Request in paper mandatory

064-3-1.3 - Specific legislative framework

064-3-1.4 - Granting LA is also electronic

064-3-1.5 - Information available in CMS

064-4 - Possibility to transmit summons to a judicial meeting or a 
hearing by electronic means

064-4-1.1.1 - Summons produced by CMS- civil

064-4-1.1.2 - Summons produced by CMS- criminal

064-4-1.1.3 - Summons produced by CMS- administrative

064-4-1.2.1 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- civil

064-4-1.2.2 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- criminal

064-4-1.2.3 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- administrative

064-4-1.3.1 - Consent of the user - civil

064-4-1.3.2 - Consent of the user - criminal

064-4-1.3.3 - Consent of the user - administrative

064-6.1.1 - Civil and/or commercial (deployment rate)

064-6.1.2 - Criminal (deployment rate)

064-6.1.3 - Administrative (deployment rate)

False

True

True

1-9%

1-9%

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

False

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

50-99%

100%

100%

50-99%

100%

100%

0% (NAP)

100%

100%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

171 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-6.2.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.2 - Criminal (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.3 - Administrative (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.3.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Modalities)

064-6.3.2 - Criminal (Modalities)

064-6.3.3 - Administrative (Modalities)

064-6.4.1 - Civil and/or commercial (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.2 - Criminal (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.3 - Administrative (specific legal framework)

064-6.5.1 - Civil and/or commercial (availability for)

064-6.5.2 - Criminal (availability for)

064-6.5.3 - Administrative (availability for)

  Hearing 
preparatory 

phases     

Decision 
transmission

  Hearing 
preparatory 

phases     

Decision 
transmission

  Hearing 
preparatory 

phases     

Decision 
transmission

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

    Other

    Other

    Other

    Other

    Other

  Specific 
application  

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer
Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer
Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

172 / 1555

      
      
      
      
      
      
    
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-7.1.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (deployment rate)

064-7.1.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.2.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (Modalities)

064-7.2.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.3.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (specific legal framework)

064-7.32.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-7.3.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts (specific 
legal framework)

064-7.3.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-9 - Existance of online processing devices of specialised 
litigation

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

False

False

False

False

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

173 / 1555

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Indicator 7: Professionals of justice  (Indicator 9 in 2019)

Table 7.1.1 to 7.5.6 for judges, non judge staff, prosecutors, non prosecutor staff and salaries

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2 235

2 223

2 215

2 184

-2,5%

-2,1%

1,3%

0,2%

1,3%

-0,9%

-0,5%

-0,4%

-1,4%

1 745

1 750

1 898

1 246

4,9%

35,9%

8,6%

0,4%

1,6%

-2,5%

0,3%

8,5%

-34,4%

760

-11,5%

-53,9%

-30,1%

0,0%

-0,4%

8,3%

-3,3%

-53,6%

467,2%

178

-7,3%

-5,7%

5,0%

-1,1%

1,1%

0,5%

-3,7%

-0,5%

-2,7%

46.1.1 Total Number of professional judges

46.1.2 Number of 1st inst professional judges

46.1.3 Number of 2nd inst professional judges

46.1.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges

46.2.1 Number of professional judges_males

46.2.2 Number of 1st instance professional judges_males

46.2.3 Number of 2nd instance professional judges_males

46.2.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges_males

46.3.1  Number of professional judges_females

46.3.2  Number of 1st inst professional judges_females

46.3.3  Number of 2nd inst professional judges_females

46.3.4  Number of Supreme court professional judges_females

046-2.1.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Total

046-2.2.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Civil and commercial

046-2.2.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.3.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Criminal

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

2 239

1 188

859

192

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 191

1 614

396

181

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 220

1 753

277

190

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 225

1 760

277

188

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 255

1 789

276

190

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

299

191

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

289

184

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

134

183

749

655

50

44

732

435

255

42

1 466

1 452

1 243

84

139

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

811

505

136

2 184

1 246

760

178

NA

NA

NA

66

NA

NA

NA

28

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,3%

-33,6%

410,0%

-4,5%

-1,0%

-34,8%

501,2%

-2,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

174 / 1555

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

046-2.4.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - 
Administrative

046-2.4.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.5.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Other

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

254

171

NAP

83

17

12

5

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 52.1.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in courts 

6 014

5 958

6 014

6 143

6 174

6 212

6 262

6 323

6 329

5,2%

-0,9%

0,9%

2,1%

0,5%

0,6%

0,8%

1,0%

0,1%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4 492

4 656

4 689

4 697

4,9%

-0,8%

0,5%

-1,6%

1,9%

0,3%

3,7%

0,7%

0,2%

1 118

1 006

968

-34,6%

-1,5%

2,3%

-20,1%

-2,4%

-3,8%

-10,0%

-2,7%

-1,1%

627

-

-

-

-

-4,2%

18,1%

3,0%

5,5%

1,6%

37

-32,7%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-3,6%

-35,8%

2,9%

8,6%

-2,6%

52.1.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)

52.1.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges

52.1.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks

52.1.5 Number of Technical staff

52.1.6 Number of Other non judge staff

52.2.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(men)

52.2.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(men)

52.2.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(men)

52.2.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(men)

52.2.5 Number of Technical staff(men)

52.2.6 Number of Other non judge staff(men)

52.3.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(women)

52.3.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(women)

52.3.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(women)

52.3.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(women)

52.3.5 Number of Technical staff(women)

52.3.6 Number of Other non judge staff(women)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NAP

4 479

1 480

NA

55

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

4 445

1 458

NA

55

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

4 468

1 491

NA

55

NA

NAP

4 395

1 191

502

55

NA

NAP

4 478

1 162

481

53

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

979

617

38

NA

585

35

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

568

34

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

175 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

052-1.1.1 Non-judge staff (Total)

052-1.1.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (total)

052-1.1.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (total)

052-1.1.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (total)

052-1.2.1 Non-judge staff  (Males)

052-1.2.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (males)

052-1.2.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (males)

052-1.2.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (males)

052-1.3.1 Non-judge staff  (females)

052-1.3.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (females)

052-1.3.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (females)

052-1.3.4 Non-judge staff  at supreme court (females)

055.1.1 Prosecutors (total)

055.1.2 Prosecutors (1st inst.)

055.1.3 Prosecutors (2nd inst.)

055.1.4 Prosecutors (Highest instance)

055.2.1 Prosecutors - Males -total

055.2.2 Prosecutors - Males, 1st inst.

055.2.3 Prosecutors - Males, 2nd inst.

055.2.4 Prosecutors - Males, Supreme courts

055.3.1 Prosecutors - Females, Total

055.3.2 Prosecutors - Females, 1st inst.

055.3.3 Prosecutors - Females, 2nd inst.

055.3.4 Prosecutors - Females, Supreme courts

6 329

5 204

716

409

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1 520

884

514

122

740

389

297

54

780

495

217

68

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

176 / 1555

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

060.1.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Total

060.2.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Males

060.3.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Females

004 Annual average salary in the country

132.1.1 Gross annual salary, in €  - Professional judge at the 
beginning of career

132.1.2 Gross annual salary, in €  - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.1.3 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor at the beginning 
of career

132.1.4 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

132.2.1 Net annual salary, in € - Professional judge at the beginning 
of career

132.2.2 Net annual salary, in € - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.2.3 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor at the beginning of 
career

132.2.4 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

133.1.1.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Reduced taxation

133.1.2.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Special pension

133.1.3.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Housing

133.1.4.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Other financial benefit

133.2.1.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Reduced taxation

133.2.2.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Special pension

133.2.3.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Housing

133.2.4.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Other financial benefit

3 021

NA

NA

8 509 €

24 990 €

44 214 €

24 990 €

44 214 €

22 491 €

39 793 €

22 491 €

39 793 €

False

False

True

True

False

False

True

True

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

177 / 1555

           
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

144.1.1 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - Total number (1+2+3+4)

144.1.2 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 1. Breach of professional 
ethics 

144.1.3 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.1.4 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 3. Criminal offence 

144.1.5 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 4. Other

144.2.1 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - Total number 
(1+2+3+4)

144.2.2 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 1. Breach of 
professional ethics 

144.2.3 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.2.4 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 3. Criminal offence

144.2.5 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 4. Other 

145.1.1 Sanctions against Judges - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.1.2 Sanctions against Judges - 1. Reprimand

145.1.3 Sanctions against Judges - 2. Suspension

145.1.4 Sanctions against Judges - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.1.5 Sanctions against Judges - 4. Fine

145.1.6 Sanctions against Judges - 5. Temporary reduction of salary

145.1.7 Sanctions against Judges - 6. Position downgrade

145.1.8 Sanctions against Judges - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.1.9 Sanctions against Judges - 8. Resignation

145.1.10 Sanctions against  Judges - 9. Other

145.1.11 Sanctions against  Judges - 10. Dismissal

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4

0

NAP

NAP

4

8

4

NAP

NAP

4

5

4

NAP

NAP

NAP

0

0

NAP

NAP

0

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

178 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

145.2.1 Sanctions against Prosecutors - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.2.2 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 1. Reprimand

145.2.3 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 2. Suspension

145.2.4 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.2.5 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 4. Fine

145.2.6 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 5. Temporary reduction of 
salary

145.2.7 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 6. Position downgrade

145.2.8 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.2.9 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 8. Resignation

145.2.10 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 9. Other

145.2.11 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 10. Dismissal

5

4

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

0

NAP

NAP

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lawyers

Tables 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.7 and 7.8

146.1.1 Total number of lawyers practising

12 010

12 010

12 696

13 013

13 500

13 720

13 640

13 880

13 964

16,3%

0,0%

5,7%

2,5%

3,7%

1,6%

-0,6%

1,8%

0,6%

146.2.1 Practicing lawyers - man

146.3.1 Practicing lawyers - woman

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6 503

6 608

6 597

7 137

7 272

7 367

147 Does this figure include “legal advisors” who cannot represent 
their clients in court (for example, some solicitors or in-house 
counsellors)? 

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,6%

-0,2%

1,9%

1,3%

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

179 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Bulgaria (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 8: The existence and use of alternative dispute resolution methods

Table 8.1 8.2 and 8.3

166 Number of accredited or registered mediators who practice 
judicial mediation: 

NA

NA

NA

NA

167.1.1 Total number started

167. 1.2 Civil and commercial cases(cid:9) - started

167. 1.2 Family cases - started

167.1.4 Administrative cases - started

167.1.5 Labour cases including employment dismissal cases - started

167.1.6. Criminal cases - started

167.1.7 Consumer cases - started

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Key: Variation of more than (+ -) 20% 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

180 / 1555

Population:

4 036 355

Judiciary at a glance in Croatia

General data

GDP 

per capita:

12 170 €

Professionals

Average annual 

salary:

14 681 €

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Croatia

Croatia

EU Median

EU Median

Professional judges

Professional judges

41,45

41,45
23,92

23,92

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual 
salary in the country

EU Median

Croatia

Croatia

EU Median

Non-judge staff

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

59,00

145,82

15,41

9,91

15,41
26,21
26,21

15,22

145,82

3,64

Judge at the beginning of a career 

1,90

4,09

2,02

4,09

3,64

3,61

59,00

9,91

15,22

1,90

Judge of the highest court 3,64
2,02

1,71
Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 
1,71

1,90

1,90

Public prosecutor at highest instance

3,64

3,61

Lawyers

Lawyers

119,79

122,09

119,79

122,09

Judge at the
beginning of a career

Judge of the highest
court

Prosecutor at the
beginning of a career

Public prosecutor at
highest instance

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

Efficiency

1st instance

2nd instance

1st instance 2nd instance

Supreme Court
Supreme 
Court

,

%
4
9
2
Civil and
1
commercial
Administrativ
e
%
0
cases
Total 
5
8
criminal law 
cases

,

,

%
8
2
2
1

%
%
85,0%
2
9
8
6
0
0
1
1

,

,

106,9%

,

%
8
3
4
1

,

%
9
6
3
1

129,4%

%
108,2%
1
8
8

,

,

122,8%
%
0
1
0
1

143,8%

88,1%

136,9%

101,0%

1
1

1

1
1

100%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance 2nd instance Supreme Court

Civil and commercial litigious cases
655
Administrative cases 179

586

184
165

Total criminal law cases223

171

184

655

928

165

179

586
928

121

121

171

223

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

Administrative
cases

Total criminal law
cases

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

Information and communication technology

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

Assistance toolsCase management system
2018

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the workload
2019

Electronic communication

EU Median 2020

2020

2018
2019
2020

1,67
1,67
2,00

5,83

6,33

5,83
7,00
6,33
7,00

5,17

1,00
1,00
0,50

3,33
3,33
3,33

1,25
4,95
5,66

6,94

5,66

4,95

EU Median 2020

2,00

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

3,33

3,33

3,33

1,67

1,67

2,00

2,00

1,00

1,00

1,25

0,50

2,50

1,25

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

*ICT calculations are described in more details in Annex 5 - IT Calculation methodology

181

2020

Synthesis table for the main indicators for:

Croatia

Economic and demographic data

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Variations

Population

GDP per capita

Exchange rate (local currency needed to 
obtain 1€)

4 262 140

4 246 809

4 225 316

4 190 669

4 154 213

4 105 493

4 076 246

4 058 165

4 036 355

-5,3%

-1,7%

-1,9%

-0,7%

-0,4%

10 290

10 147

10 162

10 425

10 965

11 880

12 593

13 270

12 170

18,3%

7,9%

14,8%

6,0%

8

8

8

8

8

8

7

7

8

-0,1%

-1,3%

-2,0%

-1,4%

Average annual salary

12 571

12 508

12 355

13 671

14 189

14 681

16,8%

-1,2%

10,7%

-0,5%

-8,3%

1,3%

3,5%

5,4%

0,5%

3,8%

Resources

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Professional judges per 100 000 inhab.

45,3

45,0

44,4

44,5

43,3

43,2

40,7

41,4

40,7

-10,2%

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhab.

146,3

146,5

143,4

141,5

140,3

143,7

143,0

146,1

145,8

-0,3%

Lawyers per 100 000 inh.

103,0

103,8

106,2

108,8

112,9

114,9

116,7

117,1

119,8

16,2%

-2,5%

-2,2%

6,3%

-5,9%

1,9%

3,3%

Mediators

9,5

9,6

10,7

11,3

13,2

14,3

15,0

4,7

15,6

6,2

16,7

6,6

75,0%

23,3%

13,6%

-5,8%

-0,5%

1,5%

4,8%

1,8%

2,2%

0,4%

3,7%

32,1%

-1,8%

-0,2%

2,3%

7,1%

7,0%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Civil and commercial litigious cases

4,286

4,800

3,923

3,831

3,264

3,145

2,856

3,178

2,731

-36,3%

-16,8%

-12,5%

-9,2%

11,3%

-14,1%

Administrative law cases

0,282

0,3

0,3

0,342

0,345

0,288

0,329

0,321

0,304

7,7%

4,6%

-4,5%

14,5%

-2,5%

-5,5%

Total criminal law cases

4,871

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

95%

41%

101%

113%

107%

118%

109%

112%

87%

85%

-10,00

4,72

-5,65

3,77

-25,01

64%

86%

93%

109%

126%

116%

109%

107%

65,78

23,45

6,65

-10,52

-7,16

-2,42

-1,90

88%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

457

523

386

493

380

426

391

413

364

319

387

258

374

197

488

187

43,3%

-4,2%

2,8%

-3,3%

30,4%

34,3%

-65,7%

-25,2%

-38,1%

-23,5%

-5,1%

-4,3%

655

179

223

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

5,10

0,17

5,13

0,28

4,63

0,33

4,40

0,36

3,84

0,33

3,63

0,26

3,29

0,21

3,72

0,18

-18,3%

-17,0%

-14,3%

-9,1%

12,8%

12,2%

-4,0%

-0,3%

-37,3%

-19,7%

-13,2%

-11,1%

4,17

0,16

2,62

ICT overall assesment

First instance incoming cases per 100 
inhab.

First instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

First instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
cases (days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

First instance pending cases per 100 
inhab. on 31 dec.

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

96%

104%

116%

122%

122%

119%

129%

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

454%

124%

86%

90%

86%

91%

108%

137%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

20,61

-368,00

5,18

-0,44

-0,54

-4,37

-2,52

5,33

10,27

17,04

Second instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

 Supreme court 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Supreme court
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

448

68

401

62

328

119

310

153

280

195

248

210

184

165

171

-26,8%

-14,6%

-9,6%

-11,3%

-25,8%

75,2%

63,7%

27,3%

7,9%

-21,7%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

123%

144%

101%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

586

928

121

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

182 / 1555

1. Judicial organisation in Croatia

According to 2020 data, the Republic of Croatia has 30 first instance courts of general jurisdiction (District courts) and 17 first instance specialised courts, covering 143 
geographic locations. The Supreme Court is the last instance.

On the 1st of January 2019 new Courts Areas and Seats Act came into force.This reform removed specialised misdemeanour courts from Croatian judicial system. They 
were merged into municipal courts of general jurisdiction, and 8 municipal courts were reopened. Only two municipal courts specialised only for misdemeanour cases were 
left in two largest cities.

Distribution of general courts in Croatia

Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Croatia - 1st instance
Croatia - Higher instances

EU Median - 1st instance

EU Median - Higher instances

CroatiaDistribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

According to 2020 data, the distribution between 1st instance and higher instances courts of 
general jurisdiction in Croatia is 65% - 35%, which is rather distant from the the EU median, 
87% - 13%.

Croatia - 1st instanceCroatia - Higher instances

General courts - Croatia

65%

35%

General courts - Croatia
EU Median

65%
87%

35%
13%

EU Median

87%

13%

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Croatia

Geographic 
locations

Legal entities

General jurisdiction

Specialised 
jurisdiction

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Croatia

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

158

192

203

203

203

203

205

143

143

67

65

65

22

22

22

22

30

30

74

74

74

36

36

36

36

17

17

250

200

150

100

50

0

Geographic locations
Legal entities General jurisdiction
Legal entities Specialised jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

The reform of judicial map implemented in 2015 decreased the number of Misdemeanour Courts from 63 to 22. On the 1st of January 2019, new Courts Areas and Seats 
Act came into force. From the organisational aspect, the most important measure was the merging of misdemeanor courts into municipal courts, and few municipal courts 
were reopened after 2015. This is why Croatia has now less first instance specialised courts than in 2018, and more courts of general jurisdiction (22 courts which were in 
2018, plus 8 courts which were reopened after the new law came into force).

The reasons for the merger were a significant decrease in the number of misdemeanour cases and overburdened municipal courts with civil cases. In the new judicial map, 
instead of 46 municipal and misdemeanour courts, there are now 34 municipal courts - all misdemeanour and municipal courts were merged in the same cities except in 2 
largest cities, Zagreb and Split, in which specialised municipal courts for misdemeanour cases were retained, and due to geographical specificities and size of certain 
municipal courts they were separated and new municipal courts were established (10). Also, a new commercial court was established in Dubrovnik. The aim of this new 
judicial map with new courts in the network and increased jurisdiction of permanent services is to increase the efficiency of the courts, improve access to court services, 
ensure even distribution of the workload of judges, shorten the length of court proceedings, reduce the number of unresolved cases in municipal courts, and ensure 
optimisation and easier management of human resources in courts.

Croatia

Ratio general jurisdiction vs specialised

Croatia

General jurisdiction Specialised courts

64%

75%

36%

36%

25%

64%

Distribution of first instance general jurisdiction and specialised courts

EU Median

25%

75%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

The distribution between number of general jurisdiction courts and specialised courts of 63,8% - 36,2% is around the EU median (distribution 
tendency in EU: 75,5% - 24,5%).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

183 / 1555

Specialised courts
Total

Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

Insolvency courts

Labour courts

Family courts

Rent and tenancies courts

Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

Internet related disputes

Administrative courts

Insurance and / or social welfare courts

Military courts

Juvenile courts

Other specialised 1st instance courts

First instance

Higher instance

17

9

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4

0

NAP

NAP

3

3

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

0

NAP

NAP

1

The term “other specialised 1st instance courts” in the Republic of Croatia refers to misdemeanour courts and the Municipal Criminal Court in Zagreb.
In the Croatian judicial system there is a higher instance of 3 specialised courts: commercial, administrative and other (misdemeanour).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

184 / 1555

2. Professionals of justice in Croatia

● Professional judges and non-judge staff

Evolution of the number of professional judges since 2012 (Q46)

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Absolute 
number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

1 932

1 912

1 875

1 864

1 797

1 775

1 660

1 682

1 643

45,33

45,02

44,38

44,48

43,26

43,23

40,72

41,45

40,71

Professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants

45,33

45,02

44,38

44,48

43,26

43,23

40,72

41,45

40,71

23,9

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

EU median
According to 2020 data, the total number of professional judges sitting in courts (all instances) in Croatia is 1 643, which is -2,3% less than in previous cycle.

23,9

More precisely, in Croatia, there are 40,71 professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants (this figure is above the EU median of 23,92 judges per 100 000 inhabitants) and about 3,58 non-
judge staff per judge .

There has been a small increase compared with previous cycle when this ratio was at 3,52 non-judge staff per judge.

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and gender

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

1 158

449

36

1 643

Distribution by 
instance

70,5%

27,3%

2,2%

Male

Female

% Male

% Female

302

149

22

473

856

300

14

1 170

26,1%

33,2%

61,1%

28,8%

73,9%

66,8%

38,9%

71,2%

Distribution of professional judges by instance

Croatia

EU Median

70,5%

72,39%

EU Median

72,39%

23,98%

4,03%

27,3%

23,98%

2,2%

4,03%

Distribution of professional judges by gender and by instance

% Female

73,9%

26,1%

66,8%

33,2%

38,9%

61,1%

% Male

71,2%

28,8%

Total

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

In this cycle, the total number of female professional judges (all instances) is 1 170, which represents 71,2% of the total number of judges.

The total number of judges is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 1 158 are sitting in first instance courts (of which 856 are female); 449 are sitting in 
second instance courts (of which 300 are female)  and 36 are sitting in Supreme Court (of which 14 are female).  

As regards the methodology of presentation of data in respect of the number of judges, it should be noticed that in the total number of judges, only data on actually working judges is 
presented (the total does not include judges on unpaid leave; judges on maternity leave; judges suspended after disciplinary procedure; judges transferred to other state body - for 
example to Ministry of Justice or Judicial Academy). Moreover, two judges working half-time (for the reason of care for a child with special needs) are counted as 1 judge.

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Total

Civil and commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

1 158

449

36

1 643

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

In Croatia, the distribution of judges per categories of cases in not possible in reason of mixed specialisation.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

185 / 1555

Non-judge staff

Year

2012

Number of non-judge staff

6 234

2013

6 222

2014

6 061

2015

5 929

2016

5 827

2017

5 900

2018

5 828

2019

5 929

2020

5 886

Per 100 000 inhabitants

146,26

146,51

143,44

141,48

140,27

143,71

142,97

146,10

145,82

E
U 
m

146,26

146,51

143,44

141,48

140,27

143,71

142,97

146,10

145,82

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants

2020

Total

Rechtspfleger

59,00

Non-judge staff assisting the judge

Staff in charge of administrative tasks

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

Technical staff

Other

Absolute 
number

5 886

553

4 147

537

649

NAP

in %

0

70,5%

9,1%

11,0%

NAP

In 2020, Croatia has 5 886 non-judge staff (of which 5 081 are females). The total number of non-judge staff in comparison with the previous cycle reveals a decrease of -0,7%.

In this cycle, the non-judge staff is broken down as follows:

◦ 553 Rechtspfleger (or similar bodies) with judicial or quasi-judicial tasks having autonomous competence and whose decisions could be subject to appeal (among which 
◦ 4 147 non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges such as registrars (of which 3 788 are women);
◦ 537 staff in charge of different administrative tasks and of the court management (of which 431 are women);
◦ 649 technical staff (of which 397 are women);

In 2020, the number of non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants has decreased (from 146,1 in 2019 to 145,8 in 2020).

During the same period, the number of judges per 100 000 inhabitants evolves from 41,4 judges per 100 000 inhabitants in 2019 to 40,7 in 2020.

The reason for fluctuation and differences in the number of Rechtpflegers in Republic of Croatia is that they work for 2 years, then prolonged 5 years and then they get a permanent post or 
not.

Professional judges, non-judge staff and their ratio (Q46, Q52)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Croatia

EU median

Professional judges

40,71

Non-judge staff

145,82

Non-judge staff per judge

3,58

23,92

59,00

3,30

Professional judges and non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

145,82

3,58

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Non-judge staff per judge

40,71

3,30

59,00

23,92

Croatia

EU median

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff  (Q46, Q52)

Judges 
per 100 000 inh.

Non-judge staff per
100 000 inh.

Ratio between professional judges and 
non-judge staff

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff 
Non-judge staff per 100 000 inh.
(Q46, Q52)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

45,33

45,02

44,38

44,48

43,26

43,23

40,72

41,45

40,71

146,26

146,51

143,44

141,48

140,27

143,71

142,97

146,10

145,82

EU median 2020

3,30

3,23

3,25

3,23

3,18

3,24

3,32

3,51

3,52

3,58

3,23

3,25

3,23

2012

2013

2014

3,23
3,25
3,23
3,18
3,24
3,32
3,51
3,52
3,58

3,18

3,24

3,32

3,51

3,52

3,58

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

186 / 1555

● Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff

Absolute number of public prosecutors by instance and gender (Q55)

2020

Total

Distribution by 
instance

Male

Female

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

439

158

25

622

70,6%

25,4%

4,0%

126

63

8

197

313

95

17

425

Male

28,7%

39,9%

32,0%

31,7%

Female

71,3%

60,1%

68,0%

68,3%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance

Croatia

EU Median

70,6%

73,30%
EU Median

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance and gender

Female

Male

73,30%

21,28%

25,4%

21,28%

4,66%

4,0%

4,66%

71,3%

28,7%

60,1%

39,9%

68,0%

68,3%

32,0%

31,7%

Total

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

In this cycle, the total number of female prosecutors (all instances) is 425, which represents 68,3% of the total number of prosecutors.

The total number of prosecutors is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 439 in first instance (of which 313 are female); 158 are in second instance (of 
which 95 are female) and 25 in final instance (of which 17 are female).  

As regards the methodology of presentation of data in respect of the number of prosecutors, it should be noticed that the total number of non-judicial staff is a result of a deduction and 
subsumes only actually working staff. Thus, the total does not include staff on unpaid leave; staff on maternity leave; staff suspended after disciplinary procedures; staff transferred to 
other State bodies (for example the Ministry of Justice or Judicial Academy). Besides, two non-judicial officials working half-time (for the reason of care for a child with special needs) are 
counted as 1 non-judicial official.

The provided data encompasses all officials in the public prosecutors’ offices, including heads of the public prosecutors’ offices (the Public Prosecutor of the Republic of Croatia, county 
and municipal public prosecutors, the head of the Bureau for Combating Corruption and Organised Crime) and all public prosecutors deputies. The number of prosecutors at the first 
instance level includes all municipal public prosecutors, their deputies, as well as the head of the Bureau for Combating Corruption and Organised Crime and his deputies. The number of 
prosecutors at the second instance (court of appeal) level includes all county public prosecutors and their deputies. The number of prosecutors at the Supreme Court level includes the 
Public Prosecutor and his deputies.

Non-prosecutor staff by gender (Q60)

Non-prosecutor staff

2020

Total

1 058

Male

138

Female

920

Non-prosecutor staff by gender

13%

Male

Female

87%

Public prosecutors, non-prosecutor staff and their ratio (Q55, Q60)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Croatia

EU median

Public prosecutors

15,41

Non-prosecutor staff

26,21

Non-prosecutor staff per 
prosecutor

1,70

9,91

15,22

1,11

Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Public prosecutors

26,21

1,70

Non-prosecutor staff

15,41

Non-prosecutor staff per prosecutor

15,22

1,11

9,91

Croatia

EU median

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

187 / 1555

● Salaries of professional judges and prosecutors at beginning of a career and at the highest instance (Q132, Q4)

Salaries of professional judges and 
prosecutors (Q132, Q4)

Average gross annual 
salary 
in €

Average net annual 
salary 
in €

Ratio with national 
average annual 
gross salary

Judge at the beginning of a career 

27 878 €

17 790 €

Judge of the highest court 

53 447 €

32 452 €

Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

27 878 €

17 790 €

Public prosecutor at highest instance

53 447 €

32 452 €

1,90

3,64

1,90

3,64

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual salary in the 
country

Salaries of 
judges and 
prosecutors in 
Judge

4,09

EU Median

3,64

2,02

2,02

1,90

4,09

1,71

at the beginning 
of a career

3,64

3,61

27878

1,90

at the highest 
1,71
instance

Prosecutor

at the beginning 
of a career

53447

27878

Judge at the beginning of
career

Judge on highest instance

3,61

Croatia

Prosecutor at the
beginning of career

EU Median

at the highest 
instance

Prosecutor at highest
instance

53447

According to 2020 data, the absolute gross salary of a judge at the begining of a career in Croatia of 27 878€ is below when compared to the EU median of 51 946€. As a ratio with the 
annual average salary of the country, the salary for a judge at the begining of career is: 1,90 compared with EU median of : 2,02.

Smallest absolute gross salary for judge at the begining of career is: 21 856€ in Hungary and the highest of: 129 704€ is in Ireland.

At the end of career the smallest absolute gross salary for judge at the begining of career is: 44 214€ in Bulgaria and the highest of: 236 387€ is in Denmark.

Salaries of judges and other judicial officials are determined by multiplying the base for calculating the salary by the coefficient for a particular official, which are prescribed by the Judges' 
and other Judicial Officials' Salaries Act. Determined salaries are increased by 0.5% for each completed year of service, by a maximum of 20%.

● Lawyers

Lawyers

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

Number of lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

4 392

4 408

4 487

4 560

4 690

4 719

4 756

4 752

4 835

103,05

103,80

106,19

108,81

112,90

114,94

116,68

117,10

119,79

103,05

103,80

106,19

108,81

112,90

114,94

116,68

117,10

119,79

122,09

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median
2020

EU median 2020
In 2020, there are 4 835 lawyers, which is 1,7% more than in 2019.

122,09

Croatia has 119,8 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants, which is around the EU median of 122,1 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

188 / 1555

● Judicial professionals (summary)

Judicial professionals in absolute number and per 100 000 inhabitants (Q46, Q52, Q55, Q60, Q146)

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

EU Median

Professional judges

1 682

41,45

23,92

Non-judge staff

5 886

145,82

59,00

Prosecutors

622

15,41

9,91

Non-prosecutor staff

1 058

26,21

15,22

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Croatia

EU Median

145,82

119,79

122,09

59,00

41,45

23,92

15,41

9,91

26,21

15,22

Lawyers

4 835

119,79

122,09

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

Croatia % Male

Croatia % Female

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

% Male

% Female

Professional judges

Professional judges

Professional judges

28,8%

71,2%

Non judge staff

13,7%

86,3%

Prosecutors

31,7%

68,3%

Non-prosecutor staff

13,0%

87,0%

Lawyers

56,5%

43,5%

Non-prosecutor staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

56,5%

Lawyers

52,3%

Croatia % Male Croatia % Femalelabels

EU Median  % Male
-28,8%

EU Median  % Female
28,8%

71,2%

28,8%

-39,0%

39,0%

61,0%

39,0%

0,0%

Non judge staff

13,7%

Non judge staff

-13,7%

24,0%

86,3%

13,7%

Prosecutors

-24,0%
31,7%

40,5%

-31,7%
-40,5%
28,1%

-13,0%
-28,1%

-56,5%
-52,3%

76,0%

24,0%

13,0%

68,3%
59,5%

87,0%
71,9%

43,5%
47,7%

0,0%

31,7%
40,5%
0,0%
13,0%
28,1%
0,0%
56,5%
52,3%

43,5%

47,7%

71,2%

61,0%

86,3%

76,0%

68,3%

59,5%

87,0%

71,9%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

189 / 1555

3. Legal aid and court fees in Croatia

In Croatia, legal aid includes:

◦ Coverage of court fees: 

◦ Exemption from court fees: 

0

1

Exemption from court fees in other than criminal cases is one of the forms of secondary legal aid prescribed by Law on Legal Aid.

In Croatia, legal aid is available for :

> Representation in court:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

> Legal advice, ADR and other legal services:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

>

Fees related to enforcement of judicial decisions as fees for enforcement agents (Q18) 

>

 Other costs than above (Q19) 

1

1

1

1

1

1

Exemption from court fees in other than criminal cases is one of the forms of secondary legal aid prescribed by the Law on Legal Aid and it may be granted in proceedings related 
to the enforcement of judicial decisions.
The situation changed few times in the last years. While until 2014, the exemption from payment of court fees could be granted in all judicial proceedings, including enforcement 
procedures and security procedures, due to changes in the Legal Aid Act in 2014, there was no more this possibility. In 2016, the Free Legal Aid Act reinstalled it and now it allows 
to grant legal aid for the fees related to the enforcement of judicial decisions.
Exemption from court-proceeding-expenses in other than criminal cases includes exemption from payment costs of witnesses, expert witnesses, court-sworn translators, costs of 
site visits and court advertisements. The exemption from payment of litigation costs depends on the material conditions and the type of procedure.

 Number of cases for which legal aid has been granted

Total

Cases brought to court

Cases not brought to 
court

Absolute number 
(in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

30 622

NA

NA

3 433

NA

NA

27 189

NA

NA

NA

NA

Per 100 000 inhabitants
 (in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

758,7

Croatia

EU Median

Number of other than criminal cases for which legal has been granted 
per 100 000 inhabitants

Croatia

758,7

EU Median

734,2

330,9

402,7

402,7

In other than criminal cases

Timeframes of the procedure for granting legal aid (in relation to the duration from the initial legal aid request to the final approval of the legal aid request)

◦ Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulations: 

◦ Actual average duration: 

15

NA

Envisaged timeframe for granting legal aid in other than criminal cases is set out in Law on Legal Aid. However, the proceeding for obtaining legal aid for cases not brought to 
court in other than criminal cases (primary legal aid) is initiated by directly contacting the primary-legal-aid-provider and there is no prescribed timeframe, that is to say the primary-
legal-aid-provider shall provide legal aid immediately upon contact with free-legal-aid-recipient. To obtain legal aid for cases brought to court in other than criminal cases 
(secondary legal aid) an application must be submitted to one of the county-administrative-bodies or the administrative body of the city of Zagreb and they shall render decision by 
15 days after the submission of the application.
According to the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Act, the defendant shall submit a reasoned request for the appointment of a defense counsel at the expense of budgetary 
funds to the State Attorney until the indictment is filed, or to the court after the indictment is filed. The State Attorney or the President of the Council or a judge shall decide on the 
merits of the request for the appointment of a defense counsel at the expense of the budget. An appeal against the decision of the State Attorney shall be decided by the 
investigating judge, while an appeal against the decision of the president of the panel or an individual judge shall be decided by the panel.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

190 / 1555

4. Performance of courts in Croatia

● Efficiency indicators

◦ Clearance Rate (CR) and Disposition Time (DT)

The Clearance Rate shows the capacity of a judicial system to deal with the incoming cases. A Clearance Rate of 100% and higher does not generate backlog. 

The Disposition Time determines the estimated number of days necessary for a pending case to be solved in a court. 

First instance Total of other than criminal cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Evolution of number of all other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants
Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Incoming

,

6
7
5
2

,

7
2
6
2

,

8
5
5
2

,

4
1
6
2

,

2
2
2
2

,

2
9
2
2

,

6
5
1
2

,

0
9
1
2

,

0
2
3
2

,

1
6
3
2

,

0
9
2
2

,

9
2
3
2

,

4
6
2
2

,

5
6
1
2

,

3
6
4
2

9
5
9

,

3
2
9

,

9
3
8

,

2
9
7

,

5
5
7

,

5
2
7

,

1
3
6

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

25,76

25,58

22,22

21,56

,

5
8
2
2

23,20

22,90

26,27

26,14

22,92

21,90

23,61

23,29

,

5
8
2
2

,

5
0
2
2

21,65

6
1
8

,

22,64

,

8
4
7

24,63

22,05
2019

6,82

22,85

22,85

6,60

2020

9,59

9,23

8,39

7,92

7,55

7,25

6,31

6
6
2

8,16

,

2
8
6

,

0
6
6

,

7,48

EU median

2,66

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Croatia (22,05 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (6,82 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Croatia (22,85 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (6,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Croatia (7,48 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (2,66 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Other than criminal cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Other than criminal 
cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

102%

102%

103%

102%

102%

102%

105%

93%

104%

133

129

134

132

117

114

102

130

120

EU median

99%

109

102%

102%

103%

102%

102%

102%

105%

104%

99%

93%

DT (days)

CR (%)

133

2012

129

2013

134

2014

132

2015

117

2016

114

2017

102

2018

130

2019

120

109

2020

EU median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 103,6% in 2020 Croatia seems to be able to deal with its other than criminal cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased by 10,9 points.

In 2020, other than criminal cases are solved in approximately 120 days, which is slightly above EU median of 109 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a -8,3% decrease of the Disposition Time.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

191 / 1555

First instance Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of civil and commercial litigious cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

0
1
5

,

3
1
5

,

0
8
4

,

6
8
4

,

9
2
4

,

7
0
4

,

3
6
4

,

5
4
4

,

2
9
3

,

0
4
4

,

0
1
4

,

3
8
3

,

6
8
3

,

4
8
3

,

6
2
3

,

3
6
3

,

2
4
3

,

5
1
3

,

1
2
3

,

9
2
3

,

6
8
2

,

8
1
3

,

8
7
2

,

4,29
4,80
3,92
3,83
3,26
3,15
2,86
3,18
2,73
1,56

2
7
3

,

4,07
4,86
4,45
4,10
3,86
3,42
3,21
2,78
2,32
1,50

7
1
4

,

3
7
2

,

2
3
2

,

5,10
5,13
4,63
4,40
3,84
3,63
3,29
3,72
4,17
1,05

6
5
1

,

0
5
1

,

5
0
1

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Croatia (2,73 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly above EU median (1,56 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Croatia (2,32 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly above EU median (1,50 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Croatia (4,17 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (1,05 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

95,0%

101,2%

113,4%

107,1%

118,1%

108,7%

112,5%

87,5%

85,0%

457

386

380

391

364

387

374

488

655

EU Median

98%

221

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

DT (days)

CR (%)

95,0%

101,2%

113,4%

107,1%

118,1%

108,7%

112,5%

87,5%

85,0%

98%

457

2012

386

2013

380

2014

391

2015

364

2016

387

2017

374

2018

488

2019

655

221

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 85,0% in 2020, Croatia seems to face some difficulties in dealing with  its civil and commercial litigious cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -2,4 points.

In 2020, the civil and commercial litigious cases are solved in approximately 655 days, which is well above EU median of 221 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 34,3% increase of the Disposition Time.

In Croatia, there are 46 677 civil and commercial litigious cases older than 2 years. This is 27,7% of the total number of pending cases at the end of the year

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

192 / 1555

First instance Administrative cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of administrative cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

3
3
0

,

3
3
0

,

8
2
0

,

3
3
0

,

8
2
0

,

1
2
0

,

6
3
0

,

4
3
0

,

2
3
0

,

8
3
0

,

5
3
0

,

3
3
0

,

6
3
0

,

9
2
0

,

6
2
0

,

8
3
0

,

3
3
0

,

2
3
0

,

1
2
0

,

8
2
0

,

7
1
0

,

2
1
0

,

5
3
0

0,28
0,33
0,33
0,34
0,35
0,29
0,33
0,32
0,30
0,30

,

8
1
0

,

0,12
0,21
0,28
0,32
0,38
0,36
0,38
0,35
0,32
0,26

6
1
0

,

2
3
0

,

0
3
0

,

0
3
0

,

0,17
0,28
0,33
0,36
0,33
0,26
0,21
0,18
0,16
0,21

1
2
0

,

6
2
0

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Croatia (0,30 per 100 inhabitants) is above EU median (0,30 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Croatia (0,32 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat above EU median (0,26 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Croatia (0,16 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below EU median (0,21 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Administrative cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

41,1%

64,3%

85,8%

92,7%

109,3%

126,5%

115,9%

108,8%

106,9%

523

493

426

413

319

258

197

187

179

EU Median

100%

388

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Administrative cases

DT (days)

CR (%)

126,5%

115,9%

109,3%

108,8%

106,9%

100%

85,8%

92,7%

64,3%

41,1%

523

2012

493

2013

426

2014

413

2015

319

2016

258

2017

197

2018

187

2019

179

388

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 106,9% in 2020, Croatia seems to be able to deal with its its administrative cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased for -1,9 points.

In 2020, the administrative cases are solved in approximately 179 days, which is significantly below EU median of 388 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a -4,3% decrease of the Disposition Time.

The number of administrative law cases older than 2 years is not available.

Due to the pandemic caused by COVID-19, court proceedings for limited period in 2020 were submitted under specific conditions and measures, which contributed to a 
decreased number of incoming cases, as well as a decreased number of court hearings, especially in litigious cases.
Regarding the number of incoming non-litigious business registry cases, a new article added by the Act on Amendments to the Court Register Act, which came into force 
at the end of 2019, stipulated the obligation of companies to submit a request for entry of at least one e-mail address to the courts managing business registry. This was 
the reason for temporarily increased number of cases, which were all resolved by the end of January 31, 2021.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

193 / 1555

Insolvency cases

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Insolvency cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Insolvency cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NA

62,1%

190,8%

30,4%

123,6%

140,1%

121,3%

131,2%

141,5%

NA

436

403

1132

227

278

283

276

328

EU Median

105%

281

190,8%

62,1%

436

2013

30,4%

1132

2015

403

2014

DT (days)

CR (%)

123,6%

140,1%

121,3%

131,2%

141,5%

105%

227

2016

278

2017

283

2018

276

2019

328

2020

281

EU Median

The Clearance Rate was calculated at 141,5% in 2020 for insolvency cases, Croatia seems to be well able to deal with its insolvency cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased by 10,2 points.

In 2020, insolvency cases are solved in a approximately 328 days, which is slightly above EU median of 281 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 19,1% increase of the Disposition Time.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

194 / 1555

● First instance Criminal Law Cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

82 475

196 602

173 197

105 697

Severe criminal cases 

27 040

17 944

15 769

29 337

Misdemeanour and/or 
minor cases

44 977

126 616

105 375

65 651

Other cases

10 728

52 042

52 053

10 709

Per 100 inhabitants

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 
Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

2,04

0,67

1,11

0,27

4,87

0,44

3,14

1,29

4,29

0,39

2,61

1,29

2,62

0,73

1,63

0,27

Total criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases Resolved casesPending 
Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

Incoming cases

Croatia

4,87

4,29

2,62

7
8
4

,

9
2
4

,

EU Median

2
6
2

,

1,60

1,48

0,46

0
6
1

,

8
4
1

,

6
4
0

,

Croatia

EU Median

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, and other 
criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases

Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

Total

Severe criminal
cases

0,44
0,39

0,73

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

Other cases

0,27

2,62

4,87

4,29

3,14

2,61

1,63

1,29
1,29

The number of total incoming criminal cases in 2020 in Croatia (4,87 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (1,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total resolved criminal cases in 2020 in Croatia (4,29 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (1,48 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total pending criminal cases at the end of 2020 in Croatia (2,62 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (0,46 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT)

Total criminal law cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

DT (days)

CR (%)

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 

Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

88,1%

87,9%

83,2%

Other cases

100,0%

223

679

227

75

Total Criminal law cases

95,2%

88,1%

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, 
and other criminal law cases 

87,9%

83,2%

100,0%

EU Median

95,2%

139

EU Median

223

Total

139

EU Median

679

227

Severe criminal
cases

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

75

Other cases

With the Clearance Rate calculated at 88,1% in 2020 for total criminal cases, Croatia seems to face some difficulties in dealing with its total criminal cases.

In 2020, criminal law cases were solved in approximately 223 days, which is significantly above EU median of 139 days.

Starting from last cycle, in category "Other cases" are included cases related to criminal matters in first instance: execution of sanctions (imprisonment), investigation 
actions of a judge, cases connected to procedural matters (e.g. panel of judges decision about detention, about prolongation of detention, about confirmation or dismissal 
of indictment, etc.)
Regarding decreased number of resolved minor criminal cases: due to the pandemic caused by COVID-19, court proceedings for limited period in 2020 were submitted 
under specific conditions and measures, which contributed to decreased number of court hearings, also in minor criminal cases.
Regarding horizontal inconsistency, for most of the categories, the full horizontal inconsistency can not be ensured, due to some adjustments and changes in the Case 
Management System used by courts.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

195 / 1555

Overall efficiency by instance and by case matter

CR (%)

DT (days)

CR (%)

DT (days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases

85,0%

129,4%

122,8%

Administrative cases

106,9%

108,2%

143,8%

Total criminal law cases

88,1%

136,9%

101,0%

655

179

223

184

165

171

586

928

121

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)
2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

1st instance

Supreme Court

,

%
4
9
2
1

100%

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases
%
0
Administrative cases
5
8

,

,

%
8
2
2
1

,

,

%
%
2
9
85,0%
8
6
0
0
1
1
106,9%

2nd instance
%
8
3
4
1

,

,

%
9
6
3
1

129,4%
108,2%

%
1
8
8

,

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

,

%
0
1
0
1

122,8%
143,8%

1

1
1

586

184

655

928

165
179

121
171

223

Total criminal law cases

Civil and commercial
litigious cases

Administrative cases Total criminal law

88,1%

136,9%
cases

101,0%

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

1
1

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

The 2nd instance is the fastest among the three instances. At the case category level, the administrative cases are processed faster than the other ones. However, it 
can be noted that this observation does not apply if the cases reach the Supreme Court. At this final stage, the criminal law cases are processed faster.
Compared the EU median, 1st instance civil and commercial litigious cases (655 vs 221) are processed much longer.
Compared the EU median, last instance administrative cases (928 vs 281) are processed much longer.

As regards second instance criminal cases, in the category “severe criminal cases”, are included criminal cases under the jurisdiction of the 2nd instance county courts, 
while in the category “misdemeanours and/or minor criminal cases” there are cases under the jurisdiction of the 2nd instance misdemeanour courts and High 
Misdemeanour Court.
Croatian legislation distinguishes misdemeanours and criminal offences. Misdemeanour Act prescribes that misdemeanours and misdemeanour legal sanctions can be 
proscribed solely for those behaviours that violate or threaten public order, social discipline and social values guaranteed and protected by the Constitution of the 
Republic of Croatia, international law and the laws whose protection is not possible without misdemeanour legal sanction, and their protection is not achieved with 
criminal coercion. The above shows that misdemeanours are certain behaviours that deserve sanction, but which by its severity and consequences do not deserve 
criminal liability.
Since the Criminal code does not strictly classify the categories of severe and minor criminal offences, we are not able to classify as misdemeanour/minor all offences for 
which it is not possible to pronounce a sentence of deprivation of liberty, and classify as severe offences all offences punishable by a deprivation of liberty

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

196 / 1555

5. Public prosecution services in Croatia

● Role and powers of the public prosecutor

In the criminal procedure, the public prosecutor in Croatia has the following 8 out of 11 possible roles and powers:

To conduct or supervise police investigation

To appeal

To conduct investigations

To supervise the enforcement procedure

When necessary, to request investigation measures from the judge

To discontinue a case without needing a decision by a judge

To charge

To present the case in the court

To propose a sentence to the judge

To end the case by imposing or negotiating a penalty or measure 
without requiring a judicial decision

Other significant powers

The State Attorney supervises the conduct of police investigations, carries out surveys for collecting data for initiating an investigation, leads the investigation, has the power to 
propose investigative detention to the investigating judge, and request issuance of the search warrant and specific evidence collecting procedures. He/she issues the indictments 
and prosecutes them in the Court, he/she may propose a punishment, but the proposal, unless for certain exceptions prescribed by law, does not bind the Court. Even in such 
cases, the Court is authorized to pronounce lower sentence. The State Attorney has the right and the duty to file an appeal against non-final court decisions and concerning 
extraordinary legal remedies against final court decisions. He/she also has the right and the duty of consultation in the proceedings on the application for judicial review of the 
decisions or actions of administrative bodies responsible for enforcement of the sentence or measures involving deprivation of liberty imposed by a final judgment in criminal 
proceedings. The State Attorney may, only when applying opportunity, terminate the case without a court decision.
In addition to the above powers, the State Attorney has the right to negotiate and communicate with the defendant on the plea and the sanction. The State Attorney General 
decides on granting the procedural immunity to a member of the criminal organization in accordance with the law.
The State Attorney of the Republic of Croatia may submit a request for the protection of legality against a final court decision and against judicial proceedings which preceded 
such final decisions if there was a violation of law or a violation of basic human rights and liberties guaranteed by the Constitution, domestic and international laws

The public prosecutor also has a role in civil, administrative and insolvency cases.

The State Attorney's Office represents the Republic of Croatia in the protection of assets and other rights in the civil and administrative matters; represents the Republic of Croatia 
in the proceedings before a municipal court and before administrative bodies; represents the Republic of Croatia in the proceedings before a county court and before a 
commercial court; represents the Republic of Croatia, and oversee and protect the rule of law and proceed with all actions before the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia, 
the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Croatia, the Administrative Court of the Republic of Croatia, the High Commercial Court of the Republic of Croatia, the Magistrate’s 
Court of the Republic of Croatia, and international and foreign justice and other bodies, unless otherwise determined by law or the regulation based thereon.
The State Attorney's Office shall issue a legal opinion concerning all issues relating to civil law matters and the protection of assets, natural wealth, parts of nature, immovable 
assets, things and rights of interest to the Republic of Croatia; an opinion regarding Acts and other regulations; an opinion concerning legal transactions completed by the 
Republic of Croatia and other civil law issues.
The State Attorney's Office, as a legal representative of the Republic of Croatia, upon the proposal of state bodies, shall submit to the competent commercial court the application 
for initiating the bankruptcy proceeding, or file claims of the governmental bodies in the bankruptcy proceedings that have been initiated by other authorized person.
The State Attorney's Office is not competent to initiate bankruptcy proceedings, but only the creditors and the debtor itself, meaning that the State Attorney's Office undertakes 
necessary actions upon the initiative of the creditor, represented by the State Attorney's Office.
The State Attorney's Office initiates the bankruptcy proceedings for refuting debtor’s legal transactions, which incurred damage to the estate of the Republic of Croatia as a 
creditor, before or after the initiation of the proceeding.]

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

197 / 1555

● Public prosecutors: Number of first instance criminal cases

Type of cases

Absolute 
number

Per 100 
inhabitants

1. Pending cases on 1 Jan. ref. year 

48 601

1,20

2. Incoming/received cases

39 926

0,99

3. Processed cases (3.1 + 3.2 + 3.3 + 3.4)

33 822

0,84

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year (3.1.1 + 3.1.2 + 3.1.3 
+ 3.1.4)

14 406

0,36

3.1.1 Discontinued by the public prosecutor because the 
offender could not be identified 

3.1.2 Discontinued by the public prosecutor due to the lack 
of an established offence or a specific legal situation 

3.1.3 Discontinued by the public prosecutor for reasons of 
opportunity

3.1.4 Discontinued for other reasons 

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated 
by the public prosecutor

NA

NA

NA

NA

381

0,01

NA

NA

NA

NA

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons

6 389

0,16

3.4. Cases brought to court

18 481

0,46

Public prosecutors: Total number of first instance criminal 
Incoming/rec
cases per 100 inhabitants
eived cases

Processed 
cases

Pendin
g cases 
on 31 
Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. Year
2,85
2,84
0,99 0,84

1,29

Incoming/received cases

Processed cases

Croatia

EU Median

1,29

2,85 2,84

0,84

0,99

0,84

0,84

Croatia

EU Median

Processed cases per 100 inhabitants
EU Median

Croatia

Processed cases

Croatia

EU Median

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

0,36

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

1,05

-0,36

1,05

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed
or negotiated by the public prosecutor

0,12

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other
reasons

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons
0,30

-0,16

0,16

0,30

0,00

0,12

4. Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. year

52 201

1,29

3.4. Cases brought to court

3.4. Cases brought to court

0,46

-0,46

0,53
0,53

Discontinued for other reasons: cases can be discontinued for reasons such as circumstances which exclude guilt, the fact that there is no reasonable suspicion that the suspect 
committed particular criminal offence, in the case when criminal complaint is not credible. The reason for discontinue the case can be if the data in the criminal complaint indicate 
the conclusion that the complaint is not credible.
Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons: cases can be closed for reasons such as the existence of circumstances that preclude the guilt of the defendant or there 
is no evidence that the defendant committed the offence. Other reasons: If the data in the criminal complaint indicate the conclusion that the application is not credible.

Reason for decreased number of incoming cases same as for the courts - pandemic of COVID-19.
Discontinued cases decreased - same as for the courts (COVID-19), please see comment in Q091.
For the category 3.1. Discontinued during the reference year (3.1.1+3.1.2+3.1.3+3.1.4.), PP is not able to differ categories 3.1.1., 3.1.2 and 3.1.4.]

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

198 / 1555

6. Existence and use of alternative dispute resolution in Croatia

Number of mediators

Mediators

Total

Per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

406

406

453

474

549

588

612

632

673

9,5

9,6

10,7

11,3

13,2

14,3

15,0

15,6

16,7

EU Median 2020

EU median in 2019

14,4

EU Median
2020

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

Number of mediators per 100 000 inhabitants

14,4

16,7

15,6

15,0

14,3

13,2

11,3

10,7

9,6

9,5

In 2020, there are 673 accredited or registered mediators who practise court related mediation which represents 16,7 accredited or registered mediators per 

The variation between  2019 and  2020 is about 6,5%.

Number of court related mediations

Type of cases

All cases

Civil and commercial

Family cases

Administrative

Employment dismissal

Criminal cases

Consumer cases

Number of cases 
for which the parties
agreed to start 
mediation

Number of finished 
court-related
mediations

Number of cases 
in which there is a 
settlement agreement

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

199 / 1555

7. ICT tools of courts in Croatia

●The ICT tools of courts and for court users

The use of ICT in courts in 2020 has been evaluated as  :

EU Median

Total 
(0 to 10)

Assistance tools (0 to 3)

Case management system (0 to 7)
Financial management tools (0 to 3)

Measurement tools to assess the workload (0 to 5)
Electronic communication (0 to 10)

6,6
2,0

7,0

0,5
3,3

5,7

6,6
2,0

5,2

1,3
2,5

6,9

The calculation of this values for each field is based on the answers for that question/s and weighted according the avaiability 
or deployment rate. The total value is normalised to max 10 points for readability and comparison.

The details of the calculation are given in Annex 5 - IT calculations

The result by area may be summarized in these graphics, where each field has been evaluated from 0 to 4 points.

Note: index is modified based on the available questions. This cycle the recalculation was made for the last three cycles to be 
able to follow the development.

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

2018

2019

2020

EU Median 2020

Assistance 
tools

Year
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
EU Median 20202,00

1,67

2,00

1,67

Case 
management 
system

Financial 
management 
tools

Measurement 
tools to assess 
the workload

7,00

Electronic 
communication

6,33

5,83

5,83

6,33

7,00

1,00

1,00

0,50

5,17

3,33

3,33

3,33

1,25

4,95

5,66

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

3,33

3,33

3,33

2,50

6,94

5,66

4,95

2,00

2,00

1,67

1,67

1,00

1,00

1,25

0,50

1,25

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

Comments on communication tools 

The eKomunikacija was launched into production, enabling electronic communication of all participants (including lawyers) and all courts except 
administrative ones. Article 106(a) of the Civil Procedural Law prescribes that submission can be submitted in electronic form via information 
system. Article 79 of the Criminal Procedural Code prescribes that submissions that are compiled and signed in writing may be submitted in the 
form of an electronic document if they are made, sent, received and stored using available information technology, and ensure the establishment 
of an unambiguous feature that determines the compiler of the electronic document.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

200 / 1555

8. Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and public prosecution services in Croatia

In Croatia, quality standards are determined for the judicial system at national level (e.g. quality systems for the judiciary and/or judicial quality policies). Specialised personnel 
within the courts and the public prosecution services is entrusted with implementation of these national level quality standards.

According to the Courts Act, the president of the court evaluates the work of every judge according to Framework Criteria for the work of judges in the period of one year 
following the standards on the number of judgements delivered by a judge compared with the number of judgements that should have been delivered, according to the 
Framework Criteria for the work of judges, result of work in different kinds of cases, respecting deadlines in delivery of judgements and drafting of judgements, quality of 
judgements on the grounds of expressed remedies in legal actions and other activities of judges.
Framework criteria are adopted by the Minister of Justice on the proposal of the General Assembly of Supreme Court. The Criteria prescribe the number of decisions that need 
to be rendered every year by a judge.
According to the State Attorney Office Act, State Attorneys' and Deputy State Attorneys' performance is evaluated every three years according to the following criteria: achieved 
results in resolving cases (based on the number of cases assigned to work on the basis of the Framework Criteria for the Work of Deputy State Attorneys and the average 
work results of county or municipal state attorney's offices for the previous three-year period), the quality of decisions and the justified use of legal remedies, proper 
performance of the state attorney's duty - observance of deadlines during the procedure, other activities of the State Attorney and the Deputy State Attorney, experience in 
performing the duty of state attorney and compliance of conduct with the Code of Ethics of State Attorneys and Deputy State Attorneys. The Framework criteria are adopted by 
the Minister in charge of judicial affairs, with the prior opinion of the Chief State Attorney of the Republic of Croatia.

● Systems for measuring and evaluating courts' performance

A regular monitoring system of court activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

In Croatia, there is a system to regularly evaluate the court performance based primarily on defined indicators and the reporting is more frequent than annual.

According to the Courts Act, the president of court supervises accurate performance of court activities in due time. The president of court has a duty to write a report on the 
performed supervision and its results, as well as on the measures taken, at least once a month. The report has to be inserted into a case file of judicial administration. The 
president of court is obliged to ensure court efficiency in the resolution of cases, especially when it comes to the resolution of cases the procedure in which lasts more than 
three years. The president of court, except for the president of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia, has a duty to submit a report on the performed tasks of judicial 
administration, measures and activities undertaken to improve work and efficiency of the court in the resolution of cases. The report is to be submitted directly to a court of 
higher instance, to the State Judicial Council and the Ministry in charge for Justice, once a year, at the latest by the 31 March for the previous year.
The president of the Supreme Court submits the report on the state of judiciary to the Croatian Parliament, once a year, at the latest by the 30th April for the previous year. In 
this yearly report the president of the Supreme Court can report on the state and actions of the judiciary, organizational problems in courts and legislation shortcomings as well 
as give suggestions for the improvement of the work of courts. The courts use special information systems for the management and operation of the courts’ cases, which 
consist of standard applications, computer and telecommunications equipment and infrastructure, system software and tools and all the data that are entered, stored and 
transmitted in all of the registers of the system. Through Case Management system it is possible to regularly monitor and evaluate the activity, performance and output of 
courts for the Ministry of Justice and the courts themselves.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each court.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

The evaluation of the courts' activities is not used for the later allocation of means in the courts.

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

201 / 1555

● Systems for measuring and evaluating public prosecution services' performance

A regular monitoring system of public prosecution services activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases 

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs 

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecution) 

Costs of the judicial procedures 

Clearance rate 

Disposition time 

Percentage of convictions and aquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

In Croatia, there is a system to evaluate regularly the activity of each public prosecution service and the reporting is more frequent than annual.

According to the State Attorney’s Act, a state attorney supervises accurate performance of all state attorney office activities in due time. A state attorney submits reports to the 
higher state attorney on his state attorney office performance each month and annually and reports on undertaken and planned actions in cases of special state interest or in 
cases with complex factual or legal issues. The General State Attorney Office submits the report on the status and trends of reported crime in the previous year, on cases 
related to the protection of property interests of the Republic of Croatia, legal issues in particular areas and a review of the organization and personnel in state attorney 
organization to the Croatian Parliament, once a year, at the latest by the 30 April for the previous year. In this yearly report, there can be a warning on the state and functioning 
of the legal system, deficiencies in the legislation and internal affairs of the state attorney's office and suggestions for improving the work.
The state attorney offices use a special information system for the management and operation of the state attorney cases, as an interactive data base in real time. Through the 
CTS (Case tracking system) it is possible to regularly monitor and evaluate the activity, performance and output of state attorney offices.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each public prosecution service.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecutors)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Percentage of convictions and acquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff

The evaluation of the public prosecution services' activities is not used for the later allocation of means in the public prosecution services.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

202 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table General Data: Economic and demographic data, in absolute values (Q1, Q3, Q5)

Q1 Number of inhabitants

4 262 140

4 246 809

4 225 316

4 190 669

4 154 213

4 105 493

4 076 246

4 058 165

4 036 355

-5,3%

-0,4%

-0,5%

-0,8%

-0,9%

-1,2%

-0,7%

-0,4%

-0,5%

Q.3 GDP Per capita (in €) in current prices

10 290

10 147

10 162

10 425

10 965

11 880

12 593

13 270

12 170

18,3%

-1,4%

0,1%

2,6%

5,2%

8,3%

6,0%

5,4%

-8,3%

Q5. Exchange rate of Nat currency to € on 1 Jan

8

8

8

8

8

8

7

7

8

-0,1%

1,1%

0,4%

-0,3%

-1,0%

-0,6%

-1,4%

0,5%

1,3%

Indicator 1: Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and prosecution services  (Indicator 4 in 2019)

Table 1.1 to Table 1.10 (Q66, Q67, Q77, Q78, Q77-1, Q78-1, Q73, Q73-0, Q73-1, Q73-2, Q73-3, Q73-4, Q73-5, Q73-6, Q70, Q70-1, Q71, Q72, Q83-2, Q83-3, Q120 
and Q120-1)

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

66 Qlty standards formulated_jud system

67 Specialised court staff entrusted_qlty standards

77 Performance and quality indicators of court activities

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

078.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078.1.5 Backlogs 

078.1.6 Productivity of judges and court staff

078.1.7 Satisfaction of court staff 

078.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts) 

078.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078.1.10 Number of appeals

078.1.11 Appeal ratio

078.1.12 Clearance rate 

078.1.13 Disposition time 

078.1.14 Other

077-1.1.1 Defined performance and quality indicators

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

203 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

078-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078-1.1.5 Backlogs 

078-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

078-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

078-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

078-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

078-1.1.11 Disposition time 

078-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

078-1.1.13 Other

73 Regular system_evaluation_performance_each court

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

073-0.1.1 Annual

073-0.1.2 Less frequent

073-0.1.3 More frequent

073-1.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
court

073-2.1.1 Courses of action taken in the evaluation is used for the 
allocation of resources

073-2.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-2.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-2.1.4 Other

073-3.1.1 Regular evaluation of the public prosecution services 
performance

True

False

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

Yes

Yes

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

204 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

073-4.1.1 Annual

073-4.1.2 Less frequent

073-4.1.3 More frequent

073-5.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
public prosecution services

073-6.1.1 Identifying the causes of improved or deteriorated 
performance

073-6.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-6.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-6.1.4 Other

070.1.1 number of incoming cases

070.1.2 length of proceedings (timeframes)

070.1.3 number of resolved cases

070.1.4 number of pending cases

070.1.5 backlogs

070.1.6 productivity of judges and court staff

070.1.7 satisfaction of court staff

070.1.8 satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts)

070.1.9 costs of the judicial procedures

070.1.10 number of appeals

070.1.11 appeal ratio

070.1.12 clearance rate

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

True

False

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

205 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

070-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases 

070-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

070-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

070-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

070-1.1.5 Backlogs 

070-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

070-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

070-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

070-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

070-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

070-1.1.11 Disposition time 

070-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

070-1.1.13 Other

071.1.1 Monitoring backlogs in Civil law cases

071.1.2 Monitoring backlogs in Criminal law cases

071.1.3 Monitoring backlogs in Administrative law cases

072.1.1 Monitoring timeframes Within the courts

072.1.2 Monitoring timeframes Within the public prosecution services

083-2.1.1 Quantitative performance tagets defined for each 
prosecutors

083-3.1.1 Body responsible - Executive power (for example the 
Ministry of Justice)

083-3.1.2 Body responsible - Prosecutor General /State public 
prosecutor

083-3.1.3 Body responsible - Public Prosecutorial Council

083-3.1.4 Body responsible - Head of the organisational unit or 
hierarchically superior public prosecutor

083-3.1.5 Body responsible - Other

True

False

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

False

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

206 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

120.1.1 Qualitative individual assessment of the public prosecutors' 
work

120-1.1.1 Feequency - Annual

120-1.1.2 Feequency - Less frequent

120-1.1.3 Feequency - More frequent

True

False

True

False

Indicator 2: The judicial organisation

Tables 2.1a; 2.1b; 2.2a; 2.2b; 2.3a; 2.3b; 2.4 and 2.5(EC) (Q42, Q43 and Q44)

Q42.1.1Total number of all courts - legal entities 

Q42.1.2 Total number of courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.3 First instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.4 Second instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.5 Highest instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.6 Total number of specialised courts - legal entities

43.1.1 Total number of specialised courts of first instance

43.1.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

-

-

67

-

-

-

74

7

-

-

65

-

-

-

74

7

-

-

65

-

-

-

74

7

-

-

22

-

-

-

36

8

-

-

22

-

-

-

36

8

-

-

22

-

-

-

36

8

43.1.3 Insolvency courts

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

43.1.4 Labour courts

43.1.5 Family courts

43.1.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.1.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.1.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.1.9 Internet related disputes

43.1.10 Administrative courts

43.1.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.1.12 Military courts

43.1.13 Juvenile courts

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4

NAP

NAP

-

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4

NAP

NAP

-

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4

NAP

NAP

-

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4

NAP

NAP

-

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4

NAP

NAP

-

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

22

-

-

-

-

-

30

-

-

-

66

46

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

30

-55,2%

-3,0%

0,0%

-66,2%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

36,4%

0,0%

15

1

20

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

36

17

17

-77,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-51,4%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-52,8%

0,0%

8

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

4

-

-

-

9

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

4

-

-

-

9

28,6%

0,0%

0,0%

14,3%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

12,5%

0,0%

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

207 / 1555

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

43.1.14 Other specialised courts

62

62

62

23

23

23

23

3

43.2.1 Total number of specialised courts of higher instances

43.2.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.2.3 Insolvency courts

43.2.4 Labour courts

43.2.5 Family courts

43.2.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.2.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.2.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.2.9 Internet related disputes

43.2.10 Administrative courts

43.2.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.2.12 Military courts

43.2.13 Juvenile courts

43.2.14 Other specialised courts

44.1.1 First instance courts geographic locations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3

3

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

-

NAP

NAP

1

120

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-95,2%

0,0%

0,0%

-62,9%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-87,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

44.1.2 All courts geographic locations

158

192

203

203

203

203

205

143

143

-9,5%

21,5%

5,7%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

1,0%

-30,2%

0,0%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

208 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 3: The performance of courts at all stages of the proceedings

Tables 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.4 (all years) Number of other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 Variation of first instance other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants (Q1, Q91)

Table 3.13.7 (EC) to 3.13.12 (EC) First instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

91.1.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.1.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.1.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.1.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.1.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.1.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.1.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.1.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

91.1.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.1.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

91.1.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

91.2.1 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.2.2 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.2.3 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.2.4 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.2.5 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.2.6 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.2.7 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.2.8 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

91.2.9 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

430 500

415 939

391 722

354 707

331 743

313 783

297 507

257 110

331 188

-23,1%

-3,4%

-5,8%

-9,4%

-6,5%

-5,4%

-5,2%

-13,6%

28,8%

208 520

220 356

217 927

195 718

184 289

159 981

148 828

133 976

150 832

-27,7%

5,7%

-1,1%

-10,2%

-5,8%

-13,2%

-7,0%

-10,0%

12,6%

-

-

161 792

145 013

132 430

140 109

138 113

114 713

173 078

-

-

-

-10,4%

-8,7%

5,8%

-1,4%

-16,9%

50,9%

160 545

131 065

115 879

102 786

97 339

95 943

91 062

66 192

114 965

-28,4%

-18,4%

-11,6%

-11,3%

-5,3%

-1,4%

-5,1%

-27,3%

73,7%

-

-

45 913

42 227

35 091

44 166

47 051

48 521

58 113

-

-

-

-8,0%

-16,9%

25,9%

6,5%

3,1%

19,8%

57 484

54 928

42 811

39 262

32 551

42 009

44 709

46 432

55 990

-2,6%

-4,4%

-22,1%

-8,3%

-17,1%

29,1%

6,4%

3,9%

20,6%

NA

2 515

3 102

2 965

2 540

2 157

2 342

2 089

2 123

-

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

7 075

12 003

13 976

15 024

13 693

10 566

8 421

7 278

3 951

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

23,3%

-4,4%

-14,3%

-15,1%

8,6%

-10,8%

1,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

69,7%

16,4%

7,5%

-8,9%

-22,8%

-20,3%

-13,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 097 909

1 086 228

938 711

903 398

963 825

940 095

882 675

999 495

890 021

-18,9%

-1,1%

-13,6%

-3,8%

6,7%

-2,5%

-6,1%

13,2%

-11,0%

182 693

203 831

165 741

160 537

135 583

129 130

116 412

128 985

110 253

-39,7%

11,6%

-18,7%

-3,1%

-15,5%

-4,8%

-9,8%

10,8%

-14,5%

-

-

759 028

728 522

813 903

799 149

752 833

857 476

767 513

-

-

-

-4,0%

11,7%

-1,8%

-5,8%

13,9%

-10,5%

423 669

269 321

197 352

157 484

183 550

165 077

120 873

197 628

113 184

-73,3%

-36,4%

-26,7%

-20,2%

16,6%

-10,1%

-26,8%

63,5%

-42,7%

-

-

561 676

571 038

630 353

634 072

631 960

659 848

654 329

-

-

-

1,7%

10,4%

0,6%

-0,3%

4,4%

-0,8%

476 543

472 363

438 089

449 321

490 091

497 577

495 739

519 274

496 119

4,1%

-0,9%

-7,3%

2,6%

9,1%

1,5%

-0,4%

4,7%

-4,5%

NA

126 900

123 587

121 717

140 262

136 495

136 221

140 574

158 210

-

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,6%

-1,5%

15,2%

-2,7%

-0,2%

3,2%

12,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

91.2.10 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

12 011

13 813

13 942

14 339

14 339

11 816

13 430

13 034

12 255

2,0%

15,0%

0,9%

2,8%

0,0%

-17,6%

13,7%

-2,9%

-6,0%

91.2.11 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

2 993

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

209 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

91.3.1 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.3.2 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.3.3 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.3.4 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.3.5 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.3.6 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.3.7 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.3.8 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

91.3.9 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

91.3.10 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

91.3.11 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

91.4.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.4.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.4.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.4.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.4.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.4.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.4.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.4.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

91.4.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.4.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

91.4.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

1 119 696

1 110 269

968 422

917 569

980 816

956 115

922 780

927 384

922 454

-17,6%

-0,8%

-12,8%

-5,3%

6,9%

-2,5%

-3,5%

0,5%

-0,5%

173 631

206 291

187 950

171 980

160 153

140 364

130 931

112 813

93 760

-46,0%

18,8%

-8,9%

-8,5%

-6,9%

-12,4%

-6,7%

-13,8%

-16,9%

-

-

768 503

732 299

804 991

800 808

776 278

800 375

815 596

-

-

-

-4,7%

9,9%

-0,5%

-3,1%

3,1%

1,9%

458 860

284 153

210 569

162 888

185 317

170 317

143 939

149 571

151 148

-67,1%

-38,1%

-25,9%

-22,6%

13,8%

-8,1%

-15,5%

3,9%

1,1%

-

-

557 934

569 411

619 674

630 491

632 339

650 804

664 448

-

-

-

2,1%

8,8%

1,7%

0,3%

2,9%

2,1%

479 099

484 480

434 210

447 160

479 167

494 181

495 865

510 264

516 191

7,7%

1,1%

-10,4%

3,0%

7,2%

3,1%

0,3%

2,9%

1,2%

NA

126 460

123 724

122 251

140 507

136 310

136 474

140 540

148 257

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,2%

-1,2%

14,9%

-3,0%

0,1%

3,0%

5,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

8 885

11 969

13 290

15 672

14 943

15 571

14 178

13 098

165,4%

80,0%

34,7%

11,0%

17,9%

-4,7%

4,2%

-8,9%

-7,6%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4 936

4 170

408 713

391 898

354 707

331 744

313 515

297 507

257 110

331 188

302 035

-26,1%

-4,1%

-9,5%

-6,5%

-5,5%

-5,1%

-13,6%

28,8%

-8,8%

217 582

217 896

195 718

184 289

159 713

148 828

134 271

150 832

168 368

-22,6%

0,1%

-10,2%

-5,8%

-13,3%

-6,8%

-9,8%

12,3%

11,6%

-

-

145 013

132 430

140 109

138 113

114 418

173 078

127 233

-

-

-

-8,7%

5,8%

-1,4%

-17,2%

51,3%

-26,5%

126 354

116 233

102 786

97 339

95 943

91 062

65 897

114 965

77 391

-38,8%

-8,0%

-11,6%

-5,3%

-1,4%

-5,1%

-27,6%

74,5%

-32,7%

-

-

42 227

35 091

44 166

47 051

48 521

58 113

49 842

-

-

-

-16,9%

25,9%

6,5%

3,1%

19,8%

-14,2%

54 928

42 811

39 262

32 551

42 009

44 709

46 432

55 990

37 766

-31,2%

-22,1%

-8,3%

-17,1%

29,1%

6,4%

3,9%

20,6%

-32,5%

NA

2 955

2 965

2 540

2 157

2 342

2 089

2 123

12 076

-

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,3%

-14,3%

-15,1%

8,6%

-10,8%

1,6%

468,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7 075

12 003

13 976

15 025

13 693

10 566

8 421

7 278

6 434

-9,1%

69,7%

16,4%

7,5%

-8,9%

-22,8%

-20,3%

-13,6%

-11,6%

2 774

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

210 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.2 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.4 to 3.3.7 Variation of Clearence Rate and Disposition Time of first instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

Table 3.13.1 (EC) to 3.13.6 (EC) First instance courts: Disposition time and clearance rate for other than criminal cases  (Q91)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

102,0%

102,2%

103,2%

101,6%

101,8%

101,7%

104,5%

92,8%

103,6%

1,63

0,22

0,93

(1,55)

0,19

(0,06)

2,79

(11,25)

11,70

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

95,0%

101,2%

113,4%

107,1%

118,1%

108,7%

112,5%

87,5%

85,0%

(10,52)

6,49

12,05

(5,53)

10,26

(7,98)

3,47

(22,24)

(2,77)

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

-

-

101,2%

100,5%

98,9%

100,2%

103,1%

93,3%

106,3%

-

-

-

(0,72)

(1,61)

1,32

2,90

(9,48)

13,85

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

108,3%

105,5%

106,7%

103,4%

101,0%

103,2%

119,1%

75,7%

133,5%

23,30

(2,58)

1,13

(3,06)

(2,39)

2,19

15,42

(36,44)

76,45

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

-

-

99,3%

99,7%

98,3%

99,4%

100,1%

98,6%

101,5%

-

-

-

0,38

(1,41)

1,15

0,63

(1,43)

2,96

CR Non litigious land registry cases

100,5%

102,6%

99,1%

99,5%

97,8%

99,3%

100,0%

98,3%

104,0%

3,49

2,02

(3,36)

0,41

(1,76)

1,58

0,71

(1,76)

5,88

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

NA

99,7%

100,1%

100,4%

100,2%

99,9%

100,2%

100,0%

93,7%

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

-

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,46

0,33

(0,26)

(0,31)

0,32

(0,21)

(6,27)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CR Administrative law cases

41,1%

64,3%

85,8%

92,7%

109,3%

126,5%

115,9%

108,8%

106,9%

160,07

56,52

33,46

7,96

17,92

15,71

(8,32)

(6,18)

(1,75)

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

139,3%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

133

457

-

101

-

42

NA

-

-

523

243

129

386

-

149

-

32

9

-

-

493

NAP

134

380

69

178

28

33

9

NAP

NAP

426

NAP

132

391

66

218

22

27

8

NAP

NAP

413

NAP

117

364

64

189

26

32

6

NAP

NAP

319

NAP

114

387

63

195

27

33

6

NAP

NAP

258

NAP

102

374

54

167

28

34

6

NAP

NAP

197

NAP

130

488

79

281

33

40

6

NAP

NAP

187

NAP

120

-10,3%

-3,3%

3,8%

-1,3%

-11,6%

-2,7%

-10,5%

28,2%

-8,3%

655

43,3%

-15,7%

-1,4%

2,9%

-6,9%

6,3%

-3,3%

30,4%

34,3%

57

-

-

-

-4,2%

-3,8%

-0,9%

-14,5%

46,7%

-27,9%

187

85,9%

48,5%

19,3%

22,4%

-13,4%

3,3%

-14,4%

67,9%

-33,4%

27

-

-

-

-18,6%

15,7%

4,7%

2,8%

16,4%

-16,0%

27

-36,2%

-22,9%

2,3%

-19,5%

20,4%

3,2%

3,5%

17,2%

-33,3%

30

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,6%

-13,3%

-26,1%

11,9%

-10,9%

-1,3%

439,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

179

-65,7%

-5,8%

-13,6%

-3,2%

-22,7%

-19,1%

-23,5%

-5,1%

-4,3%

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

211 / 1555

         
         
         
        
         
        
         
      
       
      
         
       
        
       
        
         
      
        
        
        
         
         
        
       
       
        
         
        
        
         
       
      
       
         
        
         
         
        
         
         
         
        
         
        
         
         
        
         
         
         
        
        
         
        
        
     
       
       
         
       
       
        
        
        
Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

101.1.1 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Litigious divorce case

101.1.2 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Employment dismissal case

101.1.3 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Insolvency

101.2.1 Incoming cases_Litigious divorce case

101.2.2 Incoming cases_Employment dismissal case

101.2.3 Incoming cases_Insolvency

101.3.1 Resolved cases_Litigious divorce case

101.3.2 Resolved cases_Employment dismissal case

101.3.3 Resolved cases_Insolvency

101.4.1 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Litigious divorce case

101.4.2 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Employment dismissal case

101.4.3 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Insolvency

Table 3.4.1 (all years) First instance courts, number of cases for specific case categories (Q101)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

6 561

2 722

2 774

8 553

1 972

7 628

8 493

2 103

4 738

6 621

2 591

5 664

6 276

2 591

5 664

7 283

2 378

2 946

2 773

3 104

2 403

1 873

1 756

1 728

1 747

1 902

1 459

1 137

1 144

5 014

19 087

14 621

10 624

8 660

7 114

4 384

1 603

2 566

1 517

2 867

2 798

2 661

2 389

1 199

1 119

1 073

1 067

2 378

20 217

19 021

9 967

9 213

7 175

4 798

8 964

2 196

4 538

4 595

2 773

4 233

1 980

3 797

2 018

2 984

2 826

2 640

2 282

1 645

1 441

1 072

743

6 151

23 510

13 964

11 179

9 416

6 787

3 105

2 396

1 873

1 902

1 756

1 728

1 747

1 856

1 459

1 137

1 144

1 471

5 014

19 080

14 621

10 624

8 660

7 114

6 105

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-4,3%

-53,1%

5,4%

-39,7%

-6,2%

-1,6%

1,1%

-4,8%

7,0%

-13,3%

-20,8%

-23,3%

-22,1%

0,6%

104,2%

-11,5%

280,7%

-23,4%

-27,3%

-18,5%

-17,9%

-14,8%

-39,8%

-41,5%

11,7%

-2,4%

-4,9%

-10,2%

20,6%

-32,6%

-5,4%

-21,0%

-6,7%

-4,1%

-0,6%

-68,8%

750,2%

-5,9%

-47,6%

-7,6%

-22,1%

-33,1%

5,5%

-52,8%

-10,3%

-21,4%

-5,3%

-6,6%

-13,6%

4,4%

-9,8%

1,9%

-18,5%

-12,4%

-25,6%

-30,7%

-4,2%

35,5%

282,2%

-40,6%

-19,9%

-15,8%

-27,9%

-30,6%

-32,4%

-39,7%

-6,2%

-1,6%

1,1%

6,2%

7,0%

-13,6%

-20,6%

-23,3%

-22,1%

0,6%

28,6%

-11,5%

280,5%

-23,4%

-27,3%

-18,5%

-17,9%

-14,2%

Table 3.5.1 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for specific case categories (Q101)

Table 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 Variations of CR and DT for specific case categories of first instance cases (Q101)

CR Litigious divorce cases

CR Employment dismissal cases

CR Insolvency cases

DT Litigious divorce cases

DT Employment dismissal cases

DT Insolvency cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

99,3%

123,1%

96,6%

148,0%

104,1%

101,0%

99,2%

95,5%

106,6%

92,3%

123,5%

133,0%

137,2%

128,8%

99,9%

69,6%

62,1%

190,8%

30,4%

123,6%

140,1%

121,3%

131,2%

141,5%

285

450

436

187

461

403

268

442

1 132

180

344

227

215

324

278

223

288

283

242

390

276

297

723

328

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

23,95

(21,55)

53,25

(29,66)

(2,96)

(1,77)

(3,72)

(13,41)

33,76

7,70

3,14

(6,14)

(22,42)

(30,30)

207,23

(84,06)

306,25

13,35

(13,39)

8,15

7,79

-34,2%

43,1%

-32,8%

19,3%

3,9%

8,2%

22,9%

2,5%

-4,2%

-22,1%

-5,9%

-11,0%

35,2%

85,5%

-7,6%

180,7%

-80,0%

22,3%

1,8%

-2,5%

19,1%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

212 / 1555

       
      
       
      
        
        
        
      
       
         
         
        
      
      
     
      
     
       
      
         
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.7.1 to 3.7.5 (2019 and 2020) Second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Table 3.9.1 to 3.9.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.1.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.1.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.1.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.1.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.1.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.1.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.1.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.1.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

97.1.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.1.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

97.1.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases 

97.2.1 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.2.2 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.2.3 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.2.4 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.2.5 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.2.6 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.2.7 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.2.8 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

97.2.9 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.2.10 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

97.2.11 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases 

89 823

81 290

73 230

64 122

54 847

47 023

39 197

59 534

61 898

60 230

52 034

42 879

34 807

28 065

22 223

17 836

12 278

10 676

10 061

9 454

7 808

15 572

14 292

10 839

9 033

8 373

7 906

6 544

20

NAP

20

NAP

6 631

8 066

NAP

14

NA

14

NAP

3 530

1 556

NAP

1 214

1 192

22

NAP

225

722

1 522

1 581

1 482

1 194

1 506

1 574

1 478

1 198

16

NAP

121

7

NAP

107

4

5

NAP

NAP

66

70

1 412

1 907

2 762

3 324

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

87 801

83 468

79 413

68 251

65 396

62 150

57 590

52 468

52 292

49 743

41 345

37 304

34 633

29 392

33 495

27 740

24 653

21 866

22 066

21 186

22 363

27 317

23 475

22 045

19 541

19 794

19 168

20 303

145

NAP

145

NAP

6 033

1 838

NAP

149

NA

149

NAP

4 116

3 436

NAP

2 485

2 332

153

NAP

123

2 171

2 157

1 874

1 946

2 026

2 021

1 756

1 835

145

NAP

154

136

NAP

115

118

NAP

144

111

NAP

114

5 017

5 040

6 026

6 331

5 835

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-9,5%

-9,9%

-12,4%

-14,5%

-14,3%

-16,6%

4,0%

-2,7%

-13,6%

-17,6%

-18,8%

-19,4%

-19,7%

-31,2%

-13,0%

-5,8%

-6,0%

-17,4%

-8,2%

-24,2%

-16,7%

-7,3%

-5,6%

-17,2%

-30,0% 8571,4%

25,4%

3,9%

-6,3%

-19,4%

-

-

26,3%

4,5%

-6,1%

-18,9%

-30,0%

57,1%

-27,3%

-56,3%

-42,9%

25,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-46,8%

-93,6%

-46,2%

-11,6%

-38,3%

6,1%

-80,7%

-53,6%

95,6%

35,1%

44,8%

20,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-4,9%

-4,9%

-14,1%

-4,2%

-5,0%

-7,3%

-0,3%

-4,9%

-16,9%

-9,8%

-7,2%

-15,1%

-17,2%

-11,1%

-11,3%

0,9%

-4,0%

5,6%

-14,1%

-6,1%

-11,4%

1,3%

-3,2%

5,9%

2,8% 1567,8%

-12,6%

-0,6%

-13,1%

3,8%

-

-

-13,1%

-0,2%

-13,1%

4,5%

2,8%

2,7%

-5,2%

-6,2%

-13,2%

-5,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-31,8%

-97,0%

25,2%

-25,3%

25,2%

-20,8%

86,9%

46,0%

0,5%

19,6%

5,1%

-7,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

213 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.3.1 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.3.2 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.3.3 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.3.4 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.3.5 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.3.6 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.3.7 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.3.8 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

97.3.9 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.3.10 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

97.3.11 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases 

97.4.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.4.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.4.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.4.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.4.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.4.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.4.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.4.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

97.4.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.4.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

97.4.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases

97.5.1 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.5.2 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.5.10 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

96 325

91 531

88 521

77 527

73 206

69 895

67 378

50 297

54 407

57 939

50 523

45 383

41 262

38 036

37 679

32 854

26 255

22 459

22 652

22 863

23 030

29 029

26 989

23 851

20 209

20 242

20 561

20 537

151

NAP

151

NAP

8 499

8 349

NAP

141

NA

141

NAP

5 724

4 270

NAP

2 177

2 018

159

NAP

227

2 104

2 257

2 162

2 358

1 950

2 118

2 045

2 249

154

NAP

146

139

NAP

153

117

NAP

140

109

NAP

135

4 327

4 545

5 171

5 770

6 312

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

81 299

73 227

64 122

54 847

47 023

39 197

29 411

61 705

59 783

52 034

42 879

34 807

28 065

19 194

18 039

12 722

10 676

10 061

9 454

7 808

7 370

13 860

10 778

14

NAP

14

NAP

4 165

1 555

NAP

-

-

-

22

NA

22

NAP

1 922

722

NAP

-

-

-

9 033

1 522

1 506

16

NAP

121

8 373

7 906

6 544

6 540

1 581

1 482

1 194

1 574

1 478

1 189

7

NAP

107

4

5

NAP

NAP

NAP

66

70

48

782

775

7

1 412

1 907

2 762

3 324

2 847

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

9 174

6 240

4 444

2 459

1 067

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-5,0%

-3,3%

-12,4%

-5,6%

-4,5%

-3,6%

8,2%

6,5%

-12,8%

-10,2%

-9,1%

-7,8%

-12,8%

-20,1%

-14,5%

0,9%

0,9%

0,7%

-7,0%

-11,6%

-15,3%

0,2%

1,6%

-0,1%

-6,6% 1444,0%

-3,4%

7,3%

-4,2%

9,1%

-

-

-3,4%

8,6%

-3,4%

10,0%

-6,6%

12,8%

-3,1%

-9,7%

-15,8%

-6,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-32,7%

-96,0%

-35,7%

4,8%

-8,5%

-3,6%

-48,9%

1,3%

5,0%

13,8%

11,6%

9,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-9,9%

-12,4%

-14,5%

-14,3%

-16,6%

-25,0%

-3,1%

-13,0%

-17,6%

-18,8%

-19,4%

-31,6%

-29,5%

-16,1%

-5,8%

-6,0%

-17,4%

-5,6%

-22,2%

-16,2%

-7,3%

-5,6%

-17,2%

-0,1%

57,1% 6818,2%

3,9%

-6,3%

-19,4%

-34,5%

-

-

4,5%

-6,1%

-19,6%

-34,8%

57,1%

-27,3%

-56,3%

-42,9%

25,0%

40,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-53,9%

-93,7%

-11,6%

-38,3%

6,1%

-31,4%

-53,6%

95,6%

35,1%

44,8%

20,3%

-14,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-32,0%

-28,8%

-44,7%

-56,6%

-

-

-

-

214 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 (2019 and 2020): Second instance clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.9.4 and 3.9.5 (2019 and 2020): Variation of second clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

109,7%

109,7%

111,5%

113,6%

111,9%

112,5%

117,0%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

95,9%

104,0%

116,5%

122,2%

121,7%

119,1%

129,4%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

112,5%

118,4%

106,5%

102,7%

102,7%

107,9%

103,0%

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

106,3%

115,0%

108,2%

103,4%

102,3%

107,3%

101,2%

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

104,1%

94,6%

87,6%

96,9%

104,6%

115,4%

121,2%

CR Non litigious land registry cases

NAP

NA

86,5%

96,2%

104,8%

116,5%

122,6%

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

104,1%

94,6%

103,9%

106,2%

102,2%

99,2%

98,2%

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

140,9%

139,1%

184,6%

94,8%

133,0%

97,2%

118,4%

454,2%

124,3%

86,2%

90,2%

85,8%

91,1%

108,2%

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

308

448

175

174

34

NAP

34

NAP

179

68

292

401

141

146

57

NA

57

264

328

148

138

255

272

37

258

310

164

151

274

295

17

234

280

152

143

240

255

11

205

248

125

116

202

212

16

159

184

117

116

121

126

23

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

123

62

195

119

268

153

157

195

183

210

130

165

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(0,04)

1,65

1,90

(1,45)

0,46

4,03

8,54

11,95

4,91

(0,44)

(2,07)

8,62

5,28

(10,08)

(3,56)

(0,05)

5,12

(4,57)

8,19

(5,89)

(4,41)

(1,12)

4,89

(5,70)

(9,13)

(7,42)

10,63

7,97

10,26

5,03

-

-

11,23

8,88

11,12

5,24

(9,13)

9,82

2,20

(3,77)

(2,99)

(0,96)

-

-

-

-

-

-

(1,28)

32,71

(48,63)

40,33

(26,92)

21,80

(72,64)

(30,60)

4,56

(4,84)

6,21

18,69

-

-

-

-

-

-

-5,2%

-9,5%

-2,3%

-9,2%

-12,7%

-22,2%

-10,4%

-18,3%

-5,5%

-9,6%

-11,3%

-25,8%

-19,1%

5,0%

10,2%

-6,8%

-18,2%

-6,3%

-16,4%

-5,2%

9,4%

-5,7%

-18,5%

0,1%

68,3%

348,1%

7,5%

-12,6%

-15,9%

-39,9%

-

-

8,2%

-13,5%

-16,7%

-40,7%

68,3%

-35,5%

-54,8%

-36,7%

48,5%

50,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-31,5%

58,7%

37,5%

-41,1%

15,9%

-28,9%

-9,2%

93,0%

28,6%

27,3%

7,9%

-21,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

215 / 1555

        
         
         
        
         
         
         
       
         
        
        
         
         
      
        
        
         
        
         
        
        
        
         
        
        
        
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
        
         
         
        
        
        
        
       
      
       
      
       
      
      
         
        
         
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.10.1 to 3.10.5 (2019 and 2020) Supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Table 3.12.1 to 3.12.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of the supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.1.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.1.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.1.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.1.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.1.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.1.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.1.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.1.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

99.1.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.1.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

99.1.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.2.1 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.2.2 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.2.3 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.2.4 High inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.2.5 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.2.6 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.2.7 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.2.8 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

99.2.9 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.2.10 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

99.2.11 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

11 541

14 700

17 643

16 538

16 759

14 219

13 243

NA

-

-

NA

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

12 681

431

361

67

67

NAP

NAP

3

131

NAP

7 910

8 450

7 964

6 879

6 839

6 166

6 162

NA

-

-

NA

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

5 770

360

296

45

45

NAP

NAP

19

32

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

27,4%

20,0%

-6,3%

1,3%

-15,2%

-6,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6,8%

-5,8%

-13,6%

-0,6%

-9,8%

-0,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

216 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.3.1 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.3.2 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.3.3 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.3.4 High inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.3.5 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.3.6 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.3.7 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.3.8 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

99.3.9 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.3.10 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

99.3.11 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.4.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.4.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.4.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.4.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.4.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.4.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.4.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.4.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry 
cases

99.4.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.4.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative 
law cases

99.4.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.5.1 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.5.2 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.5.10 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

4 751

5 507

9 069

7 899

9 379

7 140

7 389

NA

-

-

NA

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

7 084

259

223

22

22

NAP

NAP

14

46

NAP

14 700

17 643

16 538

15 518

14 219

13 243

12 016

NA

-

-

NA

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

11 367

532

434

90

90

NAP

NAP

8

117

NAP

5 653

5 476

59

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

15,9%

64,7%

-12,9%

18,7%

-23,9%

3,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

20,0%

-6,3%

-6,2%

-8,4%

-6,9%

-9,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

217 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 Supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.12.4 and 3.12.5 Variation of the supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

60,1%

65,2%

113,9%

114,8%

137,1%

115,8%

119,9%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

-

-

NA

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

1129

NA

-

-

NA

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1169

666

717

553

677

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

122,8%

71,9%

75,3%

48,9%

48,9%

NAP

NAP

73,7%

143,8%

NAP

594

586

750

710

1493

1493

NAP

NAP

209

928

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

8,51

74,73

0,84

19,43

(15,56)

3,55

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,5%

-43,1%

7,7%

-22,8%

22,3%

-12,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

218 / 1555

         
       
         
       
      
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.14.1 to 3.14.5 First instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

094.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

094.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

094.2.1 Total -incoming

094.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

094.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

094.2.4 Other - incoming

094.3.1 Total - resolved

094.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

094.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

094.3.4 Other - resolved

094.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

094.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

094.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

094.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

82 475

27 040

44 977

10 728

196 602

17 944

126 616

52 042

173 197

15 769

105 375

52 053

105 697

29 337

65 651

10 709

NA

14 501

NA

1 467

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

219 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.15.1 to 3.10.2 CR and DT for first instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

098.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

098.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

098.2.1 Total -incoming

098.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

098.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

098.2.4 Other - incoming

098.3.1 Total - resolved

098.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

098.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

098.3.4 Other - resolved

Table 3.16.1 to 3.16.5 Second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

88,1%

87,9%

83,2%

100,0%

223

679

227

75

13 856

2 484

11 311

61

22 548

8 346

13 274

928

30 858

8 581

12 451

9 826

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

220 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

098.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

098.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

098.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

098.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

14 446

2 250

12 133

63

NA

124

NA

8

Table 3.17.1 to 3.17.2 CR and DT for second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

136,9%

102,8%

93,8%

1058,8%

171

96

356

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

221 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.18.1 to 3.18.5 Supreme court criminal law cases (Q100)

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

100.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

100.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

100.2.1 Total -incoming

100.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

100.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

100.2.4 Other - incoming

100.3.1 Total - resolved

100.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

100.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

100.3.4 Other - resolved

100.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

100.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

100.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

100.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

724

NA

NA

NAP

2 100

NA

NA

NAP

2 120

NA

NA

NAP

704

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

222 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.19.1 to 3.19.2 CR and DT for supreme court  criminal law cases (Q100)

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

101,0%

NA

NA

NAP

121

NA

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

223 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 5: Access to justice

Legal aid

Table 5.1 to Table 5.6 (Q12-2, Q16, Q18, Q19, Q20, Q20-1)

12-2.1.1 Coverage of court fees

12-2.1.2 Exemption from court fees

16.1.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (criminal cases)

16.1.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (criminal cases)

16.2.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (other than criminal 
cases)

16.2.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (other than criminal cases)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

-

-

-

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

18.1.1 Legal aid for the enforcement of judicial decisions

19.1.1  Legal aid granted for other costs - criminal cases

19.1.2  Legal aid granted for other costs - other than criminal cases

020.1.1 Total

020.1.2 Total - criminal cases

020.1.3 Total - other than criminal cases

020.2.1 Total brought to court

020.2.2 Broight to court - criminal cases

020.2.3 Brought to court - other then criminal

020.3.1 Total not brought to court

020.3.2 Not broight to court - criminal cases

020.3.3 Not brought to court - other then criminal

020-1.1.1 Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulation

020-1.1.2 Average duration

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

NA

NA

30 622

NA

NA

3 433

NA

NA

27 189

15

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

224 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

System for compensating users

Table 5.7.1 and Table 5.7.2 (Q37)

037.1.1 Requests for compensation - Total

037.1.2 Requests for compensation - Excessive length of 
proceedings

037.1.3 Requests for compensation - Non-execution of court 
decisions

037.1.4 Requests for compensation - Wrongful arrest

037.1.5 Requests for compensation - Wrongful conviction

037.1.6 Requests for compensation - Other

037.2.1 Condemnations - Total

037.2.2 Condemnations - Excessive length of proceedings

037.2.3 Condemnations - Non-execution of court decisions

037.2.4 Condemnations - Wrongful arrest

037.2.5 Condemnations - Wrongful conviction

037.2.6 Condemnations - Other

037.3.1 Amount - Total

037.3.2 Amount - Excessive length of proceedings

037.3.3 Amount - Non-execution of court decisions

037.3.4 Amount - Wrongful arrest

037.3.5 Amount - Wrongful conviction

037.3.6 Amount - Other

332

138

NAP

194

NA

NAP

180

48

NAP

132

NA

NAP

1 290 594 €

15 973 €

NAP

1 274 621 €

NA

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

225 / 1555

    
         
    
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 6.1 to Table 6.11 (Q62-7, Q62-7-1, Q62-8,  Q62-8-1, Q63-1, Q63-1-1, Q63-2 Q63-6, Q63-7, Q63-7-1, Q64-2,  Q64-4, Q64-6, Q64-3, Q64-3-1, Q64-7, Q64-7-1, 
Q64-9)

Indicator 6: The ICT tools of courts and for court users

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

62-7 Writing assistance tools coordinated at national level

62-7-1.1 Deployment rate in civil matter

62-7-1.2 Deployment rate in criminal matter

62-7-1.3 Deployment rate in administrative matter

62-8 Voice recording tools

62-8-1.1.1 Availability of simple dictation tools in civil matter

62-8-1.1.2 Availability of simple dictation tools in criminal matter

62-8-1.1.3 Availability of simple dictation tools in administrative 
matter

62-8-1.2.1 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in civil 
matter

62-8-1.2.2 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in criminal 
matter

62-8-1.2.3 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in 
administrative matter

62-8-1.3.1 Availability of voice recognition in civil matter

62-8-1.3.2 Availability of voice recognition in criminal matter

62-8-1.3.3 Availability of voice recognition in administrative matter

062-9 Availability of intranet site within the judicial system for 
distribution of news/novelties

63.1 Is there a case management system? 

63.1-1.1 CMS for civil matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for criminal matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for administrative matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.2 CMS for civil matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for criminal matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for administrative matter (status of case onlinee)

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

100%

True

True

True

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

-

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

-

-

Both

Both

Both

Both

Both

Both

Both

Both

Both

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

226 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63.1-1.3 CMS for civil matter (Centralised or interoperable database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for criminal matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for administrative matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.4 CMS for civil matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for criminal matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for administrative matter (Early warning signals)

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS civil matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS criminal matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS administrative matter

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - land registry

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - business registry

63-2.2 Data consolidated at national level for land registry

63-2.2  Data consolidated at national level for business registry

63-2.3 Service available online for land registry

63-2.3  Service available online for business registry

63-2.4 Statistical module integrated or connected for land registry

63-2.4  Statistical module integrated or connected for business 
registry

063-6.1.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (deployment 
rate)

063-6.1.2 Justice expenses management (deployment rate)

063-6.1.3 Other financial management tools (deployment rate)

063-6.2.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (Data 
consolidated at national level)

063-6.2.2 Justice expenses management (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.2.3 Other financial management tools (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.3.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (System 
communicating with other ministries)

063-6.3.2 Justice expenses management (System communicating 
with other ministries)

063-6.3.3 Other financial management tools (System communicating 
with other ministries)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

Not integrated 
but connected

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Not integrated 
but connected

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Not connected 
at all

Not connected 
at all

Fully integrated 
including BI

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

NA

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

227 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63-7.1 Measurement tools to assess the workload

63-7-1.1.1 Deployment rate - workload of judges

63-7-1.1.2 Deployment rate - workload of prosecutors

63-7-1.1.3 Deployment rate - workload of non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.2.1 Monitoring on national level - judges

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - prosecutors

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.3.1 Monitoring on court level - judges

63-7-1.3.2 Monitoring on court level - prosecutors

63-7-1.3.3 Monitoring on court level - non-judge and non-prosecutor 
staff

064-2 - Possibility to submit a case to courts by electronic means

064-2 - Civil and/or commercial

064-2 - Criminal

064-2 - Administrative

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - civil

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - criminal

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory  - administrative

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - civil

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - criminal

064-2 - Specific legislative framework  - administrative

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - civil

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - criminal

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - administrative

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

10-49%

100%

100%

0% (NAP)

100%

100%

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

False

False

False

False

False

True

False

False

True

False

False

True

NAP

True

True

NAP

True

True

NAP

True

NAP

True

True

NAP

True

True

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

228 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-3 - Is it possible to request for granting legal aid by electronic 
means? 

064-3-1.1 - Equipment rate

064-3-1.2 - Request in paper mandatory

064-3-1.3 - Specific legislative framework

064-3-1.4 - Granting LA is also electronic

064-3-1.5 - Information available in CMS

064-4 - Possibility to transmit summons to a judicial meeting or a 
hearing by electronic means

064-4-1.1.1 - Summons produced by CMS- civil

064-4-1.1.2 - Summons produced by CMS- criminal

064-4-1.1.3 - Summons produced by CMS- administrative

064-4-1.2.1 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- civil

064-4-1.2.2 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- criminal

064-4-1.2.3 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- administrative

064-4-1.3.1 - Consent of the user - civil

064-4-1.3.2 - Consent of the user - criminal

064-4-1.3.3 - Consent of the user - administrative

064-6.1.1 - Civil and/or commercial (deployment rate)

064-6.1.2 - Criminal (deployment rate)

064-6.1.3 - Administrative (deployment rate)

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

False

False

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

False

False

10-49%

100%

100%

0% (NAP)

100%

100%

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

229 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-6.2.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.2 - Criminal (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.3 - Administrative (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.3.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Modalities)

064-6.3.2 - Criminal (Modalities)

064-6.3.3 - Administrative (Modalities)

064-6.4.1 - Civil and/or commercial (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.2 - Criminal (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.3 - Administrative (specific legal framework)

064-6.5.1 - Civil and/or commercial (availability for)

064-6.5.2 - Criminal (availability for)

064-6.5.3 - Administrative (availability for)

Submission of 

Submission of 

Submission of 

a case       

a case       

a case      

Decision 
transmission

Decision 
transmission

Submission of 

Submission of 

a case      

a case      

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

True

False

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer

Lawyers

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

230 / 1555

      
      
      
      
    
    
    
    
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-7.1.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (deployment rate)

064-7.1.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.2.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (Modalities)

064-7.2.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.3.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (specific legal framework)

064-7.32.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-7.3.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts (specific 
legal framework)

064-7.3.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-9 - Existance of online processing devices of specialised 
litigation

1-9%

100%

100%

1-9%

100%

100%

1-9%

100%

100%

-

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

231 / 1555

    
    
    
Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Indicator 7: Professionals of justice  (Indicator 9 in 2019)

Table 7.1.1 to 7.5.6 for judges, non judge staff, prosecutors, non prosecutor staff and salaries

46.1.1 Total Number of professional judges

46.1.2 Number of 1st inst professional judges

46.1.3 Number of 2nd inst professional judges

46.1.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges

46.2.1 Number of professional judges_males

46.2.2 Number of 1st instance professional judges_males

46.2.3 Number of 2nd instance professional judges_males

46.2.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges_males

1 932

1 378

514

40

603

389

192

22

1 912

1 366

506

40

591

379

189

23

1 875

1 343

489

43

583

377

180

26

1 864

1 348

476

40

568

373

170

25

1 797

1 277

483

37

534

341

171

22

1 775

1 660

1 682

1 643

-15,0%

-1,0%

-1,9%

-0,6%

-3,6%

-1,2%

-6,5%

1,3%

-2,3%

1 261

1 176

1 192

1 158

-16,0%

-0,9%

-1,7%

0,4%

-5,3%

-1,3%

-6,7%

1,4%

-2,9%

476

38

520

332

165

23

446

38

479

311

144

24

453

37

490

315

152

23

449

-12,6%

-1,6%

-3,4%

-2,7%

1,5%

-1,4%

-6,3%

1,6%

-0,9%

36

-10,0%

0,0%

7,5%

-7,0%

-7,5%

2,7%

0,0%

-2,6%

-2,7%

473

-21,6%

-2,0%

-1,4%

-2,6%

-6,0%

-2,6%

-7,9%

2,3%

-3,5%

302

-22,4%

-2,6%

-0,5%

-1,1%

-8,6%

-2,6%

-6,3%

1,3%

-4,1%

149

-22,4%

-1,6%

-4,8%

-5,6%

0,6%

-3,5%

-12,7%

5,6%

-2,0%

22

0,0%

4,5%

13,0%

-3,8%

-12,0%

4,5%

4,3%

-4,2%

-4,3%

46.3.1  Number of professional judges_females

1 329

1 321

1 292

1 296

1 263

1 255

1 181

1 192

1 170

-12,0%

-0,6%

-2,2%

0,3%

-2,5%

-0,6%

-5,9%

0,9%

-1,8%

46.3.2  Number of 1st inst professional judges_females

46.3.3  Number of 2nd inst professional judges_females

46.3.4  Number of Supreme court professional judges_females

046-2.1.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Total

046-2.2.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Civil and commercial

046-2.2.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.3.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Criminal

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

989

322

18

987

317

17

966

309

17

975

306

15

936

312

15

929

311

15

865

302

14

877

301

14

856

-13,4%

-0,2%

-2,1%

0,9%

-4,0%

-0,7%

-6,9%

1,4%

-2,4%

300

-6,8%

-1,6%

-2,5%

-1,0%

2,0%

-0,3%

-2,9%

-0,3%

-0,3%

14

-22,2%

-5,6%

0,0%

-11,8%

0,0%

0,0%

-6,7%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 643

1 158

449

36

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

232 / 1555

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

046-2.4.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - 
Administrative

046-2.4.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.5.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Other

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 52.1.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in courts 

6 234

6 222

6 061

5 929

5 827

5 900

5 828

5 929

5 886

-5,6%

-0,2%

-2,6%

-2,2%

-1,7%

1,3%

-1,2%

1,7%

-0,7%

52.1.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)

311

285

381

474

523

542

541

576

553

77,8%

-8,4%

33,7%

24,4%

10,3%

3,6%

-0,2%

6,5%

-4,0%

52.1.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges

4 648

4 643

4 384

4 231

4 124

4 187

4 135

4 214

4 147

-10,8%

-0,1%

-5,6%

-3,5%

-2,5%

1,5%

-1,2%

1,9%

-1,6%

52.1.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks

52.1.5 Number of Technical staff

544

731

562

732

579

717

534

689

498

682

499

672

490

662

480

659

537

-1,3%

3,3%

3,0%

-7,8%

-6,7%

0,2%

-1,8%

-2,0%

11,9%

649

-11,2%

0,1%

-2,0%

-3,9%

-1,0%

-1,5%

-1,5%

-0,5%

-1,5%

52.1.6 Number of Other non judge staff

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

52.2.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(men)

52.2.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(men)

52.2.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(men)

52.2.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(men)

52.2.5 Number of Technical staff(men)

52.2.6 Number of Other non judge staff(men)

52.3.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(women)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

868

71

399

119

279

839

83

375

112

268

819

93

350

113

263

816

97

344

118

257

803

93

345

113

252

814

95

359

103

257

805

88

359

106

252

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-3,3%

-2,4%

-0,4%

-1,6%

1,4%

-1,1%

16,9%

12,0%

4,3%

-4,1%

2,2%

-7,4%

-6,0%

-6,7%

-1,7%

0,3%

4,1%

0,0%

-5,9%

0,9%

4,4%

-4,2%

-8,8%

2,9%

-3,9%

-1,9%

-2,3%

-1,9%

2,0%

-1,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

5 364

5 349

5 193

5 090

5 008

5 084

5 025

5 115

5 081

-5,3%

-0,3%

-2,9%

-2,0%

-1,6%

1,5%

-1,2%

1,8%

-0,7%

52.3.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(women)

246

222

310

390

430

445

448

481

465

89,0%

-9,8%

39,6%

25,8%

10,3%

3,5%

0,7%

7,4%

-3,3%

52.3.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(women)

4 227

4 219

3 985

3 856

3 774

3 843

3 790

3 855

3 788

-10,4%

-0,2%

-5,5%

-3,2%

-2,1%

1,8%

-1,4%

1,7%

-1,7%

52.3.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(women)

52.3.5 Number of Technical staff(women)

439

452

455

453

460

438

422

421

385

419

381

415

377

410

377

402

431

-1,8%

3,6%

1,1%

-8,3%

-8,8%

-1,0%

-1,0%

0,0%

14,3%

397

-12,2%

0,2%

-3,3%

-3,9%

-0,5%

-1,0%

-1,2%

-2,0%

-1,2%

52.3.6 Number of Other non judge staff(women)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

233 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

052-1.1.1 Non-judge staff (Total)

052-1.1.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (total)

052-1.1.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (total)

052-1.1.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (total)

052-1.2.1 Non-judge staff  (Males)

052-1.2.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (males)

052-1.2.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (males)

052-1.2.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (males)

052-1.3.1 Non-judge staff  (females)

052-1.3.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (females)

052-1.3.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (females)

052-1.3.4 Non-judge staff  at supreme court (females)

055.1.1 Prosecutors (total)

055.1.2 Prosecutors (1st inst.)

055.1.3 Prosecutors (2nd inst.)

055.1.4 Prosecutors (Highest instance)

055.2.1 Prosecutors - Males -total

055.2.2 Prosecutors - Males, 1st inst.

055.2.3 Prosecutors - Males, 2nd inst.

055.2.4 Prosecutors - Males, Supreme courts

055.3.1 Prosecutors - Females, Total

055.3.2 Prosecutors - Females, 1st inst.

055.3.3 Prosecutors - Females, 2nd inst.

055.3.4 Prosecutors - Females, Supreme courts

5 886

4 887

917

82

805

643

145

17

5 081

4 244

772

65

622

439

158

25

197

126

63

8

425

313

95

17

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

234 / 1555

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

060.1.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Total

060.2.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Males

060.3.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Females

004 Annual average salary in the country

132.1.1 Gross annual salary, in €  - Professional judge at the 
beginning of career

132.1.2 Gross annual salary, in €  - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.1.3 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor at the beginning 
of career

132.1.4 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

132.2.1 Net annual salary, in € - Professional judge at the beginning 
of career

132.2.2 Net annual salary, in € - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.2.3 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor at the beginning of 
career

132.2.4 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

133.1.1.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Reduced taxation

133.1.2.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Special pension

133.1.3.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Housing

133.1.4.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Other financial benefit

133.2.1.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Reduced taxation

133.2.2.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Special pension

133.2.3.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Housing

133.2.4.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Other financial benefit

1 058

138

920

14 681 €

27 878 €

53 447 €

27 878 €

53 447 €

17 790 €

32 452 €

17 790 €

32 452 €

False

False

False

True

False

False

False

True

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

235 / 1555

         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

144.1.1 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - Total number (1+2+3+4)

144.1.2 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 1. Breach of professional 
ethics 

144.1.3 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.1.4 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 3. Criminal offence 

144.1.5 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 4. Other

144.2.1 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - Total number 
(1+2+3+4)

144.2.2 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 1. Breach of 
professional ethics 

144.2.3 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.2.4 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 3. Criminal offence

144.2.5 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 4. Other 

145.1.1 Sanctions against Judges - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.1.2 Sanctions against Judges - 1. Reprimand

145.1.3 Sanctions against Judges - 2. Suspension

145.1.4 Sanctions against Judges - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.1.5 Sanctions against Judges - 4. Fine

145.1.6 Sanctions against Judges - 5. Temporary reduction of salary

145.1.7 Sanctions against Judges - 6. Position downgrade

145.1.8 Sanctions against Judges - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.1.9 Sanctions against Judges - 8. Resignation

145.1.10 Sanctions against  Judges - 9. Other

145.1.11 Sanctions against  Judges - 10. Dismissal

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

13

0

11

0

2

3

3

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

236 / 1555

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

145.2.1 Sanctions against Prosecutors - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.2.2 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 1. Reprimand

145.2.3 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 2. Suspension

145.2.4 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.2.5 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 4. Fine

145.2.6 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 5. Temporary reduction of 
salary

145.2.7 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 6. Position downgrade

145.2.8 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.2.9 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 8. Resignation

145.2.10 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 9. Other

145.2.11 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 10. Dismissal

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

2

1

0

0

0

1

0

0

0

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lawyers

Tables 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.7 and 7.8

146.1.1 Total number of lawyers practising

4 392

4 408

4 487

4 560

4 690

4 719

4 756

4 752

4 835

10,1%

0,4%

1,8%

1,6%

2,9%

0,6%

0,8%

-0,1%

1,7%

146.2.1 Practicing lawyers - man

146.3.1 Practicing lawyers - woman

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 688

2 687

2 733

2 068

2 065

2 102

147 Does this figure include “legal advisors” who cannot represent 
their clients in court (for example, some solicitors or in-house 
counsellors)? 

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

1,7%

-0,1%

1,8%

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

237 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Croatia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 8: The existence and use of alternative dispute resolution methods

Table 8.1 8.2 and 8.3

166 Number of accredited or registered mediators who practice 
judicial mediation: 

406

406

453

474

167.1.1 Total number started

167. 1.2 Civil and commercial cases(cid:9) - started

167. 1.2 Family cases - started

167.1.4 Administrative cases - started

167.1.5 Labour cases including employment dismissal cases - started

167.1.6. Criminal cases - started

167.1.7 Consumer cases - started

549

NA

508

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

588

612

632

673

65,8%

0,0%

11,6%

4,6%

15,8%

7,1%

4,1%

3,3%

6,5%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Key: Variation of more than (+ -) 20% 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

238 / 1555

Judiciary at a glance in Cyprus

General data

Population:

896 000

GDP per capita: 23 397 €

Average annual 

salary:

24 882 €

Professionals

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Cyprus

Cyprus

EU Median

EU Median

Professional judges

Professional judges

12,95

23,92

12,95

23,92

Non-judge staff

50,11

59,00

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

15,29

50,11

59,00

9,91

8,15

15,22

15,29

9,91

8,15

15,22

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual 
salary in the country
EU Median

Cyprus

Cyprus

EU Median

Judge at the beginning of a career 

5,57
3,13

2,02

4,09

3,13

Judge of the highest court 5,57

4,09

2,02

1,71
Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

1,41

1,71

1,41

Public prosecutor at highest instance

NA

3,61

Lawyers

Lawyers

476,90

122,09

122,09

476,90

Judge at the beginning of a
career

Judge of the highest court Prosecutor at the beginning of a

career

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

Efficiency

1st instance

2nd instance

1st instance 2nd instance

Supreme 
Court
%
4
8
0
1

,

100%

%
3
8
8

,

,

%
3
8
8

Total of other
than criminal 
Administrativ
e
cases
Total 
criminal law 
cases

%
88,3%
8
3
8

,

83,8%

%
0
9
6

,

%
7
4
9

,

88,3% NAP

69,0% NAP

94,7%

108,4% NAP

1st instance

2nd instance

1st instance 2nd instance Supreme Court

Total of other
1087
than criminal 
Administrative cases 863

Total criminal law cases317

2688

2176

2176 NAP
2688 NAP

347 NAP

1
1

1

1
1

Total of other
than criminal cases

Administrative
cases

Total criminal law
cases

Total of other
than criminal cases

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

1087

863

347

317

Information and communication technology

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

Assistance toolsCase management system
2018

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the workload
2019

Electronic communication

EU Median 2020

2020

2018
2019
2020

0,00
0,00
0,00

0,00
0,00
0,78

5,17

1,75
2,00
2,00

0,00
0,00
0,00

0,00
0,00
0,00

6,94

EU Median 2020

2,00

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

2,00

0,78

2,00

2,00

1,75

1,25

2,50

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

*ICT calculations are described in more details in Annex 5 - IT Calculation methodology

239

2020

Synthesis table for the main indicators for:

Cyprus

Economic and demographic data

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Variations

Population

GDP per capita

Exchange rate (local currency needed to 
obtain 1€)

865 900

858 000

858 000

848 300

848 300

854 800

875 900

888 000

896 000

3,5%

-1,1%

3,3%

20 512

19 033

20 454

20 931

21 282

22 770

24 633

25 270

23 397

14,1%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4,0%

NAP

-0,9%

15,7%

NAP

1,5%

NAP

3,1%

2,5%

8,2%

1,4%

2,6%

0,9%

-7,4%

NAP NAP

NAP

3,7%

4,8%

Average annual salary

24 124

22 764

22 548

22 896

23 742

24 882

Resources

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Professional judges per 100 000 inhab.

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhab.

11,9

49,0

11,8

49,8

11,3

52,2

13,3

50,0

13,1

51,5

13,9

51,6

13,5

48,7

13,0

53,5

14,1

50,1

18,2%

15,7%

3,0%

2,3%

-1,3%

-5,4%

Lawyers per 100 000 inh.

295,4

337,5

362,9

378,2

425,0

443,7

458,0

474,0

476,9

61,4%

17,1%

Mediators

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0,6

NA

0,7

NA

1,0

NA

NA

-3,2%

-5,5%

3,2%

NA

-3,9%

9,7%

3,5%

NA

8,6%

-6,3%

0,6%

NA

14,3%

38,9%

7,8%

NA

ICT overall assesment

First instance incoming cases per 100 
inhab.

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Civil and commercial litigious cases

NA

4,484

Administrative law cases

0,242

0,8

NA

0,2

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0,200

0,182

0,215

0,223

0,214

0,316

30,6%

-2,7%

22,4%

3,4%

-3,9%

47,6%

Total criminal law cases

6,618

First instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

First instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NA

74%

78%

58%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

103%

120%

113%

74%

219%

170%

NA

84%

95%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

NA

9,79

NA

9,28

NA

NA

NA

NA

106,46

145,59

-49,39

-86,03

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
cases (days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

NA

1 270

638

775

NA

NA

NA

NA

1 775

1 391

1 582

2 162

NA

487

NA

495

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-32,1%

-10,9%

-69,2%

-77,5%

1,6%

74,4%

NA

863

317

DT total criminal law cases (days)

First instance pending cases per 100 
inhab. on 31 dec.

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

NA

0,62

6,13

0,95

NA

0,94

NA

0,91

NA

0,89

NA

0,94

NA

0,65

NA

0,49

NA

0,4%

NA

0,63

5,45

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-5,5%

-26,8%

-30,7%

-24,3%

27,0%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NA

61%

NA

NA

NA

89%

190%

140%

NA

84%

NA

88%

NA

69%

108%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

NA

NA

NA

129,37

-106,35

-55,87

NA

3,48

NA

-18,64

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

DT administrative law cases (days)

2 890

2 741

2 522

1 975

2 156

1 724

2 688

-12,8%

-14,5%

9,1%

-20,0%

56,0%

DT total criminal law cases (days)

 Supreme court 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Supreme court
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

347

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

240 / 1555

Cyprus has a two tier system. The Supreme Court is the second and final instance court. All judges of the Supreme Court hear appeals. 
According to 2020 data, there are 6 first instance courts of general jurisdiction and 16 first instance specialised courts. 
The total number of courts as geographic locations is 23.   

1. Judicial organisation in Cyprus

Distribution of general courts in Cyprus

Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Cyprus - 1st instance

Cyprus - Higher instances

EU Median - 1st instance

EU Median - Higher instances

CyprusDistribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

According to 2020 data, the distribution between 1st instance and higher instances courts of general 
jurisdiction in Cyprus is around the EU median of 87% - 13%.

Cyprus - 1st instanceCyprus - Higher instances

General courts - Cyprus

86%

14%

General courts - Cyprus
EU Median

86%
87%

14%
13%

EU Median

87%

13%

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Cyprus

Geographic 
locations

Legal entities

General jurisdiction

Specialised 
jurisdiction

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Cyprus

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

21

19

21

22

22

22

21

22

23

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

6

14

13

13

15

15

15

15

16

16

25

20

15

10

5

0

Geographic locations
Legal entities General jurisdiction
Legal entities Specialised jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Cyprus has a two-tier system, therefore the Supreme Court is the second, highest and final instance court. In the Organisation part of this country fiche, the Supreme Court is 
presented as the highest (third) instance court.

Distribution of first instance general jurisdiction and specialised courts

Cyprus

Cyprus

Ratio general jurisdiction vs specialised

27%

General jurisdiction Specialised courts

27%

75%

73%

73%

25%

EU Median

25%

75%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

The distribution between number of general jurisdiction courts and specialised courts of 27,3% - 72,7% is quite different compared to the distribution 
tendency in EU which is 75,5% - 24,5%.

Specialised courts
Total

Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

Insolvency courts

Labour courts

Family courts

Rent and tenancies courts

Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

Internet related disputes

Administrative courts

Insurance and / or social welfare courts

Military courts

Juvenile courts

Other specialised 1st instance courts

First instance

Higher instance

16

NAP

NAP

3

3

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

1

NAP

6

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

Other specialised 1st instance courts include 5 Assize courts and 1 Administrative Court for International Protection.

It should be noted that the new Administrative Court for International Protection that will hear asylum applications and international protection matters was established in 2019.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

241 / 1555

2. Professionals of justice in Cyprus

● Professional judges and non-judge staff

Evolution of the number of professional judges since 2012 (Q46)

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Absolute 
number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

103

101

97

113

111

119

118

115

126

11,90

11,77

11,31

13,32

13,08

13,92

13,47

12,95

14,06

EU median

23,9

Professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants

23,9

11,90

11,77

11,31

13,32

13,08

13,92

13,47

12,95

14,06

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

According to 2020 data, the total number of professional judges sitting in courts (all instances) in Cyprus is 126, which is 9,6% more than in previous cycle.
More precisely, in Cyprus, there are 14,06 professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants (this figure is below the EU median of 23,92 judges per 100 000 inhabitants) and about 3,56 non-
judge staff per judge .

There is no significant difference compared with previous cycle when this ratio was at 4,13 non-judge staff per judge.

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and gender

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

113

NAP

13

126

Distribution by 
instance

89,7%

NAP

10,3%

Male

53

NAP

7

60

Female

% Male

% Female

60

NAP

6

66

46,9%

NA

53,8%

47,6%

53,1%

NA

46,2%

52,4%

Distribution of professional judges by instance

89,7%

Cyprus

EU Median

72,39%

EU Median

72,39%

23,98%
4,03%

1st instance

10,3%

4,03%

Supreme courts

Distribution of professional judges by gender and by 
instance

% Female

% Male

53,1%

46,9%

46,2%

53,8%

52,4%

47,6%

1st instance

Supreme courts

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female professional judges (all instances) is 66, which represents 52,4% of the total number of judges.

The total number of judges is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 113 are sitting in first instance courts (of which 60 are female) and 13 are sitting in 
Supreme Court (of which 6 are female).  

As regards the methodology of presentation of data in respect of the number of judges, it should be noticed that the Supreme Court is the second and final instance court. All judges of 
the Supreme Court hear appeals and are counted in the category  "Supreme court". That is why number of judges in second instance is presented as NA/NAP. 

Considering this methodology of presentation of data, Cyprus cannot be fully compared with the EU distribution of professional judges per instance. 

As regards the distribution of the number of judges among the different judicial instances, Cyprus presents some peculiarities considering that it is a two-tier system and has only first 
instance courts and the Supreme court. 
As regards the distribution male/female, it has to be specified that females represent more than half of judges in the first instance (53.1%) but less than 50% in the Supreme Court 
(46.2%). 

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Total

Civil and commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

113

NAP

13

126

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

13

NAP

NAP

13

87

NAP

13

113

In Cyprus, the distribution of judges per categories of cases is possible only for some categories.

Distribution of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Civil and 
commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

This includes the supreme court judges who deal with all types of 
cases, first instance family court judges, labour court judges, rent 
control court judges and military court.

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

11,5%

NAP

NAP

10,3%

77,0%

NAP

100,0%

89,7%

TRUE

NA

2

NA

NA

NA

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

242 / 1555

Non-judge staff

Year

2012

Number of non-judge staff

424

Per 100 000 inhabitants

48,97

2013

427

49,77

2014

448

52,21

2015

424

2016

437

2017

441

2018

427

2019

475

2020

449

49,98

51,51

51,59

48,75

53,49

50,11

E
U 
m

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants

48,97

49,77

52,21

49,98

51,51

51,59

48,75

53,49

50,11

59,00

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

2020

Total

Rechtspfleger

Non-judge staff assisting the judge

Staff in charge of administrative tasks

Technical staff

Other

Absolute 
number

449

NAP

149

148

119

33

in %

NAP

33,2%

33,0%

26,5%

7,3%

In 2020, Cyprus has 449 non-judge staff (of which 304 are females). The total number of non-judge staff in comparison with the previous cycle reveals a decrease of -5,5%.

In this cycle, the non-judge staff is broken down as follows:

◦ 149 non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges such as registrars (of which 139 are women);
◦ 148 staff in charge of different administrative tasks and of the court management (of which 135 are women);
◦ 119 technical staff (of which 21 are women);
◦ 33 other (of which 9 are women);

In 2020, the number of non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants has decreased (from 53,5 in 2019 to 50,1 in 2020).

During the same period, the number of judges per 100 000 inhabitants evolves from 13,0 judges per 100 000 inhabitants in 2019 to 14,1 in 2020.

It should be noted that the total number of non-judge staff includes clerical staff and also court bailiffs (which are categorized as Other non-judge staff). Differences in number of staff 
compared to previous year come from new appointments and retirements.

Professional judges, non-judge staff and their ratio (Q46, Q52)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Cyprus

EU median

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

14,06

50,11

Non-judge staff per judge

3,56

23,92

59,00

3,30

Professional judges and non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

3,56

50,11

Non-judge staff per judge

14,06

59,00

3,30

23,92

Cyprus

EU median

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff  (Q46, Q52)

Judges 
per 100 000 inh.

Non-judge staff per
100 000 inh.

Ratio between professional judges and 
non-judge staff

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff 
Non-judge staff per 100 000 inh.
(Q46, Q52)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

11,90

11,77

11,31

13,32

13,08

13,92

13,47

12,95

14,06

48,97

49,77

52,21

49,98

51,51

51,59

48,75

53,49

50,11

EU median 2020

3,30

4,12

4,23

4,62

3,75

3,94

3,71

3,62

4,13

3,56

4,12

4,23

4,62

2012

2013

2014

4,12
4,23
4,62
3,75
3,94
3,71
3,62
4,13
3,56

3,75

3,94

3,71

3,62

4,13

3,56

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

243 / 1555

● Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff

Absolute number of public prosecutors by instance and gender (Q55)

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

NAP

NAP

NAP

137

Distribution by 
instance

NAP

NAP

NAP

Male

NAP

NAP

NAP

30

Female

NAP

NAP

NAP

107

Male

NAP

NAP

NAP

Female

NAP

NAP

NAP

21,9%

78,1%

Distribution of the total number of public prosecutors by 

Male

Female

Total

21,9%

78,1%

EU Median

73,96%

21,28%

4,52%

In this cycle, the total number of female prosecutors (all instances) is 107, which represents 78,1% of the total number of prosecutors.

The total number of prosecutors cannot be distributed among the different judicial instances which represents a peculiarity of the Cyprus system.  

As regards the distribution male/female, it has to be specified that females represent majority, whereas male prosecutors take 21,9%. 

It should be noted that the number of prosecutors includes also legal advisors to the Attorney General's office.
The number increased in 2020 because more positions of prosecutors were approved. 

Non-prosecutor staff by gender (Q60)

Non-prosecutor staff

Total

2020

73

Male

15

Female

58

Non-prosecutor staff by gender

21%

Male

Female

79%

Public prosecutors, non-prosecutor staff and their ratio (Q55, Q60)

Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Cyprus

EU median

Public prosecutors

15,29

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per 
prosecutor

8,15

0,53

9,91

15,22

1,11

Public prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per prosecutor

15,29

15,22

8,15

0,53

Cyprus

9,91

1,11

EU median

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

244 / 1555

● Salaries of professional judges and prosecutors at beginning of a career and at the highest instance (Q132, Q4)

Salaries of professional judges and 
prosecutors (Q132, Q4)

Average gross annual 
salary 
in €

Average net annual 
salary 
in €

Ratio with national 
average annual 
gross salary

Judge at the beginning of a career 

77 916 €

56 069 €

3,13

Judge of the highest court 

138 494 €

105 500 €

5,57

Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

35 010 €

NA

Public prosecutor at highest instance

NAP

NAP

1,41

NAP

EU Median

2,02

3,13

4,09

1,71

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual salary in the 
country

5,57

Salaries of 
judges and 
prosecutors in 
Judge

4,09

2,02

Prosecutor

Judge at the beginning of career

Judge on highest instance

3,61

Cyprus

EU Median

at the beginning 
of a career

77916

at the highest 
instance
1,41

138494

1,71

at the beginning 
of a career

at the highest 
instance

Prosecutor at the beginning of
career

35010

NAP

According to 2020 data, the absolute gross salary of a judge at the beginning of a career in Cyprus of 77 916€ is quite above when compared to the EU median of 51 946€. As a ratio 
with annual the average salary of the country, the salary for a judge at the beginning of career is: 3,13 compared with EU median of : 2,02.

● Lawyers

Lawyers

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

Number of lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2 558

2 896

3 114

3 208

3 605

3 793

4 012

4 209

4 273

295,42

337,53

362,94

378,17

424,97

443,73

458,04

473,99

476,90

EU median 2020

122,09

In 2020, there are 4 273 lawyers, which is 1,5% more than in 2019.

337,53

295,42

362,94

378,17

424,97

443,73

458,04

473,99

476,90

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

122,09

EU median
2020

Cyprus has 476,9 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants, which is well above the EU median of 122,1 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

245 / 1555

● Judicial professionals (summary)

Judicial professionals in absolute number and per 100 000 inhabitants (Q46, Q52, Q55, Q60, Q146)

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

EU Median

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

115

449

137

73

12,95

23,92

50,11

15,29

59,00

9,91

8,15

15,22

Lawyers

4 273

476,90

122,09

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Cyprus

EU Median

476,90

12,95

23,92

50,11

59,00

15,29

9,91

8,15

15,22

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

122,09

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

% Male

% Female

Professional judges

47,6%

52,4%

Non judge staff

32,3%

67,7%

Prosecutors

21,9%

78,1%

Non-prosecutor staff

20,5%

79,5%

Lawyers

42,6%

57,4%

Cyprus % Male Cyprus % Femalelabels

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

Professional judges

-47,6%
Cyprus % Male

52,4%

47,6%
Cyprus % Female

EU Median  % Male
-39,0%

EU Median  % Female

61,0%

39,0%

Professional judges

47,6%

39,0%

52,4%

0,0%

61,0%

Non judge staff

Non judge staff

-32,3%

32,3%

24,0%
-24,0%

67,7%

32,3%

76,0%

24,0%

Prosecutors

21,9%

Prosecutors

40,5%

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

-21,9%
-40,5%

20,5%

-20,5%
28,1%
-28,1%

Lawyers

Lawyers

42,6%

-42,6%
-52,3%

52,3%

78,1%
59,5%

79,5%
71,9%

57,4%
47,7%

0,0%

21,9%
40,5%
0,0%
20,5%
28,1%
0,0%
42,6%
52,3%

67,7%

76,0%

78,1%

59,5%

79,5%

71,9%

57,4%

47,7%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

246 / 1555

3. Legal aid and court fees in Cyprus

1

0

In Cyprus, legal aid includes:

◦ Coverage of court fees: 

◦ Exemption from court fees: 

In Cyprus, legal aid is available for :

> Representation in court:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

> Legal advice, ADR and other legal services:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

>

Fees related to enforcement of judicial decisions as fees for enforcement agents (Q18) 

>

 Other costs than above (Q19) 

1

1

1

1

0

0

 Number of cases for which legal aid has been granted

Absolute number 
(in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

Total

Cases brought to court

Cases not brought to 
court

3 386

2 351

1 035

3 386

2 351

1 035

NA

NA

NA

Ratio of number of cases brought to court for which legal aid 
has been granted

In criminal cases

31%
100,0% NA

In other than criminal
cases

100,0% NA

100,0% NA

69%

Per 100 000 inhabitants
 (in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

Cyprus

EU Median

377,9

262,4

115,5

734,2

330,9

402,7

Number of cases for which legal has been granted per 100 000 
inhabitants

Cyprus

EU Median

734,2

377,9

262,4

330,9

402,7

115,5

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

Other cases include civil cases for serious violations of human rights and family court cases (statistics on the family court cases was not available in the previous cycle). 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

247 / 1555

4. Performance of courts in Cyprus

● Efficiency indicators

◦ Clearance Rate (CR) and Disposition Time (DT)

The Clearance Rate shows the capacity of a judicial system to deal with the incoming cases. A Clearance Rate of 100% and higher does not generate backlog. 

The Disposition Time determines the estimated number of days necessary for a pending case to be solved in a court. 

First instance Total of other than criminal cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Evolution of number of all other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants
Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Incoming

5
2
7

,

1
1
6

,

9
7
2

,

7
4
2

,

0
5
3

,

5
1
3

,

3
0
6

,

5
1
6

,

2
0
6

,

0
4
2

,

5
5
2

,

1
0
2

,

7
7
1

,

9
9
2

,

9
3
2

,

4
3
2

,

2
4
5

,

6
2
4

,

1
7
3

,

A
N

A
N

A
N

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

4,26

NA

2,79

3,71

NA

2,47

3,50

5
5
5

,

2,40

1,77

0
3
2

,

2,39

2,34

2,40

2019

6,82

2
3
6

3,15

,

2,55

2,01

2,99

2,30

2,12

6,60

0
4
2

,

2
1
2

,

2020

5,42

NA

6,11

0
6
6

,

7,25

6,03

2
8
6

,

6,15

6
6
2

,

6,02

5,55

6,32

EU median

2,66

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Cyprus (2,40 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (6,82 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Cyprus (2,12 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (6,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Cyprus (6,32 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (2,66 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Other than criminal cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Other than criminal 
cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

87%

NA

88%

90%

106%

113%

125%

98%

88%

534

NA

903

839

862

1118

737

882

1087

EU median

99%

109

87%

88%

90%

DT (days)

CR (%)

106%

113%

125%

98%

88%

534

2012

NA

2013

903

2014

839

2015

862

2016

1118

2017

737

2018

882

2019

1087

2020

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 88,3% in 2020 Cyprus seems to face difficulties in dealing with its other than criminal cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -9,6 points.

In 2020, other than criminal cases are solved in approximately 1 087 days, which is well above EU median of 109 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 23,2% increase of the Disposition Time.

Reducing delays in the disposition time is part of the reform process. Furthermore, in the previous cycle a big number of cases were tried 
together. This is the reason why number of resolved cases in 2020 might appear lower than in 2019.

First instance Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

The data for the first instance Civil (and commercial) litigious cases are not available. 

The reason for not having data is that there was no electronic filing system that would enable Cyprus to have statistical data on different types of cases.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

248 / 1555

First instance Administrative cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of administrative cases per 100 inhabitants

5
9
0

,

4
9
0

,

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

1
9
0

,

9
8
0

,

4
9
0

,

5
6
0

,

9
4
0

,

2
6
0

,

8
7
0

,

5
4
0

,

4
2
0

,

8
1
0

,

9
1
0

,

9
1
0

,

4
2
0

,

0
2
0

,

1
2
0

,

8
1
0

,

2
2
0

,

6
1
0

,

2
2
0

,

1
2
0

,

0,24
0,78
0,19
0,20
0,18
0,22
0,22
0,21
0,32
0,30

6
3
0

,

9
4
0

,

0,18
0,45
0,19
0,24
0,21
0,16
0,49
0,36
0,26
0,26

3
6
0

,

0,62
0,95
0,94
0,91
0,89
0,94
0,65
0,49
0,63
0,21

2
3
0

,

6
2
0

,

0
3
0

,

6
2
0

,

1
2
0

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Cyprus (0,32 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly above EU median (0,30 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Cyprus (0,26 per 100 inhabitants) is equal to the EU median (0,26 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Cyprus (0,63 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (0,21 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Administrative cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019
2020

74,0%

57,5%

103,5%

119,8%

112,8%

73,6%

219,2%

169,8%
83,8%

1270

775

1775

1391

1582

2162

487

495
863

EU Median

100%

388

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Administrative cases

DT (days)

CR (%)

219,2%

103,5%

119,8%

112,8%

73,6%

169,8%

100%

83,8%

1775

2014

1391

2015

1582

2016

2162

2017

487

2018

495

2019

863

388

2020

EU Median

74,0%

1270

2012

57,5%

775

2013

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 83,8% in 2020, Cyprus seems to face difficulties in dealing with its administrative cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased for -86,0 points.

In 2020, the administrative cases are solved in approximately 863 days, which is well above EU median of 388 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 74,4% increase of the Disposition Time.

The number of administrative law cases older than 2 years is not available.

The difference in the pending administrative cases compared with previous year is that figure in 2020 includes cases filed before the Administrative Court of International 
Protection which was set up.

Insolvency cases

The data for the first instance Civil (and commercial) litigious cases are not available. 

The reason for not having data is that there was no electronic filing system that would enable Cyprus to have statistical data on different types of cases.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

249 / 1555

● First instance Criminal Law Cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

45 674

59 300

56 142

48 832

Severe criminal cases 

Misdemeanour and/or 
minor cases

Other cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Per 100 inhabitants

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

5,10

6,62

6,27

5,45

Severe criminal 
cases 
Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases
Other cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending 
cases 31 

6,27
Cyprus
Total criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants
1,48

1,60

6,62

EU Median

Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

Incoming cases

5,45

0,46

2
6
6

,

7
2
6

,

5
4
5

,

0
6
1

,

8
4
1

,

6
4
0

,

Cyprus

EU Median

The number of total incoming criminal cases in 2020 in Cyprus (6,62 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (1,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total resolved criminal cases in 2020 in Cyprus (6,27 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (1,48 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total pending criminal cases at the end of 2020 in Cyprus (5,45 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (0,46 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Total criminal law cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Total

94,7%

Severe criminal 
cases 

Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

NA

NA

NA

317

NA

NA

NA

EU Median

95,2%

139

EU Median

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT)

DT (days)

CR (%)

Total Criminal law cases

94,7%

95,2%

317

Total

139

EU Median

With the Clearance Rate calculated at 94,7% in 2020 for total criminal cases, Cyprus seems to face some difficulties in dealing with its total criminal cases.

In 2020, criminal law cases were solved in approximately 317 days, which is well above EU median of 139 days.

The reason for not having data for the subcategories of cases is that there was no electronic filing system that would enable Cyprus to have these statistical data.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

250 / 1555

Overall efficiency by instance and by case matter

CR (%)

DT (days)

CR (%)

DT (days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Total of other than 
criminal cases

88,3%

77,4%

Administrative cases

83,8%

69,0%

Total criminal law cases

94,7%

108,4%

NAP

NAP

NAP

1087

863

317

2176

2688

347

NAP

NAP

NAP

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

2nd instance

1st instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

Total of other
than criminal cases

100%

Administrative
cases

%
3
8
8

,

%
3
8
8

,

88,3%

%
8
3
8

,

%
0
9
6

,

2nd instance
%
4
8
0
1

,

88,3% NAP

%
7
4
9

,

Total criminal law cases

83,8%
94,7%

69,0% NAP
108,4% NAP

Total of other
than criminal cases

Administrative
cases

Total criminal law
cases

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

2176

1087

2688

863

347
317

Total of other than criminal
cases

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

1

1

1
1
1

In order to properly understand the data, it has to be taken into account that Cyprus provided data for all "Other than criminal cases" and could not provide separate 
data for the first instance "Civil (and commercial) litigious cases". Consequently, CEPEJ presented data and analysis for all "Other than criminal cases" in the Country 
Fiche of Cyprus, instead of presenting "Civil (and commercial) litigious cases" like for most of other states and entities. It should be noted that "Other than criminal 
cases" include: Civil and commercial litigious cases, Non litigious cases, Administrative cases (that are also presented separately in this Country Fiche) and other 
cases.   

Furtehrmore, it should be kept in mind that Cyprus has a two-tier system, therefore the Supreme Court is the second, highest and final instance court. The case flow 
data of the Supreme Court are presented  as second instance cases in this Country Fiche. For this reason, CR and DT of the Supreme Court are presented in the 
second instance, whereas NAP is indicated in the third instance. 

Regarding performance of courts, Cyprus seems to face significant difficulties in dealing with its cases, as CR is lower than 100% for all case types in both instances, 
with the exception of 2nd instance criminal cases. Furthermore, DT is much above EU median values and particularly problematic seem to be other than criminal 
cases where DT shows extremely high values. Notably, DT for second instance other than criminal cases is 13 times higher than EU median (2176 day compared to 
167 days) and 10 times higher than EU median for the first instance cases (1087 days compared to EU median value of 109 days). Similar situation can be observed 
in a subgroup of these cases - second instance administrative cases where DT is more than 7 times higher than EU median (2688 days compared to EU median value 
of 362 days). Other case types also have DT levels that are at least two or three times higher than the EU medians. This is caused in large part by the existence of 
large backlogs in all courts which are being further increased by low CR. Cyprus reported that it works on reducing DT in its courts as part of the reform process. The 
results of these efforts are yet to be seen and will be analysed in future years. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

251 / 1555

5. Public prosecution services in Cyprus

● Role and powers of the public prosecutor

In the criminal procedure, the public prosecutor in Cyprus has the following 5 out of 11 possible roles and powers:

To conduct or supervise police investigation

To appeal

To conduct investigations

To supervise the enforcement procedure

When necessary, to request investigation measures from the judge

To discontinue a case without needing a decision by a judge

To charge

To present the case in the court

To propose a sentence to the judge

The public prosecutor also has a role in civil and administrative cases.

Public prosecutor is also the attorney for the republic and defends the State in cases filed against it.

● Public prosecutors: Number of first instance criminal cases

The data for the public prosecutors' first instance criminal cases are not available. 

To end the case by imposing or negotiating a penalty or measure 
without requiring a judicial decision

Other significant powers

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

252 / 1555

6. Existence and use of alternative dispute resolution in Cyprus

Number of mediators

The information about the number of registered court-related mediators is not available (NA).

Number of court related mediations

Data on the number of court-related mediation procedures is not available.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

253 / 1555

7. ICT tools of courts in Cyprus

●The ICT tools of courts and for court users

The use of ICT in courts in 2020 has been evaluated as  :

EU Median

Total 
(0 to 10)

Assistance tools (0 to 3)

Case management system (0 to 7)
Financial management tools (0 to 3)

Measurement tools to assess the workload (0 to 5)
Electronic communication (0 to 10)

1,0
0,0

0,8

2,0
0,0

0,0

6,6
2,0

5,2

1,3
2,5

6,9

The calculation of this values for each field is based on the answers for that question/s and weighted according the availability 
or deployment rate. The total value is normalised to max 10 points for readability and comparison.

The details of the calculation are given in Annex 5 - IT calculations

The result by area may be summarized in these graphics, where each field has been evaluated from 0 to 4 points.

Note: index is modified based on the available questions. This cycle the recalculation was made for the last three cycles to be 
able to follow the development.

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

2018

2019

2020

EU Median 2020

Case 
management 
system

Financial 
management 
tools

Measurement 
tools to assess 
5,17
the workload

Electronic 
communication

6,48

2,00

0,78

1,75

2,00

2,00

1,25

2,50

0,00

0,00

0,78

1,75

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

Case management system

2,00

0,00

Financial management tools

0,00

2,00

0,00

0,00

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,48

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

Assistance 
tools

Year
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
EU Median 20202,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00
Assistance tools
0,00

In April 2021 the e-justice system was introduced.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

254 / 1555

8. Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and public prosecution services in Cyprus

In Cyprus, quality standards are determined for the judicial system at national level (e.g. quality systems for the judiciary and/or judicial quality policies). However, there is no 
specialised personnel within the courts or the public prosecution services entrusted with implementation of these national level quality standards.

● Systems for measuring and evaluating courts' performance

A regular monitoring system of court activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

In Cyprus, there is a system to regularly evaluate the court performance based primarily on defined indicators and the reporting is more frequent than annual.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each court.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

The evaluation of the courts' activities is used for the later allocation of means the courts.

● Systems for measuring and evaluating public prosecution services' performance

A regular monitoring system of public prosecution services activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases 

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs 

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecution) 

Costs of the judicial procedures 

Clearance rate 

Disposition time 

Percentage of convictions and acquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

In Cyprus, there is no system to evaluate regularly the activity of each public prosecution service.

Performance and quality indicators are not defined for the activity of each public prosecution service.

None of the following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecutors)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Percentage of convictions and acquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff

The evaluation of the public prosecution services' activities is not used for the later allocation of means in the public prosecution services.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

255 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table General Data: Economic and demographic data, in absolute values (Q1, Q3, Q5)

Q1 Number of inhabitants

865 900

858 000

858 000

848 300

848 300

854 800

875 900

888 000

896 000

3,5%

-0,9%

0,0%

-1,1%

0,0%

0,8%

2,5%

1,4%

0,9%

Q.3 GDP Per capita (in €) in current prices

20 512

19 033

20 454

20 931

21 282

22 770

24 633

25 270

23 397

14,1%

-7,2%

7,5%

2,3%

1,7%

7,0%

8,2%

2,6%

-7,4%

Q5. Exchange rate of Nat currency to € on 1 Jan

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 1: Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and prosecution services  (Indicator 4 in 2019)

Table 1.1 to Table 1.10 (Q66, Q67, Q77, Q78, Q77-1, Q78-1, Q73, Q73-0, Q73-1, Q73-2, Q73-3, Q73-4, Q73-5, Q73-6, Q70, Q70-1, Q71, Q72, Q83-2, Q83-3, Q120 
and Q120-1)

66 Qlty standards formulated_jud system

67 Specialised court staff entrusted_qlty standards

77 Performance and quality indicators of court activities

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

078.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078.1.5 Backlogs 

078.1.6 Productivity of judges and court staff

078.1.7 Satisfaction of court staff 

078.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts) 

078.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078.1.10 Number of appeals

078.1.11 Appeal ratio

078.1.12 Clearance rate 

078.1.13 Disposition time 

078.1.14 Other

077-1.1.1 Defined performance and quality indicators

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

256 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

078-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078-1.1.5 Backlogs 

078-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

078-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

078-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

078-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

078-1.1.11 Disposition time 

078-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

078-1.1.13 Other

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

73 Regular system_evaluation_performance_each court

Yes

yes

Yes

Yes

073-0.1.1 Annual

073-0.1.2 Less frequent

073-0.1.3 More frequent

073-1.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
court

073-2.1.1 Courses of action taken in the evaluation is used for the 
allocation of resources

073-2.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-2.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-2.1.4 Other

073-3.1.1 Regular evaluation of the public prosecution services 
performance

Yes

Yes

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

257 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

073-4.1.1 Annual

073-4.1.2 Less frequent

073-4.1.3 More frequent

073-5.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
public prosecution services

073-6.1.1 Identifying the causes of improved or deteriorated 
performance

073-6.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-6.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-6.1.4 Other

070.1.1 number of incoming cases

070.1.2 length of proceedings (timeframes)

070.1.3 number of resolved cases

070.1.4 number of pending cases

070.1.5 backlogs

070.1.6 productivity of judges and court staff

070.1.7 satisfaction of court staff

070.1.8 satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts)

070.1.9 costs of the judicial procedures

070.1.10 number of appeals

070.1.11 appeal ratio

070.1.12 clearance rate

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

-

-

-

False

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

258 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

070-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases 

070-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

070-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

070-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

070-1.1.5 Backlogs 

070-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

070-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

070-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

070-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

070-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

070-1.1.11 Disposition time 

070-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

070-1.1.13 Other

071.1.1 Monitoring backlogs in Civil law cases

071.1.2 Monitoring backlogs in Criminal law cases

071.1.3 Monitoring backlogs in Administrative law cases

072.1.1 Monitoring timeframes Within the courts

072.1.2 Monitoring timeframes Within the public prosecution services

083-2.1.1 Quantitative performance tagets defined for each 
prosecutors

083-3.1.1 Body responsible - Executive power (for example the 
Ministry of Justice)

083-3.1.2 Body responsible - Prosecutor General /State public 
prosecutor

083-3.1.3 Body responsible - Public Prosecutorial Council

083-3.1.4 Body responsible - Head of the organisational unit or 
hierarchically superior public prosecutor

083-3.1.5 Body responsible - Other

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

False

False

False

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

259 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

120.1.1 Qualitative individual assessment of the public prosecutors' 
work

120-1.1.1 Feequency - Annual

120-1.1.2 Feequency - Less frequent

120-1.1.3 Feequency - More frequent

Q42.1.1Total number of all courts - legal entities 

Q42.1.2 Total number of courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.3 First instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.4 Second instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.5 Highest instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.6 Total number of specialised courts - legal entities

43.1.1 Total number of specialised courts of first instance

43.1.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.1.3 Insolvency courts

43.1.4 Labour courts

43.1.5 Family courts

43.1.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.1.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.1.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.1.9 Internet related disputes

43.1.10 Administrative courts

43.1.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.1.12 Military courts

43.1.13 Juvenile courts

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

False

-

-

-

23

7

6

NAP

1

16

16

NAP

NAP

3

3

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

Indicator 2: The judicial organisation

Tables 2.1a; 2.1b; 2.2a; 2.2b; 2.3a; 2.3b; 2.4 and 2.5(EC) (Q42, Q43 and Q44)

-

-

6

-

-

-

14

NAP

NAP

1

3

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

-

-

-

6

-

-

-

13

NAP

NAP

1

3

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

-

-

-

6

-

-

-

13

NAP

NAP

3

3

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

-

-

-

6

-

-

-

15

NAP

NAP

3

3

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

-

-

6

-

-

-

15

NAP

NAP

3

3

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

-

-

6

-

-

-

15

NAP

NAP

3

3

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

-

-

6

-

-

-

15

NAP

NAP

3

3

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

-

-

6

-

-

-

16

NAP

NAP

3

3

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

14,3%

-7,1%

0,0%

15,4%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

6,7%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

200,0%

0,0%

200,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-33,3%

-33,3%

50,0%

-33,3%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

-

1

-

1

-

1

-

1

-

1

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

260 / 1555

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

43.1.14 Other specialised courts

NA

NAP

3

5

5

5

5

6

43.2.1 Total number of specialised courts of higher instances

43.2.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.2.3 Insolvency courts

43.2.4 Labour courts

43.2.5 Family courts

43.2.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.2.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.2.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.2.9 Internet related disputes

43.2.10 Administrative courts

43.2.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.2.12 Military courts

43.2.13 Juvenile courts

43.2.14 Other specialised courts

44.1.1 First instance courts geographic locations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

44.1.2 All courts geographic locations

21

19

21

22

22

22

21

22

6

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

22

23

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

66,7%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

20,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9,5%

-9,5%

10,5%

4,8%

0,0%

0,0%

-4,5%

4,8%

4,5%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

261 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

91.1.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.1.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.1.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.1.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.1.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.1.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.1.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.1.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

91.1.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.1.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

91.1.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

91.2.1 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.2.2 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.2.3 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.2.4 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.2.5 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.2.6 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.2.7 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.2.8 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

91.2.9 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

Indicator 3: The performance of courts at all stages of the proceedings

Tables 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.4 (all years) Number of other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 Variation of first instance other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants (Q1, Q91)

Table 3.13.7 (EC) to 3.13.12 (EC) First instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

42 179

NA

49 655

58 568

52 412

54 586

57 972

48 837

54 058

28,2%

NA

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

44 285

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

17,9%

-10,5%

4,1%

6,2%

-15,8%

10,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4 851

5 395

8 130

8 074

7 737

7 540

8 025

5 700

5 146

6,1%

11,2%

50,7%

-0,7%

-4,2%

-2,5%

6,4%

-29,0%

-9,7%

NA

36 868

NA

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

NA

NA

38 473

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

NA

NA

NA

898

NA

NA

NA

-

23 939

29 667

20 394

15 160

20 937

20 817

21 530

-41,6%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

23,9%

-31,3%

-25,7%

38,1%

-0,6%

3,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

91.2.10 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

2 094

6 653

1 604

1 694

1 543

1 840

1 950

1 900

2 829

35,1%

217,7%

-75,9%

5,6%

-8,9%

19,2%

6,0%

-2,6%

48,9%

91.2.11 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1 031

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

262 / 1555

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

91.3.1 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.3.2 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.3.3 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.3.4 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.3.5 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.3.6 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.3.7 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.3.8 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

91.3.9 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

32 092

NA

21 182

26 751

21 661

17 168

26 147

20 382

19 005

-40,8%

NA

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

30 125

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

26,3%

-19,0%

-20,7%

52,3%

-22,0%

-6,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

91.3.10 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

1 550

3 828

1 660

2 030

1 740

1 355

4 275

3 227

2 371

53,0%

147,0%

-56,6%

22,3%

-14,3%

-22,1%

215,5%

-24,5%

-26,5%

91.3.11 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

91.4.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

NA

46 955

91.4.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.4.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.4.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.4.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.4.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.4.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.4.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

91.4.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.4.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

91.4.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

NA

NA

52 633

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

NA

NA

NA

1 065

NA

NA

NA

-

52 412

61 484

51 145

52 578

52 762

49 272

56 583

20,5%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

17,3%

-16,8%

2,8%

0,3%

-6,6%

14,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

5 395

8 130

8 074

7 738

7 540

8 025

5 700

4 373

5 604

3,9%

50,7%

-0,7%

-4,2%

-2,6%

6,4%

-29,0%

-23,3%

28,2%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

864

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

263 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.2 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.4 to 3.3.7 Variation of Clearence Rate and Disposition Time of first instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

Table 3.13.1 (EC) to 3.13.6 (EC) First instance courts: Disposition time and clearance rate for other than criminal cases  (Q91)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

87,0%

NA

88,5%

90,2%

106,2%

113,2%

124,9%

97,9%

88,3%

1,41

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

NA

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

78,3%

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,91

17,79

6,62

10,28

(21,60)

(9,84)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CR Administrative law cases

74,0%

57,5%

103,5%

119,8%

112,8%

73,6%

219,2%

169,8%

83,8%

13,23

(22,27)

79,87

15,79

(5,90)

(34,70)

197,70

(22,53)

(50,65)

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

534

NA

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

1270

NA

NA

NA

638

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

775

NA

NA

903

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1775

NA

NA

839

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1391

NA

NA

862

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1582

NA

103,3%

1118

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

2162

296

NA

737

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

487

NA

NA

882

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

495

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1087

103,5%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-7,1%

2,7%

29,7%

-34,1%

19,8%

23,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

863

-32,1%

-39,0%

129,0%

-21,6%

13,7%

36,7%

-77,5%

1,6%

74,4%

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

264 / 1555

         
         
       
         
       
      
        
       
      
       
       
        
      
     
      
      
Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.4.1 (all years) First instance courts, number of cases for specific case categories (Q101)

101.1.1 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Litigious divorce case

101.1.2 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Employment dismissal case

101.1.3 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Insolvency

101.2.1 Incoming cases_Litigious divorce case

101.2.2 Incoming cases_Employment dismissal case

101.2.3 Incoming cases_Insolvency

3 450

1 382

NA

7 195

1 005

NA

3 378

1 749

NA

6 846

1 038

NA

3 335

2 173

NA

3 282

2 219

NA

6 686

6 605

984

NA

637

NA

3 389

2 105

NA

6 663

1 014

NA

3 581

3 322

3 293

3 347

-3,0%

-2,1%

-1,3%

-1,6%

3,3%

5,7%

-7,2%

-0,9%

1,6%

2 292

2 196

1 845

1 965

42,2%

26,6%

24,2%

2,1%

-5,1%

8,9%

-4,2%

-16,0%

6,5%

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6 601

6 695

7 075

6 322

-12,1%

-4,9%

-2,3%

-1,2%

0,9%

-0,9%

1,4%

5,7%

-10,6%

489

NA

364

NA

632

NA

414

-58,8%

3,3%

-5,2%

-35,3%

59,2%

-51,8%

-25,6%

73,6%

-34,5%

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

101.3.1 Resolved cases_Litigious divorce case

7 267

6 889

6 737

6 498

6 471

6 660

6 724

6 951

6 190

-14,8%

-5,2%

-2,2%

-3,5%

-0,4%

2,9%

1,0%

3,4%

-10,9%

101.3.2 Resolved cases_Employment dismissal case

101.3.3 Resolved cases_Insolvency

101.4.1 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Litigious divorce case

101.4.2 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Employment dismissal case

101.4.3 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Insolvency

638

NA

3 378

1 749

NA

614

NA

3 335

2 173

NA

938

NA

3 284

2 219

NA

751

NA

3 389

2 105

NA

827

NA

3 581

2 292

NA

585

NA

715

NA

512

NA

505

-20,8%

-3,8%

52,8%

-19,9%

10,1%

-29,3%

22,2%

-28,4%

-1,4%

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3 522

3 293

3 417

3 479

3,0%

-1,3%

-1,5%

3,2%

5,7%

-1,6%

-6,5%

3,8%

1,8%

2 196

1 845

1 965

1 874

7,1%

24,2%

2,1%

-5,1%

8,9%

-4,2%

-16,0%

6,5%

-4,6%

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Table 3.5.1 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for specific case categories (Q101)

Table 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 Variations of CR and DT for specific case categories of first instance cases (Q101)

CR Litigious divorce cases

101,0%

100,6%

100,8%

98,4%

97,1%

100,9%

100,4%

98,2%

97,9%

(3,06)

(0,37)

0,13

(2,36)

(1,28)

3,89

(0,46)

(2,18)

(0,34)

CR Employment dismissal cases

63,5%

59,2%

95,3%

117,9%

81,6%

119,6%

196,4%

81,0%

122,0%

92,15

(6,82)

61,15

23,68

(30,82)

46,68

64,19

(58,76)

50,57

CR Insolvency cases

DT Litigious divorce cases

DT Employment dismissal cases

DT Insolvency cases

NA

170

NA

177

1 001

1 292

NA

NA

NA

178

863

NA

NA

190

NA

202

NA

193

1 023

1 012

1 370

NA

NA

NA

NA

179

942

NA

NA

179

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

205

20,9%

4,1%

0,7%

7,0%

6,1%

-4,4%

-7,4%

0,4%

14,3%

1 401

1 354

35,4%

29,1%

-33,2%

18,5%

-1,1%

35,4%

-31,3%

48,7%

-3,3%

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

265 / 1555

        
        
         
        
        
         
        
        
        
       
        
       
       
      
       
       
      
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.1.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.1.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.1.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.1.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.1.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.1.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.1.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.1.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

97.1.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.1.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

97.1.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases 

97.2.1 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.2.2 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.2.3 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.2.4 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.2.5 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.2.6 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.2.7 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.2.8 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

97.2.9 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.2.10 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

97.2.11 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases 

Table 3.7.1 to 3.7.5 (2019 and 2020) Second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Table 3.9.1 to 3.9.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

2 500

2 868

3 230

3 816

4 186

4 215

4 412

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

801

NA

865

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

180

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

871

NA

788

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

133

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

886

NA

919

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

63

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

957

104

786

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

120

34

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

909

NA

843

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

189

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

939

NA

930

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

234

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

968

NA

1 021

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

203

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

14,7%

12,6%

18,1%

9,7%

0,7%

4,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

8,7%

1,7%

8,0%

-5,0%

3,3%

3,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-8,9%

16,6%

-14,5%

7,3%

10,3%

9,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-26,1%

-52,6%

90,5%

57,5%

23,8%

-13,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

266 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.3.1 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.3.2 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.3.3 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.3.4 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.3.5 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.3.6 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.3.7 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.3.8 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

97.3.9 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.3.10 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

97.3.11 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases 

97.4.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.4.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.4.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.4.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.4.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.4.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.4.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.4.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

97.4.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.4.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

97.4.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases

97.5.1 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.5.2 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.5.10 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

437

426

461

529

737

810

790

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

110

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

118

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

120

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

168

27

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

159

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

205

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

140

NA

2 928

3 230

3 688

4 073

4 292

4 335

4 710

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

871

NA

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

886

NA

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

829

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

909

111

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

939

968

1 031

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,5%

8,2%

14,8%

39,3%

9,9%

-2,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7,3%

1,7%

40,0%

-5,4%

28,9%

-31,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

10,3%

14,2%

10,4%

5,4%

1,0%

8,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,7%

-6,4%

9,7%

3,3%

3,1%

6,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

267 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 (2019 and 2020): Second instance clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.9.4 and 3.9.5 (2019 and 2020): Variation of second clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

50,5%

54,1%

50,2%

67,3%

87,4%

87,1%

77,4%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

61,1%

88,7%

190,5%

140,0%

84,1%

87,6%

69,0%

NA

2446

NA

2767

NA

79,4%

NA

NA

NA

2920

2810

2126

1953

2176

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

2890

NA

2741

NA

2522

NA

1975

1501

2156

1724

2688

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7,01

(7,21)

34,17

29,90

(0,38)

(11,16)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

45,18

114,69

(26,50)

(39,91)

4,14

(21,28)

-

-

-

-

-

-

13,2%

5,5%

-3,8%

-24,4%

-8,1%

11,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-5,2%

-8,0%

-21,7%

9,1%

-20,0%

56,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

268 / 1555

         
        
       
       
        
      
       
     
      
      
         
      
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.10.1 to 3.10.5 (2019 and 2020) Supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Table 3.12.1 to 3.12.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of the supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.1.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.1.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.1.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.1.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.1.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.1.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.1.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.1.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

99.1.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.1.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

99.1.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.2.1 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.2.2 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.2.3 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.2.4 High inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.2.5 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.2.6 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.2.7 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.2.8 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

99.2.9 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.2.10 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

99.2.11 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

269 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.3.1 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.3.2 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.3.3 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.3.4 High inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.3.5 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.3.6 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.3.7 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.3.8 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

99.3.9 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.3.10 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

99.3.11 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.4.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.4.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.4.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.4.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.4.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.4.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.4.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.4.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry 
cases

99.4.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.4.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative 
law cases

99.4.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.5.1 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.5.2 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.5.10 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

270 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 Supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.12.4 and 3.12.5 Variation of the supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

271 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.14.1 to 3.14.5 First instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

094.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

094.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

094.2.1 Total -incoming

094.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

094.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

094.2.4 Other - incoming

094.3.1 Total - resolved

094.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

094.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

094.3.4 Other - resolved

094.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

094.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

094.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

094.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

45 674

NA

NA

NA

59 300

NA

NA

NA

56 142

NA

NA

NA

48 832

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

272 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.15.1 to 3.10.2 CR and DT for first instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

098.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

098.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

098.2.1 Total -incoming

098.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

098.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

098.2.4 Other - incoming

098.3.1 Total - resolved

098.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

098.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

098.3.4 Other - resolved

Table 3.16.1 to 3.16.5 Second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

94,7%

NA

NA

NA

317

NA

NA

NA

278

NA

NA

NA

249

NA

NA

NA

270

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

273 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

098.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

098.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

098.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

098.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

257

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Table 3.17.1 to 3.17.2 CR and DT for second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

108,4%

NA

NA

NA

347

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

274 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.18.1 to 3.18.5 Supreme court criminal law cases (Q100)

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

100.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

100.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

100.2.1 Total -incoming

100.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

100.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

100.2.4 Other - incoming

100.3.1 Total - resolved

100.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

100.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

100.3.4 Other - resolved

100.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

100.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

100.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

100.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

275 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.19.1 to 3.19.2 CR and DT for supreme court  criminal law cases (Q100)

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

276 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 5: Access to justice

Legal aid

Table 5.1 to Table 5.6 (Q12-2, Q16, Q18, Q19, Q20, Q20-1)

12-2.1.1 Coverage of court fees

12-2.1.2 Exemption from court fees

16.1.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (criminal cases)

16.1.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (criminal cases)

16.2.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (other than criminal 
cases)

16.2.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (other than criminal cases)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

-

-

-

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

18.1.1 Legal aid for the enforcement of judicial decisions

False

False

False

False

False

19.1.1  Legal aid granted for other costs - criminal cases

19.1.2  Legal aid granted for other costs - other than criminal cases

020.1.1 Total

020.1.2 Total - criminal cases

020.1.3 Total - other than criminal cases

020.2.1 Total brought to court

020.2.2 Broight to court - criminal cases

020.2.3 Brought to court - other then criminal

020.3.1 Total not brought to court

020.3.2 Not broight to court - criminal cases

020.3.3 Not brought to court - other then criminal

020-1.1.1 Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulation

020-1.1.2 Average duration

False

False

3 386

2 351

1 035

3 386

2 351

1 035

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

277 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

System for compensating users

Table 5.7.1 and Table 5.7.2 (Q37)

037.1.1 Requests for compensation - Total

037.1.2 Requests for compensation - Excessive length of 
proceedings

037.1.3 Requests for compensation - Non-execution of court 
decisions

037.1.4 Requests for compensation - Wrongful arrest

037.1.5 Requests for compensation - Wrongful conviction

037.1.6 Requests for compensation - Other

037.2.1 Condemnations - Total

037.2.2 Condemnations - Excessive length of proceedings

037.2.3 Condemnations - Non-execution of court decisions

037.2.4 Condemnations - Wrongful arrest

037.2.5 Condemnations - Wrongful conviction

037.2.6 Condemnations - Other

037.3.1 Amount - Total

037.3.2 Amount - Excessive length of proceedings

037.3.3 Amount - Non-execution of court decisions

037.3.4 Amount - Wrongful arrest

037.3.5 Amount - Wrongful conviction

037.3.6 Amount - Other

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

278 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 6.1 to Table 6.11 (Q62-7, Q62-7-1, Q62-8,  Q62-8-1, Q63-1, Q63-1-1, Q63-2 Q63-6, Q63-7, Q63-7-1, Q64-2,  Q64-4, Q64-6, Q64-3, Q64-3-1, Q64-7, Q64-7-1, 
Q64-9)

62-7 Writing assistance tools coordinated at national level

False

False

False

Indicator 6: The ICT tools of courts and for court users

62-7-1.1 Deployment rate in civil matter

62-7-1.2 Deployment rate in criminal matter

62-7-1.3 Deployment rate in administrative matter

62-8 Voice recording tools

62-8-1.1.1 Availability of simple dictation tools in civil matter

62-8-1.1.2 Availability of simple dictation tools in criminal matter

62-8-1.1.3 Availability of simple dictation tools in administrative 
matter

62-8-1.2.1 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in civil 
matter

62-8-1.2.2 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in criminal 
matter

62-8-1.2.3 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in 
administrative matter

62-8-1.3.1 Availability of voice recognition in civil matter

62-8-1.3.2 Availability of voice recognition in criminal matter

62-8-1.3.3 Availability of voice recognition in administrative matter

062-9 Availability of intranet site within the judicial system for 
distribution of news/novelties

63.1 Is there a case management system? 

63.1-1.1 CMS for civil matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for criminal matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for administrative matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.2 CMS for civil matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for criminal matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for administrative matter (status of case onlinee)

False

False

False

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

-

100%

100%

100%

False

False

True

1-9%

0% (NAP)

1-9%

-

-

-

FALSE

FALSE

Accessible to 
parties

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

Accessible to 
parties

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

279 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63.1-1.3 CMS for civil matter (Centralised or interoperable database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for criminal matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for administrative matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.4 CMS for civil matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for criminal matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for administrative matter (Early warning signals)

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS civil matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS criminal matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS administrative matter

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - land registry

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - business registry

63-2.2 Data consolidated at national level for land registry

63-2.2  Data consolidated at national level for business registry

63-2.3 Service available online for land registry

63-2.3  Service available online for business registry

63-2.4 Statistical module integrated or connected for land registry

63-2.4  Statistical module integrated or connected for business 
registry

063-6.1.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (deployment 
rate)

063-6.1.2 Justice expenses management (deployment rate)

063-6.1.3 Other financial management tools (deployment rate)

063-6.2.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (Data 
consolidated at national level)

063-6.2.2 Justice expenses management (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.2.3 Other financial management tools (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.3.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (System 
communicating with other ministries)

063-6.3.2 Justice expenses management (System communicating 
with other ministries)

063-6.3.3 Other financial management tools (System communicating 
with other ministries)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

NAP

True

False

False

False

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

Not connected 
at all

Not integrated 
but connected

Not connected 
at all

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

False

False

False

False

False

False

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

100%

100%

100%

50-99%

100%

100%

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

True

True

False

True

True

False

True

True

NAP

True

True

NAP

True

True

NAP

True

True

NAP

280 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63-7.1 Measurement tools to assess the workload

63-7-1.1.1 Deployment rate - workload of judges

63-7-1.1.2 Deployment rate - workload of prosecutors

63-7-1.1.3 Deployment rate - workload of non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.2.1 Monitoring on national level - judges

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - prosecutors

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.3.1 Monitoring on court level - judges

63-7-1.3.2 Monitoring on court level - prosecutors

63-7-1.3.3 Monitoring on court level - non-judge and non-prosecutor 
staff

064-2 - Possibility to submit a case to courts by electronic means

064-2 - Civil and/or commercial

064-2 - Criminal

064-2 - Administrative

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - civil

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - criminal

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory  - administrative

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - civil

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - criminal

064-2 - Specific legislative framework  - administrative

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - civil

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - criminal

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - administrative

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

False

False

False

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

281 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-3 - Is it possible to request for granting legal aid by electronic 
means? 

064-3-1.1 - Equipment rate

064-3-1.2 - Request in paper mandatory

064-3-1.3 - Specific legislative framework

064-3-1.4 - Granting LA is also electronic

064-3-1.5 - Information available in CMS

064-4 - Possibility to transmit summons to a judicial meeting or a 
hearing by electronic means

064-4-1.1.1 - Summons produced by CMS- civil

064-4-1.1.2 - Summons produced by CMS- criminal

064-4-1.1.3 - Summons produced by CMS- administrative

064-4-1.2.1 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- civil

064-4-1.2.2 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- criminal

064-4-1.2.3 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- administrative

064-4-1.3.1 - Consent of the user - civil

064-4-1.3.2 - Consent of the user - criminal

064-4-1.3.3 - Consent of the user - administrative

064-6.1.1 - Civil and/or commercial (deployment rate)

064-6.1.2 - Criminal (deployment rate)

064-6.1.3 - Administrative (deployment rate)

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

282 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-6.2.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.2 - Criminal (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.3 - Administrative (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.3.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Modalities)

064-6.3.2 - Criminal (Modalities)

064-6.3.3 - Administrative (Modalities)

064-6.4.1 - Civil and/or commercial (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.2 - Criminal (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.3 - Administrative (specific legal framework)

064-6.5.1 - Civil and/or commercial (availability for)

064-6.5.2 - Criminal (availability for)

064-6.5.3 - Administrative (availability for)

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

283 / 1555

      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
      
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-7.1.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (deployment rate)

064-7.1.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.2.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (Modalities)

064-7.2.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.3.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (specific legal framework)

064-7.32.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-7.3.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts (specific 
legal framework)

064-7.3.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-9 - Existance of online processing devices of specialised 
litigation

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

-

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

284 / 1555

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Indicator 7: Professionals of justice  (Indicator 9 in 2019)

Table 7.1.1 to 7.5.6 for judges, non judge staff, prosecutors, non prosecutor staff and salaries

46.1.1 Total Number of professional judges

46.1.2 Number of 1st inst professional judges

103

90

101

88

97

84

113

100

111

98

119

106

118

105

115

102

126

22,3%

-1,9%

-4,0%

16,5%

-1,8%

7,2%

-0,8%

-2,5%

9,6%

113

25,6%

-2,2%

-4,5%

19,0%

-2,0%

8,2%

-0,9%

-2,9%

10,8%

46.1.3 Number of 2nd inst professional judges

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

46.1.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges

46.2.1 Number of professional judges_males

46.2.2 Number of 1st instance professional judges_males

13

56

47

13

54

44

13

53

44

13

60

51

13

57

49

13

60

52

13

59

51

13

59

50

13

60

53

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

7,1%

-3,6%

-1,9%

13,2%

-5,0%

5,3%

-1,7%

0,0%

1,7%

12,8%

-6,4%

0,0%

15,9%

-3,9%

6,1%

-1,9%

-2,0%

6,0%

46.2.3 Number of 2nd instance professional judges_males

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

46.2.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges_males

46.3.1  Number of professional judges_females

46.3.2  Number of 1st inst professional judges_females

9

47

43

10

47

44

9

44

40

9

53

49

8

54

49

8

59

54

8

59

54

9

56

52

7

-22,2%

11,1%

-10,0%

0,0%

-11,1%

0,0%

0,0%

12,5%

-22,2%

66

60

40,4%

0,0%

-6,4%

20,5%

1,9%

9,3%

0,0%

-5,1%

17,9%

39,5%

2,3%

-9,1%

22,5%

0,0%

10,2%

0,0%

-3,7%

15,4%

46.3.3  Number of 2nd inst professional judges_females

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

46.3.4  Number of Supreme court professional judges_females

4

3

4

4

5

5

5

4

6

50,0%

-25,0%

33,3%

0,0%

25,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-20,0%

50,0%

046-2.1.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Total

046-2.2.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Civil and commercial

046-2.2.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.3.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Criminal

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

126

113

NAP

13

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

285 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

046-2.4.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - 
Administrative

046-2.4.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.5.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Other

 52.1.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in courts 

52.1.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)

52.1.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges

52.1.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks

52.1.5 Number of Technical staff

52.1.6 Number of Other non judge staff

52.2.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(men)

52.2.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(men)

52.2.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(men)

52.2.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(men)

52.2.5 Number of Technical staff(men)

52.2.6 Number of Other non judge staff(men)

52.3.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(women)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

424

NAP

133

124

129

38

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

52.3.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(women)

NAP

52.3.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(women)

52.3.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(women)

52.3.5 Number of Technical staff(women)

52.3.6 Number of Other non judge staff(women)

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

427

NAP

133

131

125

38

-

-

-

-

-

-

272

NAP

126

121

31

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

448

NAP

129

128

151

40

178

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

424

NAP

130

130

128

36

144

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

437

NAP

138

135

130

34

146

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

441

NAP

138

135

134

34

150

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

427

NAP

138

131

125

33

143

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

475

NAP

155

147

135

38

155

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

9

NA

118

NA

284

NAP

120

NA

33

NA

9

7

99

29

280

NAP

121

123

29

7

9

8

101

28

291

9

8

105

28

291

NAP

NAP

129

127

29

6

129

127

29

6

9

10

95

30

284

NAP

129

121

30

3

9

8

103

35

320

NAP

146

139

32

3

13

13

NAP

NAP

113

87

NAP

13

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

449

5,9%

0,7%

4,9%

-5,4%

3,1%

0,9%

-3,2%

11,2%

-5,5%

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

149

12,0%

0,0%

-3,0%

0,8%

6,2%

0,0%

0,0%

12,3%

-3,9%

148

19,4%

5,6%

-2,3%

1,6%

3,8%

0,0%

-3,0%

12,2%

0,7%

119

-7,8%

-3,1%

20,8%

-15,2%

1,6%

3,1%

-6,7%

8,0%

-11,9%

33

-13,2%

0,0%

5,3%

-10,0%

-5,6%

0,0%

-2,9%

15,2%

-13,2%

145

NAP

10

13

98

24

304

NAP

139

135

21

9

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-19,1%

1,4%

2,7%

-4,7%

8,4%

-6,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

11,1%

-

14,3%

0,0%

25,0%

-20,0%

62,5%

-16,1%

2,0%

4,0%

-9,5%

8,4%

-4,9%

-

-3,4%

0,0%

7,1%

16,7%

-31,4%

4,4%

-1,4%

3,9%

0,0%

-2,4%

12,7%

-5,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-4,8%

0,8%

6,6%

0,0%

0,0%

13,2%

-4,8%

-

-

3,3%

0,0%

-4,7%

14,9%

-2,9%

6,5%

-12,1%

0,0%

0,0%

3,4%

6,7%

-34,4%

-

-

-14,3%

0,0%

-50,0%

0,0%

200,0%

286 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

052-1.1.1 Non-judge staff (Total)

052-1.1.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (total)

052-1.1.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (total)

052-1.1.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (total)

052-1.2.1 Non-judge staff  (Males)

052-1.2.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (males)

052-1.2.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (males)

052-1.2.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (males)

052-1.3.1 Non-judge staff  (females)

052-1.3.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (females)

052-1.3.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (females)

052-1.3.4 Non-judge staff  at supreme court (females)

055.1.1 Prosecutors (total)

055.1.2 Prosecutors (1st inst.)

055.1.3 Prosecutors (2nd inst.)

055.1.4 Prosecutors (Highest instance)

055.2.1 Prosecutors - Males -total

055.2.2 Prosecutors - Males, 1st inst.

055.2.3 Prosecutors - Males, 2nd inst.

055.2.4 Prosecutors - Males, Supreme courts

055.3.1 Prosecutors - Females, Total

055.3.2 Prosecutors - Females, 1st inst.

055.3.3 Prosecutors - Females, 2nd inst.

055.3.4 Prosecutors - Females, Supreme courts

449

370

NAP

79

145

125

NAP

20

304

245

NAP

59

137

NAP

NAP

NAP

30

NAP

NAP

NAP

107

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

287 / 1555

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

060.1.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Total

060.2.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Males

060.3.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Females

004 Annual average salary in the country

132.1.1 Gross annual salary, in €  - Professional judge at the 
beginning of career

132.1.2 Gross annual salary, in €  - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.1.3 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor at the beginning 
of career

132.1.4 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

132.2.1 Net annual salary, in € - Professional judge at the beginning 
of career

132.2.2 Net annual salary, in € - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.2.3 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor at the beginning of 
career

132.2.4 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

133.1.1.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Reduced taxation

133.1.2.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Special pension

133.1.3.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Housing

133.1.4.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Other financial benefit

133.2.1.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Reduced taxation

133.2.2.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Special pension

133.2.3.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Housing

133.2.4.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Other financial benefit

73

15

58

24 882 €

77 916 €

138 494 €

35 010 €

NAP

56 069 €

105 500 €

NA

NAP

False

False

False

True

False

False

False

True

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

288 / 1555

         
         
       
         
         
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

144.1.1 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - Total number (1+2+3+4)

144.1.2 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 1. Breach of professional 
ethics 

144.1.3 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.1.4 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 3. Criminal offence 

144.1.5 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 4. Other

144.2.1 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - Total number 
(1+2+3+4)

144.2.2 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 1. Breach of 
professional ethics 

144.2.3 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.2.4 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 3. Criminal offence

144.2.5 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 4. Other 

145.1.1 Sanctions against Judges - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.1.2 Sanctions against Judges - 1. Reprimand

145.1.3 Sanctions against Judges - 2. Suspension

145.1.4 Sanctions against Judges - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.1.5 Sanctions against Judges - 4. Fine

145.1.6 Sanctions against Judges - 5. Temporary reduction of salary

145.1.7 Sanctions against Judges - 6. Position downgrade

145.1.8 Sanctions against Judges - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.1.9 Sanctions against Judges - 8. Resignation

145.1.10 Sanctions against  Judges - 9. Other

145.1.11 Sanctions against  Judges - 10. Dismissal

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0

0

0

0

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

289 / 1555

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

145.2.1 Sanctions against Prosecutors - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.2.2 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 1. Reprimand

145.2.3 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 2. Suspension

145.2.4 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.2.5 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 4. Fine

145.2.6 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 5. Temporary reduction of 
salary

145.2.7 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 6. Position downgrade

145.2.8 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.2.9 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 8. Resignation

145.2.10 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 9. Other

145.2.11 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 10. Dismissal

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lawyers

Tables 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.7 and 7.8

146.1.1 Total number of lawyers practising

2 558

2 896

3 114

3 208

3 605

3 793

4 012

4 209

4 273

67,0%

13,2%

7,5%

3,0%

12,4%

5,2%

5,8%

4,9%

1,5%

146.2.1 Practicing lawyers - man

146.3.1 Practicing lawyers - woman

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 790

1 861

1 821

2 222

2 348

2 452

147 Does this figure include “legal advisors” who cannot represent 
their clients in court (for example, some solicitors or in-house 
counsellors)? 

Yes

Yes

True

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4,0%

-2,1%

5,7%

4,4%

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

290 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Indicator 8: The existence and use of alternative dispute resolution methods

Cyprus (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

166 Number of accredited or registered mediators who practice 
judicial mediation: 

NA

NA

NA

NA

167.1.1 Total number started

167. 1.2 Civil and commercial cases(cid:9) - started

167. 1.2 Family cases - started

167.1.4 Administrative cases - started

167.1.5 Labour cases including employment dismissal cases - started

167.1.6. Criminal cases - started

167.1.7 Consumer cases - started

Table 8.1 8.2 and 8.3

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Key: Variation of more than (+ -) 20% 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

291 / 1555

Judiciary at a glance in Czech Republic

General data

Population:

10 701 777

GDP per capita: 20 278 €

Average annual 

salary:

16 279 €

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Professionals

Czech Republic

Czech RepublicEU Median

EU Median

Professional judges

Professional judges

28,17

23,92

28,17

Non-judge staff

23,92

92,70

59,00

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

11,44

92,70

59,00

9,91

11,44

13,77

15,22

13,77

9,91

15,22

Lawyers

Lawyers

114,63

122,09

114,63

122,09

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual 
salary in the country
Czech RepublicEU Median
Czech Republic

EU Median

5,52

Judge at the beginning of a career 

2,49

2,02

4,85

4,09

3,61

2,49

Judge of the highest court 5,52

4,09

2,02
1,71
Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 
1,71

2,24

2,24

Public prosecutor at highest instance

4,85

3,61

Judge at the
beginning of a career

Judge of the highest
court

Prosecutor at the
beginning of a career

Public prosecutor at
highest instance

Efficiency

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

1st instance 2nd instance

,

%
8
7
0
1

,

%
6
2
1
1

%
8
3
9

,

98,0%

112,6% NAP

,

%
2
0
0
1

99,7%

Supreme Court
Supreme 
Court

%
5
8
9

,

,

%
3
2
0
1

107,8%

93,8%

100%

,

,

%
%
7
0
9
8
Civil and
9
9
commercial
Administrativ
e
cases
Total 
criminal law 
cases

100,2%

98,5%

102,3%

P
A
N

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

Administrative
cases

Total criminal law
cases

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance 2nd instance Supreme Court

1
1

1

1
1

Civil and commercial litigious cases
Administrative cases 317 NAP

165

Total criminal law cases 72

302

79

34

143

79

165

317

143
302

38

38
34
72

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

Information and communication technology

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

Assistance toolsCase management system
2018

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the workload
2019

Electronic communication

EU Median 2020

2020

2018
2019
2020

1,42
1,42
2,03

EU Median 2020

4,50

2,00

4,50

1,42

1,42

2,03

2,00

4,50
4,50
3,50

5,17
3,50

5,17

0,00
0,00
0,50

1,17
1,17
2,50

7,50
7,50
9,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

1,25

0,50

0,00

0,00

2,50

2,50

1,17

1,17

9,17

7,50

7,50

6,94

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

*ICT calculations are described in more details in Annex 5 - IT Calculation methodology

292

2020

Synthesis table for the main indicators for:

Czech Republic

Economic and demographic data

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Variations

Population

GDP per capita

Exchange rate (local currency needed to 
obtain 1€)

10 509 286

10 510 719

10 524 783

10 553 843

10 578 820

10 589 526

10 649 800

10 669 324

10 701 777

1,8%

0,5%

0,7%

14 557

13 473

14 602

15 985

16 700

18 095

19 489

20 830

20 278

39,3%

14,4%

16,7%

25

27

28

27

27

26

26

25

26

4,4%

-2,5%

-4,8%

Average annual salary

12 463

11 083

12 253

14 365

16 116

16 279

30,6%

10,6%

17,2%

0,6%

7,7%

0,7%

0,2%

6,9%

-1,2%

12,2%

0,3%

-2,7%

3,3%

1,0%

Resources

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Professional judges per 100 000 inhab.

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhab.

Lawyers per 100 000 inh.

Mediators

ICT overall assesment

First instance incoming cases per 100 
inhab.

29,1

86,9

104,1

3,7

29,1

86,6

97,6

4,2

28,8

88,4

28,6

89,2

28,4

91,8

28,4

93,4

28,4

92,6

28,2

93,6

28,1

92,7

-3,3%

-1,3%

6,7%

3,8%

0,1%

0,8%

112,5

116,5

106,9

109,4

105,0

114,2

114,6

10,1%

-5,0%

-1,8%

0,0%

-0,9%

-0,9%

-4,1%

1,2%

8,8%

-0,3%

-1,0%

0,3%

4,0

5,6

5,9

6,2

6,2

5,2

5,5

5,2

6,3

6,3

69,3%

46,5%

5,3%

-1,0%

-10,5%

13,2%

0,0%

21,3%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Civil and commercial litigious cases

3,455

4,463

4,570

3,773

3,142

3,411

3,251

3,330

2,854

-17,4%

-31,2%

3,5%

-4,7%

2,4%

-14,3%

Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

0,1

0,087

0,108

0,104

0,111

0,099

0,094

NAP

25,4%

3,2%

7,0%

-11,0%

-5,6%

Total criminal law cases

0,609

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

99%

NAP

90%

NAP

105%

107%

110%

101%

102%

101%

98%

91%

92%

80%

92%

88%

107%

113%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

-0,85

NAP

5,30

-10,71

-8,42

7,82

0,14

-3,65

-0,17

19,13

-3,43

5,42

100%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

174

NAP

187

NAP

163

415

159

437

153

421

157

408

149

412

140

356

-5,2%

-6,7%

-2,6%

-5,6%

-5,8%

17,9%

NAP

1,3%

-2,0%

1,1%

-13,7%

-10,9%

165

317

72

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

1,63

NAP

2,07

NAP

2,14

0,09

1,76

0,10

1,45

0,10

1,49

0,11

1,34

0,11

1,29

0,10

-22,3%

-32,6%

-7,0%

NAP

12,1%

11,0%

-9,9%

3,9%

-3,7%

-2,4%

-6,6%

-11,7%

1,26

0,09

0,12

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

102%

102%

102%

103%

102%

103%

100%

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

99%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

0,30

NAP

-0,17

NAP

-1,41

NAP

1,60

NAP

-3,56

NAP

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

DT administrative law cases (days)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

73

74

69

74

75

68

79

-5,5%

NAP

8,7%

NAP

1,1%

NAP

-8,6%

15,5%

NAP

NAP

DT total criminal law cases (days)

 Supreme court 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Supreme court
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

96%

101%

102%

NA

98%

91%

101%

110%

110%

108%

88%

85%

91%

94%

2,11

-11,15

11,58

-6,09

9,28

-3,30

-0,03

6,15

-2,18

2,70

102%

34

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

201

156

178

NA

179

176

171

200

167

262

151

271

143

302

38

-10,7%

-6,9%

-2,6%

-9,6%

-4,8%

12,3%

49,0%

31,2%

3,6%

11,5%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

293 / 1555

First instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

First instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
cases (days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

First instance pending cases per 100 
inhab. on 31 dec.

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

Second instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

1. Judicial organisation in Czech Republic

The Czech Republic has a four-tier court system. 

In 2020, the number of courts considered as legal entities is 98. Namely, there are 97 courts of general jurisdiction. There are no first instance specialised courts. However, 
there is one highest instance specialised court which is the Supreme Administrative Court. 

Among the 97 legal entities of general jurisdiction, 86 act at first instance, 10 at second instance and one at third instance. 

In terms of geographic locations, there are 107 courts among which 89 are of first instance. In fact, 6 Regional courts and 3 district courts have their branches in other 
cities. 

Distribution of general courts in Czech Republic

Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Czech Republic

Czech Republic - 1st instance
Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

EU Median - 1st instance

EU Median - Higher instances

According to 2020 data, the distribution between 1st instance and higher instances courts of 
general jurisdiction in Czech Republic is around the EU median of 87% - 13% that is the EU 
calculated tendency.

Czech Republic - 1st instance

Czech Republic - Higher instances

General courts - Czech Republic
General courts - Czech Republic
EU Median

89%
87%

11%
13%

EU Median

89%

87%

11%

13%

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Czech Republic

Geographic 
locations

Legal entities

General jurisdiction

Specialised 
jurisdiction

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Czech Republic

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

107

86

86

86

86

86

86

86

86

86

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Geographic locations

Legal entities General jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Specialised courts
Total

Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

Insolvency courts

Labour courts

Family courts

Rent and tenancies courts

Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

Internet related disputes

Administrative courts

Insurance and / or social welfare courts

Military courts

Juvenile courts

Other specialised 1st instance courts

First instance

Higher instance

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

It should be highlited that there are no specialised first instance courts in the Czech Republic, but judges within individual courts are specialised (e.g. for family, labour and 
enforcement cases at district courts, and insolvency and administrative cases at regional courts as first instance courts). 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

294 / 1555

2. Professionals of justice in Czech Republic

● Professional judges and non-judge staff

Evolution of the number of professional judges since 2012 (Q46)

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Absolute 
number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

3 055

3 054

3 028

3 018

3 005

3 012

3 029

3 006

3 007

29,07

29,06

28,77

28,60

28,41

28,44

28,44

28,17

28,10

Professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants

29,07

29,06

28,77

28,60

28,41

28,44

28,44

28,17

28,10

23,9

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

EU median
According to 2020 data, the total number of professional judges sitting in courts (all instances) in Czech Republic is 3 007, which is 0,0% more than in previous cycle.

23,9

More precisely, in Czech Republic, there are 28,10 professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants (this figure is above the EU median of 23,92 judges per 100 000 inhabitants) and about 
3,30 non-judge staff per judge .

There is no significant difference compared with previous cycle when this ratio was at 3,32 non-judge staff per judge.

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and gender

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

1 814

1 088

105

3 007

Distribution by 
instance

60,3%

36,2%

3,5%

Male

601

512

79

1 192

Female

% Male

% Female

1 213

576

26

1 815

33,1%

47,1%

75,2%

39,6%

66,9%

52,9%

24,8%

60,4%

Distribution of professional judges by instance

Czech Republic

EU Median

72,39%

60,3%

EU Median

72,39%

23,98%

4,03%

36,2%

23,98%

3,5%

4,03%

Distribution of professional judges by gender and by instance% Female

66,9%

33,1%

52,9%

47,1%

24,8%

75,2%

% Male

60,4%

39,6%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female professional judges (all instances) is 1 815, which represents 60,4% of the total number of judges.

The total number of judges is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 1 814 are sitting in first instance courts (of which 1 213 are female); 1 088 are sitting 
in second instance courts (of which 576 are female)  and 105 are sitting in Supreme Court (of which 26 are female).  

As regards the distribution of the number of judges among the different judicial instances, the Czech Republic presents some peculiarities which should be mentioned. Namely, the Czech 
Republic has a four-tier system. The number of judges of the two High Courts is included in the number of second instance judges. This methodology of presentation of data is applied 
since 2013, while for the previous evaluations, magistrates of the High Courts were considered as third instance judges

As regards the distribution male/female, it has to be specified that female judges do not have the majority only at third instance.

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

1 814

1 088

105

3 007

Civil and commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1 369

554

48

1 971

445

290

21

756

0

113

36

149

0

131

0

131

In Czech Republic, the distribution of judges per categories of cases is possible as presented in the graph below. 

Distribution of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Civil and 
commercial

75,5%

50,9%

45,7%

65,5%

Criminal

Administrative

Other

24,5%

26,7%

20,0%

25,1%

0,0%

10,4%

34,3%

5,0%

0,0%

12,0%

0,0%

4,4%

The category "other" encompasses insolvency proceedings. 

Distribution of the total number of professional judges by matter

65,5% Civil and commercial

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

0
4,4% Other

66%

25%

5%

4%

0%

5,0% Administrative

25,1% Criminal

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

295 / 1555

Non-judge staff

Year

2012

Number of non-judge staff

9 135

Per 100 000 inhabitants

86,92

2013

9 107

86,64

2014

9 309

88,45

2015

9 409

89,15

2016

9 714

91,82

2017

9 887

93,37

2018

9 857

92,56

86,92

86,64

88,45

89,15

91,82

93,37

92,56

93,62

92,70

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants

2020

Total

59,00

Rechtspfleger

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

Non-judge staff assisting the judge

Staff in charge of administrative tasks

Technical staff

Other

2019

9 989

93,62

Absolute 
number

9 921

2 501

4 556

2 158

648

58

E
U 
m

2020

9 921

92,70

in %

25,2%

45,9%

21,8%

6,5%

0,6%

In 2020, Czech Republic has 9 921 non-judge staff (of which 8 676 are females). The total number of non-judge staff in comparison with the previous cycle reveals a decrease of -0,7%.

In this cycle, the non-judge staff is broken down as follows:

◦ 2 501 Rechtspfleger (or similar bodies) with judicial or quasi-judicial tasks having autonomous competence and whose decisions could be subject to appeal (among which 
◦ 4 556 non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges such as registrars (of which 4 351 are women);
◦ 2 158 staff in charge of different administrative tasks and of the court management (of which 1 819 are women);
◦ 648 technical staff (of which 398 are women);
◦ 58 other (of which 36 are women);

In 2020, the number of non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants has decreased (from 93,6 in 2019 to 92,7 in 2020).

During the same period, the number of judges per 100 000 inhabitants evolves from 28,2 judges per 100 000 inhabitants in 2019 to 28,1 in 2020.

The category “other” encompasses for 2010 judicial trainees or staff in charge of court documentation. For 2012, 2013 and 2014, besides the already mentioned components, it subsumes 
also press centre and telephone exchange.

Professional judges, non-judge staff and their ratio (Q46, Q52)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Czech Republic

EU median

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

28,10

92,70

Non-judge staff per judge

3,30

23,92

59,00

3,30

Professional judges and non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

92,70

3,30

3,30

59,00

Non-judge staff per judge

28,10

23,92

Czech Republic

EU median

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff  (Q46, Q52)

Judges 
per 100 000 inh.

Non-judge staff per
100 000 inh.

Ratio between professional judges and 
non-judge staff

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff 
Non-judge staff per 100 000 inh.
(Q46, Q52)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

29,07

29,06

28,77

28,60

28,41

28,44

28,44

28,17

28,10

86,92

86,64

88,45

89,15

91,82

93,37

92,56

93,62

92,70

EU median 2020

3,30

2,99

2,98

3,07

3,12

3,23

3,28

3,25

3,32

3,30

2,99

2,98

3,07

2012

2013

2014

2,99
2,98
3,07
3,12
3,23
3,28
3,25
3,32
3,30

3,23

3,28

3,25

3,32

3,30

3,12

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

296 / 1555

● Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff

Absolute number of public prosecutors by instance and gender (Q55)

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

822

345

57

1 224

Distribution by 
instance

Male

Female

67,2%

28,2%

4,7%

339

183

39

561

483

162

18

663

Male

41,2%

53,0%

68,4%

45,8%

Female

58,8%

47,0%

31,6%

54,2%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance
Czech Republic

EU Median

67,2%

73,30%
EU Median

73,30%

21,28%

28,2%

21,28%

4,66%

4,7%

4,66%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance and gender

Female

Male

58,8%

41,2%

47,0%

53,0%

31,6%

68,4%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

54,2%

45,8%

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female prosecutors (all instances) is 663, which represents 54,2% of the total number of prosecutors.

The total number of prosecutors is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 822 in first instance (of which 483 are female); 345 are in second instance (of 
which 162 are female)  and 57 in final instance (of which 18 are female).  

As regards the distribution of the number of prosecutors among the different judicial instances, the Czech Republic presents some peculiarities which should be mentioned. Namely, the 
Czech Republic is endowed with a system of 4 levels of State prosecution offices: district, regional, high and supreme. The number of high public prosecutors is included in the number of 
prosecutors at second instance level.

Non-prosecutor staff by gender (Q60)

Non-prosecutor staff

2020

Total

1 474

Male

262

Female

1 212

Non-prosecutor staff by gender

18%

Male

Female

82%

Public prosecutors, non-prosecutor staff and their ratio (Q55, Q60)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Czech Republic

EU median

Public prosecutors

11,44

Non-prosecutor staff

13,77

Non-prosecutor staff per 
prosecutor

1,20

9,91

15,22

1,11

Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Public prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per prosecutor

13,77

11,44

1,20

15,22

9,91

1,11

Czech Republic

EU median

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

297 / 1555

● Salaries of professional judges and prosecutors at beginning of a career and at the highest instance (Q132, Q4)

Salaries of professional judges and 
prosecutors (Q132, Q4)

Average gross annual 
salary 
in €

Average net annual 
salary 
in €

Ratio with national 
average annual 
gross salary

Judge at the beginning of a career 

40 584 €

Judge of the highest court 

89 904 €

Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

36 528 €

Public prosecutor at highest instance

79 008 €

NA

NA

NA

NA

2,49

5,52

2,24

4,85

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual salary in the 
country

EU Median

5,52

2,02

2,02

2,49

4,09

1,71

Salaries of 
judges and 
prosecutors in 
Judge

4,09

4,85

at the beginning 
of a career

40584

3,61

2,24

at the highest 
1,71
instance

Prosecutor

at the beginning 
of a career

89904

36528

Judge at the beginning of
career

Judge on highest instance

3,61

Czech Republic

Prosecutor at the
beginning of career

at the highest 
instance

EU Median

Prosecutor at highest
instance

79008

According to 2020 data, the absolute gross salary of a judge at the begining of a career in Czech Republic of 40 584€ is somewhat below when compared to the EU median of 51 946€. 
As a ratio with the annual average salary of the country, the salary for a judge at the begining of career is: 2,49 compared with EU median of : 2,02.

● Lawyers

Lawyers

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

Number of lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

10 944

10 255

11 842

12 300

11 310

11 587

11 180

12 188

12 267

104,14

97,57

112,52

116,55

106,91

109,42

104,98

114,23

114,63

EU median 2020

122,09

In 2020, there are 12 267 lawyers, which is 0,6% more than in 2019.

104,14

97,57

112,52

116,55

106,91

109,42

104,98

114,23

114,63

122,09

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median
2020

Czech Republic has 114,6 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants, which is around the EU median of 122,1 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

298 / 1555

● Judicial professionals (summary)

Judicial professionals in absolute number and per 100 000 inhabitants (Q46, Q52, Q55, Q60, Q146)

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

EU Median

Professional judges

3 006

28,17

Non-judge staff

9 921

92,70

Prosecutors

1 224

11,44

23,92

59,00

9,91

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Czech Republic

EU Median

122,09

114,63

92,70

59,00

Non-prosecutor staff

1 474

13,77

15,22

28,17

23,92

11,44

9,91

13,77

15,22

Lawyers

12 267

114,63

122,09

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

Professional judges

Czech Republic % Male
Czech Republic % Male
-39,6%

Czech Republic % Female
60,4%

EU Median  % Male

39,6%
EU Median  % Female

labels
Czech Republic % Female

% Male

% Female

Professional judges

39,6%

-39,0%

61,0%

39,0%

Professional judges

39,6%

60,4%

39,0%

Non judge staff

12,5%

87,5%

Prosecutors

45,8%

54,2%

Non judge staff

Non judge staff

-12,5%

12,5%

87,5%

0,0%

12,5%

24,0%

-24,0%

76,0%

24,0%

Non-prosecutor staff

17,8%

82,2%

Prosecutors

45,8%

40,5%

Lawyers

60,0%

40,0%

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers
Lawyers

60,0%

52,3%

17,8%

-45,8%
-40,5%

28,1%
-17,8%
-28,1%

-60,0%
-52,3%

54,2%
59,5%

82,2%
71,9%

40,0%
47,7%

0,0%

45,8%
40,5%
0,0%
17,8%
28,1%
0,0%
60,0%
52,3%

60,4%

61,0%

54,2%

59,5%

87,5%

76,0%

82,2%

71,9%

40,0%

47,7%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

299 / 1555

3. Legal aid and court fees in Czech Republic

In Czech Republic, legal aid includes:

◦ Coverage of court fees: 

◦ Exemption from court fees: 

1

1

It is noteworthy that the law regulates exceptions to the duty to pay court fees. On the one hand, the legislator has established a list of certain persons exempt from paying court 
fees (e.g. the State, diplomatic representations of foreign States, foundations). On the other hand, the law refers to specific types of procedures in respect of which there is an 
exemption from paying court fees (e.g. proceedings on guardianship, adoption, probate proceedings, election proceedings). 
Besides these situations, there is a possibility for participants in proceedings to ask for waiver of court fees ordered by the court. Such release should be justified by the 
participant’s personal situation in order to avoid arbitrary or apparently unsuccessful application or protection of law.

In Czech Republic, legal aid is available for :

> Representation in court:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

> Legal advice, ADR and other legal services:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

>

Fees related to enforcement of judicial decisions as fees for enforcement agents (Q18) 

>

 Other costs than above (Q19) 

1

1

1

1

1

1

Legal aid could be granted at every stage of the proceedings – it could be granted even only for enforcement of judicial decision.

It should be noted that if legal aid is granted, it covers all costs, including lawyer’s fees, fees of judicial experts, etc. 

 Number of cases for which legal aid has been granted

Data on number of cases for which legal aid has been granted is not available.

Timeframes of the procedure for granting legal aid (in relation to the duration from the initial legal aid request to the final approval of the legal aid request)

◦ Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulations: 

◦ Actual average duration: 

NAP

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

300 / 1555

4. Performance of courts in Czech Republic

● Efficiency indicators

◦ Clearance Rate (CR) and Disposition Time (DT)

The Clearance Rate shows the capacity of a judicial system to deal with the incoming cases. A Clearance Rate of 100% and higher does not generate backlog. 

The Disposition Time determines the estimated number of days necessary for a pending case to be solved in a court. 

First instance Total of other than criminal cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

,

0
5
6
1

,

8
9
5
1

,

3
3
1
1

6
9
9

,

Evolution of number of all other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants
Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Incoming

9,96

16,50

9,11

10,76

1
1
9

,

6
8
8

,

,

6
7
0
1

,

1
0
1
1

,

3
3
0
1

3
8
9

,

2
5
9

,

1
6
9

,

0
8
8

,

0
0
9

,

0
0
9

,

9,83

7
0
9

,

9,52

0
6
3

,

4
3
3

,

1
8
3

,

4
9
4

,

9
3
4

,

0
3
4

,

8
9
3

,

8,80

1
9
3

,

11,33

15,98

8,86

11,01

10,33

3,60

3,34

3,81

4,94

4,39

9
6
8

,

3
5
8

,

9,61

2
8
6

,

4,30

0
6
6

,

9,00

8
9
3

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

9,00

8,69
2019
6,82

9,07

8,53

2020

6,60

3,98

3,91

6
6
2

,

3,98
EU median
2,66

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Czech Republic (8,69 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat above EU median (6,82 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Czech Republic (8,53 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat above EU median (6,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Czech Republic (3,98 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat above EU median (2,66 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Other than criminal cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Other than criminal 
cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

114%

97%

97%

102%

105%

101%

102%

101%

98%

116

76

157

164

155

163

162

158

170

EU median

99%

109

114%

DT (days)

CR (%)

97%

97%

102%

105%

101%

102%

101%

98%

99%

116

2012

76

2013

157

2014

164

2015

155

2016

163

2017

162

2018

158

2019

170

109

2020

EU median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 98,2% in 2020 Czech Republic seems to encounter some difficulties to deal with its other than criminal cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -2,6 points.

In 2020, other than criminal cases are solved in approximately 170 days, which is significantly above EU median of 109 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 8,1% increase of the Disposition Time.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

301 / 1555

First instance Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

6
4
4

,

3
0
4

,

9
7
4

,

7
5
4

,

5
0
4

,

7
7
3

,

7
0
2

,

4
1
2

,

6
7
1

,

5
4
3

,

1
4
3

,

3
6
1

,

Evolution of number of civil and commercial litigious cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

3,45
4,46
4,57
3,77
3,14
3,41
3,25
3,33
2,85
1,56

3,41
4,03
4,79
4,05
3,46
3,46
3,30
3,38
2,80
1,50

5
8
2

,

0
8
2

,

1,63
2,07
2,14
1,76
1,45
1,49
1,34
1,29
1,26
1,05

6
4
3

,

4
1
3

,

1
4
3

,

6
4
3

,

5
2
3

,

0
3
3

,

3
3
3

,

8
3
3

,

5
4
1

,

9
4
1

,

4
3
1

,

9
2
1

,

6
2
1

,

6
5
1

,

0
5
1

,

5
0
1

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Czech Republic (2,85 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly above EU median (1,56 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Czech Republic (2,80 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly above EU median (1,50 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Czech Republic (1,26 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat above EU median (1,05 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

98,8%

90,2%

104,7%

107,3%

110,0%

101,4%

101,6%

101,4%

98,0%

174

187

163

159

153

157

149

140

165

EU Median

98%

221

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

DT (days)

CR (%)

104,7%

107,3%

110,0%

101,4%

101,6%

101,4%

98,0%

98%

98,8%

90,2%

174

2012

187

2013

163

2014

159

2015

153

2016

157

2017

149

2018

140

2019

165

221

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 98,0% in 2020, Czech Republic seems to encounter some difficulties to deal with its civil and commercial litigious cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -3,4 points.

In 2020, the civil and commercial litigious cases are solved in approximately 165 days, which is somewhat below EU median of 221 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 17,9% increase of the Disposition Time.

The number of civil and commercial litigious cases older than 2 years is not available.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

302 / 1555

First instance Administrative cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of administrative cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

9
0
0

,

8
0
0

,

9
0
0

,

9
0
0

,

8
0
0

,

0
1
0

,

1
1
0

,

0
1
0

,

9
0
0

,

0
1
0

,

0
1
0

,

1
1
0

,

1
1
0

,

1
1
0

,

0
1
0

,

0
1
0

,

1
1
0

,

0
1
0

,

NAP
NAP
0,09
0,09
0,11
0,10
0,11
0,10
0,09
0,30

1
1
0

,

9
0
0

,

9
0
0

,

0
3
0

,

6
2
0

,

NAP
NAP
0,08
0,08
0,09
0,10
0,10
0,11
0,11
0,26

NAP
NAP
0,09
0,10
0,10
0,11
0,11
0,10
0,09
0,21

1
2
0

,

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Czech Republic (0,09 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (0,30 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Czech Republic (0,11 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (0,26 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Czech Republic (0,09 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (0,21 per 100 inhabitants).

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Administrative cases

DT (days)

CR (%)

90,9%

92,1%

91,7%

88,0%

80,2%

107,2%

112,6%

100%

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Administrative cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NAP

NAP

90,9%

92,1%

80,2%

91,7%

88,0%

107,2%

112,6%

NAP

NAP

415

437

421

408

412

356

317

EU Median
With a Clearance Rate calculated at 112,6% in 2020, Czech Republic seems to deal efficiently with its administrative cases.

100%

388

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

415

437

421

408

412

356

2019

317

2020

388

EU Median

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased for 5,4 points.

In 2020, the administrative cases are solved in approximately 317 days, which is slightly below EU median of 388 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a -10,9% decrease of the Disposition Time.

The number of administrative law cases older than 2 years is not available.

Insolvency cases

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Insolvency cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Insolvency cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

34,4%

39,6%

44,7%

52,0%

70,3%

152,6%

134,1%

104,0%

103,2%

1669

1829

2236

2377

2085

1572

1419

1201

1460

EU Median

105%

281

DT (days)

CR (%)

152,6%

134,1%

70,3%

104,0%

103,2%

105%

34,4%

1669

2012

39,6%

44,7%

1829

2013

2236

2014

52,0%

2377

2015

2085

2016

1572

2017

1419

2018

1201

2019

1460

281

2020

EU Median

The Clearance Rate was calculated at 103,2% in 2020 for insolvency cases, Czech Republic seems to be able to deal with its insolvency cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -0,8 points.

In 2020, insolvency cases are solved in a approximately 1 460 days, which is well above EU median of 281 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 21,6% increase of the Disposition Time.

It should be mentionned that in the last years, there were many legislative changes in insolvency law. That results in relatively big changes in the number of cases.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

303 / 1555

● First instance Criminal Law Cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

13 017

65 131

65 264

12 884

Severe criminal cases 

Misdemeanour and/or 
minor cases

Other cases

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

Per 100 inhabitants

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 
Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

0,12

NA

NA

NAP

0,61

NA

NA

NAP

0,61

NA

NA

NAP

0,12

NA

NA

NAP

Incoming cases Resolved casesPending 

Czech Republic

EU Median

0,61

1,60

0,61

0,12

1,48

0,46

Total criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases

Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

0
6
1

,

8
4
1

,

6
4
0

,

1
6
0

,

1
6
0

,

2
1
0

,

Czech Republic

EU Median

The number of total incoming criminal cases in 2020 in Czech Republic (0,61 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (1,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total resolved criminal cases in 2020 in Czech Republic (0,61 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (1,48 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total pending criminal cases at the end of 2020 in Czech Republic (0,12 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (0,46 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Total criminal law cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Total

100,2%

Severe criminal 
cases 

Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

NA

NA

72

NA

NA

Other cases

NAP

NAP

EU Median

95,2%

139

EU Median

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT)

DT (days)

CR (%)

Total Criminal law cases

100,2%

95,2%

72

Total

139

EU Median

With the Clearance Rate calculated at 100,2% in 2020 for total criminal cases, Czech Republic seems to be able to deal with its total criminal cases.

In 2020, criminal law cases were solved in approximately 72 days, which is somewhat below EU median of 139 days.

It is not possible to distinguish between serious offences and minor offences. Therefore, only total number of cases is reported. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

304 / 1555

Overall efficiency by instance and by case matter

CR (%)

DT (days)

CR (%)

DT (days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases

98,0%

99,7%

107,8%

Administrative cases

112,6%

NAP

93,8%

Total criminal law cases

100,2%

98,5%

102,3%

165

317

72

79

NAP

34

143

302

38

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)
2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

1st instance

2nd instance

,

%
8
7
0
1

,

%
6
2
1
1

%
8
3
9

,

,

%
2
0
0
1

%
5
8
9

,

99,7%

98,0%

112,6% NAP

Supreme Court
%
3
2
0
1

,

107,8%
93,8%

%
0
8
Civil and commercial 
9
litigious cases
Administrative cases

,

%
7
9
9

,

100%

Total criminal law cases

P
A
N

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1

1
1

143

79

165

302

317

38
34
72

Civil and commercial
litigious cases

100,2%

Administrative cases Total criminal law

98,5%
cases

102,3%

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

1
1

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

The Clearance rate is above the 100% threshold except for civil first and second instance cases, for which the threshold is almost reached as well as for Administrative 
Supreme Court cases. With regard to the latter, the Clearance rate is only 93,8%. 

As to the Disposition Time indicator, courts prove to be efficient in civil and criminal matters in 2020. Namely, this indicator is below the EU medians at all instances (civil 
law: 1st instance: 221 days, 2nd instance: 177 days and 3rd instance: 224 days criminal law: 1st instance: 139 days, 2nd instance: 101 days, 3rd instance: 120 days). In 
administrative matters, the value for first instance courts is below the EU median of 388 days, which is not the case for the Supreme Administrative Court (EU median at 
3rd instance: 281 days). In fact, the highest Administrative Court is overburdened and encounter difficulties to resolve its cases. Accordingly, the number of pending 
cases grow quite quickly. It is connected to grow in number of administrative first-instance cases and growing tendency to fill an appeal to Supreme Administrative Court.

As a matter of fact, at first instance level in the Czech Republic, the length of administrative proceedings is quite longer compared to the length of civil and criminal 
proceedings.

The cases that are processed the fastest in all instances apperar to be the criminal cases. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

305 / 1555

5. Public prosecution services in Czech Republic

● Role and powers of the public prosecutor

In the criminal procedure, the public prosecutor in Czech Republic has the following 9 out of 11 possible roles and powers:

To conduct or supervise police investigation

To appeal

To conduct investigations

To supervise the enforcement procedure

When necessary, to request investigation measures from the judge

To discontinue a case without needing a decision by a judge

To end the case by imposing or negotiating a penalty or measure 
without requiring a judicial decision

Other significant powers

To charge

To present the case in the court

To propose a sentence to the judge

The public prosecutor also has a role in civil, administrative and insolvency cases.

● Public prosecutors: Number of first instance criminal cases

Type of cases

Absolute 
number

Per 100 
inhabitants

1. Pending cases on 1 Jan. ref. year 

41 936

0,39

2. Incoming/received cases

181 924

1,70

3. Processed cases (3.1 + 3.2 + 3.3 + 3.4)

188 314

1,76

Czech Republic

Incoming/received cases

Processed cases

Incoming/rec
Public prosecutors: Total number of first instance criminal 
eived cases
cases per 100 inhabitants

Processed 
cases

Pendin
g cases 
on 31 
Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. Year
2,85
2,84
1,70 1,76

0,33

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year (3.1.1 + 3.1.2 + 3.1.3 
+ 3.1.4)

95 306

0,89

1,70

1,76

EU Median

2,85 2,84

0,84

3.1.1 Discontinued by the public prosecutor because the 
offender could not be identified 

3.1.2 Discontinued by the public prosecutor due to the lack 
of an established offence or a specific legal situation 

3.1.3 Discontinued by the public prosecutor for reasons of 
opportunity

3.1.4 Discontinued for other reasons 

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0,33

0,84

Czech Republic

EU Median

Processed cases per 100 inhabitants
EU Median
Czech Republic

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated 
by the public prosecutor

Processed cases

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

Czech RepublicEU Median
0,89

1,05

2 793

0,03

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed
or negotiated by the public prosecutor

-0,89

0,03

1,05
0,12

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons

33 574

0,31

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor

3.4. Cases brought to court

56 641

0,53

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other
reasons

0,12
0,30
3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons
0,30

-0,03
0,31

-0,31

4. Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. year

35 546

0,33

3.4. Cases brought to court

3.4. Cases brought to court

0,53

0,53

-0,53

0,53

It is important mentionning that data comes from various sources. 

In the Czech Republic, there are many reasons why the prosecution could be discontinued. It is difficult to say under which category they should be included (3.1.2 or 3.1.4). 
However, the reasons may include following: 1. If such prosecution concerns a person who is exempt from the competencies of the law enforcement authorities or a person for 
whom the law requires an official consent for their prosecution, if such consent was not awarded by an entitled authority, unless the exemption is temporary or unless the criminal 
prosecution of the person is inadmissible due to lack of consent only temporarily; 2. if it concerns a person who is below the age of criminal responsibility 3. if it is against a person 
whose mental illness that occurred after the criminal offence was committed makes it permanently impossible for them to understand the purpose of the criminal prosecution 4. 
and many others.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

306 / 1555

 
6. Existence and use of alternative dispute resolution in Czech Republic

Number of mediators

Mediators

Total

Per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

388

442

421

589

620

660

657

589

669

3,7

4,2

4,0

5,6

5,9

6,2

6,2

5,5

6,3

EU Median 2020

EU median in 2019

14,4

EU Median
2020

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

Number of mediators per 100 000 inhabitants

14,4

5,5

6,3

6,2

6,2

5,9

5,6

4,0

4,2

3,7

In 2020, there are 669 accredited or registered mediators who practise court related mediation which represents 6,3 accredited or registered mediators per 

The variation between  2019 and  2020 is about 13,6%.

From the above mentioned number of mediators, there are 356 probate and mediation officials and 313 mediators in non criminal cases. 

Number of court related mediations

Type of cases

All cases

Civil and commercial

Family cases

Administrative

Employment dismissal

Criminal cases

Consumer cases

Number of cases 
for which the parties
agreed to start 
mediation

Number of finished 
court-related
mediations

Number of cases 
in which there is a 
settlement agreement

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

471

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

471,00

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

451,00

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

307 / 1555

7. ICT tools of courts in Czech Republic

●The ICT tools of courts and for court users

The use of ICT in courts in 2020 has been evaluated as  :

EU Median

Total 
(0 to 10)

Assistance tools (0 to 3)

Case management system (0 to 7)
Financial management tools (0 to 3)

Measurement tools to assess the workload (0 to 5)
Electronic communication (0 to 10)

6,3
2,0

3,5

0,5
2,5

9,2

6,6
2,0

5,2

1,3
2,5

6,9

The calculation of this values for each field is based on the answers for that question/s and weighted according the avaiability 
or deployment rate. The total value is normalised to max 10 points for readability and comparison.

The details of the calculation are given in Annex 5 - IT calculations

The result by area may be summarized in these graphics, where each field has been evaluated from 0 to 4 points.

Note: index is modified based on the available questions. This cycle the recalculation was made for the last three cycles to be 
able to follow the development.

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

2018

2019

2020

EU Median 2020

Case 
management 
system

Financial 
management 
tools

Measurement 
tools to assess 
the workload

Electronic 
communication

4,50

4,50

3,50

0,00

0,00

4,50

4,50

0,50

1,17

5,17

1,17

2,50

7,50

7,50

9,17

5,17

1,25
3,50

2,50

6,94

9,17

7,50

7,50

6,94

Assistance 
tools

Year
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
EU Median 20202,00

1,42

1,42

2,03

2,03

2,00

1,42

1,42

2,50

2,50

1,25

1,17

1,17

0,50

0,00

0,00

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

Comments on on writing assistance tools
It should be noted that the templates are available for all courts but do not cover all matters.

Comments on financial management tools 
The measurement tool is only available to assess the workload of judges and public prosecutors.

Comments on measurment tools on workload
The measurement tool is only available to assess the workload of judges and public prosecutors.

Comments on communication tools 
In the Czech Republic, it is possible to introduce a case  and to transmit summonsby electronic means, i. e. e-mail, data box, electronic filling 
room.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

308 / 1555

8. Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and public prosecution services in Czech Republic

In Czech Republic, quality standards are not detemined for the judicial system at the national level.

● Systems for measuring and evaluating courts' performance

A regular monitoring system of court activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

In Czech Republic, there is a system to regularly evaluate the court performance based primarily on defined indicators and the frequency of the reporting is annual.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each court.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

The evaluation of the courts' activities is used for the later allocation of means in the courts.

● Systems for measuring and evaluating public prosecution services' performance

A regular monitoring system of public prosecution services activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases 

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs 

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecution) 

Costs of the judicial procedures 

Clearance rate 

Disposition time 

Percentage of convictions and aquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

In Czech Republic, there is a system to evaluate regularly the activity of each public prosecution service and the frequency of the reporting is annual.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each public prosecution service.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecutors)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Percentage of convictions and acquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff

The evaluation of the public prosecution services' activities is used for the later allocation of means in the public prosecution services.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

309 / 1555

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table General Data: Economic and demographic data, in absolute values (Q1, Q3, Q5)

Q1 Number of inhabitants

10 509 286

10 510 719

10 524 783

10 553 843

10 578 820

10 589 526

10 649 800

10 669 324

10 701 777

1,8%

0,0%

0,1%

0,3%

0,2%

0,1%

0,6%

0,2%

0,3%

Q.3 GDP Per capita (in €) in current prices

14 557

13 473

14 602

15 985

16 700

18 095

19 489

20 830

20 278

39,3%

-7,4%

8,4%

9,5%

4,5%

8,4%

7,7%

6,9%

-2,7%

Q5. Exchange rate of Nat currency to € on 1 Jan

25

27

28

27

27

26

26

25

26

4,4%

9,1%

1,1%

-2,5%

0,0%

-5,5%

0,7%

-1,2%

3,3%

Indicator 1: Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and prosecution services  (Indicator 4 in 2019)

Table 1.1 to Table 1.10 (Q66, Q67, Q77, Q78, Q77-1, Q78-1, Q73, Q73-0, Q73-1, Q73-2, Q73-3, Q73-4, Q73-5, Q73-6, Q70, Q70-1, Q71, Q72, Q83-2, Q83-3, Q120 
and Q120-1)

66 Qlty standards formulated_jud system

67 Specialised court staff entrusted_qlty standards

77 Performance and quality indicators of court activities

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

False

False

True

078.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078.1.5 Backlogs 

078.1.6 Productivity of judges and court staff

078.1.7 Satisfaction of court staff 

078.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts) 

078.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078.1.10 Number of appeals

078.1.11 Appeal ratio

078.1.12 Clearance rate 

078.1.13 Disposition time 

078.1.14 Other

077-1.1.1 Defined performance and quality indicators

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

310 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

078-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078-1.1.5 Backlogs 

078-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

078-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

078-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

078-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

078-1.1.11 Disposition time 

078-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

078-1.1.13 Other

73 Regular system_evaluation_performance_each court

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

073-0.1.1 Annual

073-0.1.2 Less frequent

073-0.1.3 More frequent

073-1.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
court

073-2.1.1 Courses of action taken in the evaluation is used for the 
allocation of resources

073-2.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-2.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-2.1.4 Other

073-3.1.1 Regular evaluation of the public prosecution services 
performance

No

Yes

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

311 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

073-4.1.1 Annual

073-4.1.2 Less frequent

073-4.1.3 More frequent

073-5.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
public prosecution services

073-6.1.1 Identifying the causes of improved or deteriorated 
performance

073-6.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-6.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-6.1.4 Other

070.1.1 number of incoming cases

070.1.2 length of proceedings (timeframes)

070.1.3 number of resolved cases

070.1.4 number of pending cases

070.1.5 backlogs

070.1.6 productivity of judges and court staff

070.1.7 satisfaction of court staff

070.1.8 satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts)

070.1.9 costs of the judicial procedures

070.1.10 number of appeals

070.1.11 appeal ratio

070.1.12 clearance rate

True

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

312 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

070-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases 

070-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

070-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

070-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

070-1.1.5 Backlogs 

070-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

070-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

070-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

070-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

070-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

070-1.1.11 Disposition time 

070-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

070-1.1.13 Other

071.1.1 Monitoring backlogs in Civil law cases

071.1.2 Monitoring backlogs in Criminal law cases

071.1.3 Monitoring backlogs in Administrative law cases

072.1.1 Monitoring timeframes Within the courts

072.1.2 Monitoring timeframes Within the public prosecution services

083-2.1.1 Quantitative performance tagets defined for each 
prosecutors

083-3.1.1 Body responsible - Executive power (for example the 
Ministry of Justice)

083-3.1.2 Body responsible - Prosecutor General /State public 
prosecutor

083-3.1.3 Body responsible - Public Prosecutorial Council

083-3.1.4 Body responsible - Head of the organisational unit or 
hierarchically superior public prosecutor

083-3.1.5 Body responsible - Other

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

313 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

120.1.1 Qualitative individual assessment of the public prosecutors' 
work

120-1.1.1 Feequency - Annual

120-1.1.2 Feequency - Less frequent

120-1.1.3 Feequency - More frequent

Q42.1.1Total number of all courts - legal entities 

Q42.1.2 Total number of courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.3 First instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.4 Second instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.5 Highest instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.6 Total number of specialised courts - legal entities

43.1.1 Total number of specialised courts of first instance

43.1.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.1.3 Insolvency courts

43.1.4 Labour courts

43.1.5 Family courts

43.1.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.1.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.1.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.1.9 Internet related disputes

43.1.10 Administrative courts

43.1.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.1.12 Military courts

43.1.13 Juvenile courts

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

Indicator 2: The judicial organisation

Tables 2.1a; 2.1b; 2.2a; 2.2b; 2.3a; 2.3b; 2.4 and 2.5(EC) (Q42, Q43 and Q44)

-

-

86

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

86

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

86

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

86

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

86

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

86

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

86

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

86

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

True

False

True

False

98

97

86

10

1

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

314 / 1555

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

43.1.14 Other specialised courts

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

43.2.1 Total number of specialised courts of higher instances

43.2.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.2.3 Insolvency courts

43.2.4 Labour courts

43.2.5 Family courts

43.2.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.2.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.2.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.2.9 Internet related disputes

43.2.10 Administrative courts

43.2.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.2.12 Military courts

43.2.13 Juvenile courts

43.2.14 Other specialised courts

44.1.1 First instance courts geographic locations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

89

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

44.1.2 All courts geographic locations

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

98

107

9,2%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

9,2%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

315 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

91.1.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.1.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.1.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.1.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.1.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.1.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.1.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.1.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

91.1.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.1.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

91.1.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

91.2.1 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.2.2 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.2.3 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.2.4 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.2.5 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.2.6 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.2.7 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.2.8 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

91.2.9 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

Indicator 3: The performance of courts at all stages of the proceedings

Tables 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.4 (all years) Number of other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 Variation of first instance other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants (Q1, Q91)

Table 3.13.7 (EC) to 3.13.12 (EC) First instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

522 186

296 269

375 783

546 992

517 801

465 609

446 370

425 103

409 216

-21,6%

-43,3%

26,8%

45,6%

-5,3%

-10,1%

-4,1%

-4,8%

-3,7%

166 919

171 113

248 246

215 113

186 136

163 222

148 655

143 208

129 181

-22,6%

2,5%

45,1%

-13,3%

-13,5%

-12,3%

-8,9%

-3,7%

-9,8%

-

-

42 997

221 076

205 370

164 996

162 410

153 253

152 957

-

-

-

414,2%

-7,1%

-19,7%

-1,6%

-5,6%

-0,2%

43 819

97 177

32 194

210 783

191 171

159 112

153 009

146 828

147 291

236,1%

121,8%

-66,9%

554,7%

-9,3%

-16,8%

-3,8%

-4,0%

0,3%

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

7 923

8 995

12 622

3 871

7 459

5 017

5 009

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

7 923

8 995

12 622

3 871

7 459

5 017

5 009

NAP

2 880

8 543

NAP

1 298

9 374

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 577

2 013

1 942

1 408

NAP

657

8 296

10 377

10 377

11 799

11 044

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

13,5%

40,3%

-69,3%

92,7%

-32,7%

-0,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

13,5%

40,3%

-69,3%

92,7%

-32,7%

-0,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-54,9%

21,5%

27,6%

-3,5%

-27,5%

-53,3%

9,7%

-11,5%

25,1%

0,0%

13,7%

-6,4%

311 448

27 979

75 997

101 429

117 999

127 014

124 928

116 843

116 034

-62,7%

-91,0%

171,6%

33,5%

16,3%

7,6%

-1,6%

-6,5%

-0,7%

1 046 760

1 734 290

958 450

1 136 003

1 039 521

1 007 787

936 757

959 983

930 125

-11,1%

65,7%

-44,7%

18,5%

-8,5%

-3,1%

-7,0%

2,5%

-3,1%

363 080

469 054

480 999

398 243

332 407

361 160

346 240

355 323

305 443

-15,9%

29,2%

2,5%

-17,2%

-16,5%

8,6%

-4,1%

2,6%

-14,0%

-

-

433 561

690 653

660 677

613 082

553 409

560 321

583 503

-

-

-

59,3%

-4,3%

-7,2%

-9,7%

1,2%

4,1%

290 715

894 145

150 192

508 617

490 606

478 629

440 015

438 605

471 957

62,3%

207,6%

-83,2%

238,6%

-3,5%

-2,4%

-8,1%

-0,3%

7,6%

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

238 876

179 997

167 963

132 610

111 788

119 871

109 904

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

238 876

179 997

167 963

132 610

111 788

119 871

109 904

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

44 493

2 039

2 108

1 843

1 606

1 845

1 642

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-24,6%

-6,7%

-21,0%

-15,7%

7,2%

-8,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-24,6%

-6,7%

-21,0%

-15,7%

7,2%

-8,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-95,4%

3,4%

-12,6%

-12,9%

14,9%

-11,0%

1,0%

24,9%

-3,4%

7,6%

-10,9%

-5,3%

91.2.10 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

9 055

9 143

11 416

11 031

11 865

10 576

10 015

91.2.11 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

392 965

371 091

34 835

37 964

35 021

22 514

25 243

33 763

31 164

-92,1%

-5,6%

-90,6%

9,0%

-7,8%

-35,7%

12,1%

33,8%

-7,7%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

316 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

91.3.1 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.3.2 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.3.3 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.3.4 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.3.5 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.3.6 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.3.7 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.3.8 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

91.3.9 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

1 190 182

1 679 459

932 818

1 161 795

1 093 080

1 018 171

958 742

967 488

913 104

-23,3%

41,1%

-44,5%

24,5%

-5,9%

-6,9%

-5,8%

0,9%

-5,6%

358 886

423 105

503 666

427 241

365 678

366 389

351 743

360 375

299 306

-16,6%

17,9%

19,0%

-15,2%

-14,4%

0,2%

-4,0%

2,5%

-16,9%

-

-

405 363

704 714

692 231

610 340

562 658

560 670

570 574

-

-

-

73,8%

-1,8%

-11,8%

-7,8%

-0,4%

1,8%

298 084

915 562

126 708

527 754

517 490

479 403

446 312

438 211

457 632

53,5%

207,1%

-86,2%

316,5%

-1,9%

-7,4%

-6,9%

-1,8%

4,4%

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

234 227

175 198

173 069

129 022

114 206

119 862

111 067

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

234 227

175 198

173 069

129 022

114 206

119 862

111 067

-

-

NAP

44 428

NAP

1 762

8 425

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 672

1 915

2 140

2 597

1 875

9 157

10 113

10 445

11 333

11 275

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-25,2%

-1,2%

-25,5%

-11,5%

5,0%

-7,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-25,2%

-1,2%

-25,5%

-11,5%

5,0%

-7,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-96,0%

-5,1%

14,5%

11,7%

21,4%

-27,8%

2,3%

8,7%

10,4%

3,3%

8,5%

-0,5%

91.3.10 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

8 233

91.3.11 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

91.4.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.4.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.4.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.4.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.4.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.4.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.4.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.4.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

91.4.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.4.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

91.4.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

533 212

340 792

15 556

21 415

26 014

31 329

33 896

35 110

31 949

-94,0%

-36,1%

-95,4%

37,7%

21,5%

20,4%

8,2%

3,6%

-9,0%

378 764

351 100

401 415

521 200

464 242

455 225

424 385

417 598

426 237

12,5%

-7,3%

14,3%

29,8%

-10,9%

-1,9%

-6,8%

-1,6%

2,1%

171 113

217 062

225 579

186 115

152 865

157 993

143 152

138 156

135 318

-20,9%

26,9%

3,9%

-17,5%

-17,9%

3,4%

-9,4%

-3,5%

-2,1%

-

-

71 195

207 015

173 816

167 738

153 161

152 904

165 886

-

-

-

190,8%

-16,0%

-3,5%

-8,7%

-0,2%

8,5%

36 450

75 760

55 678

191 646

164 287

158 338

146 712

147 222

161 616

343,4%

107,8%

-26,5%

244,2%

-14,3%

-3,6%

-7,3%

0,3%

9,8%

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

12 572

13 794

7 516

7 459

5 041

5 026

3 846

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

12 572

13 794

7 516

7 459

5 041

5 026

3 846

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2 945

1 575

2 013

1 941

1 408

NAP

656

NAP

424

NAP

NAP

9 365

10 092

10 555

11 295

11 797

11 042

9 784

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9,7%

-45,5%

-0,8%

-32,4%

-0,3%

-23,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

9,7%

-45,5%

-0,8%

-32,4%

-0,3%

-23,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-46,5%

27,8%

-3,6%

-27,5%

-53,4%

-35,4%

7,8%

4,6%

7,0%

4,4%

-6,4%

-11,4%

171 201

58 278

95 276

117 978

127 006

118 199

116 275

115 496

115 249

-32,7%

-66,0%

63,5%

23,8%

7,7%

-6,9%

-1,6%

-0,7%

-0,2%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

317 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.2 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.4 to 3.3.7 Variation of Clearence Rate and Disposition Time of first instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

Table 3.13.1 (EC) to 3.13.6 (EC) First instance courts: Disposition time and clearance rate for other than criminal cases  (Q91)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

113,7%

96,8%

97,3%

102,3%

105,2%

101,0%

102,3%

100,8%

98,2%

(13,66)

(14,83)

0,50

5,08

2,82

(3,92)

1,30

(1,53)

(2,59)

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

98,8%

90,2%

104,7%

107,3%

110,0%

101,4%

101,6%

101,4%

98,0%

(0,86)

(8,74)

16,08

2,45

2,54

(7,78)

0,14

(0,16)

(3,38)

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

-

-

93,5%

102,0%

104,8%

99,6%

101,7%

100,1%

97,8%

-

-

-

9,13

2,69

(4,99)

2,13

(1,58)

(2,28)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

102,5%

102,4%

84,4%

103,8%

105,5%

100,2%

101,4%

99,9%

97,0%

(5,43)

(0,14)

(17,61)

22,99

1,65

(5,04)

1,27

(1,50)

(2,95)

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

98,1%

97,3%

103,0%

97,3%

102,2%

100,0%

101,1%

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

98,1%

97,3%

103,0%

97,3%

102,2%

100,0%

101,1%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

99,9%

86,4%

79,3%

103,9%

133,3%

140,8%

114,2%

CR Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

90,9%

92,1%

80,2%

91,7%

88,0%

107,2%

112,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(0,73)

5,86

(5,58)

5,00

(2,12)

1,07

-

-

-

-

-

-

(0,73)

5,86

(5,58)

5,00

(2,12)

1,07

-

-

-

-

-

-

(13,46)

(8,21)

31,00

28,24

5,63

(18,88)

1,35

(12,95)

14,29

(3,98)

21,73

5,06

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

135,7%

91,8%

44,7%

56,4%

74,3%

139,2%

134,3%

104,0%

102,5%

(24,45)

(32,32)

(51,37)

26,32

31,68

87,33

(3,50)

(22,56)

(1,41)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

116

174

-

45

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

117

76

187

-

30

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

62

157

163

64

160

20

NAP

20

NAP

24

415

164

159

107

133

29

NAP

29

NAP

326

437

155

153

92

116

16

NAP

16

NAP

439

421

163

157

100

121

21

162

149

99

120

16

158

140

100

123

15

13

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

21

16

15

13

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

370

408

240

412

92

356

83

317

170

46,7%

-34,3%

105,8%

4,3%

-5,3%

5,3%

-1,0%

-2,5%

8,1%

165

-5,2%

7,6%

-12,7%

-2,7%

-4,0%

3,2%

-5,6%

-5,8%

17,9%

106

-

-

-

67,3%

-14,5%

9,5%

-1,0%

0,2%

6,6%

129

188,8%

-32,3%

431,0%

-17,4%

-12,6%

4,0%

-0,5%

2,2%

5,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

46,7%

-44,8%

33,1%

-23,6%

-5,0%

-17,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

46,7%

-44,8%

33,1%

-23,6%

-5,0%

-17,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

1248,5%

34,7%

-15,8%

-35,1%

-61,6%

-10,5%

5,3%

-3,8%

-3,1%

1,1%

-13,7%

-10,9%

2236

2011

1782

1377

1252

1201

1317

1023,5%

-46,7% 3481,5%

-10,1%

-11,4%

-22,7%

-9,1%

-4,1%

9,7%

318 / 1555

      
      
         
         
         
        
         
        
        
        
        
       
         
         
        
         
        
        
         
         
        
         
        
        
        
        
      
       
         
        
         
        
        
        
         
        
         
        
         
        
         
        
         
        
         
      
        
       
       
         
      
         
      
       
        
       
         
      
      
      
       
       
       
        
      
        
Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.4.1 (all years) First instance courts, number of cases for specific case categories (Q101)

101.1.1 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Litigious divorce case

13 150

12 965

13 636

12 448

11 675

10 313

9 419

9 014

9 036

-31,3%

-1,4%

5,2%

-8,7%

-6,2%

-11,7%

-8,7%

-4,3%

0,2%

101.1.2 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Employment dismissal case

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

101.1.3 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Insolvency

30 331

52 032

75 256

95 282

111 050

119 923

117 766

116 843

111 104

266,3%

71,5%

44,6%

26,6%

16,5%

8,0%

-1,8%

-0,8%

-4,9%

101.2.1 Incoming cases_Litigious divorce case

30 025

32 804

29 474

28 941

28 500

28 033

26 894

27 251

23 601

-21,4%

9,3%

-10,2%

-1,8%

-1,5%

-1,6%

-4,1%

1,3%

-13,4%

101.2.2 Incoming cases_Employment dismissal case

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

101.2.3 Incoming cases_Insolvency

33 083

37 637

34 835

32 801

29 871

16 895

21 211

33 763

26 712

-19,3%

13,8%

-7,4%

-5,8%

-8,9%

-43,4%

25,5%

59,2%

-20,9%

101.3.1 Resolved cases_Litigious divorce case

30 557

32 559

30 719

29 777

29 907

28 934

27 337

27 241

24 054

-21,3%

6,6%

-5,7%

-3,1%

0,4%

-3,3%

-5,5%

-0,4%

-11,7%

101.3.2 Resolved cases_Employment dismissal case

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

101.3.3 Resolved cases_Insolvency

11 382

14 920

15 556

17 047

20 998

25 782

28 436

35 110

27 567

142,2%

31,1%

4,3%

9,6%

23,2%

22,8%

10,3%

23,5%

-21,5%

101.4.1 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Litigious divorce case

12 965

13 210

12 391

11 612

10 268

9 412

8 976

9 024

8 583

-33,8%

1,9%

-6,2%

-6,3%

-11,6%

-8,3%

-4,6%

0,5%

-4,9%

101.4.2 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Employment dismissal case

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

101.4.3 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Insolvency

52 032

74 749

95 276

111 036

119 923

111 036

110 541

115 496

110 249

111,9%

43,7%

27,5%

16,5%

8,0%

-7,4%

-0,4%

4,5%

-4,5%

Table 3.5.1 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for specific case categories (Q101)

Table 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 Variations of CR and DT for specific case categories of first instance cases (Q101)

CR Litigious divorce cases

101,8%

99,3%

104,2%

102,9%

104,9%

103,2%

101,6%

100,0%

101,9%

0,14

(2,47)

5,01

(1,28)

1,99

(1,64)

(1,52)

(1,66)

1,96

CR Employment dismissal cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CR Insolvency cases

34,4%

39,6%

44,7%

52,0%

70,3%

152,6%

134,1%

104,0%

103,2%

199,96

15,22

12,65

16,38

35,26

117,09

(12,15)

(22,43)

(0,76)

DT Litigious divorce cases

DT Employment dismissal cases

155

NA

148

NA

147

NA

142

NA

125

NA

119

NA

120

NA

121

NA

130

-15,9%

-4,4%

-0,6%

-3,3%

-12,0%

-5,3%

0,9%

0,9%

7,7%

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

DT Insolvency cases

1 669

1 829

2 236

2 377

2 085

1 572

1 419

1 201

1 460

-12,5%

9,6%

22,3%

6,3%

-12,3%

-24,6%

-9,7%

-15,4%

21,6%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

319 / 1555

         
        
         
        
         
        
        
        
         
     
       
       
       
       
     
      
      
        
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 3.7.1 to 3.7.5 (2019 and 2020) Second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Table 3.9.1 to 3.9.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

97.1.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.1.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.1.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.1.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.1.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.1.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.1.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.1.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

97.1.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.1.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

97.1.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases 

97.2.1 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.2.2 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.2.3 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.2.4 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.2.5 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.2.6 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.2.7 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.2.8 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

97.2.9 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.2.10 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

20 446

19 856

18 078

16 586

14 187

13 224

11 304

19 680

18 367

16 615

15 189

13 254

12 291

10 531

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

766

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 489

1 463

1 397

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

933

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

933

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

773

94 595

85 012

84 465

68 340

63 819

59 324

53 147

90 549

80 002

79 178

63 475

59 029

54 478

49 597

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

97.2.11 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases 

4 046

5 010

5 287

4 865

4 790

4 846

3 550

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,9%

-9,0%

-8,3%

-14,5%

-6,8%

-14,5%

-6,7%

-9,5%

-8,6%

-12,7%

-7,3%

-14,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

94,4%

-1,7%

-4,5%

-33,2%

0,0%

-17,1%

-10,1%

-0,6%

-19,1%

-6,6%

-7,0%

-10,4%

-11,6%

-1,0%

-19,8%

-7,0%

-7,7%

-9,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

23,8%

5,5%

-8,0%

-1,5%

1,2%

-26,7%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

320 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.3.1 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.3.2 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.3.3 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.3.4 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.3.5 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.3.6 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.3.7 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.3.8 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

97.3.9 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.3.10 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

95 586

86 813

85 970

70 747

64 792

61 251

53 053

91 922

81 777

80 618

65 419

60 003

56 248

49 443

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

97.3.11 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases 

3 664

5 036

5 352

5 328

4 789

5 003

3 610

97.4.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.4.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.4.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.4.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.4.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.4.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.4.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.4.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

97.4.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.4.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

19 455

18 055

16 573

14 179

13 214

11 297

11 398

18 307

16 592

15 175

13 245

12 280

10 521

10 685

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

934

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

934

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

776

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

713

NA

NA

97.4.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases

1 148

1 463

1 398

97.5.1 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.5.2 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.5.10 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-9,2%

-1,0%

-17,7%

-8,4%

-5,5%

-13,4%

-11,0%

-1,4%

-18,9%

-8,3%

-6,3%

-12,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

37,4%

6,3%

-0,4%

-10,1%

4,5%

-27,8%

-7,2%

-8,2%

-14,4%

-6,8%

-14,5%

0,9%

-9,4%

-8,5%

-12,7%

-7,3%

-14,3%

1,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

27,4%

-4,4%

-33,2%

0,0%

-16,9%

-8,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

321 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 (2019 and 2020): Second instance clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.9.4 and 3.9.5 (2019 and 2020): Variation of second clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

101,0%

102,1%

101,8%

103,5%

101,5%

103,2%

99,8%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

101,5%

102,2%

101,8%

103,1%

101,7%

103,2%

99,7%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

90,6%

100,5%

101,2%

109,5%

100,0%

103,2%

101,7%

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

74

73

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

114

76

74

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

106

70

69

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

95

73

74

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

64

74

75

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

71

67

68

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

57

78

79

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

72

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,06

(0,33)

1,71

(1,93)

1,70

(3,32)

0,69

(0,39)

1,22

(1,37)

1,57

(3,45)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

11,00

0,71

8,19

(8,71)

3,26

(1,50)

2,2%

-7,3%

4,0%

1,8%

-9,6%

16,5%

1,9%

-7,2%

7,6%

1,1%

-8,6%

15,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-7,3%

-10,1%

-32,9%

11,3%

-20,5%

27,3%

322 / 1555

         
        
         
        
         
        
         
        
         
        
         
        
       
         
         
        
         
        
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.10.1 to 3.10.5 (2019 and 2020) Supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Table 3.12.1 to 3.12.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of the supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.1.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.1.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.1.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.1.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.1.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.1.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.1.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.1.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

99.1.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.1.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

99.1.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.2.1 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.2.2 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.2.3 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.2.4 High inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.2.5 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.2.6 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.2.7 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.2.8 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

99.2.9 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.2.10 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

99.2.11 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

4 017

2 692

20

20

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

1 216

89

8 580

5 462

253

253

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

2 647

218

2 992

2 893

31

31

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

68

6 128

5 757

271

271

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

100

4 235

2 836

79

79

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4 689

5 142

5 274

5 191

2 930

2 884

2 404

1 970

68

68

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

37

37

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

35

35

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

47

47

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 130

1 422

1 883

2 503

2 884

190

269

338

124

290

9 935

10 620

9 418

9 097

8 402

6 065

6 105

4 784

4 340

3 927

220

220

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

224

224

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

182

182

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

195

195

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

151

151

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

3 246

3 902

4 109

4 261

4 037

404

389

343

144

287

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-25,5%

41,5%

10,7%

9,7%

2,6%

-1,6%

7,5%

-2,0%

3,3%

-1,6%

-16,6%

-18,1%

55,0%

154,8%

-13,9%

-45,6%

-5,4%

34,3%

55,0%

154,8%

-13,9%

-45,6%

-5,4%

34,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

25,8%

32,4%

32,9%

15,2%

-23,6%

179,4%

41,6%

25,7%

-63,3%

133,9%

-28,6%

62,1%

6,9%

-11,3%

-3,4%

-7,6%

5,4%

5,4%

0,7%

-21,6%

-9,3%

-9,5%

7,1%

-18,8%

1,8%

-18,8%

7,1%

-22,6%

7,1%

-18,8%

1,8%

-18,8%

7,1%

-22,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

20,2%

5,3%

3,7%

-5,3%

-54,1%

304,0%

-3,7%

-11,8%

-58,0%

99,3%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

323 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.3.1 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.3.2 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.3.3 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.3.4 High inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.3.5 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.3.6 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.3.7 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.3.8 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

99.3.9 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.3.10 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

99.3.11 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.4.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.4.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.4.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.4.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.4.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.4.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.4.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.4.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry 
cases

99.4.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.4.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative 
law cases

99.4.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.5.1 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.5.2 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.5.10 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

8 378

5 262

242

242

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

2 704

170

4 219

2 892

31

31

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

1 159

137

-

-

-

6 108

5 812

223

223

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

73

3 012

2 838

79

79

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

95

-

-

-

9 481

10 168

9 286

9 180

8 497

5 971

6 151

5 264

4 774

4 234

231

231

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

255

255

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

184

184

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

183

183

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

160

160

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2 954

3 442

3 489

3 880

3 785

325

4 689

2 930

68

68

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

320

349

159

318

5 141

5 274

5 191

5 096

2 884

2 404

1 970

1 663

37

37

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

35

35

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

47

47

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

38

38

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 422

1 882

2 503

2 884

3 136

269

NA

NA

NA

338

NA

NA

NA

332

NA

NA

NA

109

NA

NA

NA

259

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-27,1%

55,2%

7,2%

-8,7%

-1,1%

-7,4%

10,5%

2,7%

3,0%

-14,4%

-9,3%

-11,3%

-7,9%

3,6%

10,4%

-27,8%

-0,5%

-12,6%

-7,9%

3,6%

10,4%

-27,8%

-0,5%

-12,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

16,5%

1,4%

11,2%

-2,4%

-57,1%

345,2%

-1,5%

9,1%

-54,4%

100,0%

-28,6%

55,7%

9,6%

2,6%

-1,6%

-1,8%

-1,9%

3,2%

-1,6%

-16,6%

-18,1%

-15,6%

154,8%

-13,9%

-45,6%

-5,4%

34,3%

-19,1%

154,8%

-13,9%

-45,6%

-5,4%

34,3%

-19,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

32,3%

33,0%

15,2%

8,7%

-30,7%

183,2%

25,7%

-1,8%

-67,2%

137,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

324 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 Supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.12.4 and 3.12.5 Variation of the supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

97,6%

99,7%

95,4%

95,7%

98,6%

100,9%

101,1%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

96,3%

101,0%

98,5%

100,8%

110,0%

110,0%

107,8%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

95,7%

82,3%

105,0%

113,8%

101,1%

93,8%

106,0%

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

95,7%

82,3%

105,0%

113,8%

101,1%

93,8%

106,0%

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

102,2%

NA

91,0%

88,2%

84,9%

91,1%

93,8%

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

78,0%

73,0%

80,4%

82,3%

101,7%

110,4%

110,8%

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

184

201

47

47

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

156

294

180

178

129

129

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

475

181

179

107

107

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

176

302

185

171

53

53

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

200

386

207

167

69

69

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

262

347

206

151

94

94

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

271

250

219

143

87

87

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

302

297

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,08

(4,26)

0,33

2,98

2,35

0,22

4,79

(2,48)

2,34

9,21

(0,03)

(1,98)

(13,97)

27,60

8,42

(11,19)

(7,17)

12,91

(13,97)

27,60

8,42

(11,19)

(7,17)

12,91

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(3,07)

(3,74)

7,24

2,96

(6,39)

10,20

2,26

23,69

8,52

0,35

-2,1%

0,3%

2,2%

12,3%

-0,4%

6,1%

-11,2%

0,5%

-4,5%

-2,6%

-9,6%

-4,8%

176,6%

-16,9%

-50,7%

31,1%

35,0%

-7,5%

176,6%

-16,9%

-50,7%

31,1%

35,0%

-7,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

13,6%

31,2%

3,6%

11,5%

61,5%

-36,4%

27,6%

-9,9%

-27,9%

18,8%

325 / 1555

         
        
         
         
         
         
         
        
         
         
        
        
      
       
         
      
        
       
      
       
         
      
        
       
        
        
         
         
        
       
         
       
         
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.14.1 to 3.14.5 First instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

094.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

094.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

094.2.1 Total -incoming

094.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

094.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

094.2.4 Other - incoming

094.3.1 Total - resolved

094.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

094.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

094.3.4 Other - resolved

094.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

094.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

094.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

094.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

13 017

NA

NA

NAP

65 131

NA

NA

NAP

65 264

NA

NA

NAP

12 884

NA

NA

NAP

1 069

NA

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

326 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.15.1 to 3.10.2 CR and DT for first instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

098.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

098.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

098.2.1 Total -incoming

098.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

098.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

098.2.4 Other - incoming

098.3.1 Total - resolved

098.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

098.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

098.3.4 Other - resolved

Table 3.16.1 to 3.16.5 Second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

100,2%

NA

NA

NAP

72

NA

NA

NAP

1 672

NA

NA

NAP

21 950

NA

NA

NAP

21 630

NA

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

327 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

098.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

098.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

098.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

098.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

1 992

NA

NA

NAP

32

NA

NA

NAP

Table 3.17.1 to 3.17.2 CR and DT for second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

98,5%

NA

NA

NAP

34

NA

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

328 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.18.1 to 3.18.5 Supreme court criminal law cases (Q100)

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

100.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

100.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

100.2.1 Total -incoming

100.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

100.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

100.2.4 Other - incoming

100.3.1 Total - resolved

100.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

100.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

100.3.4 Other - resolved

100.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

100.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

100.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

100.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

183

NA

NA

NAP

1 410

NA

NA

NAP

1 443

NA

NA

NAP

150

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

329 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.19.1 to 3.19.2 CR and DT for supreme court  criminal law cases (Q100)

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

102,3%

NA

NA

NAP

38

NA

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

330 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 5: Access to justice

Legal aid

Table 5.1 to Table 5.6 (Q12-2, Q16, Q18, Q19, Q20, Q20-1)

12-2.1.1 Coverage of court fees

12-2.1.2 Exemption from court fees

16.1.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (criminal cases)

16.1.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (criminal cases)

16.2.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (other than criminal 
cases)

16.2.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (other than criminal cases)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

-

-

-

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

18.1.1 Legal aid for the enforcement of judicial decisions

19.1.1  Legal aid granted for other costs - criminal cases

19.1.2  Legal aid granted for other costs - other than criminal cases

020.1.1 Total

020.1.2 Total - criminal cases

020.1.3 Total - other than criminal cases

020.2.1 Total brought to court

020.2.2 Broight to court - criminal cases

020.2.3 Brought to court - other then criminal

020.3.1 Total not brought to court

020.3.2 Not broight to court - criminal cases

020.3.3 Not brought to court - other then criminal

020-1.1.1 Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulation

020-1.1.2 Average duration

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

331 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

System for compensating users

Table 5.7.1 and Table 5.7.2 (Q37)

037.1.1 Requests for compensation - Total

037.1.2 Requests for compensation - Excessive length of 
proceedings

037.1.3 Requests for compensation - Non-execution of court 
decisions

037.1.4 Requests for compensation - Wrongful arrest

037.1.5 Requests for compensation - Wrongful conviction

037.1.6 Requests for compensation - Other

037.2.1 Condemnations - Total

037.2.2 Condemnations - Excessive length of proceedings

037.2.3 Condemnations - Non-execution of court decisions

037.2.4 Condemnations - Wrongful arrest

037.2.5 Condemnations - Wrongful conviction

037.2.6 Condemnations - Other

037.3.1 Amount - Total

037.3.2 Amount - Excessive length of proceedings

037.3.3 Amount - Non-execution of court decisions

037.3.4 Amount - Wrongful arrest

037.3.5 Amount - Wrongful conviction

037.3.6 Amount - Other

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

332 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 6.1 to Table 6.11 (Q62-7, Q62-7-1, Q62-8,  Q62-8-1, Q63-1, Q63-1-1, Q63-2 Q63-6, Q63-7, Q63-7-1, Q64-2,  Q64-4, Q64-6, Q64-3, Q64-3-1, Q64-7, Q64-7-1, 
Q64-9)

Indicator 6: The ICT tools of courts and for court users

62-7 Writing assistance tools coordinated at national level

62-7-1.1 Deployment rate in civil matter

62-7-1.2 Deployment rate in criminal matter

62-7-1.3 Deployment rate in administrative matter

62-8 Voice recording tools

62-8-1.1.1 Availability of simple dictation tools in civil matter

62-8-1.1.2 Availability of simple dictation tools in criminal matter

62-8-1.1.3 Availability of simple dictation tools in administrative 
matter

62-8-1.2.1 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in civil 
matter

62-8-1.2.2 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in criminal 
matter

62-8-1.2.3 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in 
administrative matter

62-8-1.3.1 Availability of voice recognition in civil matter

62-8-1.3.2 Availability of voice recognition in criminal matter

62-8-1.3.3 Availability of voice recognition in administrative matter

062-9 Availability of intranet site within the judicial system for 
distribution of news/novelties

63.1 Is there a case management system? 

63.1-1.1 CMS for civil matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for criminal matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for administrative matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.2 CMS for civil matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for criminal matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for administrative matter (status of case onlinee)

True

True

True

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

10-49%

10-49%

50-99%

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

50-99%

True

True

True

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases

in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases

in most of the 
courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases

in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases

in most of the 
courts

Pilot testing

Pilot testing

Pilot testing

Pilot testing

Pilot testing

Pilot testing

Pilot testing

Pilot testing

Pilot testing

-

50-99%

100%

100%

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

-

-

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

333 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63.1-1.3 CMS for civil matter (Centralised or interoperable database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for criminal matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for administrative matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.4 CMS for civil matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for criminal matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for administrative matter (Early warning signals)

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS civil matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS criminal matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS administrative matter

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - land registry

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - business registry

63-2.2 Data consolidated at national level for land registry

63-2.2  Data consolidated at national level for business registry

63-2.3 Service available online for land registry

63-2.3  Service available online for business registry

63-2.4 Statistical module integrated or connected for land registry

63-2.4  Statistical module integrated or connected for business 
registry

063-6.1.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (deployment 
rate)

063-6.1.2 Justice expenses management (deployment rate)

063-6.1.3 Other financial management tools (deployment rate)

063-6.2.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (Data 
consolidated at national level)

063-6.2.2 Justice expenses management (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.2.3 Other financial management tools (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.3.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (System 
communicating with other ministries)

063-6.3.2 Justice expenses management (System communicating 
with other ministries)

063-6.3.3 Other financial management tools (System communicating 
with other ministries)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

100%

100%

100%

False

True

False

True

False

True

NAP

True

NAP

True

NAP

True

NAP

True

NAP

True

NAP

True

50-99%

50-99%

100%

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

NA

NA

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

NA

NA

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

NA

NA

334 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63-7.1 Measurement tools to assess the workload

63-7-1.1.1 Deployment rate - workload of judges

63-7-1.1.2 Deployment rate - workload of prosecutors

63-7-1.1.3 Deployment rate - workload of non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.2.1 Monitoring on national level - judges

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - prosecutors

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.3.1 Monitoring on court level - judges

63-7-1.3.2 Monitoring on court level - prosecutors

63-7-1.3.3 Monitoring on court level - non-judge and non-prosecutor 
staff

064-2 - Possibility to submit a case to courts by electronic means

064-2 - Civil and/or commercial

064-2 - Criminal

064-2 - Administrative

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - civil

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - criminal

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory  - administrative

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - civil

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - criminal

064-2 - Specific legislative framework  - administrative

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - civil

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - criminal

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - administrative

True

True

True

10-49%

10-49%

50-99%

10-49%

10-49%

50-99%

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

335 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-3 - Is it possible to request for granting legal aid by electronic 
means? 

064-3-1.1 - Equipment rate

064-3-1.2 - Request in paper mandatory

064-3-1.3 - Specific legislative framework

064-3-1.4 - Granting LA is also electronic

064-3-1.5 - Information available in CMS

064-4 - Possibility to transmit summons to a judicial meeting or a 
hearing by electronic means

064-4-1.1.1 - Summons produced by CMS- civil

064-4-1.1.2 - Summons produced by CMS- criminal

064-4-1.1.3 - Summons produced by CMS- administrative

064-4-1.2.1 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- civil

064-4-1.2.2 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- criminal

064-4-1.2.3 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- administrative

064-4-1.3.1 - Consent of the user - civil

064-4-1.3.2 - Consent of the user - criminal

064-4-1.3.3 - Consent of the user - administrative

064-6.1.1 - Civil and/or commercial (deployment rate)

064-6.1.2 - Criminal (deployment rate)

064-6.1.3 - Administrative (deployment rate)

True

True

True

10-49%

10-49%

100%

False

False

False

False

False

True

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

336 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-6.2.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.2 - Criminal (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.3 - Administrative (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.3.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Modalities)

064-6.3.2 - Criminal (Modalities)

064-6.3.3 - Administrative (Modalities)

064-6.4.1 - Civil and/or commercial (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.2 - Criminal (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.3 - Administrative (specific legal framework)

064-6.5.1 - Civil and/or commercial (availability for)

064-6.5.2 - Criminal (availability for)

064-6.5.3 - Administrative (availability for)

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
E-mail  
Specific 
application  

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
E-mail  
Specific 
application  

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer
Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer
Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

337 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-7.1.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (deployment rate)

064-7.1.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.2.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (Modalities)

064-7.2.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.3.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (specific legal framework)

064-7.32.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-7.3.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts (specific 
legal framework)

064-7.3.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-9 - Existance of online processing devices of specialised 
litigation

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

100%

100%

100%

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

338 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 7: Professionals of justice  (Indicator 9 in 2019)

Table 7.1.1 to 7.5.6 for judges, non judge staff, prosecutors, non prosecutor staff and salaries

46.1.1 Total Number of professional judges

46.1.2 Number of 1st inst professional judges

46.1.3 Number of 2nd inst professional judges

46.1.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges

3 055

1 857

964

234

3 054

1 859

1 098

97

3 028

1 838

1 090

100

3 018

1 838

1 081

99

3 005

1 820

1 083

102

3 012

3 029

3 006

3 007

-1,6%

0,0%

-0,9%

-0,3%

-0,4%

0,2%

0,6%

-0,8%

0,0%

1 826

1 849

1 824

1 814

-2,3%

0,1%

-1,1%

0,0%

-1,0%

0,3%

1,3%

-1,4%

-0,5%

1 085

1 078

1 078

1 088

12,9%

13,9%

-0,7%

-0,8%

0,2%

0,2%

-0,6%

0,0%

0,9%

101

102

104

105

-55,1%

-58,5%

3,1%

-1,0%

3,0%

-1,0%

1,0%

2,0%

1,0%

46.2.1 Number of professional judges_males

1 193

1 187

1 192

1 185

1 182

1 178

1 195

1 190

1 192

-0,1%

-0,5%

0,4%

-0,6%

-0,3%

-0,3%

1,4%

-0,4%

0,2%

46.2.2 Number of 1st instance professional judges_males

46.2.3 Number of 2nd instance professional judges_males

46.2.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges_males

46.3.1  Number of professional judges_females

46.3.2  Number of 1st inst professional judges_females

46.3.3  Number of 2nd inst professional judges_females

46.3.4  Number of Supreme court professional judges_females

046-2.1.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Total

046-2.2.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Civil and commercial

046-2.2.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.3.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Criminal

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

644

407

142

1 862

1 213

557

92

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

632

483

72

1 867

1 227

615

25

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

632

487

73

1 836

1 206

603

27

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

629

482

74

1 833

1 209

599

25

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

609

494

79

1 823

1 211

589

23

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

598

501

79

611

505

79

600

509

81

601

-6,7%

-1,9%

0,0%

-0,5%

-3,2%

-1,8%

2,2%

-1,8%

0,2%

512

25,8%

18,7%

0,8%

-1,0%

2,5%

1,4%

0,8%

0,8%

0,6%

79

-44,4%

-49,3%

1,4%

1,4%

6,8%

0,0%

0,0%

2,5%

-2,5%

1 834

1 834

1 816

1 815

-2,5%

0,3%

-1,7%

-0,2%

-0,5%

0,6%

0,0%

-1,0%

-0,1%

1 228

1 238

1 224

1 213

0,0%

1,2%

-1,7%

0,2%

0,2%

1,4%

0,8%

-1,1%

-0,9%

584

22

573

23

569

23

576

3,4%

10,4%

-2,0%

-0,7%

-1,7%

-0,8%

-1,9%

-0,7%

1,2%

26

-71,7%

-72,8%

8,0%

-7,4%

-8,0%

-4,3%

4,5%

0,0%

13,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3 007

1 814

1 088

105

1 971

1 369

554

48

756

445

290

21

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

339 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

046-2.4.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - 
Administrative

046-2.4.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.5.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Other

 52.1.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in courts 

52.1.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)

52.1.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges

52.1.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks

52.1.5 Number of Technical staff

52.1.6 Number of Other non judge staff

52.2.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(men)

52.2.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(men)

52.2.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(men)

52.2.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(men)

52.2.5 Number of Technical staff(men)

52.2.6 Number of Other non judge staff(men)

52.3.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(women)

52.3.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(women)

52.3.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(women)

52.3.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(women)

52.3.5 Number of Technical staff(women)

52.3.6 Number of Other non judge staff(women)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9 135

1 950

4 463

2 038

636

48

-

-

-

-

-

-

7 989

1 600

4 282

1 709

368

30

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9 107

1 907

4 418

2 131

625

26

-

-

-

-

-

-

8 105

1 611

4 261

1 842

372

19

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9 309

2 073

4 539

2 006

614

77

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9 409

2 190

4 519

2 053

610

37

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9 714

2 408

4 497

2 091

656

62

352

224

322

240

21

8 150

1 721

4 315

1 684

374

56

434

292

393

253

18

8 019

1 756

4 227

1 660

357

19

394

172

308

269

23

8 548

2 014

4 325

1 783

387

39

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

149

-

113

36

131

-

131

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9 887

9 857

9 989

9 921

8,6%

-0,3%

2,2%

1,1%

3,2%

1,8%

-0,3%

1,3%

-0,7%

2 438

2 443

2 568

2 501

28,3%

-2,2%

8,7%

5,6%

10,0%

1,2%

0,2%

5,1%

-2,6%

4 632

4 616

4 546

4 556

2,1%

-1,0%

2,7%

-0,4%

-0,5%

3,0%

-0,3%

-1,5%

0,2%

2 057

2 060

2 145

2 158

5,9%

4,6%

-5,9%

2,3%

1,9%

-1,6%

0,1%

4,1%

0,6%

701

59

656

82

654

76

648

1,9%

-1,7%

-1,8%

-0,7%

7,5%

6,9%

-6,4%

-0,3%

-0,9%

58

20,8%

-45,8%

196,2%

-51,9%

67,6%

-4,8%

39,0%

-7,3%

-23,7%

427

263

300

286

17

398

196

316

272

24

438

179

338

263

22

429

205

339

250

22

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

19,9%

-16,1%

10,9%

-6,7%

2,8%

0,4%

23,3%

-9,2%

8,4%

-6,8%

10,1%

-2,1%

30,4%

-41,1%

52,9%

-25,5%

-8,7%

14,5%

22,0%

-21,6%

-2,6%

5,3%

7,0%

0,3%

5,4%

6,3%

6,3%

-4,9%

-3,3%

-4,9%

-14,3%

27,8%

-26,1%

41,2%

-8,3%

0,0%

8 594

8 651

8 749

8 676

8,6%

1,5%

0,6%

-1,6%

6,6%

0,5%

0,7%

1,1%

-0,8%

2 011

2 045

2 130

2 072

29,5%

0,7%

6,8%

2,0%

14,7%

-0,1%

1,7%

4,2%

-2,7%

4 369

4 420

4 367

4 351

1,6%

-0,5%

1,3%

-2,0%

2,3%

1,0%

1,2%

-1,2%

-0,4%

1 757

1 744

1 807

1 819

6,4%

7,8%

-8,6%

-1,4%

7,4%

-1,5%

-0,7%

3,6%

0,7%

415

42

384

58

391

54

398

8,2%

1,1%

0,5%

-4,5%

8,4%

7,2%

-7,5%

1,8%

1,8%

36

20,0%

-36,7%

194,7%

-66,1%

105,3%

7,7%

38,1%

-6,9%

-33,3%

340 / 1555

1 159

1 390

1 166

1 293

1 206

1 240

1 245

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

052-1.1.1 Non-judge staff (Total)

052-1.1.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (total)

052-1.1.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (total)

052-1.1.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (total)

052-1.2.1 Non-judge staff  (Males)

052-1.2.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (males)

052-1.2.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (males)

052-1.2.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (males)

052-1.3.1 Non-judge staff  (females)

052-1.3.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (females)

052-1.3.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (females)

052-1.3.4 Non-judge staff  at supreme court (females)

055.1.1 Prosecutors (total)

055.1.2 Prosecutors (1st inst.)

055.1.3 Prosecutors (2nd inst.)

055.1.4 Prosecutors (Highest instance)

055.2.1 Prosecutors - Males -total

055.2.2 Prosecutors - Males, 1st inst.

055.2.3 Prosecutors - Males, 2nd inst.

055.2.4 Prosecutors - Males, Supreme courts

055.3.1 Prosecutors - Females, Total

055.3.2 Prosecutors - Females, 1st inst.

055.3.3 Prosecutors - Females, 2nd inst.

055.3.4 Prosecutors - Females, Supreme courts

9 921

6 538

2 967

416

1 245

617

481

147

8 676

5 921

2 486

269

1 224

822

345

57

561

339

183

39

663

483

162

18

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

341 / 1555

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

060.1.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Total

060.2.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Males

060.3.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Females

004 Annual average salary in the country

132.1.1 Gross annual salary, in €  - Professional judge at the 
beginning of career

132.1.2 Gross annual salary, in €  - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.1.3 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor at the beginning 
of career

132.1.4 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

132.2.1 Net annual salary, in € - Professional judge at the beginning 
of career

132.2.2 Net annual salary, in € - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.2.3 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor at the beginning of 
career

132.2.4 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

133.1.1.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Reduced taxation

133.1.2.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Special pension

133.1.3.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Housing

133.1.4.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Other financial benefit

133.2.1.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Reduced taxation

133.2.2.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Special pension

133.2.3.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Housing

133.2.4.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Other financial benefit

1 474

262

1 212

16 279 €

40 584 €

89 904 €

36 528 €

79 008 €

NA

NA

NA

NA

False

False

True

True

False

False

True

True

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

342 / 1555

         
         
         
         
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

144.1.1 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - Total number (1+2+3+4)

144.1.2 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 1. Breach of professional 
ethics 

144.1.3 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.1.4 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 3. Criminal offence 

144.1.5 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 4. Other

144.2.1 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - Total number 
(1+2+3+4)

144.2.2 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 1. Breach of 
professional ethics 

144.2.3 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.2.4 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 3. Criminal offence

144.2.5 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 4. Other 

145.1.1 Sanctions against Judges - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.1.2 Sanctions against Judges - 1. Reprimand

145.1.3 Sanctions against Judges - 2. Suspension

145.1.4 Sanctions against Judges - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.1.5 Sanctions against Judges - 4. Fine

145.1.6 Sanctions against Judges - 5. Temporary reduction of salary

145.1.7 Sanctions against Judges - 6. Position downgrade

145.1.8 Sanctions against Judges - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.1.9 Sanctions against Judges - 8. Resignation

145.1.10 Sanctions against  Judges - 9. Other

145.1.11 Sanctions against  Judges - 10. Dismissal

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

24

7

15

2

0

8

1

5

0

2

10

2

NAP

NAP

0

8

0

NAP

0

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

343 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

145.2.1 Sanctions against Prosecutors - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.2.2 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 1. Reprimand

145.2.3 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 2. Suspension

145.2.4 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.2.5 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 4. Fine

145.2.6 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 5. Temporary reduction of 
salary

145.2.7 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 6. Position downgrade

145.2.8 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.2.9 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 8. Resignation

145.2.10 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 9. Other

145.2.11 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 10. Dismissal

7

2

NAP

NAP

0

5

0

NAP

0

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lawyers

Tables 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.7 and 7.8

146.1.1 Total number of lawyers practising

10 944

10 255

11 842

12 300

11 310

11 587

11 180

12 188

12 267

12,1%

-6,3%

15,5%

3,9%

-8,0%

2,4%

-3,5%

9,0%

0,6%

146.2.1 Practicing lawyers - man

146.3.1 Practicing lawyers - woman

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7 176

7 333

7 360

4 704

4 855

4 907

147 Does this figure include “legal advisors” who cannot represent 
their clients in court (for example, some solicitors or in-house 
counsellors)? 

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,2%

0,4%

3,2%

1,1%

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

344 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Czech Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

166 Number of accredited or registered mediators who practice 
judicial mediation: 

167.1.1 Total number started

167. 1.2 Civil and commercial cases(cid:9) - started

167. 1.2 Family cases - started

167.1.4 Administrative cases - started

167.1.5 Labour cases including employment dismissal cases - started

167.1.6. Criminal cases - started

167.1.7 Consumer cases - started

Indicator 8: The existence and use of alternative dispute resolution methods

Table 8.1 8.2 and 8.3

388

442

421

589

620

660

657

589

669

72,4%

13,9%

-4,8%

39,9%

5,3%

6,5%

-0,5%

-10,4%

13,6%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

982

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

632

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

681

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

768

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

471

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-35,6%

7,8%

12,8%

-38,7%

-

-

-

-

Key: Variation of more than (+ -) 20% 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

345 / 1555

Judiciary at a glance in Denmark

General data

Population:

5 840 045

GDP per capita: 53 470 €

Average annual 

salary:

40 872 €

Professionals

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Denmark

Denmark

EU Median

EU Median

Professional judges

Professional judges

6,44

23,92

23,92

6,44

Non-judge staff

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

NA

31,10

31,10

28,60

15,22

59,00

59,00

9,91

Non-prosecutor staff

28,60

15,22

Lawyers

Lawyers

117,64

122,09

117,64

122,09

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual 
salary in the country

Denmark
Denmark

EU Median

EU Median

Judge at the beginning of a career 

3,00

5,78

2,02

Judge of the highest court 5,78

3,00

4,09

4,09

2,02

1,71
Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

1,18

1,71

1,18

Public prosecutor at highest instance

NA

3,61

Judge at the beginning of a
career

Judge of the highest court

Prosecutor at the beginning
of a career

Efficiency

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

1st instance 2nd instance

Supreme Court
Supreme 
Court

100%

,

%
1
1
1
1

Civil and
commercial
Administrativ
e
cases
Total 
criminal law 
cases

%
111,1%
1
5
0
1

,

NAP
%
2
8
9

,

95,2%

NAP

%
2
5
9

,

98,2%

%
6
7
9

,

97,6%

105,1%

,

%
3
3
0
1

NAP

103,3%

1
1

1

1
1

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance 2nd instance Supreme Court

Civil and commercial litigious cases
Administrative cases

NAP

NAP

190

257

Total criminal law cases 64

180

190

NAP

180

141

257

194

194

141

64

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

Total criminal law cases

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Total criminal law cases

Information and communication technology

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

Assistance toolsCase management system
2018

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the workload
2019

Electronic communication

EU Median 2020

2020

2018
2019
2020

EU Median 2020
2,25
2,25

2,00

1,50

1,50
2,25
2,25

5,31

2,00

5,06

5,31
5,06
5,06
5,06

5,17

0,50
1,50
0,38

5,17

0,58
1,75
2,42

5,79
6,20
6,94

6,94

6,94

6,20

5,79

1,25

2,50

6,94

1,50

1,25

0,50

0,38

0,58

2,42

2,50

1,75

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

*ICT calculations are described in more details in Annex 5 - IT Calculation methodology

346

2020

Synthesis table for the main indicators for:

Denmark

Economic and demographic data

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Variations

Population

GDP per capita

Exchange rate (local currency needed to 
obtain 1€)

5 602 628

5 623 501

5 659 715

5 707 251

5 748 769

5 781 190

5 806 081

5 822 763

5 840 045

4,2%

43 738

45 171

45 744

46 836

48 474

50 100

51 280

53 189

53 470

22,3%

1,6%

6,0%

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

-0,3%

-0,1%

1,0%

5,8%

0,4%

0,4%

2,4%

1,7%

Average annual salary

51 774

40 140

41 974

38 035

38 891

40 872

-21,1%

4,6%

-9,4%

0,3%

3,7%

0,1%

2,3%

0,3%

0,5%

-0,5%

5,1%

Resources

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Professional judges per 100 000 inhab.

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhab.

6,6

32,5

6,3

31,1

6,7

31,0

6,6

26,8

6,5

28,6

6,5

28,3

6,5

28,5

6,4

30,5

6,6

31,1

Lawyers per 100 000 inh.

107,5

107,6

108,4

109,2

108,5

111,6

113,0

117,5

117,6

Mediators

2,3

2,2

2,7

2,6

2,5

2,3

2,5

4,9

2,4

6,0

2,4

6,1

0,1%

-4,4%

9,5%

8,0%

-2,9%

-7,8%

0,1%

-0,2%

-0,1%

4,2%

-6,8%

-1,0%

-1,0%

-0,3%

0,9%

1,3%

5,5%

6,9%

4,0%

-1,0%

22,5%

3,2%

2,0%

0,1%

0,4%

1,7%

ICT overall assesment

First instance incoming cases per 100 
inhab.

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Civil and commercial litigious cases

0,825

0,780

0,737

0,737

0,724

0,715

0,721

0,840

0,701

-15,0%

-1,8%

-0,4%

0,8%

16,6%

-16,6%

Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

Total criminal law cases

2,789

First instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

109%

107%

102%

102%

101%

102%

CR administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2,09

NAP

-1,02

NAP

-6,18

NAP

-7,39

NAP

-3,22

19,27

NA

NAP

95%

NAP

92%

111%

NA

NAP

95%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

165

NAP

164

NAP

177

NAP

174

NAP

176

NAP

172

NAP

207

NAP

222

NA

14,9%

-0,8%

17,6%

20,5%

7,2%

-14,4%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

190

NAP

64

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

0,41

NAP

0,38

NAP

0,37

NAP

0,36

NAP

0,35

NAP

0,34

NAP

0,39

NAP

0,47

NA

-0,5%

-3,5%

10,0%

12,7%

20,7%

-13,6%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

0,40

NAP

0,46

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

104%

109%

109%

105%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

96%

NAP

94%

NAP

98%

NAP

98%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

4,96

NAP

-13,06

NAP

-9,26

NAP

-1,88

NAP

4,29

NAP

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

170

NAP

166

NAP

141

NAP

136

NAP

168

NAP

193

NAP

180

NAP

141

-17,1%

19,6%

23,3%

14,4%

-6,2%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

132%

120%

NAP

NAP

93%

NAP

110%

NAP

92%

NAP

90%

NAP

105%

NAP

103%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

-39,14

NAP

-1,32

NAP

-17,94

NAP

-1,76

NAP

15,01

NAP

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

187

NAP

151

NAP

207

NAP

170

NAP

187

NAP

219

NAP

257

NAP

194

10,8%

-9,6%

10,0%

16,9%

17,7%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CR total criminal law cases

First instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
cases (days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

First instance pending cases per 100 
inhab. on 31 dec.

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

 Supreme court 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Supreme court
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

347 / 1555

1. Judicial organisation in Denmark

The Danish court system is composed of first instance courts which are called District courts; the Land Registration court and the Maritime and Commercial Court which are 
considered as first instance specialized courts; second and third instance courts which are the two High Courts and the Supreme Court.

According to 2020 data, Denmark has 24 first instance courts of general jurisdiction (District courts) and 2 first instance specialised courts (the Maritime and Commercial 
Court and the Land registration Court).

Distribution of general courts in Denmark

Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Denmark - 1st instance
Denmark - Higher instances

EU Median - 1st instance

EU Median - Higher instances

DenmarkDistribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

According to 2020 data, the distribution between 1st instance and higher instances courts of 
general jurisdiction in Denmark is somewhat different from the EU median of 87% - 13%.

Denmark - 1st instanceDenmark - Higher instances

General courts - Denmark

89%

General courts - Denmark
EU Median

89%
87%

11%
13%

EU Median

87%

11%

13%

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Denmark

Geographic 
locations

Legal entities

General jurisdiction

Specialised 
jurisdiction

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Denmark

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

29

29

29

29

29

29

29

29

29

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

24

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

Geographic locations
Legal entities General jurisdiction
Legal entities Specialised jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

348 / 1555

Denmark

Ratio general jurisdiction vs specialised

Denmark
8%

General jurisdiction Specialised courts

92%

75%

8%

25%

Distribution of first instance general jurisdiction and specialised courts

EU Median

25%

92%

75%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

The distribution between number of general jurisdiction courts and specialised courts of 92,3% - 7,7% is quite different from the EU median 
(distribution tendency in EU: 75,5% - 24,5%).

Specialised courts
Total

Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

Insolvency courts

Labour courts

Family courts

Rent and tenancies courts

Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

Internet related disputes

Administrative courts

Insurance and / or social welfare courts

Military courts

Juvenile courts

Other specialised 1st instance courts

First instance

Higher instance

2

1

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

In Denmark, there are 2 first instance specialised courts: the Land Registration Court and the Maritime and Commercial Court. The Land Registration Court has been 
established in 2009. The Maritime and Commercial Court is classified as Commercial Court and Insolvency court because it is a peculiarity that this court also deals, to a 
great extent but not exclusively, with insolvency cases (bankruptcies etc.). Although it appears there are two courts there is only one. 

Juvenile Courts do not exist. In Denmark, cases concerning juveniles are dealt with by the district courts. However, juveniles are granted special attention within  a Juvenile 
Board.

From 1 April 2019, family law cases are within the competence of a district court section. 

There is one Military court, but it is not part of the Danish Courts Administration.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

349 / 1555

2. Professionals of justice in Denmark

● Professional judges and non-judge staff

Evolution of the number of professional judges since 2012 (Q46)

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Absolute 
number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

372

355

377

374

372

377

375

375

388

6,64

6,31

6,66

6,55

6,47

6,52

6,46

6,44

6,64

EU median

23,9

Professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants

23,9

6,64

6,31

6,66

6,55

6,47

6,52

6,46

6,44

6,64

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

According to 2020 data, the total number of professional judges sitting in courts (all instances) in Denmark is 388, which is 3,5% more than in previous cycle.

More precisely, in Denmark, there are 6,64 professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants (this figure is below the EU median of 23,92 judges per 100 000 inhabitants) and about 4,68 non-
judge staff per judge .

There is no significant difference compared with previous cycle when this ratio was at 4,73 non-judge staff per judge.

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and gender

2020

Total

Distribution by 
instance

Male

Female

% Male

% Female

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

264

106

18

388

68,0%

27,3%

4,6%

107

57

13

177

157

49

5

211

40,5%

53,8%

72,2%

45,6%

59,5%

46,2%

27,8%

54,4%

Distribution of professional judges by instance

Denmark

EU Median

Distribution of professional judges by gender and by instance

% Female

% Male

68,0%

72,39%

EU Median

72,39%

23,98%

4,03%

27,3%

23,98%

4,6%

4,03%

59,5%

40,5%

46,2%

53,8%

27,8%

72,2%

54,4%

45,6%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female professional judges (all instances) is 211, which represents 54,4% of the total number of judges.

The total number of judges is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 264 are sitting in first instance courts (of which 157 are female); 106 are sitting in 
second instance courts (of which 49 are female)  and 18 are sitting in Supreme Court (of which 5 are female).  

Compared with the EU distribution of professional judges per instance, a similar trend is observed in Denmark. However, the predominance of first instance judges is less pronounced, 
while second and third instance judges are more numerous. 

As regards the distribution male/female, it has to be specified that female judges have the majority only at first instance. 

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Total

Civil and commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

539

130

32

701

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

In Demark, all judges make decisions in all types of cases, therefore, the number of professional judges by case type cannot be provided. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

350 / 1555

Non-judge staff

Year

2012

Number of non-judge staff

1 823

Per 100 000 inhabitants

32,53

2013

1 751

31,14

2014

1 754

30,99

2015

1 529

26,79

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants

2016

1 642

28,56

59,00

2017

1 634

28,26

2018

1 656

28,52

2020

Total

Rechtspfleger

32,53

31,14

30,99

26,79

28,56

28,26

28,52

30,48

31,10

Non-judge staff assisting the judge

2019

1 775

30,48

Absolute 
number

1 816

338

10

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

Staff in charge of administrative tasks

1 375

Technical staff

Other

84

9

E
U 
m

2020

1 816

31,10

in %

18,6%

0,6%

75,7%

4,6%

0,5%

In 2020, Denmark has 1 816 non-judge staff. The total number of non-judge staff in comparison with the previous cycle reveals an increase of 2,3%.

In this cycle, the non-judge staff is broken down as follows:

◦ 338 Rechtspfleger (or similar bodies) with judicial or quasi-judicial tasks having autonomous competence and whose decisions could be subject to appeal (among which 
◦ 10 non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges such as registrars (of which NA are women);
◦ 1 375 staff in charge of different administrative tasks and of the court management (of which NA are women);
◦ 84 technical staff (of which NA are women);
◦ 9 other (of which NA are women);

In 2020, the number of non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants has increased (from 30,5 in 2019 to 31,1 in 2020).

During the same period, the number of judges per 100 000 inhabitants evolves from 6,4 judges per 100 000 inhabitants in 2019 to 6,6 in 2020.

Professional judges, non-judge staff and their ratio (Q46, Q52)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Denmark

EU median

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

6,64

31,10

Non-judge staff per judge

4,68

23,92

59,00

3,30

Professional judges and non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Non-judge staff per judge

4,68

59,00

31,10

6,64

3,30

23,92

Denmark

EU median

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff  (Q46, Q52)

Judges 
per 100 000 inh.

Non-judge staff per
100 000 inh.

Ratio between professional judges and 
non-judge staff

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff 
Non-judge staff per 100 000 inh.
(Q46, Q52)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

6,64

6,31

6,66

6,55

6,47

6,52

6,46

6,44

6,64

32,53

31,14

30,99

26,79

28,56

28,26

28,52

30,48

31,10

EU median 2020

3,30

4,90

4,93

4,65

4,09

4,41

4,33

4,42

4,73

4,68

4,90

4,93

4,65

2012

2013

2014

4,90
4,93
4,65
4,09
4,41
4,33
4,42
4,73
4,68

4,09

4,41

4,33

4,42

4,73

4,68

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

351 / 1555

● Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff by gender (Q60)

Non-prosecutor staff

2020

Total

1 670

Male

510

Female

1 160

Public prosecutors, non-prosecutor staff and their ratio (Q55, Q60)

Non-prosecutor staff by gender

31%

Male

Female

69%

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Denmark

EU median

Public prosecutors

12,96

Non-prosecutor staff

28,60

Non-prosecutor staff per 
prosecutor

2,21

9,91

15,22

1,11

Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Public prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per prosecutor

28,60

2,21

12,96

15,22

9,91

1,11

Denmark

EU median

● Salaries of professional judges and prosecutors at beginning of a career and at the highest instance (Q132, Q4)

Salaries of professional judges and 
prosecutors (Q132, Q4)

Average gross annual 
salary 
in €

Average net annual 
salary 
in €

Ratio with national 
average annual 
gross salary

Judge at the beginning of a career 

122 545 €

Judge of the highest court 

236 387 €

Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

48 322 €

Public prosecutor at highest instance

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

3,00

5,78

1,18

NA

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual salary in the 
country

EU Median

5,78

2,02

3,00

4,09

1,71

2,02

Salaries of 
judges and 
prosecutors in 
Judge

4,09

at the beginning 
of a career

at the highest 
instance
1,71

1,18

122545

3,61

236387

NA

48322

Prosecutor

at the beginning 
of a career

Judge at the beginning of
career

Judge on highest instance

3,61

Denmark

Prosecutor at the
beginning of career

EU Median

at the highest 
instance

Prosecutor at highest
instance

NA

According to 2020 data, the absolute gross salary of a judge at the begining of a career in Denmark of 122 545€ is quite above when compared to the EU median of 51 946€. As a ratio 
with the annual average salary of the country, the salary for a judge at the begining of career is: 3,00 compared with EU median of : 2,02.

In 2020, at the end of career the highest absolute gross salary for judge is registered in Denmark: 236 387€.

The Danish tax system is progressive, the percentage of tax depends on the income and the municipal tax varies from municipality to municipality, and therefore, net salary could not be 
reported.

● Lawyers

Lawyers

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

Number of lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

6 021

6 053

6 134

6 235

6 236

6 450

6 563

6 843

6 870

107,47

107,64

108,38

109,25

108,48

111,57

113,04

117,52

117,64

EU median 2020

122,09

In 2020, there are 6 870 lawyers, which is 0,4% more than in 2019.

107,47

107,64

108,38

109,25

108,48

111,57

113,04

117,52

117,64

122,09

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median
2020

Denmark has 117,6 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants, which is around the EU median of 122,1 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

352 / 1555

● Judicial professionals (summary)

Judicial professionals in absolute number and per 100 000 inhabitants (Q46, Q52, Q55, Q60, Q146)

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

EU Median

Professional judges

375

6,44

Non-judge staff

1 816

31,10

23,92

59,00

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Denmark

EU Median

117,64

122,09

Prosecutors

757

12,96

9,91

59,00

Non-prosecutor staff

1 670

28,60

15,22

23,92

31,10

6,44

12,96

9,91

28,60

15,22

Lawyers

6 870

117,64

122,09

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

Professional judges

-45,6%
EU Median  % Male

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

Denmark % MaleDenmark % Femalelabels
Denmark % Male

54,4%

Denmark % Female

45,6%

EU Median  % Female

% Male

% Female

-39,0%

61,0%

39,0%

Professional judges

45,6%

54,4%

Professional judges

45,6%

Non judge staff

NA

NA

39,0%

0,0%

Non judge staff

#VALUE!

NA

#VALUE!

Prosecutors

32,0%

68,0%

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

30,5%

69,5%

Lawyers

62,6%

37,4%

Non-prosecutor staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Lawyers

62,6%

52,3%

32,0%
-24,0%

40,5%

-32,0%
30,5%
-40,5%

28,1%

-30,5%
-28,1%

-62,6%
-52,3%

76,0%

24,0%

0,0%

32,0%
40,5%
0,0%
30,5%
28,1%
0,0%
62,6%
52,3%

68,0%
59,5%

69,5%
71,9%

37,4%
47,7%

54,4%

61,0%

68,0%

59,5%

69,5%

71,9%

37,4%

47,7%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

353 / 1555

3. Legal aid and court fees in Denmark

In Denmark, legal aid includes:

◦ Coverage of court fees: 

◦ Exemption from court fees: 

1

1

In Denmark, legal aid is available for :

> Representation in court:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

> Legal advice, ADR and other legal services:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

>

Fees related to enforcement of judicial decisions as fees for enforcement agents (Q18) 

>

 Other costs than above (Q19) 

1

1

1

1

1

1

In all criminal cases, a defense attorney is appointed to defendants. Victims of certain criminal offences (for example sexual offences, homicide and acts of violence) have access 
to representation in court by a support attorney. Basic legal advice is available to all persons in criminal cases. Further legal advice is only available subject to certain economic 
criteria.

With regard to other than criminal cases, legal aid can be granted for all necessary costs associated with the proceedings. The court decides which expenses are covered by legal 
aid. For example, expenses that with good reason have been held in connection with a trial.
Under special circumstances fees for technical advisors or experts are covered in criminal cases.

In respect of fees related to the enforcement of judicial decisions, it should be mentioned that according to the article 500(2) of the Danish Administration of Justice Act, the bailiff's 
court can grant legal aid if the person appearing before the court is deemed to need a lawyer's assistance. 

 Number of cases for which legal aid has been granted

Absolute number 
(in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

Total

Cases brought to court

Cases not brought to 
court

918

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

Per 100 000 inhabitants
 (in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

Denmark

EU Median

15,7

NAP

NAP

734,2

330,9

402,7

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

Number of cases for which legal has been granted per 100 000 
inhabitants

Denmark

EU Median

734,2

15,7

Total

Timeframes of the procedure for granting legal aid (in relation to the duration from the initial legal aid request to the final approval of the legal aid request)

◦ Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulations: 

◦ Actual average duration: 

NA

NA

In Denmark, there is no binding legislation on the maximum duration concerning proceedings for granting legal aid. 
In 2020, the average processing time in cases of legal aid requests was 60 days.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

354 / 1555

● Efficiency indicators

◦ Clearance Rate (CR) and Disposition Time (DT)

4. Performance of courts in Denmark

The Clearance Rate shows the capacity of a judicial system to deal with the incoming cases. A Clearance Rate of 100% and higher does not generate backlog. 

The Disposition Time determines the estimated number of days necessary for a pending case to be solved in a court. 

At the outset, it is important to specify that 2020 was an unusual year because of the Covid-19 related close down of society, including close down of courts. Namely, 
courts were closed for 3 weeks except for vital cases and government assistant to companies helped them and reduced bankruptcies and closures of companies that 
would normally have happened.

In criminal matters, the number of pending cases increased as the prosecution continued to forward new cases to the courts that could not deal with it. 

First instance Total of other than criminal cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Evolution of number of all other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants
Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Incoming

46,92

41,19

47,42

41,31

,

2
9
6
4

,

2
4
7
4

,

9
1
1
4

,

1
3
1
4

,

4
4
0
4

,

3
4
0
4

,

3
4
5
4

,

2
4
5
4

,

4
8
8
3

,

0
7
8
3

,

4
5
9
3

,

4
4
9
3

,

2
2
9
3

,

6
0
9
3

,

8
2
9
4

4
1
2

,

4
0
2

,

9
0
2

,

0
1
2

,

6
2
2

,

3
4
2

,

8
5
2

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2,14

2,04

2,09

2,10

2,26

2,43

2,58

0
6
6

,

6
6
2

,

2,55

40,44

,

5
5
9
4

45,43

,

1
5
7
4

,

7
8
7
4

40,43

45,42

38,84

39,54

39,22

38,70

39,44

39,06

49,28

5
5
2

,

7
2
2

49,55

,

2
8
6

,

47,51
2019
6,82

47,87

2020

6,60

2,27
EU median
2,66

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Denmark (47,51 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (6,82 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Denmark (47,87 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (6,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Denmark (2,27 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below EU median (2,66 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Other than criminal cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Other than criminal 
cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

101%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

101%

101%

17

18

19

17

21

22

24

19

17

EU median

99%

109

101%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

101%

101%

DT (days)

CR (%)

17

2012

18

2013

19

2014

17

2015

21

2016

22

2017

24

2018

19

2019

17

2020

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 100,8% in 2020 Denmark seems to be able to deal with its other than criminal cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased by 0,2 points.

In 2020, other than criminal cases are solved in approximately 17 days, which is significantly below EU median of 109 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a -7,6% decrease of the Disposition Time.

As regards first instance other than criminal law cases, it should be mentioned that land registration is the major source of incoming cases. It fluctuates a lot depending 
on interest rates, loan rescheduling etc.

It is important to note that because of new regulations/laws, it is possible to start a new company with no prior capital. This causes many more companies and many 
more closures in some categories and also affects number of pending cases, like for non-litigious business registry cases. Furthermore, the courts received many extra 
backlogged cases from the Danish Commerce and Companies Agency reenforced closure of companies that were still backlogged in the early 2020. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

355 / 1555

First instance Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of civil and commercial litigious cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

0
9
0

,

2
8
0

,

4
8
0

,

8
7
0

,

4
7
0

,

5
7
0

,

4
7
0

,

5
7
0

,

2
7
0

,

3
7
0

,

1
7
0

,

3
7
0

,

2
7
0

,

8
6
0

,

4
8
0

,

7
7
0

,

1
4
0

,

8
3
0

,

7
3
0

,

6
3
0

,

5
3
0

,

4
3
0

,

9
3
0

,

0,82
0,78
0,74
0,74
0,72
0,71
0,72
0,84
0,70
1,56

7
4
0

,

8
7
0

,

0
7
0

,

0
4
0

,

6
5
1

,

0,90
0,84
0,75
0,75
0,73
0,73
0,68
0,77
0,78
1,50

0,41
0,38
0,37
0,36
0,35
0,34
0,39
0,47
0,40
1,05

0
5
1

,

5
0
1

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

It should be stressed that in Denmark, the number of “administrative law cases” which are litigious is encompassed in the number of “civil and commercial litigious 
cases”.

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Denmark (0,70 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (1,56 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Denmark (0,78 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below EU median (1,50 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Denmark (0,40 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (1,05 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

109,0%

107,1%

102,2%

101,9%

101,2%

102,4%

95,0%

91,8%

111,1%

165

164

177

174

176

172

207

222

190

EU Median

98%

221

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

109,0%

107,1%

102,2%

101,9%

101,2%

102,4%

DT (days)

CR (%)

95,0%

91,8%

111,1%

98%

165

2012

164

2013

177

2014

174

2015

176

2016

172

2017

207

2018

222

2019

190

221

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 111,1% in 2020, Denmark seems to to deal efficiently with its civil and commercial litigious cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased by 19,3 points.

In 2020, the civil and commercial litigious cases are solved in approximately 190 days, which is slightly below EU median of 221 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a -14,4% decrease of the Disposition Time.

The number of civil and commercial litigious cases older than 2 years is not available.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

356 / 1555

First instance Administrative cases

As explained above, in Denmark, the number of “administrative law cases” which are litigious is encompassed in the number of “civil and commercial litigious cases”.

Insolvency cases

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Insolvency cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Insolvency cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

110,1%

116,2%

125,4%

110,0%

85,3%

91,2%

79,3%

99,9%

128,1%

235

214

212

238

220

211

517

345

296

EU Median

105%

281

110,1%

116,2%

125,4%

110,0%

DT (days)

CR (%)

85,3%

91,2%

79,3%

128,1%

99,9%

105%

235

2012

214

2013

212

2014

238

2015

220

2016

211

2017

517

2018

345

2019

296

281

2020

EU Median

The Clearance Rate was calculated at 128,1% in 2020 for insolvency cases, Denmark seems to deal efficiently with its insolvency cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased by 28,2 points.

In 2020, insolvency cases are solved in a approximately 296 days, which is slightly above EU median of 281 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a -14,0% decrease of the Disposition Time.

It should be mentioned that due to a number of backlogged forced closures of companies in 2019 by the Danish Commerce and Companies Agency, there was a market 
increase in the number of bankruptcy cases at the Maritime and Commercial Court in 2020 compared to 2018. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

357 / 1555

● First instance Criminal Law Cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases Resolved casesPending 
Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

Incoming cases

2,79

2,66

0,46

9
7
2

,

Denmark

6
6
2

,

Total

19 143

162 899

155 064

26 978

EU Median

1,60

0
6
1

,

1,48

0,46

8
4
1

,

Severe criminal cases 

9 781

26 889

22 648

14 022

Misdemeanour and/or 
minor cases

Other cases

9 362

NAP

136 010

132 416

12 956

NAP

NAP

NAP

Per 100 inhabitants

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 
Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

0,33

0,17

0,16

NAP

2,79

0,46

2,33

NAP

2,66

0,39

2,27

NAP

0,46

0,24

0,22

NAP

6
4
0

,

6
4
0

,

Denmark

EU Median

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, and other 
criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases

Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

Total

0,46

Severe criminal
cases

0,46

0,39

0,24

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

0,22

2,79
2,66

2,33

2,27

The number of total incoming criminal cases in 2020 in Denmark (2,79 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly above EU median (1,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total resolved criminal cases in 2020 in Denmark (2,66 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly above EU median (1,48 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total pending criminal cases at the end of 2020 in Denmark (0,46 per 100 inhabitants) is -0,0038571491495584 (0,46 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT)

Total criminal law cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

DT (days)

CR (%)

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 

Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

95,2%

84,2%

97,4%

NAP

64

226

36

NAP

Total Criminal law cases

95,2%

95,2%

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, 
and other criminal law cases 

84,2%

97,4%

EU Median

95,2%

139

EU Median

64

Total

139

EU Median

226

Severe criminal
cases

36

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

With the Clearance Rate calculated at 95,2% in 2020 for total criminal cases, Denmark seems to face some difficulties in dealing with its total criminal cases.

In 2020, criminal law cases were solved in approximately 64 days, which is significantly below EU median of 139 days.

Danish Court Administration does not have statistics on pending cases older than 2 years. 

When cases are categorised as "severe", it does not mean that deprivation of liberty is the end result, but based on the category chosen by the court to deal with the 
case,it could include severe offences. Minor cases are typically fines that will never result in deprivation of liberty. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

358 / 1555

Overall efficiency by instance and by case matter

CR (%)

DT (days)

CR (%)

DT (days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases

111,1%

98,2%

105,1%

Administrative cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

Total criminal law cases

95,2%

97,6%

103,3%

190

NAP

64

180

NAP

141

257

NAP

194

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)
2nd instance

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court
Supreme Court

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases

100%

Administrative cases NAP

1st instance
%
1
1
1
1

,

%
1
111,1%
5
0
1

,

%
2
8
9

,

Total criminal law cases

,

%
3
3
0
1

NAP

98,2%

NAP

%
6
7
9

,

%
2
5
9

,

105,1%

1

1
1

257

180

190

Civil and commercial
95,2%
litigious cases

Total criminal law cases
97,6%

103,3%

Civil and commercial litigious cases
1
1

194

141

64

Total criminal law cases

As regards civil and commercial litigious cases (including administrative cases), the Clearance rate is beyond 100% except for second instance cases, where it is close to 
this threshold. In respect of criminal cases, the Clearance rate is beyond the 100% threshold only with regard to the third instance. Criminal courts prove to be less 
efficient especially at first instance. 

As to the Disposition Time indicator, the Danish value is below the EU median only with regard to first instance civil (the EU being 221 days) and criminal cases (the EU 
median being 139 days). Second and third instance courts proceedings in both matters are longer. 

Generally speaking, criminal proceedings are faster than civil proceedings. 

As the number of administrative law cases is encompassed in the number of civil and commercial litigious cases, no separate analysis can be carried out in their respect.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

359 / 1555

5. Public prosecution services in Denmark

● Role and powers of the public prosecutor

In the criminal procedure, the public prosecutor in Denmark has the following 9 out of 11 possible roles and powers:

To conduct or supervise police investigation

To appeal

To conduct investigations

To supervise the enforcement procedure

When necessary, to request investigation measures from the judge

To discontinue a case without needing a decision by a judge

To charge

To present the case in the court

To propose a sentence to the judge

To end the case by imposing or negotiating a penalty or measure 
without requiring a judicial decision

Other significant powers

The public prosecutor does not have any role in civil, administrative or insolvency cases.

● Public prosecutors: Number of first instance criminal cases

Type of cases

Absolute 
number

Per 100 
inhabitants

1. Pending cases on 1 Jan. ref. year 

60 656

1,04

2. Incoming/received cases

223 459

3,83

Public prosecutors: Total number of first instance criminal 
cases per 100 inhabitants
Incoming/rec
eived cases

Processed 
Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. Year
cases

Processed cases

Incoming/received cases

7,20

Pendin
g cases 
on 31 

3. Processed cases (3.1 + 3.2 + 3.3 + 3.4)

420 204

7,20

Denmark

3,83 7,20

1,04

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year (3.1.1 + 3.1.2 + 3.1.3 
+ 3.1.4)

207 165

3,55

EU Median

2,85 2,84
2,84

2,85

0,84

3,83

3.1.1 Discontinued by the public prosecutor because the 
offender could not be identified 

3.1.2 Discontinued by the public prosecutor due to the lack 
of an established offence or a specific legal situation 

3.1.3 Discontinued by the public prosecutor for reasons of 
opportunity

NA

NA

NA

NA

769

0,01

3.1.4 Discontinued for other reasons 

NA

NA

1,04

0,84

Denmark

EU Median

Processed cases per 100 inhabitants
EU Median

Denmark

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated 
by the public prosecutor

47 560

0,81

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

Processed cases

Denmark

EU Median

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

3,55

1,05

-3,55

1,05

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons

NAP

NAP

3.4. Cases brought to court

165 479

2,83

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed
or negotiated by the public prosecutor

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor

0,81

0,12

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other
reasons

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons
0,30

0,00

NAP

-0,81

0,12

0,30

0,53

4. Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. year

61 014

1,04

3.4. Cases brought to court

3.4. Cases brought to court

2,83

-2,83

0,53

It is noteworthy that the number of processed cases includes both cases dismissed by the police and cases dismissed by the public prosecutor. 

It is not possible to subtract numbers on discontinued cases in the format in items 3.1.1. + 3.1.2 + 3.1.4, as the legal basis in Denmark (sections 721 and 749 of the Administration 
of Justice Act) is not divided in such subsectors. The data source used in items 1 and 4 (data that do not include post-registration of charges) is different from the data source 
used in items 2 and 3 (data that includes post-registration of charges). Hence, vertical consistency in the table is not ensured due to post-registrations of further charges. 

The number of incoming cases has decreased considerably between 2018 and 2020. This is due to a change in the way of measuring the number of incoming charges. The new 
methodology is more accurate than the previous one, as it contains all incoming charges and not all processed charges as previously. The number of incoming cases in 2018 is 
245.687 when using the new way of measuring.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

360 / 1555

 
6. Existence and use of alternative dispute resolution in Denmark

Number of mediators

Mediators

Total

Per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

127

124

151

147

143

135

143

142

143

2,3

2,2

2,7

2,6

2,5

2,3

2,5

2,4

2,4

EU Median 2020

EU median in 2019

14,4

EU Median
2020

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

Number of mediators per 100 000 inhabitants

14,4

2,4

2,4

2,5

2,3

2,5

2,6

2,7

2,2

2,3

In 2020, there are 143 accredited or registered mediators who practise court related mediation which represents 2,4 accredited or registered mediators per 
100 000 inhabitants.

The variation between  2019 and  2020 is about 0,7%.

In 2020, among the total, there are 53 registered attorneys who are appointed to serve as mediators in court mediation and 90 registred jugdes who serves as 
mediators in court mediation. 

The data ragarding the number of court-related mediations is not available for 2020. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

361 / 1555

7. ICT tools of courts in Denmark

●The ICT tools of courts and for court users

The use of ICT in courts in 2020 has been evaluated as  :

EU Median

Total 
(0 to 10)

Assistance tools (0 to 3)

Case management system (0 to 7)
Financial management tools (0 to 3)

Measurement tools to assess the workload (0 to 5)
Electronic communication (0 to 10)

6,1
2,3

5,1

0,4
2,4

6,9

6,6
2,0

5,2

1,3
2,5

6,9

The calculation of this values for each field is based on the answers for that question/s and weighted according the avaiability 
or deployment rate. The total value is normalised to max 10 points for readability and comparison.

The details of the calculation are given in Annex 5 - IT calculations

The result by area may be summarized in these graphics, where each field has been evaluated from 0 to 4 points.

Note: index is modified based on the available questions. This cycle the recalculation was made for the last three cycles to be 
able to follow the development.

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

2018

2019

2020

EU Median 2020

Case 
management 
system

Financial 
management 
tools

Measurement 
tools to assess 
the workload

Electronic 
communication

5,31

5,06

5,06

5,17

5,31

5,06

5,06

0,50

1,50

0,38

0,58

1,75

2,42

5,79

6,20

6,94

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

6,94

6,94

6,20

5,79

Assistance 
tools

Year
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
EU Median 20202,00

2,25

1,50

2,25

2,25

2,25

2,00

1,50

2,42

2,50

1,75

1,50

1,25

0,50

0,38

0,58

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

362 / 1555

Comments on writing assistance tools
For civil/commercial cases the availability rate slightly decreased as the different areas of use and the different patterns of uses have been 
tested and it was found that there were certain areas that were not covered.

Comments on voice recording tools
Some testing of the quality of the voice recognition was conducted and it was found that the software was unreliable in regards to the Danish 
language. This initiative will be again moved forward.  

Comments on measurment tools on workload
It has been measured the amount of time each judge or staff spends on different categories of work (civil cases, criminal cases, 
administration etc.). The court activities are calculated in weighted cases. Therefore, the productivity is measured. 

As regards judges, according to the Danish Court Administration, the tools deployment rate is 10-49 %. However, it might be higher, namely 
because on district courts, all judges either fill out how time is spent on a daily basis, or - for appointed judges - on a half-yearly basis. At 
some courts, the court has decided that the judges, despite Danish Court Administration does not demand it, fill out anyway this daily 
information. Nevertheless, at a High Court and Supreme court level this is not done. Therefore, the tool deployment rate of 10-49 % is not an 
absolute but an estimate.  
Data are used by Danish Court Administration. It is up to the individual court, to decide how they use and how closely they monitor the judge 
staff. The same counts for non-judge staff. 

Regarding prosecutor staff, the Danish Court Administration has no data. As regards public prosecutors, overall, there have been no changes 
to the systems that help assess how the workload is for public prosecutors, but due to ongoing interest in how the workload is distributed – 
not only for the single employee but also the districts between – it is estimated that there has been an increase in the percentage (from 10-
49% to 50-99%). The workload is monitored in more general terms centrally through the Attorney General’s office and locally the districts/local 
prosecution monitor their prosecutors and the workload more closely. The tool deployment rate of 50-99% is therefore not an absolute but an 
estimate since there has been an increase in the focus on monitoring the workload.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

363 / 1555

8. Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and public prosecution services in Denmark

In Denmark, quality standards are not detemined for the judicial system at the national level.

● Systems for measuring and evaluating courts' performance

A regular monitoring system of court activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

Denmark attaches great importance to independence. Therefore, Danish Court Administration does not evaluate the performance or productivity of individual judges. However, 
overall productivity and case flow are followed as they are used to allocate resources and to identify the court most in need of vacant judge positions.

In Denmark, there is a system to regularly evaluate the court performance based primarily on defined indicators and the reporting is more frequent than annual.

More prerecisely, the evaluation is conducted monthly, quarterly, half yearly and yearly.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each court.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

It should be stressed that the data is collected for all parts of the judicial system, such as the police, public prosecution, courts and the prison system. The data is used to 
measure the performance of the individual agencies/administrations, but also - and perhaps most importantly - to measure the interplay between these.

The evaluation of the courts activities is used for the subsequent allocation of means in the courts.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

364 / 1555

● Systems for measuring and evaluating public prosecution services' performance

A regular monitoring system of public prosecution services activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases 

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs 

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecution) 

Costs of the judicial procedures 

Clearance rate 

Disposition time 

Percentage of convictions and aquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

The prosecution makes quarterly reports to the Ministry of Justice on data regarding number of cases, the Clearance rate, etc.

Disposition time is measured indirectly through a report that measures all steps in a criminal case from arrest to imprisonment. There is no direct measure of disposition time, 
but it can be read from this report. 

Satisfaction of the prosecution staff has always been measured but not by the Ministry of Justice. The prosecution makes an annual survey on the satisfaction of the 
prosecution staff.

In Denmark, there is a system to evaluate regularly the activity of each public prosecution service and the reporting is more frequent than annual.

More specifically, the report is carried out on a monthly basis. 

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each public prosecution service.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecutors)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Percentage of convictions and acquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff

It should be noted that there are no performance indicators that measure length of proceedings directly. Even if they are measured indirectly, since there are performance 
measures on the time from a case is given to the public prosecution until the case is resolved, it is more correct to state that timeframes are not measured in Denmark.

The evaluation of the public prosecution services' activities is used for the later allocation of means in the public prosecution services.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

365 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table General Data: Economic and demographic data, in absolute values (Q1, Q3, Q5)

Q1 Number of inhabitants

5 602 628

5 623 501

5 659 715

5 707 251

5 748 769

5 781 190

5 806 081

5 822 763

5 840 045

4,2%

0,4%

0,6%

0,8%

0,7%

0,6%

0,4%

0,3%

0,3%

Q.3 GDP Per capita (in €) in current prices

43 738

45 171

45 744

46 836

48 474

50 100

51 280

53 189

53 470

22,3%

3,3%

1,3%

2,4%

3,5%

3,4%

2,4%

3,7%

0,5%

Q5. Exchange rate of Nat currency to € on 1 Jan

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

7

-0,3%

0,0%

-0,2%

0,2%

-0,3%

-1,2%

1,7%

0,1%

-0,5%

Indicator 1: Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and prosecution services  (Indicator 4 in 2019)

Table 1.1 to Table 1.10 (Q66, Q67, Q77, Q78, Q77-1, Q78-1, Q73, Q73-0, Q73-1, Q73-2, Q73-3, Q73-4, Q73-5, Q73-6, Q70, Q70-1, Q71, Q72, Q83-2, Q83-3, Q120 
and Q120-1)

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

66 Qlty standards formulated_jud system

67 Specialised court staff entrusted_qlty standards

77 Performance and quality indicators of court activities

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

False

False

True

078.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078.1.5 Backlogs 

078.1.6 Productivity of judges and court staff

078.1.7 Satisfaction of court staff 

078.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts) 

078.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078.1.10 Number of appeals

078.1.11 Appeal ratio

078.1.12 Clearance rate 

078.1.13 Disposition time 

078.1.14 Other

077-1.1.1 Defined performance and quality indicators

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

366 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

078-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078-1.1.5 Backlogs 

078-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

078-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

078-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

078-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

078-1.1.11 Disposition time 

078-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

078-1.1.13 Other

73 Regular system_evaluation_performance_each court

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

073-0.1.1 Annual

073-0.1.2 Less frequent

073-0.1.3 More frequent

073-1.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
court

073-2.1.1 Courses of action taken in the evaluation is used for the 
allocation of resources

073-2.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-2.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-2.1.4 Other

073-3.1.1 Regular evaluation of the public prosecution services 
performance

Yes

Yes

True

False

False

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

True

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

367 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

073-4.1.1 Annual

073-4.1.2 Less frequent

073-4.1.3 More frequent

073-5.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
public prosecution services

073-6.1.1 Identifying the causes of improved or deteriorated 
performance

073-6.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-6.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-6.1.4 Other

070.1.1 number of incoming cases

070.1.2 length of proceedings (timeframes)

070.1.3 number of resolved cases

070.1.4 number of pending cases

070.1.5 backlogs

070.1.6 productivity of judges and court staff

070.1.7 satisfaction of court staff

070.1.8 satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts)

070.1.9 costs of the judicial procedures

070.1.10 number of appeals

070.1.11 appeal ratio

070.1.12 clearance rate

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

True

True

False

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

368 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

070-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases 

070-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

070-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

070-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

070-1.1.5 Backlogs 

070-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

070-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

070-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

070-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

070-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

070-1.1.11 Disposition time 

070-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

070-1.1.13 Other

071.1.1 Monitoring backlogs in Civil law cases

071.1.2 Monitoring backlogs in Criminal law cases

071.1.3 Monitoring backlogs in Administrative law cases

072.1.1 Monitoring timeframes Within the courts

072.1.2 Monitoring timeframes Within the public prosecution services

083-2.1.1 Quantitative performance tagets defined for each 
prosecutors

083-3.1.1 Body responsible - Executive power (for example the 
Ministry of Justice)

083-3.1.2 Body responsible - Prosecutor General /State public 
prosecutor

083-3.1.3 Body responsible - Public Prosecutorial Council

083-3.1.4 Body responsible - Head of the organisational unit or 
hierarchically superior public prosecutor

083-3.1.5 Body responsible - Other

True

False

True

True

True

False

True

False

True

True

True

True

False

-

-

-

True

False

False

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

369 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

120.1.1 Qualitative individual assessment of the public prosecutors' 
work

120-1.1.1 Feequency - Annual

120-1.1.2 Feequency - Less frequent

120-1.1.3 Feequency - More frequent

Q42.1.1Total number of all courts - legal entities 

Q42.1.2 Total number of courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.3 First instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.4 Second instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.5 Highest instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.6 Total number of specialised courts - legal entities

43.1.1 Total number of specialised courts of first instance

43.1.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.1.3 Insolvency courts

43.1.4 Labour courts

43.1.5 Family courts

43.1.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.1.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.1.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.1.9 Internet related disputes

43.1.10 Administrative courts

43.1.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.1.12 Military courts

43.1.13 Juvenile courts

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

Indicator 2: The judicial organisation

Tables 2.1a; 2.1b; 2.2a; 2.2b; 2.3a; 2.3b; 2.4 and 2.5(EC) (Q42, Q43 and Q44)

-

-

24

-

-

-

2

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

24

-

-

-

2

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

24

-

-

-

2

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

24

-

-

-

2

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

24

-

-

-

2

1

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

24

-

-

-

2

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

24

-

-

-

2

1

1

NAP

24

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

24

-

-

-

2

1

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

True

False

False

True

29

27

24

2

1

2

2

1

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

370 / 1555

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

43.1.14 Other specialised courts

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

43.2.1 Total number of specialised courts of higher instances

43.2.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.2.3 Insolvency courts

43.2.4 Labour courts

43.2.5 Family courts

43.2.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.2.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.2.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.2.9 Internet related disputes

43.2.10 Administrative courts

43.2.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.2.12 Military courts

43.2.13 Juvenile courts

43.2.14 Other specialised courts

44.1.1 First instance courts geographic locations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

44.1.2 All courts geographic locations

29

29

29

29

29

29

29

29

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

26

29

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

371 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 3: The performance of courts at all stages of the proceedings

Tables 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.4 (all years) Number of other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 Variation of first instance other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants (Q1, Q91)

Table 3.13.7 (EC) to 3.13.12 (EC) First instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

143 328

117 611

114 483

116 296

122 137

136 043

144 319

164 281

153 654

7,2%

-17,9%

-2,7%

1,6%

5,0%

11,4%

6,1%

13,8%

-6,5%

26 505

23 845

21 282

20 933

20 790

20 909

20 458

23 273

28 176

6,3%

-10,0%

-10,7%

-1,6%

-0,7%

0,6%

-2,2%

13,8%

21,1%

-

-

64 939

66 789

73 598

87 083

94 887

110 970

94 970

-

-

-

2,8%

10,2%

18,3%

9,0%

16,9%

-14,4%

76 701

56 974

57 523

60 220

66 980

77 671

83 319

87 757

77 017

0,4%

-25,7%

1,0%

4,7%

11,2%

16,0%

7,3%

5,3%

-12,2%

-

1 333

7 136

-

-

-

2 460

6 841

-

-

NAP

NAP

7 416

1 680

5 736

NAP

NAP

NAP

6 569

1 616

4 953

NAP

NAP

NAP

6 618

7 012

9 229

20 541

15 105

-

-

-

-11,4%

0,7%

6,0%

31,6%

122,6%

-26,5%

971

1 728

3 094

2 223

3 173

138,0%

84,5%

-31,7%

-3,8%

-39,9%

78,0%

79,1%

-28,2%

42,7%

5 647

5 284

6 135

18 318

11 932

67,2%

-4,1%

-16,2%

-13,7%

14,0%

-6,4%

16,1%

198,6%

-34,9%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2 400

2 339

2 672

2 848

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,5%

14,2%

6,6%

-

-

-

28 748

27 491

28 262

28 574

27 749

28 051

28 974

30 043

30 508

6,1%

-4,4%

2,8%

1,1%

-2,9%

1,1%

3,3%

3,7%

1,5%

2 628 863

2 316 568

2 288 883

2 592 856

2 232 881

2 286 018

2 277 208

2 869 512

2 774 689

5,5%

-11,9%

-1,2%

13,3%

-13,9%

2,4%

-0,4%

26,0%

-3,3%

46 213

43 878

41 717

42 053

41 620

41 329

41 854

48 940

40 928

-11,4%

-5,1%

-4,9%

0,8%

-1,0%

-0,7%

1,3%

16,9%

-16,4%

-

-

2 115 501

2 420 680

2 060 019

2 104 528

2 076 446

2 650 449

2 557 380

-

-

-

14,4%

-14,9%

2,2%

-1,3%

27,6%

-3,5%

371 900

370 649

359 920

346 762

352 091

368 012

357 316

359 176

296 786

-20,2%

-0,3%

-2,9%

-3,7%

1,5%

4,5%

-2,9%

0,5%

-17,4%

-

-

1 755 581

2 073 918

1 707 928

1 732 276

1 714 131

2 285 719

2 255 423

-

-

-

18,1%

-17,6%

1,4%

-1,0%

33,3%

-1,3%

2 071 492

1 762 764

1 744 916

2 061 209

1 689 939

1 713 233

1 689 592

2 267 166

2 238 608

8,1%

-14,9%

-1,0%

18,1%

-18,0%

1,4%

-1,4%

34,2%

-1,3%

14 694

13 341

10 665

12 709

17 989

19 043

24 539

18 553

16 815

14,4%

-9,2%

-20,1%

19,2%

41,5%

5,9%

28,9%

-24,4%

-9,4%

91.1.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.1.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.1.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.1.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.1.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.1.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.1.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.1.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

91.1.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.1.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

91.1.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

91.2.1 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.2.2 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.2.3 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.2.4 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.2.5 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.2.6 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.2.7 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.2.8 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

91.2.9 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

91.2.10 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4 240

4 999

5 554

5 171

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

17,9%

11,1%

-6,9%

-

-

-

91.2.11 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

124 021

125 936

131 665

130 123

131 242

140 161

158 908

170 123

176 381

42,2%

1,5%

4,5%

-1,2%

0,9%

6,8%

13,4%

7,1%

3,7%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

372 / 1555

91.3.1 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.3.2 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.3.3 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.3.4 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.3.5 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.3.6 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.3.7 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.3.8 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

91.3.9 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

91.3.11 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

91.4.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.4.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.4.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.4.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.4.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.4.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.4.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.4.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

91.4.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2 656 912

2 323 265

2 288 504

2 592 317

2 225 000

2 280 231

2 267 599

2 885 425

2 795 569

5,2%

-12,6%

-1,5%

13,3%

-14,2%

2,5%

-0,6%

27,2%

-3,1%

50 361

47 009

42 638

42 867

42 116

42 325

39 768

44 924

45 458

-9,7%

-6,7%

-9,3%

0,5%

-1,8%

0,5%

-6,0%

13,0%

1,2%

-

-

2 114 440

2 418 335

2 052 009

2 098 695

2 070 226

2 670 673

2 573 426

-

-

-

14,4%

-15,1%

2,3%

-1,4%

29,0%

-3,6%

394 750

372 421

357 102

344 907

344 729

365 470

357 728

373 901

312 743

-20,8%

-5,7%

-4,1%

-3,4%

-0,1%

6,0%

-2,1%

4,5%

-16,4%

-

-

1 757 338

2 073 428

1 707 280

1 728 773

1 707 761

2 291 277

2 255 800

-

-

-

18,0%

-17,7%

1,3%

-1,2%

34,2%

-1,5%

2 070 365

1 763 487

1 745 063

2 061 886

1 689 196

1 711 887

1 690 470

2 266 404

2 239 046

8,1%

-14,8%

-1,0%

18,2%

-18,1%

1,3%

-1,3%

34,1%

-1,2%

15 366

15 048

12 275

11 542

18 084

16 886

17 291

24 873

16 754

9,0%

-2,1%

-18,4%

-6,0%

56,7%

-6,6%

2,4%

43,8%

-32,6%

91.3.10 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4 452

4 737

5 495

4 883

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6,4%

16,0%

-11,1%

-

-

-

125 486

125 300

131 426

131 115

130 875

139 211

157 605

169 828

176 685

40,8%

-0,1%

4,9%

-0,2%

-0,2%

6,4%

13,2%

7,8%

4,0%

120 108

114 531

118 484

119 689

129 683

140 504

149 974

148 368

132 774

10,5%

-4,6%

3,5%

1,0%

8,3%

8,3%

6,7%

-1,1%

-10,5%

22 804

21 120

20 705

20 458

20 294

19 913

22 544

27 289

23 646

3,7%

-7,4%

-2,0%

-1,2%

-0,8%

-1,9%

13,2%

21,0%

-13,3%

-

-

69 113

71 458

81 302

91 552

97 182

90 746

78 924

-

-

-

3,4%

13,8%

12,6%

6,1%

-6,6%

-13,0%

57 548

57 559

62 626

64 876

74 342

80 213

82 907

73 032

61 060

6,1%

0,0%

8,8%

3,6%

14,6%

7,9%

3,4%

-11,9%

-16,4%

-

2 460

6 852

-

-

-

1 737

5 751

-

-

6 487

1 533

4 954

NAP

NAP

NAP

6 582

939

5 643

NAP

NAP

NAP

6 960

1 714

5 246

NAP

NAP

NAP

9 151

11 674

14 983

14 728

-

-

-

1,5%

5,7%

31,5%

27,6%

28,3%

-1,7%

3 074

2 216

2 985

2 735

11,2%

-29,4%

-11,7%

-38,7%

82,5%

79,3%

-27,9%

34,7%

-8,4%

6 077

9 458

11 998

11 993

75,0%

-16,1%

-13,9%

13,9%

-7,0%

15,8%

55,6%

26,9%

0,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2 188

2 601

2 731

3 136

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

18,9%

5,0%

14,8%

-

-

-

91.4.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

NAP

NAP

91.4.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

27 580

28 364

28 666

27 773

28 087

29 039

30 248

30 333

30 204

9,5%

2,8%

1,1%

-3,1%

1,1%

3,4%

4,2%

0,3%

-0,4%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

373 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.2 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.4 to 3.3.7 Variation of Clearence Rate and Disposition Time of first instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

Table 3.13.1 (EC) to 3.13.6 (EC) First instance courts: Disposition time and clearance rate for other than criminal cases  (Q91)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

101,1%

100,3%

100,0%

100,0%

99,6%

99,7%

99,6%

100,6%

100,8%

(0,31)

(0,77)

(0,30)

(0,00)

(0,33)

0,10

(0,17)

0,98

0,20

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

109,0%

107,1%

102,2%

101,9%

101,2%

102,4%

95,0%

91,8%

111,1%

1,92

(1,69)

(4,60)

(0,27)

(0,73)

1,20

(7,22)

(3,39)

21,00

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

-

-

99,9%

99,9%

99,6%

99,7%

99,7%

100,8%

100,6%

-

-

-

(0,05)

(0,29)

0,11

(0,02)

1,07

(0,13)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

106,1%

100,5%

99,2%

99,5%

97,9%

99,3%

100,1%

104,1%

105,4%

(0,72)

(5,34)

(1,26)

0,25

(1,56)

1,43

0,81

3,98

1,23

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

-

-

100,1%

100,0%

100,0%

99,8%

99,6%

100,2%

100,0%

-

-

-

(0,12)

(0,01)

(0,16)

(0,17)

0,62

(0,23)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

99,9%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

99,9%

100,1%

100,0%

100,0%

0,07

0,10

(0,03)

0,02

(0,08)

(0,03)

0,13

(0,09)

0,05

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

104,6%

112,8%

115,1%

90,8%

100,5%

88,7%

70,5%

134,1%

99,6%

(4,72)

7,86

2,04

(21,09)

10,69

(11,79)

(20,54)

90,26

(25,68)

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

-

-

-

-

CR Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

105,0%

94,8%

98,9%

94,4%

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(9,75)

4,41

(4,56)

-

-

-

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

101,2%

99,5%

99,8%

100,8%

99,7%

99,3%

99,2%

99,8%

100,2%

(1,00)

(1,67)

0,33

0,95

(1,03)

(0,40)

(0,14)

0,65

0,35

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

17

165

-

53

-

0

18

164

-

56

-

0

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

163

139

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

-

-

NAP

80

-

-

NAP

83

19

177

12

64

1

0

147

NAP

NAP

NAP

80

17

174

11

69

1

0

178

NAP

NAP

NAP

77

21

176

14

79

1

0

106

NAP

NAP

NAP

78

22

172

16

80

2

1

131

NAP

179

NAP

76

24

207

17

85

2

0

200

NAP

200

NAP

70

19

222

12

71

2

0

176

NAP

181

NA

65

17

5,1%

9,1%

5,0%

-10,8%

26,2%

5,7%

7,3%

-22,3%

-7,6%

190

14,9%

-0,8%

8,1%

-1,7%

1,0%

-2,4%

20,5%

7,2%

-14,4%

11

71

2

0

-

-

-

-9,6%

34,1%

10,1%

7,6%

-27,6%

-9,7%

33,9%

6,0%

13,5%

7,3%

14,7%

1,8%

5,6%

-15,7%

0,0%

-

-

-

-14,0%

28,4%

29,8%

29,1%

-4,3%

-0,2%

2,8%

-17,1%

-10,8%

-48,2%

122,8%

77,0%

-27,0%

0,5%

-7,3%

261

60,5%

-14,3%

5,6%

21,1%

-40,7%

24,1%

52,0%

-11,8%

48,4%

NAP

234

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

11,7%

-9,5%

29,2%

-

-

-

62

-22,2%

3,0%

-3,6%

-2,9%

1,3%

-2,8%

-8,0%

-6,9%

-4,3%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

374 / 1555

        
        
        
        
        
         
        
         
         
         
        
        
        
        
         
        
        
       
        
        
         
        
         
        
        
        
        
         
        
         
         
         
         
        
        
        
        
         
        
         
         
        
         
        
        
         
        
         
        
         
         
      
       
      
      
       
      
        
         
        
        
        
         
         
        
        
        
         
         
Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.4.1 (all years) First instance courts, number of cases for specific case categories (Q101)

101.1.1 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Litigious divorce case

2 257

1 994

1 892

1 816

1 557

1 640

1 534

1 533

1 734

-23,2%

-11,7%

-5,1%

-4,0%

-14,3%

5,3%

-6,5%

-0,1%

13,1%

101.1.2 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Employment dismissal case

101.1.3 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Insolvency

101.2.1 Incoming cases_Litigious divorce case

101.2.2 Incoming cases_Employment dismissal case

101.2.3 Incoming cases_Insolvency

101.3.1 Resolved cases_Litigious divorce case

101.3.2 Resolved cases_Employment dismissal case

101.3.3 Resolved cases_Insolvency

101.4.1 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Litigious divorce case

101.4.2 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Employment dismissal case

NAP

6 300

5 219

NAP

8 199

5 497

NAP

9 024

2 000

NAP

NAP

5 817

5 124

NAP

7 291

5 237

NAP

8 472

1 890

NAP

NA

4 952

4 852

NA

5 808

4 946

NA

7 283

1 817

NA

NA

4 226

4 005

NA

5 815

4 286

NA

6 399

1 546

NA

NA

4 182

4 375

NA

8 499

4 314

NA

7 248

1 618

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4 406

8 593

9 895

10 184

61,7%

-7,7%

-14,9%

-14,7%

-1,0%

5,4%

95,0%

15,2%

2,9%

4 124

3 911

4 840

7 239

38,7%

-1,8%

-5,3%

-17,5%

9,2%

-5,7%

-5,2%

23,8%

49,6%

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

8 454

9 381

10 504

7 707

-6,0%

-11,1%

-20,3%

0,1%

46,2%

-0,5%

11,0%

12,0%

-26,6%

4 212

3 905

4 637

7 013

27,6%

-4,7%

-5,6%

-13,3%

0,7%

-2,4%

-7,3%

18,7%

51,2%

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7 708

7 438

10 489

9 873

9,4%

-6,1%

-14,0%

-12,1%

13,3%

6,3%

-3,5%

41,0%

-5,9%

1 552

1 540

1 736

1 960

-2,0%

-5,5%

-3,9%

-14,9%

4,7%

-4,1%

-0,8%

12,7%

12,9%

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

101.4.3 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Insolvency

5 820

4 958

4 223

4 176

4 377

4 459

10 536

9 910

8 018

37,8%

-14,8%

-14,8%

-1,1%

4,8%

1,9%

136,3%

-5,9%

-19,1%

Table 3.5.1 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for specific case categories (Q101)

Table 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 Variations of CR and DT for specific case categories of first instance cases (Q101)

CR Litigious divorce cases

105,3%

102,2%

101,9%

107,0%

98,6%

102,1%

99,8%

95,8%

96,9%

(8,02)

(2,96)

(0,26)

4,98

(7,86)

3,58

(2,24)

(4,05)

1,12

CR Employment dismissal cases

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CR Insolvency cases

110,1%

116,2%

125,4%

110,0%

85,3%

91,2%

79,3%

99,9%

128,1%

16,39

5,57

7,92

(12,24)

(22,50)

6,91

(13,04)

25,94

28,29

DT Litigious divorce cases

DT Employment dismissal cases

DT Insolvency cases

133

NAP

235

132

NAP

214

134

NA

212

132

NA

238

137

NA

220

134

NA

211

144

NA

517

137

NA

345

102

-23,2%

-0,8%

1,8%

-1,8%

4,0%

-1,8%

7,0%

-5,1%

-25,3%

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

296

25,9%

-9,3%

-0,9%

12,5%

-7,5%

-4,2%

144,9%

-33,3%

-14,0%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

375 / 1555

        
        
        
         
        
         
        
        
         
       
         
         
      
      
         
      
       
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.7.1 to 3.7.5 (2019 and 2020) Second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Table 3.9.1 to 3.9.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.1.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.1.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.1.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.1.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.1.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.1.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.1.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.1.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

97.1.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.1.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

97.1.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases 

97.2.1 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.2.2 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.2.3 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.2.4 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.2.5 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.2.6 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.2.7 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.2.8 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

97.2.9 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.2.10 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

97.2.11 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases 

3 306

3 306

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

6 330

6 330

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

3 065

3 065

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

5 214

5 214

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2 580

2 580

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

5 075

5 075

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2 137

1 935

2 183

2 466

2 137

1 935

2 183

2 466

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4 819

4 839

5 022

5 271

4 819

4 839

5 022

5 271

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-7,3%

-15,8%

-17,2%

-9,5%

12,8%

13,0%

-7,3%

-15,8%

-17,2%

-9,5%

12,8%

13,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-17,6%

-2,7%

-5,0%

0,4%

3,8%

5,0%

-17,6%

-2,7%

-5,0%

0,4%

3,8%

5,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

376 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.3.1 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.3.2 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.3.3 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.3.4 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.3.5 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.3.6 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.3.7 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.3.8 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

97.3.9 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.3.10 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

97.3.11 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases 

97.4.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.4.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.4.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.4.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.4.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.4.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.4.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.4.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

97.4.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.4.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

97.4.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases

97.5.1 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.5.2 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.5.10 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

6 577

6 577

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

3 059

3 059

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

5 690

5 690

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2 589

2 589

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

5 525

5 525

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2 130

2 130

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

5 063

4 636

4 717

5 177

5 063

4 636

4 717

5 177

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 893

2 138

2 488

2 560

1 893

2 138

2 488

2 560

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-13,5%

-2,9%

-8,4%

-8,4%

1,7%

9,8%

-13,5%

-2,9%

-8,4%

-8,4%

1,7%

9,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-15,4%

-17,7%

-11,1%

12,9%

16,4%

2,9%

-15,4%

-17,7%

-11,1%

12,9%

16,4%

2,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

377 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 (2019 and 2020): Second instance clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.9.4 and 3.9.5 (2019 and 2020): Variation of second clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

103,9%

109,1%

108,9%

105,1%

95,8%

93,9%

98,2%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

103,9%

109,1%

108,9%

105,1%

95,8%

93,9%

98,2%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

170

170

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

166

166

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

141

141

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

136

136

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

168

168

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

193

193

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

180

180

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5,03

(0,24)

(3,49)

(8,81)

(1,96)

4,57

5,03

(0,24)

(3,49)

(8,81)

(1,96)

4,57

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,2%

-15,3%

-3,0%

23,3%

14,4%

-6,2%

-2,2%

-15,3%

-3,0%

23,3%

14,4%

-6,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

378 / 1555

         
        
        
        
        
         
         
        
        
        
        
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.10.1 to 3.10.5 (2019 and 2020) Supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Table 3.12.1 to 3.12.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of the supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.1.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.1.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.1.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.1.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.1.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.1.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.1.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.1.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

99.1.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.1.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

99.1.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.2.1 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.2.2 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.2.3 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.2.4 High inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.2.5 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.2.6 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.2.7 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.2.8 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

99.2.9 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.2.10 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

99.2.11 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

222

222

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

223

223

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

159

159

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

230

230

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

114

114

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

248

248

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

131

131

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

215

215

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

100

100

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

257

257

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

133

133

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

302

302

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

156

156

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

197

197

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-28,4%

-28,3%

14,9%

-23,7%

33,0%

17,3%

-28,4%

-28,3%

14,9%

-23,7%

33,0%

17,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,1%

7,8%

-13,3%

19,5%

17,5%

-34,8%

3,1%

7,8%

-13,3%

19,5%

17,5%

-34,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

379 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.3.1 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.3.2 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.3.3 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.3.4 High inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.3.5 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.3.6 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.3.7 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.3.8 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

99.3.9 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.3.10 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

99.3.11 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.4.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.4.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.4.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.4.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.4.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.4.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.4.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.4.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry 
cases

99.4.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.4.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative 
law cases

99.4.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.5.1 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.5.2 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.5.10 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

295

295

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

151

151

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

275

275

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

114

114

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

231

231

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

131

131

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

236

236

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

110

110

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

236

236

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

121

121

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

272

272

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

163

163

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

207

207

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

146

146

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-6,8%

-16,0%

2,2%

0,0%

15,3%

-23,9%

-6,8%

-16,0%

2,2%

0,0%

15,3%

-23,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-24,5%

14,9%

-16,0%

10,0%

34,7%

-10,4%

-24,5%

14,9%

-16,0%

10,0%

34,7%

-10,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

380 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 Supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.12.4 and 3.12.5 Variation of the supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

132,3%

119,6%

93,1%

109,8%

91,8%

90,1%

105,1%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

132,3%

119,6%

93,1%

109,8%

91,8%

90,1%

105,1%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

187

187

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

151

151

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

207

207

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

170

170

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

187

187

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

219

219

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

257

257

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(9,62)

(22,10)

17,85

(16,34)

(1,92)

16,67

(9,62)

(22,10)

17,85

(16,34)

(1,92)

16,67

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-19,0%

36,8%

-17,8%

10,0%

16,9%

17,7%

-19,0%

36,8%

-17,8%

10,0%

16,9%

17,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

381 / 1555

        
      
       
      
        
       
        
      
       
      
        
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.14.1 to 3.14.5 First instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

094.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

094.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

094.2.1 Total -incoming

094.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

094.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

094.2.4 Other - incoming

094.3.1 Total - resolved

094.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

094.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

094.3.4 Other - resolved

094.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

094.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

094.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

094.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

19 143

9 781

9 362

NAP

162 899

26 889

136 010

NAP

155 064

22 648

132 416

NAP

26 978

14 022

12 956

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

382 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.15.1 to 3.10.2 CR and DT for first instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

098.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

098.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

098.2.1 Total -incoming

098.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

098.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

098.2.4 Other - incoming

098.3.1 Total - resolved

098.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

098.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

098.3.4 Other - resolved

Table 3.16.1 to 3.16.5 Second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

95,2%

84,2%

97,4%

NAP

64

226

36

NAP

2 114

2 114

NAP

NAP

6 000

6 000

NAP

NAP

5 857

5 857

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

383 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

098.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

098.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

098.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

098.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

2 257

2 257

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

Table 3.17.1 to 3.17.2 CR and DT for second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

97,6%

97,6%

NAP

NAP

141

141

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

384 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.18.1 to 3.18.5 Supreme court criminal law cases (Q100)

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

100.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

100.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

100.2.1 Total -incoming

100.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

100.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

100.2.4 Other - incoming

100.3.1 Total - resolved

100.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

100.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

100.3.4 Other - resolved

100.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

100.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

100.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

100.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

35

35

NAP

NAP

60

60

NAP

NAP

62

62

NAP

NAP

33

33

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

385 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.19.1 to 3.19.2 CR and DT for supreme court  criminal law cases (Q100)

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

103,3%

103,3%

NAP

NAP

194

194

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

386 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 5: Access to justice

Legal aid

Table 5.1 to Table 5.6 (Q12-2, Q16, Q18, Q19, Q20, Q20-1)

12-2.1.1 Coverage of court fees

12-2.1.2 Exemption from court fees

16.1.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (criminal cases)

16.1.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (criminal cases)

16.2.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (other than criminal 
cases)

16.2.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (other than criminal cases)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

-

-

-

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

18.1.1 Legal aid for the enforcement of judicial decisions

19.1.1  Legal aid granted for other costs - criminal cases

19.1.2  Legal aid granted for other costs - other than criminal cases

020.1.1 Total

020.1.2 Total - criminal cases

020.1.3 Total - other than criminal cases

020.2.1 Total brought to court

020.2.2 Broight to court - criminal cases

020.2.3 Brought to court - other then criminal

020.3.1 Total not brought to court

020.3.2 Not broight to court - criminal cases

020.3.3 Not brought to court - other then criminal

020-1.1.1 Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulation

020-1.1.2 Average duration

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

918

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

387 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

System for compensating users

Table 5.7.1 and Table 5.7.2 (Q37)

037.1.1 Requests for compensation - Total

037.1.2 Requests for compensation - Excessive length of 
proceedings

037.1.3 Requests for compensation - Non-execution of court 
decisions

037.1.4 Requests for compensation - Wrongful arrest

037.1.5 Requests for compensation - Wrongful conviction

037.1.6 Requests for compensation - Other

037.2.1 Condemnations - Total

037.2.2 Condemnations - Excessive length of proceedings

037.2.3 Condemnations - Non-execution of court decisions

037.2.4 Condemnations - Wrongful arrest

037.2.5 Condemnations - Wrongful conviction

037.2.6 Condemnations - Other

037.3.1 Amount - Total

037.3.2 Amount - Excessive length of proceedings

037.3.3 Amount - Non-execution of court decisions

037.3.4 Amount - Wrongful arrest

037.3.5 Amount - Wrongful conviction

037.3.6 Amount - Other

NA

93

NA

125

27

2 193

NA

17

NA

82

25

1 286

NA

25 673 €

NA

89 833 €

28 317 €

2 600 362 €

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

388 / 1555

         
         
         
    
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 6.1 to Table 6.11 (Q62-7, Q62-7-1, Q62-8,  Q62-8-1, Q63-1, Q63-1-1, Q63-2 Q63-6, Q63-7, Q63-7-1, Q64-2,  Q64-4, Q64-6, Q64-3, Q64-3-1, Q64-7, Q64-7-1, 
Q64-9)

Indicator 6: The ICT tools of courts and for court users

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

62-7 Writing assistance tools coordinated at national level

62-7-1.1 Deployment rate in civil matter

62-7-1.2 Deployment rate in criminal matter

62-7-1.3 Deployment rate in administrative matter

62-8 Voice recording tools

62-8-1.1.1 Availability of simple dictation tools in civil matter

62-8-1.1.2 Availability of simple dictation tools in criminal matter

62-8-1.1.3 Availability of simple dictation tools in administrative 
matter

62-8-1.2.1 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in civil 
matter

62-8-1.2.2 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in criminal 
matter

62-8-1.2.3 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in 
administrative matter

62-8-1.3.1 Availability of voice recognition in civil matter

62-8-1.3.2 Availability of voice recognition in criminal matter

62-8-1.3.3 Availability of voice recognition in administrative matter

062-9 Availability of intranet site within the judicial system for 
distribution of news/novelties

63.1 Is there a case management system? 

63.1-1.1 CMS for civil matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for criminal matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for administrative matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.2 CMS for civil matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for criminal matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for administrative matter (status of case onlinee)

True

True

True

100%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

True

True

True

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

NA

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

NA

in all courts

in all courts

No

Pilot testing

Pilot testing

No

Pilot testing

Pilot testing

No

Pilot testing

Pilot testing

-

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

-

-

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

389 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63.1-1.3 CMS for civil matter (Centralised or interoperable database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for criminal matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for administrative matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.4 CMS for civil matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for criminal matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for administrative matter (Early warning signals)

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS civil matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS criminal matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS administrative matter

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - land registry

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - business registry

63-2.2 Data consolidated at national level for land registry

63-2.2  Data consolidated at national level for business registry

63-2.3 Service available online for land registry

63-2.3  Service available online for business registry

63-2.4 Statistical module integrated or connected for land registry

63-2.4  Statistical module integrated or connected for business 
registry

063-6.1.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (deployment 
rate)

063-6.1.2 Justice expenses management (deployment rate)

063-6.1.3 Other financial management tools (deployment rate)

063-6.2.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (Data 
consolidated at national level)

063-6.2.2 Justice expenses management (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.2.3 Other financial management tools (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.3.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (System 
communicating with other ministries)

063-6.3.2 Justice expenses management (System communicating 
with other ministries)

063-6.3.3 Other financial management tools (System communicating 
with other ministries)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

Fully integrated 
including BI

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not connected 
at all

Not connected 
at all

Not connected 
at all

100%

NA

True

False

True

False

True

False

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1-9%

50-99%

1-9%

50-99%

NA

0% (NAP)

True

True

False

True

True

NAP

100%

NA

True

False

True

False

True

False

1-9%

1-9%

NA

True

True

False

False

False

False

True

False

True

NAP

True

False

390 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63-7.1 Measurement tools to assess the workload

63-7-1.1.1 Deployment rate - workload of judges

63-7-1.1.2 Deployment rate - workload of prosecutors

63-7-1.1.3 Deployment rate - workload of non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.2.1 Monitoring on national level - judges

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - prosecutors

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.3.1 Monitoring on court level - judges

63-7-1.3.2 Monitoring on court level - prosecutors

63-7-1.3.3 Monitoring on court level - non-judge and non-prosecutor 
staff

064-2 - Possibility to submit a case to courts by electronic means

064-2 - Civil and/or commercial

064-2 - Criminal

064-2 - Administrative

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - civil

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - criminal

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory  - administrative

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - civil

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - criminal

064-2 - Specific legislative framework  - administrative

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - civil

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - criminal

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - administrative

True

True

True

10-49%

10-49%

10-49%

10-49%

10-49%

50-99%

10-49%

10-49%

10-49%

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

NA

NA

NA

True

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

0% (NAP)

50-99%

50-99%

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

391 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-3 - Is it possible to request for granting legal aid by electronic 
means? 

064-3-1.1 - Equipment rate

064-3-1.2 - Request in paper mandatory

064-3-1.3 - Specific legislative framework

064-3-1.4 - Granting LA is also electronic

064-3-1.5 - Information available in CMS

064-4 - Possibility to transmit summons to a judicial meeting or a 
hearing by electronic means

064-4-1.1.1 - Summons produced by CMS- civil

064-4-1.1.2 - Summons produced by CMS- criminal

064-4-1.1.3 - Summons produced by CMS- administrative

064-4-1.2.1 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- civil

064-4-1.2.2 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- criminal

064-4-1.2.3 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- administrative

064-4-1.3.1 - Consent of the user - civil

064-4-1.3.2 - Consent of the user - criminal

064-4-1.3.3 - Consent of the user - administrative

064-6.1.1 - Civil and/or commercial (deployment rate)

064-6.1.2 - Criminal (deployment rate)

064-6.1.3 - Administrative (deployment rate)

True

False

True

1-9%

False

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

50-99%

False

NAP

NAP

NAP

True

True

True

True

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

392 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-6.2.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.2 - Criminal (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.3 - Administrative (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.3.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Modalities)

064-6.3.2 - Criminal (Modalities)

064-6.3.3 - Administrative (Modalities)

064-6.4.1 - Civil and/or commercial (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.2 - Criminal (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.3 - Administrative (specific legal framework)

064-6.5.1 - Civil and/or commercial (availability for)

064-6.5.2 - Criminal (availability for)

064-6.5.3 - Administrative (availability for)

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

  Specific 
application  

E-mail    Other E-mail    Other

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer

Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

393 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-7.1.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (deployment rate)

064-7.1.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.2.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (Modalities)

064-7.2.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.3.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (specific legal framework)

064-7.32.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-7.3.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts (specific 
legal framework)

064-7.3.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-9 - Existance of online processing devices of specialised 
litigation

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

100%

100%

100%

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

394 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Indicator 7: Professionals of justice  (Indicator 9 in 2019)

Table 7.1.1 to 7.5.6 for judges, non judge staff, prosecutors, non prosecutor staff and salaries

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

46.1.1 Total Number of professional judges

46.1.2 Number of 1st inst professional judges

46.1.3 Number of 2nd inst professional judges

46.1.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges

46.2.1 Number of professional judges_males

46.2.2 Number of 1st instance professional judges_males

46.2.3 Number of 2nd instance professional judges_males

46.2.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges_males

46.3.1  Number of professional judges_females

46.3.2  Number of 1st inst professional judges_females

46.3.3  Number of 2nd inst professional judges_females

46.3.4  Number of Supreme court professional judges_females

046-2.1.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Total

046-2.2.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Civil and commercial

046-2.2.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.3.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Criminal

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

372

259

94

19

183

111

59

14

189

148

35

5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

355

236

101

18

176

101

62

13

179

135

39

5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

377

261

97

19

NA

NA

58

14

NA

NA

39

5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

374

260

95

19

NA

NA

NA

14

NA

NA

NA

5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

372

254

99

19

183

113

57

13

189

141

42

6

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

377

254

105

18

184

110

61

13

193

144

44

5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

375

258

99

18

177

110

54

13

198

148

45

5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

375

252

105

18

188

112

62

14

187

140

43

4

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

388

4,3%

-4,6%

6,2%

-0,8%

-0,5%

1,3%

-0,5%

0,0%

3,5%

264

1,9%

-8,9%

10,6%

-0,4%

-2,3%

0,0%

1,6%

-2,3%

4,8%

106

12,8%

7,4%

-4,0%

-2,1%

4,2%

6,1%

-5,7%

6,1%

1,0%

18

-5,3%

-5,3%

5,6%

0,0%

0,0%

-5,3%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

177

-3,3%

-3,8%

107

-3,6%

-9,0%

-

-

-3,4%

5,1%

-6,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,5%

-3,8%

6,2%

-5,9%

-2,7%

0,0%

1,8%

-4,5%

7,0%

-11,5%

14,8%

-8,1%

-7,1%

-7,1%

7,7%

0,0%

-7,1%

0,0%

0,0%

7,7%

-7,1%

57

13

211

11,6%

-5,3%

157

6,1%

-8,8%

-

-

49

40,0%

11,4%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,1%

2,6%

-5,6%

12,8%

2,1%

2,8%

-5,4%

12,1%

4,8%

2,3%

-4,4%

14,0%

5

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

20,0%

-16,7%

0,0%

-20,0%

25,0%

701

539

130

32

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

395 / 1555

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

046-2.4.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - 
Administrative

046-2.4.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.5.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Other

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 52.1.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in courts 

1 823

1 751

1 754

1 529

1 642

1 634

1 656

1 775

1 816

-0,4%

-3,9%

0,2%

-12,8%

7,4%

-0,5%

1,3%

7,2%

2,3%

52.1.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)

52.1.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges

52.1.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks

52.1.5 Number of Technical staff

52.1.6 Number of Other non judge staff

52.2.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(men)

52.2.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(men)

52.2.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(men)

52.2.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(men)

52.2.5 Number of Technical staff(men)

52.2.6 Number of Other non judge staff(men)

52.3.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(women)

52.3.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(women)

52.3.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(women)

52.3.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(women)

52.3.5 Number of Technical staff(women)

52.3.6 Number of Other non judge staff(women)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

319

1 072

201

67

164

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

308

17

572

18

357

14

275

12

270

10

274

9

331

7

338

6,0%

-3,4%

85,7%

-37,6%

-23,0%

-1,8%

1,5%

20,8%

2,1%

10

-99,1%

-98,4%

5,9%

-22,2%

-14,3%

-16,7%

-10,0%

-22,2%

42,9%

1 360

1 091

1 089

1 285

1 290

1 291

1 345

1 375

584,4%

577,0%

-19,8%

-0,2%

18,0%

0,4%

0,1%

4,2%

2,2%

61

5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

68

5

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

63

6

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

63

7

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

64

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

72

10

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

92

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

84

25,4%

-9,0%

11,5%

-7,4%

0,0%

1,6%

12,5%

27,8%

-8,7%

9

-94,5%

-97,0%

0,0%

20,0%

16,7%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

396 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

052-1.1.1 Non-judge staff (Total)

052-1.1.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (total)

052-1.1.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (total)

052-1.1.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (total)

052-1.2.1 Non-judge staff  (Males)

052-1.2.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (males)

052-1.2.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (males)

052-1.2.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (males)

052-1.3.1 Non-judge staff  (females)

052-1.3.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (females)

052-1.3.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (females)

052-1.3.4 Non-judge staff  at supreme court (females)

055.1.1 Prosecutors (total)

055.1.2 Prosecutors (1st inst.)

055.1.3 Prosecutors (2nd inst.)

055.1.4 Prosecutors (Highest instance)

055.2.1 Prosecutors - Males -total

055.2.2 Prosecutors - Males, 1st inst.

055.2.3 Prosecutors - Males, 2nd inst.

055.2.4 Prosecutors - Males, Supreme courts

055.3.1 Prosecutors - Females, Total

055.3.2 Prosecutors - Females, 1st inst.

055.3.3 Prosecutors - Females, 2nd inst.

055.3.4 Prosecutors - Females, Supreme courts

1 816

1 583

202

31

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

397 / 1555

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

060.1.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Total

060.2.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Males

060.3.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Females

004 Annual average salary in the country

132.1.1 Gross annual salary, in €  - Professional judge at the 
beginning of career

132.1.2 Gross annual salary, in €  - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.1.3 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor at the beginning 
of career

132.1.4 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

132.2.1 Net annual salary, in € - Professional judge at the beginning 
of career

132.2.2 Net annual salary, in € - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.2.3 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor at the beginning of 
career

132.2.4 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

133.1.1.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Reduced taxation

133.1.2.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Special pension

133.1.3.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Housing

133.1.4.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Other financial benefit

133.2.1.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Reduced taxation

133.2.2.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Special pension

133.2.3.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Housing

133.2.4.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Other financial benefit

1 670

510

1 160

40 872 €

122 545 €

236 387 €

48 322 €

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

398 / 1555

         
       
       
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

144.1.1 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - Total number (1+2+3+4)

144.1.2 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 1. Breach of professional 
ethics 

144.1.3 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.1.4 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 3. Criminal offence 

144.1.5 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 4. Other

144.2.1 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - Total number 
(1+2+3+4)

144.2.2 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 1. Breach of 
professional ethics 

144.2.3 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.2.4 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 3. Criminal offence

144.2.5 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 4. Other 

145.1.1 Sanctions against Judges - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.1.2 Sanctions against Judges - 1. Reprimand

145.1.3 Sanctions against Judges - 2. Suspension

145.1.4 Sanctions against Judges - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.1.5 Sanctions against Judges - 4. Fine

145.1.6 Sanctions against Judges - 5. Temporary reduction of salary

145.1.7 Sanctions against Judges - 6. Position downgrade

145.1.8 Sanctions against Judges - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.1.9 Sanctions against Judges - 8. Resignation

145.1.10 Sanctions against  Judges - 9. Other

145.1.11 Sanctions against  Judges - 10. Dismissal

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0

0

0

0

0

NA

2

1

NA

NA

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

399 / 1555

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

145.2.1 Sanctions against Prosecutors - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.2.2 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 1. Reprimand

145.2.3 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 2. Suspension

145.2.4 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.2.5 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 4. Fine

145.2.6 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 5. Temporary reduction of 
salary

145.2.7 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 6. Position downgrade

145.2.8 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.2.9 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 8. Resignation

145.2.10 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 9. Other

145.2.11 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 10. Dismissal

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

NA

1

1

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lawyers

Tables 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.7 and 7.8

146.1.1 Total number of lawyers practising

6 021

6 053

6 134

6 235

6 236

6 450

6 563

6 843

6 870

14,1%

0,5%

1,3%

1,6%

0,0%

3,4%

1,8%

4,3%

0,4%

146.2.1 Practicing lawyers - man

146.3.1 Practicing lawyers - woman

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4 195

4 307

4 302

2 368

2 536

2 568

147 Does this figure include “legal advisors” who cannot represent 
their clients in court (for example, some solicitors or in-house 
counsellors)? 

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,7%

-0,1%

7,1%

1,3%

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

400 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Denmark (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 8: The existence and use of alternative dispute resolution methods

Table 8.1 8.2 and 8.3

166 Number of accredited or registered mediators who practice 
judicial mediation: 

127

124

151

147

167.1.1 Total number started

167. 1.2 Civil and commercial cases(cid:9) - started

167. 1.2 Family cases - started

167.1.4 Administrative cases - started

167.1.5 Labour cases including employment dismissal cases - started

167.1.6. Criminal cases - started

167.1.7 Consumer cases - started

143

554

321

190

NA

NA

NAP

-

135

NA

328

161

NA

NA

2

-

143

715

460

250

NA

NA

5

NA

142

617

412

198

NA

NA

7

NA

143

12,6%

-2,4%

21,8%

-2,6%

-2,7%

-5,6%

5,9%

-0,7%

0,7%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-13,7%

2,2%

40,2%

-10,4%

-15,3%

55,3%

-20,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

150,0%

40,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Key: Variation of more than (+ -) 20% 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

401 / 1555

Judiciary at a glance in Estonia

General data

Population:

1 329 460

GDP per capita: 20 324 €

Average annual 

salary:

17 376 €

Professionals

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Estonia

Estonia

EU Median

EU Median

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual 
salary in the country

Estonia
Estonia

EU Median

EU Median

Professional judges

Professional judges

17,29

23,92

17,29

Non-judge staff

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

23,92

62,06

59,00

12,71

62,06

59,00

9,91

6,69

12,71

9,91

15,22

6,69

15,22

82,44
122,09

Lawyers

Lawyers

82,44

Judge at the beginning of a career 

2,99

2,02

4,09

3,91

2,99

Judge of the highest court 3,91
2,02

2,74

4,09

1,71
Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 
1,71

2,74

3,61

3,07

Public prosecutor at highest instance

3,07

3,61

122,09

Judge at the
beginning of a career

Judge of the highest
court

Prosecutor at the
beginning of a career

Public prosecutor at
highest instance

Efficiency

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

1st instance 2nd instance

100%

,

,

%
2
%
2
8
0
9
1
Civil and
9
commercial
Administrativ
e
cases
Total 
criminal law 
cases

%
6
3
8

,

%
5
2
9

,

99,8%

%
3
5
9

,

,

%
0
0
0
1

102,2%

%
9
1
9

,

Supreme Court
Supreme 
Court

%
4
9
9

,

%
83,6%
1
7
8

,

92,5%

95,3%

91,9%

100,0%

99,4%

87,1%

1
1

1

1
1

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance 2nd instance Supreme Court

Civil and commercial litigious cases
135
Administrative cases 142

204

172

Total criminal law cases 30

120

135

105

142

120
105

27

172
204

95

95

27
30

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

Administrative
cases

Total criminal law
cases

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

Information and communication technology

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

Assistance toolsCase management system
2018

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the workload
2019

Electronic communication

EU Median 2020

2020

2018
2019
2020

2,00
1,00
3,00

EU Median 2020

2,00

6,17

6,17

6,17
6,17
6,67

6,67

5,17

3,00

2,00

2,00

1,00

2,00
2,00
2,00

5,00
5,00
5,00

9,40
9,44
10,00

9,40

9,44

10,00

6,94

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

5,00

5,00

5,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

1,25

2,50

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

*ICT calculations are described in more details in Annex 5 - IT Calculation methodology

402

2020

Synthesis table for the main indicators for:

Estonia

Economic and demographic data

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Variations

Population

GDP per capita

Exchange rate (local currency needed to 
obtain 1€)

1 286 479

1 315 819

1 313 271

1 315 944

1 315 635

1 315 635

1 319 133

1 324 820

1 329 460

3,3%

13 495

14 218

15 186

15 405

16 034

17 926

19 737

21 163

20 324

50,6%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

0,2%

5,6%

NAP

0,3%

0,3%

23,1%

10,1%

0,4%

7,2%

0,4%

-4,0%

NAP

NAP NAP

NAP

Average annual salary

10 644

12 060

13 752

15 612

16 884

17 376

63,2%

14,0%

13,5%

8,1%

2,9%

Resources

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Professional judges per 100 000 inhab.

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhab.

Lawyers per 100 000 inh.

Mediators

ICT overall assesment

First instance incoming cases per 100 
inhab.

17,7

74,4

65,8

NAP

17,2

75,2

66,7

NAP

17,6

77,4

71,1

NAP

17,8

73,3

73,7

NAP

17,6

66,7

75,5

NAP

17,3

64,3

77,8

NAP

17,7

62,1

78,9

NAP

8,8

17,3

60,5

81,2

NAP

8,4

17,6

62,1

82,4

NAP

9,5

-0,7%

0,3%

0,2%

2,4%

-16,6%

-13,9%

-6,9%

-3,4%

25,4%

NAP

6,1%

NAP

4,6%

NAP

1,4%

NAP

-2,1%

-2,5%

2,9%

NAP

1,8%

2,5%

1,5%

NAP

-3,9%

12,9%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Civil and commercial litigious cases

1,270

1,349

1,277

1,154

1,247

1,228

1,166

1,396

1,425

12,3%

-2,4%

-6,5%

-5,1%

19,8%

Administrative law cases

0,222

0,2

0,3

0,256

0,225

0,227

0,188

0,191

0,206

-7,2%

-22,1%

-16,4%

-17,2%

1,8%

2,1%

7,7%

Total criminal law cases

1,534

First instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

112%

108%

104%

102%

98%

CR administrative law cases

106%

91%

90%

105%

106%

99%

99%

101%

100%

94%

94%

100%

-12,61

92%

-13,06

-6,68

15,26

3,04

-5,69

1,31

0,60

-6,36

-5,68

5,61

-1,80

CR total criminal law cases

100%

First instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
cases (days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

First instance pending cases per 100 
inhab. on 31 dec.

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

167

108

130

139

125

141

136

117

139

108

140

108

143

119

147

136

-19,0%

11,4%

2,8%

32,2%

-23,9%

10,5%

1,9%

9,8%

2,7%

-8,2%

14,4%

4,7%

135

142

30

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

0,65

0,07

0,52

0,08

0,46

0,10

0,44

0,09

0,46

0,07

0,47

0,07

0,46

0,06

0,53

0,07

-19,3%

1,8%

-0,9%

7,4%

-30,7%

-12,6%

-2,0%

-8,5%

15,2%

-0,7%

9,8%

10,6%

0,53

0,07

0,13

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

107%

100%

106%

97%

97%

97%

102%

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

100%

95%

106%

108%

111%

103%

95%

99%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

-1,04

5,92

-8,84

5,29

0,43

3,13

0,14

-8,37

4,90

-7,34

Second instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

 Supreme court 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Supreme court
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

100

143

113

154

95

130

111

102

119

81

130

92

120

105

27

-4,5%

25,4%

7,0%

9,2%

-8,0%

-8,8%

-37,6%

-20,2%

13,0%

14,6%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

98%

105%

110%

95%

93%

96%

107%

110%

98%

95%

101%

117%

84%

92%

87%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

-4,42

4,62

-8,49

2,61

-17,11

-13,96

-1,04

-15,39

22,14

-25,25

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

114

126

88

162

132

173

85

150

66

207

72

147

172

204

95

15,6%

-49,9%

-22,1%

9,9%

137,0%

37,3%

19,3%

37,4%

-28,9%

38,9%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

403 / 1555

1. Judicial organisation in Estonia

Estonia has 17 courthouses of county courts (first instance courts), 4 courthouses of administrative courts (first instance courts), 2 courthouses of appellate courts (second 
instance courts) and 1 courthouse of the Supreme Court (highest instance court), all together 24 courthouses. However, as some of the courts are situated in the same 
house (e.g Tallinn Administrative Court and Tallinn Circuit Court) and taking into account the fact that Pärnu County Court has a courthouse that is divided between two 
locations, there are 20 actual geographical locations of Estonian courts. Besides, it should be mentioned that in 2020, Tartu county court closed one courthouse.

Distribution of general courts in Estonia

Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Estonia - 1st instance
Estonia - Higher instances

EU Median - 1st instance

EU Median - Higher instances

EstoniaDistribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

According to 2020 data, the distribution between 1st instance and higher instances courts of 
general jurisdiction in Estonia is different from the EU median of 87% - 13%.

Estonia - 1st instanceEstonia - Higher instances

General courts - Estonia

57%

43%

General courts - Estonia
EU Median

57%
87%

43%
13%

EU Median

87%

13%

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Estonia

Geographic 
locations

Legal entities

General jurisdiction

Specialised 
jurisdiction

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Estonia

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

22

22

22

22

21

22

21

21

20

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

4

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

25

20

15

10

5

0

Geographic locations
Legal entities General jurisdiction
Legal entities Specialised jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

404 / 1555

Distribution of first instance general jurisdiction and specialised courts

Estonia

Ratio general jurisdiction vs specialised

Estonia

General jurisdiction Specialised courts

33%

67%

75%

33%

25%

67%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

EU Median

25%

75%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

The distribution between number of general jurisdiction courts and specialised courts of 66,7% - 33,3% is around the EU median (distribution 
tendency in EU: 75,5% - 24,5%).

Specialised courts
Total

Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

Insolvency courts

Labour courts

Family courts

Rent and tenancies courts

Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

Internet related disputes

Administrative courts

Insurance and / or social welfare courts

Military courts

Juvenile courts

Other specialised 1st instance courts

First instance

Higher instance

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

In Estonia, there are no specialized first instance courts, other than administrative courts. All the cases are dealt with by ordinary courts of first instance. The two 
administrative courts of first instance are situated in Tallinn and Tartu. Nevertheless, for guaranteeing wider access to justice, these two courts have several court buildings 
in other cities, namely in Pärnu and Jõhvi, where judges and their supporting legal staff are working. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

405 / 1555

2. Professionals of justice in Estonia

● Professional judges and non-judge staff

Evolution of the number of professional judges since 2012 (Q46)

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Absolute 
number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

228

226

231

234

232

227

233

229

234

17,72

17,18

17,59

17,78

17,63

17,25

17,66

17,29

17,60

EU median

23,9

Professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants

23,9

17,72

17,18

17,59

17,78

17,63

17,25

17,66

17,29

17,60

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

According to 2020 data, the total number of professional judges sitting in courts (all instances) in Estonia is 234, which is 2,2% more than in previous cycle.

More precisely, in Estonia, there are 17,60 professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants (this figure is below the EU median of 23,92 judges per 100 000 inhabitants) and about 3,53 non-
judge staff per judge .

There is no significant difference compared with previous cycle when this ratio was at 3,50 non-judge staff per judge.

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and gender

2020

Total

Distribution by 
instance

Male

Female

% Male

% Female

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

169

46

19

234

72,2%

19,7%

8,1%

50

20

15

85

119

26

4

149

29,6%

43,5%

78,9%

36,3%

70,4%

56,5%

21,1%

63,7%

Distribution of professional judges by instance

Estonia

EU Median

72,2%

72,39%

EU Median

72,39%

23,98%

4,03%

19,7%

23,98%

8,1%

4,03%

Distribution of professional judges by gender and by instance

% Female

70,4%

29,6%

56,5%

43,5%

21,1%

78,9%

% Male

63,7%

36,3%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female professional judges (all instances) is 149, which represents 63,7% of the total number of judges.

The total number of judges is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 169 are sitting in first instance courts (of which 119 are female); 46 are sitting in 
second instance courts (of which 26 are female)  and 19 are sitting in Supreme Court (of which 4 are female).  

Compared with the EU distribution of professional judges per instance, a similar trend is observed in Estonia. However, the predominance of first and seond instance judges is less 
pronounced, while third instance judges are more numerous. 

As regards the distribution male/female, it has to be specified that female judges do not have the majority only at third instance. 

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Total

Civil and commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

169

46

19

234

NA

23

8

NA

NA

12

5

NA

25

11

6

42

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

In Estonia, the distribution of judges per categories of cases is possible for some categories only as presented in the graph below.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

406 / 1555

Distribution of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Civil and 
commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

NA

50,0%

42,1%

NA

NA

26,1%

26,3%

NA

14,8%

23,9%

31,6%

17,9%

At first instance, the judges are not categorised seperated as criminal or civil judges.

Non-judge staff

Year

2012

Number of non-judge staff

957

Per 100 000 inhabitants

74,39

2013

990

75,24

2014

1 017

77,44

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2015

965

TRUE

TRUE

FALSE

FALSE

NA

2

NA

NA

NA

NA

2016

877

2017

846

2018

819

2019

802

2020

825

E
U 
m

73,33

66,66

64,30

62,09

60,54

62,06

74,39

75,24

77,44

73,33

66,66

64,30

62,09

60,54

62,06

59,00

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

2020

Total

Rechtspfleger

Non-judge staff assisting the judge

Staff in charge of administrative tasks

Technical staff

Other

Absolute 
number

825

51

591

77

73

33

in %

6,2%

71,6%

9,3%

8,8%

4,0%

In 2020, Estonia has 825 non-judge staff (of which 701 are females). The total number of non-judge staff in comparison with the previous cycle reveals an increase of 2,9%.

In this cycle, the non-judge staff is broken down as follows:

◦ 51 Rechtspfleger (or similar bodies) with judicial or quasi-judicial tasks having autonomous competence and whose decisions could be subject to appeal (among which 46 
◦ 591 non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges such as registrars (of which 546 are women);
◦ 77 staff in charge of different administrative tasks and of the court management (of which 56 are women);
◦ 73 technical staff (of which 22 are women);
◦ 33 other (of which 31 are women);

In 2020, the number of non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants has increased (from 60,5 in 2019 to 62,1 in 2020).

During the same period, the number of judges per 100 000 inhabitants evolves from 17,3 judges per 100 000 inhabitants in 2019 to 17,6 in 2020.

Professional judges, non-judge staff and their ratio (Q46, Q52)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Estonia

EU median

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

17,60

62,06

Non-judge staff per judge

3,53

23,92

59,00

3,30

Professional judges and non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

62,06

3,53

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Non-judge staff per judge

17,60

59,00

3,30

23,92

Estonia

EU median

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

407 / 1555

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff  (Q46, Q52)

Judges 
per 100 000 inh.

Non-judge staff per
100 000 inh.

Ratio between professional judges and 
non-judge staff

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff 
Non-judge staff per 100 000 inh.
(Q46, Q52)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

17,72

17,18

17,59

17,78

17,63

17,25

17,66

17,29

17,60

74,39

75,24

77,44

73,33

66,66

64,30

62,09

60,54

62,06

EU median 2020

3,30

4,20

4,38

4,40

4,12

3,78

3,73

3,52

3,50

3,53

4,20

4,38

4,40

2012

2013

2014

4,20
4,38
4,40
4,12
3,78
3,73
3,52
3,50
3,53

4,12

3,78

3,73

3,52

3,50

3,53

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

● Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff

Absolute number of public prosecutors by instance and gender (Q55)

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

NAP

NAP

NAP

169

Distribution by 
instance

NAP

NAP

NAP

Male

NAP

NAP

NAP

50

Female

NAP

NAP

NAP

119

Male

NAP

NAP

NAP

Female

NAP

NAP

NAP

29,6%

70,4%

In this cycle, the total number of female prosecutors (all instances) is 119, which represents 70,4% of the total number of prosecutors.

As regards the methodology of presentation of data in respect of the number of prosecutors, it should be noticed that the categorization by instances regarding public prosecutors does 
not exist in Estonia.

The distribution male/female is therefore not available.

Non-prosecutor staff by gender (Q60)

Non-prosecutor staff

Total

2020

89

Male

29

Female

60

Non-prosecutor staff by gender

33%

Male

Female

67%

Public prosecutors, non-prosecutor staff and their ratio (Q55, Q60)

Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Estonia

EU median

Public prosecutors

12,71

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per 
prosecutor

6,69

0,53

9,91

15,22

1,11

Public prosecutors

12,71

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per prosecutor

6,69

0,53

Estonia

15,22

9,91

1,11

EU median

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

408 / 1555

● Salaries of professional judges and prosecutors at beginning of a career and at the highest instance (Q132, Q4)

Salaries of professional judges and 
prosecutors (Q132, Q4)

Average gross annual 
salary 
in €

Average net annual 
salary 
in €

Ratio with national 
average annual 
gross salary

Judge at the beginning of a career 

51 962 €

40 068 €

Judge of the highest court 

67 942 €

52 392 €

Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

47 556 €

36 672 €

Public prosecutor at highest instance

53 353 €

41 145 €

2,99

3,91

2,74

3,07

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual salary in the 
country

Salaries of 
judges and 
prosecutors in 
Judge

4,09

EU Median

3,91

at the beginning 
of a career

3,07

3,61

51962

2,02

2,99
2,02

4,09

1,71

2,74

Prosecutor

at the highest 
1,71
instance

at the beginning 
of a career

67942

47556

Judge at the beginning of
career

Judge on highest instance

3,61

Estonia

Prosecutor at the
beginning of career

EU Median

at the highest 
instance

Prosecutor at highest
instance

53353

According to 2020 data, the absolute gross salary of a judge at the begining of a career in Estonia of 51 962€ is somewhat above when compared to the EU median of 51 946€. As a 
ratio with the annual average salary of the country, the salary for a judge at the begining of career is: 2,99 compared with EU median of : 2,02.

Since 2010, the salary of prosecutors depends on the salary of the President and is indexed by 1 April of each calendar year. In 2018, the salary system of public prosecutors changed and 
with that, the smallest salaries increased the most. 

● Lawyers

Lawyers

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

Number of lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

846

878

934

970

993

1 024

1 041

1 076

1 096

65,76

66,73

71,12

73,71

75,48

77,83

78,92

81,22

82,44

EU median 2020

122,09

In 2020, there are 1 096 lawyers, which is 1,9% more than in 2019.

65,76

66,73

71,12

73,71

75,48

77,83

78,92

81,22

82,44

122,09

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median
2020

Estonia has 82,4 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants, which is below the EU median of 122,1 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

409 / 1555

● Judicial professionals (summary)

Judicial professionals in absolute number and per 100 000 inhabitants (Q46, Q52, Q55, Q60, Q146)

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

EU Median

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Estonia

EU Median

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

229

825

169

89

17,29

23,92

62,06

12,71

59,00

9,91

62,06

59,00

122,09

82,44

6,69

15,22

23,92

17,29

12,71

9,91

15,22

6,69

Lawyers

1 096

82,44

122,09

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

% Male

% Female

Professional judges

36,3%

63,7%

Non judge staff

15,0%

85,0%

Prosecutors

29,6%

70,4%

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

Estonia % Male Estonia % Femalelabels
Estonia % Male

Estonia % Female

Professional judges

-36,3%
EU Median  % Male

63,7%

EU Median  % Female

36,3%

Professional judges

36,3%

39,0%

-39,0%

61,0%

39,0%

0,0%

Non judge staff

Non judge staff

15,0%
-15,0%

85,0%

15,0%

24,0%

-24,0%

76,0%

24,0%

63,7%

61,0%

85,0%

76,0%

Non-prosecutor staff

32,6%

67,4%

Prosecutors

29,6%

Lawyers

51,0%

49,0%

40,5%

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

32,6%

Non-prosecutor staff

28,1%

Lawyers

Lawyers

51,0%

52,3%

-29,6%
-40,5%

-32,6%
-28,1%

-51,0%
-52,3%

70,4%
59,5%

67,4%
71,9%

49,0%
47,7%

70,4%

59,5%

67,4%

71,9%

0,0%

29,6%
40,5%
0,0%
32,6%
28,1%
0,0%
51,0%
52,3%

49,0%

47,7%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

410 / 1555

3. Legal aid and court fees in Estonia

0

1

In Estonia, legal aid includes:

◦ Coverage of court fees: 

◦ Exemption from court fees: 

In Estonia, legal aid is available for :

> Representation in court:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

> Legal advice, ADR and other legal services:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

>

Fees related to enforcement of judicial decisions as fees for enforcement agents (Q18) 

>

 Other costs than above (Q19) 

1

1

1

1

1

1

Legal aid cannot be granted for fees related to the enforcement of judicial decisions (except for representing a person in enforcement proceedings), but procedural assistance can 
be granted to release a person from all or a part of the expenses related to enforcement proceedings.

With respect to "other costs", it should be noted that at the request of a lawyer who has provided state legal aid, the court, investigative body or prosecutor's office shall determine 
the reimbursable travel and accommodation expenses incurred by the lawyer or the manager of the law firm in connection with the provision of state legal aid. Travel and 
accommodation expenses shall be reimbursed only if the State legal aid has been provided in a place other than the town or municipality where the law firm or the structural unit 
through which the lawyer provides legal services is located.

 Number of cases for which legal aid has been granted

Absolute number 
(in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

Total

Cases brought to court

Cases not brought to 
court

12 421

7 067

5 354

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Ratio of total number of cases for which legal aid has been 
granted

In criminal cases

NA

NA
In other than criminal
cases

NA

43%
NA

NA

NA

57%

Per 100 000 inhabitants
 (in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

Estonia

EU Median

934,3

531,6

402,7

734,2

330,9

402,7

Number of cases for which legal has been granted per 100 000 
inhabitants

Estonia

EU Median

934,3

734,2

531,6

330,9

402,7

402,7

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

The number of cases brought to court for which legal aid has been granted cannot be separated from the number of cases for which legal aid has been granted only for legal 
advice. 

Timeframes of the procedure for granting legal aid (in relation to the duration from the initial legal aid request to the final approval of the legal aid request)

◦ Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulations: 

◦ Actual average duration: 

NAP

NA

In Estonia, the data with respect to legal aid is in two separate information systems and therefore it is not possible to collect data on actual average duration of the procedure for 
granting legal aid. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

411 / 1555

4. Performance of courts in Estonia

● Efficiency indicators

◦ Clearance Rate (CR) and Disposition Time (DT)

The Clearance Rate shows the capacity of a judicial system to deal with the incoming cases. A Clearance Rate of 100% and higher does not generate backlog. 

The Disposition Time determines the estimated number of days necessary for a pending case to be solved in a court. 

First instance Total of other than criminal cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Evolution of number of all other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants
Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Incoming

,

8
9
2
2

,

2
6
0
2

,

7
0
5
2

,

5
9
7
1

,

2
1
8
1

,

9
7
7
1

,

1
7
4
2

,

5
1
4
2

,

7
1
1
2

,

5
3
0
2

,

8
5
2
2

,

9
6
2
2

20,62

NA

18,12

17,95

22,98

NA

17,79

25,07

,

0
7
2
2

24,71

,

1
7
2
2

,

9
3
3
2

,

1
7
3
2

24,15

20,35

22,58

22,70

21,17

22,69

22,71

2
8
6

,

6
7
2

,

A
N

A
N

A
N

2
6
1

,

8
6
2

,

7
6
2

,

1
4
1

,

4
8
1

,

23,39

6
9
1

,

23,71

1
6
1

,

2,76

NA

1,62

2,68

2,67

1,41

1,84

1,96

0
6
6

,

1,61

6
6
2

,

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Estonia (23,39 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (6,82 per 100 inhabitants).

2014

2013

2012

2015

2016

2017

2018

6,82
2019

6,60

2020

2,66
EU median

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Estonia (23,71 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (6,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Estonia (1,61 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below EU median (2,66 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Other than criminal cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Other than criminal 
cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

111%

NA

98%

140%

98%

104%

101%

100%

101%

44

NA

33

39

40

24

30

32

25

EU median

99%

109

DT (days)

CR (%)

140%

111%

98%

98%

104%

101%

100%

101%

99%

44

NA

33

39

40

24

30

32

25

109

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 101,3% in 2020 Estonia seems to be able to deal with its other than criminal cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased by 1,3 points.

In 2020, other than criminal cases are solved in approximately 25 days, which is significantly below EU median of 109 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a -21,4% decrease of the Disposition Time.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

412 / 1555

First instance Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of civil and commercial litigious cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

3
4
1

,

7
2
1

,

5
4
1

,

5
3
1

,

3
3
1

,

8
2
1

,

5
1
1

,

8
1
1

,

5
2
1

,

2
2
1

,

3
2
1

,

2
2
1

,

7
1
1

,

7
1
1

,

0
4
1

,

2
3
1

,

5
6
0

,

2
5
0

,

6
4
0

,

4
4
0

,

6
4
0

,

7
4
0

,

6
4
0

,

1,27
1,35
1,28
1,15
1,25
1,23
1,17
1,40
1,43
1,56

3
5
0

,

3
4
1

,

2
4
1

,

3
5
0

,

6
5
1

,

1,43
1,45
1,33
1,18
1,22
1,22
1,17
1,32
1,42
1,50

0,65
0,52
0,46
0,44
0,46
0,47
0,46
0,53
0,53
1,05

0
5
1

,

5
0
1

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Estonia (1,43 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below EU median (1,56 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Estonia (1,42 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below EU median (1,50 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Estonia (0,53 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below EU median (1,05 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

112,5%

107,6%

104,2%

102,1%

97,6%

99,3%

100,6%

94,2%

99,8%

167

130

125

136

139

140

143

147

135

EU Median

98%

221

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

112,5%

107,6%

104,2%

102,1%

97,6%

99,3%

100,6%

94,2%

99,8%

98%

DT (days)

CR (%)

167

2012

130

2013

125

2014

136

2015

139

2016

140

2017

143

2018

147

2019

135

221

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 99,8% in 2020, Estonia seems to be able to deal with its civil and commercial litigious cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased by 5,6 points.

In 2020, the civil and commercial litigious cases are solved in approximately 135 days, which is somewhat below EU median of 221 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a -8,2% decrease of the Disposition Time.

In Estonia, there are 487 civil and commercial litigious cases older than 2 years. This is 7,0% of the total number of pending cases at the end of the year

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

413 / 1555

First instance Administrative cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of administrative cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

3
2
0

,

2
2
0

,

2
2
0

,

0
2
0

,

9
2
0

,

6
2
0

,

7
2
0

,

6
2
0

,

7
0
0

,

8
0
0

,

0
1
0

,

9
0
0

,

4
2
0

,

2
2
0

,

3
2
0

,

3
2
0

,

9
1
0

,

9
1
0

,

9
1
0

,

7
0
0

,

7
0
0

,

6
0
0

,

7
0
0

,

0,22
0,22
0,29
0,26
0,22
0,23
0,19
0,19
0,21
0,30

8
1
0

,

0
3
0

,

0,23
0,20
0,26
0,27
0,24
0,23
0,19
0,18
0,19
0,26

7
0
0

,

1
2
0

,

9
1
0

,

0,07
0,08
0,10
0,09
0,07
0,07
0,06
0,07
0,07
0,21

1
2
0

,

6
2
0

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Estonia (0,21 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below EU median (0,30 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Estonia (0,19 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below EU median (0,26 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Estonia (0,07 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (0,21 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Administrative cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

105,5%

90,9%

90,4%

104,5%

105,6%

99,4%

100,0%

94,3%

92,5%

108

139

141

117

108

108

119

136

142

EU Median

100%

388

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Administrative cases

105,5%

104,5%

105,6%

90,9%

90,4%

99,4%

100,0%

94,3%

92,5%

100%

DT (days)

CR (%)

108

2012

139

2013

141

2014

117

2015

108

2016

108

2017

119

2018

136

2019

142

388

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 92,5% in 2020, Estonia seems to encounter difficulties in dealing with its administrative cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased for -1,8 points.

In 2020, the administrative cases are solved in approximately 142 days, which is significantly below EU median of 388 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 4,7% increase of the Disposition Time.

In Estonia, there are 35 administrative law cases older than 2 years. This is 3,5% of the total number of pending cases at the end of the year.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

414 / 1555

Insolvency cases

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Insolvency cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Insolvency cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

95,4%

98,5%

96,9%

100,1%

101,5%

97,5%

94,9%

98,7%

97,3%

104

69

73

67

61

67

63

96

54

EU Median

105%

281

95,4%

98,5%

96,9%

100,1%

101,5%

97,5%

94,9%

98,7%

97,3%

105%

DT (days)

CR (%)

104

2012

69

2013

73

2014

67

2015

61

2016

67

2017

63

2018

96

2019

54

281

2020

EU Median

The Clearance Rate was calculated at 97,3% in 2020 for insolvency cases, Estonia seems to face some difficulties in dealing with its insolvency cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -1,3 points.

In 2020, insolvency cases are solved in a approximately 54 days, which is significantly below the EU median of 281 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a -44,0% decrease of the Disposition Time.

● First instance Criminal Law Cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

1 859

20 392

20 385

1 688

Severe criminal cases 

Misdemeanour and/or 
minor cases

Other cases

597

675

587

5 210

5 952

9 230

5 114

5 926

9 345

642

574

472

Per 100 inhabitants

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 
Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

0,14

0,04

0,05

0,04

1,53

0,39

0,45

0,69

1,53

0,38

0,45

0,70

0,13

0,05

0,04

0,04

Total criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases Resolved casesPending 
Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

Incoming cases

Estonia

3
5
1

,

3
5
1

,

EU Median

3
1
0

,

1,53

1,53

0,13

0
6
1

,

1,60

8
4
1

,

1,48

0,46

6
4
0

,

Estonia

EU Median

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, and other 
criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases

Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

1,53
1,53

Total

0,13

Severe criminal
cases

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

Other cases

0,05

0,04

0,04

0,39
0,38

0,45
0,45

0,69
0,70

The number of total incoming criminal cases in 2020 in Estonia (1,53 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below EU median (1,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total resolved criminal cases in 2020 in Estonia (1,53 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly above EU median (1,48 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total pending criminal cases at the end of 2020 in Estonia (0,13 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (0,46 per 100 inhabitants).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

415 / 1555

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT)

Total criminal law cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

DT (days)

CR (%)

Total

100,0%

Severe criminal 
cases 

Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

98,2%

99,6%

Other cases

101,2%

30

46

35

18

Total Criminal law cases

100,0%

95,2%

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, 
and other criminal law cases 

98,2%

99,6%

101,2%

EU Median

95,2%

139

EU Median

30

Total

139

EU Median

46

35

Severe criminal
cases

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

18

Other cases

With the Clearance Rate calculated at 100,0% in 2020 for total criminal cases, Estonia seems to be able to deal with its total criminal cases.

In 2020, criminal law cases were solved in approximately 30 days, which is significantly below EU median of 139 days.

It is noteworthy highlighting that the pandemic has affected the courts activity in criminal matters in general. The criminal procedure law was not as flexible when judges 
had to work online. 

The category "other criminal cases" encompasses for example different enforcement and pretrial cases.

The complete revision of the criminal procedure law is ongoing and will come into force next year.

Overall efficiency by instance and by case matter

CR (%)

DT (days)

CR (%)

DT (days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases

99,8%

102,2%

83,6%

Administrative cases

92,5%

95,3%

91,9%

Total criminal law cases

100,0%

99,4%

87,1%

135

142

30

120

105

27

172

204

95

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)
2nd instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court
Supreme Court

1st instance

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance
%
2
2
0
1

,

%
5
2
9

,

99,8%

%
6
3
8

,

%
3
5
9

,

%
9
1
9

,

102,2%

,

%
0
0
0
1

92,5%

95,3%

%
8
9
9

,

100%

Civil and
commercial
Administrative
cases

Total criminal law cases

%
4
9
9

,

%
1
7
8

,

83,6%

91,9%

1

1

1

172

120

135

204

105

142

95

27
30

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

Administrative
cases

100,0%

Total criminal law
cases

99,4%

87,1%

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

1
1

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

As regards civil and commercial litigious cases, the Clearance rate is beyond 100% for second instance cases. Moreover, this threshold is almost reached in respect of 
first instance cases (99,8%). Concerning the administrative cases, the Clearance rate is below the 100% threshold at all three instances. As to criminal law cases, the 
Clearance rate indicator has been negatively affected in 2020 only in respect of the Supreme Court. 

Generally speaking, it seems that highest courts encounter some difficulties in dealing with their caseflow. 

As to the Disposition Time indicator, the analysis reveals positive trend for 2020. In fact, the Estonian value is below the EU medians established for all cases at all 
instances. As one can see from the graph above, criminal proceedings are faster than civil and administrative cases at all instances. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

416 / 1555

5. Public prosecution services in Estonia

● Role and powers of the public prosecutor

In the criminal procedure, the public prosecutor in Estonia has the following 9 out of 11 possible roles and powers:

To conduct or supervise police investigation

To appeal

To conduct investigations

To supervise the enforcement procedure

When necessary, to request investigation measures from the judge

To discontinue a case without needing a decision by a judge

To charge

To present the case in the court

To propose a sentence to the judge

To end the case by imposing or negotiating a penalty or measure 
without requiring a judicial decision

Other significant powers

It should be noted that in Estonia, public prosecutors participate in the planning of surveillance necessary to detect and combat criminal offences. 

The public prosecutor does not have any role in civil, administrative or insolvency cases.

● Public prosecutors: Number of first instance criminal cases

Type of cases

Absolute 
number

Per 100 
inhabitants

1. Pending cases on 1 Jan. ref. year 

2 397

0,18

2. Incoming/received cases

25 817

1,94

Incoming/received cases

Processed cases

Public prosecutors: Total number of first instance criminal 
cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming/rec
Processed 
Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. Year
2,85
eived cases
cases

2,84

Pendin
g cases 
on 31 

3. Processed cases (3.1 + 3.2 + 3.3 + 3.4)

9 378

0,71

1,94

Estonia

1,94 0,71

0,18

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year (3.1.1 + 3.1.2 + 3.1.3 
+ 3.1.4)

3 895

0,29

EU Median

2,85 2,84

0,84

3.1.1 Discontinued by the public prosecutor because the 
offender could not be identified 

765

0,06

3.1.2 Discontinued by the public prosecutor due to the lack 
of an established offence or a specific legal situation 

3.1.3 Discontinued by the public prosecutor for reasons of 
opportunity

3.1.4 Discontinued for other reasons 

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated 
by the public prosecutor

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

3.4. Cases brought to court

5 483

0,41

0,71

Estonia

0,18

0,84

EU Median

Processed cases per 100 inhabitants
EU Median

Estonia

Processed cases

Estonia

EU Median

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

0,29

-0,29

1,05
1,05

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor

0,00

0,12

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons
0,30

3.4. Cases brought to court

0,00

0,41

0,53

4. Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. year

2 397

0,18

3.4. Cases brought to court

-0,41

0,53

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

417 / 1555

 
6. Existence and use of alternative dispute resolution in Estonia

Data on the number of court-related mediations are not recorded in any information system and are therefore not available. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

418 / 1555

7. ICT tools of courts in Estonia

●The ICT tools of courts and for court users

The use of ICT in courts in 2020 has been evaluated as  :

EU Median

Total 
(0 to 10)

Assistance tools (0 to 3)

Case management system (0 to 7)
Financial management tools (0 to 3)

Measurement tools to assess the workload (0 to 5)
Electronic communication (0 to 10)

9,5
3,0

6,7

2,0
5,0

10,0

6,6
2,0

5,2

1,3
2,5

6,9

The calculation of this values for each field is based on the answers for that question/s and weighted according the avaiability 
or deployment rate. The total value is normalised to max 10 points for readability and comparison.

The details of the calculation are given in Annex 5 - IT calculations

The result by area may be summarized in these graphics, where each field has been evaluated from 0 to 4 points.

Note: index is modified based on the available questions. This cycle the recalculation was made for the last three cycles to be 
able to follow the development.

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

2018

2019

2020

EU Median 2020

Case 
management 
system

Financial 
management 
tools

Measurement 
tools to assess 
the workload

Electronic 
communication

Assistance 
tools

Year
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
EU Median 20202,00

3,00

2,00

1,00

6,17

6,17

6,67

6,67

6,17

2,00

6,17

2,00

2,00

5,00

5,00

5,17

5,00

9,40

9,44

10,00

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

3,00

2,00

2,00

1,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

1,25

10,00

9,40

9,44

6,94

5,00

5,00

5,00

2,50

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

Comments on voice recording tools
It should be mentioned that courts have adopted voice recognition software. 

Comments on CMS
Regarding the status of integration of a CMS with a statistical tool, it should be highlighted that statistical tool has been improved. It is now 
fully integrated including BI. 

Comments on communication tools 
With respect to the possibility to submit a case to courts by electronic means, it should be noted that in all matters, simultaneous submission 
of cases in paper form is possible, but not compulsory. 

Regarding the electronic communication between courts and lawyers and/or parties, it is noteworthy that public e-file now contains 
information about different deadlines and calendar functionality (which includes trials).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

419 / 1555

8. Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and public prosecution services in Estonia

In Estonia, quality standards are determined for the judicial system at national level (e.g. quality systems for the judiciary and/or judicial quality policies). However, there is no 
specialised personnel within the courts or the public prosecution services entrusted with implementation of these national level quality standards.

[Comment ALL 066] Estonia has developed a quality system consisting of 3 parts. The first part contains the quality standards (good practice) for the management of the court 
that describe activities related to the chairman of the court. The second part contains the quality standards for the administration of courts and is focused on the different roles 
of the parties involved in the administration of courts: directors, Ministry of Justice, Council for the Administration of Courts. The third part contains quality standards for the 
court proceedings and is addressed to all the judges. All of the three parts of the quality standards have been discussed and approved by the Council for Administration of 
Courts, respectively in 2012, 2013 and 2015.

● Systems for measuring and evaluating courts' performance

A regular monitoring system of court activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

The scope of the monitoring system is extended to the results of proceedings; the categories of cases; the number of decisions appealed and revoked, fully or partially. The 
waiting time and the 'age' of pending (not solved) cases are also monitored. It is worthy of mention that every year, all the courts and the Ministry of Justice enter into an 
agreement according to which courts should aim to carry out structural changes and to make changes in case-flow management that will ultimately ensure efficient 
proceedings. The content of the agreement has changed since 2017. The goals are more general and the same for all the courts (except The Supreme Court).

In Estonia, there is a system to regularly evaluate the court performance based primarily on defined indicators and the reporting is more frequent than annual.

More precisely, it is carried out four times a year.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each court.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

The evaluation of the courts' activities is not used for the later allocation of means in the courts.

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

420 / 1555

● Systems for measuring and evaluating public prosecution services' performance

A regular monitoring system of public prosecution services activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases 

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs 

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecution) 

Costs of the judicial procedures 

Clearance rate 

Disposition time 

Percentage of convictions and aquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

In Estonia, there is no system to evaluate regularly the activity of each public prosection service.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each public prosecution service.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecutors)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Percentage of convictions and acquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff

The evaluation of the public prosecution services' activities is not used for the later allocation of means in the public prosecution services.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

421 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table General Data: Economic and demographic data, in absolute values (Q1, Q3, Q5)

Q1 Number of inhabitants

1 286 479

1 315 819

1 313 271

1 315 944

1 315 635

1 315 635

1 319 133

1 324 820

1 329 460

3,3%

2,3%

-0,2%

0,2%

0,0%

0,0%

0,3%

0,4%

0,4%

Q.3 GDP Per capita (in €) in current prices

13 495

14 218

15 186

15 405

16 034

17 926

19 737

21 163

20 324

50,6%

5,4%

6,8%

1,4%

4,1%

11,8%

10,1%

7,2%

-4,0%

Q5. Exchange rate of Nat currency to € on 1 Jan

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Indicator 1: Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and prosecution services  (Indicator 4 in 2019)

Table 1.1 to Table 1.10 (Q66, Q67, Q77, Q78, Q77-1, Q78-1, Q73, Q73-0, Q73-1, Q73-2, Q73-3, Q73-4, Q73-5, Q73-6, Q70, Q70-1, Q71, Q72, Q83-2, Q83-3, Q120 
and Q120-1)

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

66 Qlty standards formulated_jud system

67 Specialised court staff entrusted_qlty standards

77 Performance and quality indicators of court activities

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

078.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078.1.5 Backlogs 

078.1.6 Productivity of judges and court staff

078.1.7 Satisfaction of court staff 

078.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts) 

078.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078.1.10 Number of appeals

078.1.11 Appeal ratio

078.1.12 Clearance rate 

078.1.13 Disposition time 

078.1.14 Other

077-1.1.1 Defined performance and quality indicators

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

422 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

078-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078-1.1.5 Backlogs 

078-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

078-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

078-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

078-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

078-1.1.11 Disposition time 

078-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

078-1.1.13 Other

73 Regular system_evaluation_performance_each court

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

073-0.1.1 Annual

073-0.1.2 Less frequent

073-0.1.3 More frequent

073-1.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
court

073-2.1.1 Courses of action taken in the evaluation is used for the 
allocation of resources

073-2.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-2.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-2.1.4 Other

073-3.1.1 Regular evaluation of the public prosecution services 
performance

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

False

False

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

Yes

Yes

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

-

-

-

-

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

423 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

073-4.1.1 Annual

073-4.1.2 Less frequent

073-4.1.3 More frequent

073-5.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
public prosecution services

073-6.1.1 Identifying the causes of improved or deteriorated 
performance

073-6.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-6.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-6.1.4 Other

070.1.1 number of incoming cases

070.1.2 length of proceedings (timeframes)

070.1.3 number of resolved cases

070.1.4 number of pending cases

070.1.5 backlogs

070.1.6 productivity of judges and court staff

070.1.7 satisfaction of court staff

070.1.8 satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts)

070.1.9 costs of the judicial procedures

070.1.10 number of appeals

070.1.11 appeal ratio

070.1.12 clearance rate

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

-

-

-

False

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

424 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

070-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases 

070-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

070-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

070-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

070-1.1.5 Backlogs 

070-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

070-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

070-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

070-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

070-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

070-1.1.11 Disposition time 

070-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

070-1.1.13 Other

071.1.1 Monitoring backlogs in Civil law cases

071.1.2 Monitoring backlogs in Criminal law cases

071.1.3 Monitoring backlogs in Administrative law cases

072.1.1 Monitoring timeframes Within the courts

072.1.2 Monitoring timeframes Within the public prosecution services

083-2.1.1 Quantitative performance tagets defined for each 
prosecutors

083-3.1.1 Body responsible - Executive power (for example the 
Ministry of Justice)

083-3.1.2 Body responsible - Prosecutor General /State public 
prosecutor

083-3.1.3 Body responsible - Public Prosecutorial Council

083-3.1.4 Body responsible - Head of the organisational unit or 
hierarchically superior public prosecutor

083-3.1.5 Body responsible - Other

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

False

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

425 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

120.1.1 Qualitative individual assessment of the public prosecutors' 
work

120-1.1.1 Feequency - Annual

120-1.1.2 Feequency - Less frequent

120-1.1.3 Feequency - More frequent

Q42.1.1Total number of all courts - legal entities 

Q42.1.2 Total number of courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.3 First instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.4 Second instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.5 Highest instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.6 Total number of specialised courts - legal entities

43.1.1 Total number of specialised courts of first instance

43.1.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.1.3 Insolvency courts

43.1.4 Labour courts

43.1.5 Family courts

43.1.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.1.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.1.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.1.9 Internet related disputes

43.1.10 Administrative courts

43.1.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.1.12 Military courts

43.1.13 Juvenile courts

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

Indicator 2: The judicial organisation

Tables 2.1a; 2.1b; 2.2a; 2.2b; 2.3a; 2.3b; 2.4 and 2.5(EC) (Q42, Q43 and Q44)

-

-

4

-

-

-

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

4

-

-

-

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

4

-

-

-

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

4

-

-

-

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

4

-

-

-

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

4

-

-

-

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

4

-

-

-

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

4

-

-

-

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2

NAP

NAP

-

False

-

-

-

9

7

4

2

1

2

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

426 / 1555

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

43.1.14 Other specialised courts

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

43.2.1 Total number of specialised courts of higher instances

43.2.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.2.3 Insolvency courts

43.2.4 Labour courts

43.2.5 Family courts

43.2.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.2.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.2.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.2.9 Internet related disputes

43.2.10 Administrative courts

43.2.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.2.12 Military courts

43.2.13 Juvenile courts

43.2.14 Other specialised courts

44.1.1 First instance courts geographic locations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

44.1.2 All courts geographic locations

22

22

22

22

21

22

21

21

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

17

20

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-9,1%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-4,5%

4,8%

-4,5%

0,0%

-4,8%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

427 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

91.1.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.1.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.1.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.1.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.1.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.1.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.1.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.1.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

91.1.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.1.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

91.1.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

91.2.1 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.2.2 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.2.3 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.2.4 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.2.5 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.2.6 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.2.7 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.2.8 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

91.2.9 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

4 959

3 843

1 116

NAP

NAP

-

3 782

37 335

-

-

1 153

NAP

-

3 033

2 777

-

-

891

NAP

Indicator 3: The performance of courts at all stages of the proceedings

Tables 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.4 (all years) Number of other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 Variation of first instance other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants (Q1, Q91)

Table 3.13.7 (EC) to 3.13.12 (EC) First instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

66 242

NA

24 107

23 838

28 828

29 923

26 056

25 371

24 913

-62,4%

-

-

-1,1%

20,9%

3,8%

-12,9%

-2,6%

-1,8%

10 418

8 412

6 803

6 116

5 845

6 193

6 280

6 157

7 097

-31,9%

-19,3%

-19,1%

-10,1%

-4,4%

6,0%

1,4%

-2,0%

15,3%

-

-

16 282

16 392

21 836

22 802

18 884

18 394

16 910

-

-

-

0,7%

33,2%

4,4%

-17,2%

-2,6%

-8,1%

13 554

11 553

11 323

9 510

7 727

2 039

9 294

11 338

11 968

-11,7%

-14,8%

-2,0%

-16,0%

-18,7%

-73,6%

355,8%

22,0%

5,6%

6 882

14 109

20 763

9 590

7 056

4 942

-

-

-

38,8%

105,0%

47,2%

-53,8%

-26,4%

-30,0%

3 125

3 682

3 674

4 775

4 717

3 159

-16,5%

-19,8%

26,7%

-18,7%

17,8%

-0,2%

30,0%

-1,2%

-33,0%

3 757

10 427

17 089

4 815

2 339

1 783

-95,2%

-92,6%

-59,8%

236,6%

177,5%

63,9%

-71,8%

-51,4%

-23,8%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 022

1 330

1 147

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

928

NAP

NAP

NAP

892

NAP

NAP

NAP

820

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

906

-21,4%

-22,7%

14,7%

30,1%

-13,8%

-19,1%

-3,9%

-8,1%

10,5%

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-0,7%

37,6%

-17,7%

11,3%

1,0%

3,4%

265 301

NA

237 929

236 230

325 147

267 703

297 825

300 762

310 988

17,2%

16 336

17 745

16 775

15 189

16 408

16 159

15 382

18 501

18 950

16,0%

8,6%

-5,5%

-9,5%

8,0%

-1,5%

-4,8%

20,3%

2,4%

-

-

217 368

217 670

305 783

248 558

279 965

279 728

289 301

-

-

-

0,1%

40,5%

-18,7%

12,6%

-0,1%

3,4%

44 136

51 112

46 864

44 407

43 717

14 020

48 177

52 590

60 270

36,6%

15,8%

-8,3%

-5,2%

-1,6%

-67,9%

243,6%

9,2%

14,6%

-

-

170 504

173 263

262 066

234 538

231 788

227 138

229 031

-

-

-

1,6%

51,3%

-10,5%

-1,2%

-2,0%

0,8%

91 218

92 832

97 704

72 800

107 351

121 455

111 522

112 455

108 686

19,1%

1,8%

5,2%

-25,5%

47,5%

13,1%

-8,2%

0,8%

-3,4%

110 756

90 012

72 800

100 463

154 715

113 083

120 266

114 683

120 345

8,7%

-18,7%

-19,1%

38,0%

54,0%

-26,9%

6,4%

-4,6%

4,9%

-

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

91.2.10 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

2 855

2 957

3 786

3 371

2 956

2 986

2 478

2 533

2 737

-4,1%

3,6%

28,0%

-11,0%

-12,3%

1,0%

-17,0%

2,2%

8,1%

91.2.11 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

428 / 1555

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

91.3.1 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.3.2 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.3.3 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.3.4 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.3.5 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.3.6 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.3.7 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.3.8 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

91.3.9 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

295 674

NA

233 577

329 909

317 757

278 506

299 371

300 911

315 176

6,6%

-

-

41,2%

-3,7%

-12,4%

7,5%

0,5%

4,7%

18 370

19 096

17 486

15 504

16 007

16 043

15 473

17 433

18 920

3,0%

4,0%

-8,4%

-11,3%

3,2%

0,2%

-3,6%

12,7%

8,5%

-

-

212 669

310 882

298 627

259 496

281 421

281 090

293 725

-

-

-

46,2%

-3,9%

-13,1%

8,4%

-0,1%

4,5%

46 041

50 946

42 969

46 104

44 042

14 025

46 060

52 873

64 011

39,0%

10,7%

-15,7%

7,3%

-4,5%

-68,2%

228,4%

14,8%

21,1%

-

-

169 700

264 778

254 585

245 471

235 361

228 217

229 714

-

-

-

56,0%

-3,8%

-3,6%

-4,1%

-3,0%

0,7%

92 043

92 066

97 769

163 565

106 635

120 113

112 715

112 976

108 869

18,3%

0,0%

6,2%

67,3%

-34,8%

12,6%

-6,2%

0,2%

-3,6%

136 207

91 099

71 931

101 213

147 950

125 358

122 646

115 241

120 845

-11,3%

-33,1%

-21,0%

40,7%

46,2%

-15,3%

-2,2%

-6,0%

4,9%

-

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

91.3.10 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

3 013

2 687

3 422

3 523

3 123

2 967

2 477

2 388

2 531

-16,0%

-10,8%

27,4%

3,0%

-11,4%

-5,0%

-16,5%

-3,6%

6,0%

91.3.11 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

91.4.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.4.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.4.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.4.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.4.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.4.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.4.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.4.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

91.4.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.4.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

91.4.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

35 558

NA

21 252

35 228

35 078

18 556

24 225

25 990

21 402

-39,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

65,8%

-0,4%

-47,1%

30,6%

7,3%

-17,7%

8 393

6 812

5 991

5 767

6 110

6 175

6 069

7 021

6 998

-16,6%

-18,8%

-12,1%

-3,7%

5,9%

1,1%

-1,7%

15,7%

-0,3%

-

-

13 935

28 333

28 047

11 501

17 349

18 079

13 416

-

-

-

103,3%

-1,0%

-59,0%

50,8%

4,2%

-25,8%

11 434

11 765

9 147

7 724

7 326

1 943

11 328

11 954

8 120

-29,0%

2,9%

-22,3%

-15,6%

-5,2%

-73,5%

483,0%

5,5%

-32,1%

-

-

4 788

20 609

20 721

9 558

6 021

6 125

5 296

-

-

-

330,4%

0,5%

-53,9%

-37,0%

1,7%

-13,5%

3 799

1 634

-

-

2 957

11 884

-

-

890

NAP

3 758

17 628

3 674

4 743

3 660

4 342

4 013

35,7%

28,5%

-1,1%

369,1%

-79,2%

29,1%

-22,8%

18,6%

-7,6%

1 030

2 981

17 047

4 815

2 361

1 783

1 283

-89,2%

-86,3%

-37,0%

189,4%

471,9%

-71,8%

-51,0%

-24,5%

-28,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 026

1 326

1 128

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

921

NAP

NAP

NAP

880

NAP

NAP

NAP

807

NAP

NAP

NAP

890

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

988

11,0%

15,3%

29,2%

-14,9%

-18,4%

-4,5%

-8,3%

10,3%

11,0%

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

429 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.2 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.4 to 3.3.7 Variation of Clearence Rate and Disposition Time of first instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

Table 3.13.1 (EC) to 3.13.6 (EC) First instance courts: Disposition time and clearance rate for other than criminal cases  (Q91)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

111,4%

NA

98,2%

139,7%

97,7%

104,0%

100,5%

100,0%

101,3%

(9,06)

-

-

42,26

(30,02)

6,45

(3,38)

(0,47)

1,30

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

112,5%

107,6%

104,2%

102,1%

97,6%

99,3%

100,6%

94,2%

99,8%

(11,21)

(4,30)

(3,14)

(2,08)

(4,43)

1,77

1,32

(6,33)

5,96

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

-

-

97,8%

142,8%

97,7%

104,4%

100,5%

100,5%

101,5%

-

-

-

45,98

(31,62)

6,90

(3,72)

(0,03)

1,04

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

104,3%

99,7%

91,7%

103,8%

100,7%

100,0%

95,6%

100,5%

106,2%

1,81

(4,45)

(8,01)

13,23

(2,96)

(0,70)

(4,43)

5,16

5,64

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

-

-

99,5%

152,8%

97,1%

104,7%

101,5%

100,5%

100,3%

-

-

-

53,54

(36,43)

7,74

(2,98)

(1,05)

(0,18)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

100,9%

99,2%

100,1%

224,7%

99,3%

98,9%

101,1%

100,5%

100,2%

(0,73)

(1,71)

0,90

124,53

(55,79)

(0,44)

2,20

(0,60)

(0,29)

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

123,0%

101,2%

98,8%

100,7%

95,6%

110,9%

102,0%

100,5%

100,4%

(18,35)

(17,70)

(2,37)

1,96

(5,08)

15,92

(8,01)

(1,46)

(0,07)

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

-

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CR Administrative law cases

105,5%

90,9%

90,4%

104,5%

105,6%

99,4%

100,0%

94,3%

92,5%

(12,38)

(13,90)

(0,53)

15,63

1,09

(5,95)

0,60

(5,69)

(1,91)

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

44

167

-

91

-

12

32

-

-

108

NAP

NA

130

-

84

-

15

7

-

-

139

NAP

33

125

24

78

10

14

5

NAP

NAP

141

NAP

39

136

33

61

28

39

11

NAP

NAP

117

NAP

40

139

34

61

30

13

42

NAP

NAP

108

NAP

24

140

16

51

14

14

14

NAP

NAP

108

NAP

30

143

23

90

9

12

7

NAP

NAP

119

NAP

32

147

23

83

10

14

6

NAP

NAP

136

NAP

25

-43,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

17,4%

3,4%

-39,6%

21,5%

6,7%

-21,4%

135

-19,0%

-21,9%

-4,0%

8,6%

2,6%

0,8%

1,9%

2,7%

-8,2%

17

-

-

-

39,1%

3,1%

-52,8%

39,1%

4,3%

-29,0%

46

-48,9%

-7,0%

-7,8%

-21,3%

-0,7%

-16,7%

77,5%

-8,1%

-43,9%

8

-

-

-

175,9%

4,6%

-52,2%

-34,3%

4,9%

-14,1%

13

14,7%

28,4%

-6,8%

180,4%

-68,0%

14,6%

-17,8%

18,4%

-4,1%

4

-87,8%

-79,4%

-20,2%

105,7%

291,2%

-66,7%

-49,9%

-19,6%

-31,4%

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

142

32,2%

29,3%

1,5%

-17,4%

-7,9%

0,6%

9,8%

14,4%

4,7%

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

430 / 1555

        
       
      
         
        
        
         
      
        
        
        
        
         
         
        
         
       
      
         
        
        
         
         
        
        
       
        
        
        
         
         
       
      
         
        
        
        
        
        
         
     
      
        
         
        
        
      
      
        
         
        
       
        
        
        
      
      
        
       
         
        
         
        
        
Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.4.1 (all years) First instance courts, number of cases for specific case categories (Q101)

101.1.1 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Litigious divorce case

101.1.2 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Employment dismissal case

101.1.3 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Insolvency

101.2.1 Incoming cases_Litigious divorce case

101.2.2 Incoming cases_Employment dismissal case

263

283

289

652

331

172

306

267

691

451

280

277

235

912

375

300

232

237

814

386

240

218

230

828

446

163

222

226

829

356

168

193

193

805

282

194

191

440

855

291

194

-26,2%

-34,6%

62,8%

7,1%

-20,0%

-32,1%

3,1%

15,5%

0,0%

180

-36,4%

8,1%

-9,5%

-16,2%

-6,0%

1,8%

-13,1%

-1,0%

-5,8%

230

-20,4%

-7,6%

-12,0%

0,9%

-3,0%

-1,7%

-14,6%

128,0%

-47,7%

841

29,0%

6,0%

32,0%

-10,7%

1,7%

0,1%

-2,9%

6,2%

-1,6%

337

1,8%

36,3%

-16,9%

2,9%

15,5%

-20,2%

-20,8%

3,2%

15,8%

101.2.3 Incoming cases_Insolvency

1 152

1 306

1 331

1 145

1 194

1 314

1 522

1 635

1 614

40,1%

13,4%

1,9%

-14,0%

4,3%

10,1%

15,8%

7,4%

-1,3%

101.3.1 Resolved cases_Litigious divorce case

101.3.2 Resolved cases_Employment dismissal case

598

320

585

432

873

382

876

390

900

389

823

364

778

277

860

290

860

43,8%

-2,2%

49,2%

0,3%

2,7%

-8,6%

-5,5%

10,5%

0,0%

255

-20,3%

35,0%

-11,6%

2,1%

-0,3%

-6,4%

-23,9%

4,7%

-12,1%

101.3.3 Resolved cases_Insolvency

1 099

1 286

1 290

1 146

1 212

1 281

1 444

1 613

1 571

42,9%

17,0%

0,3%

-11,2%

5,8%

5,7%

12,7%

11,7%

-2,6%

101.4.1 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Litigious divorce case

101.4.2 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Employment dismissal case

101.4.3 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Insolvency

316

277

312

275

277

242

319

228

258

238

213

209

166

222

201

169

192

236

194

187

250

189

178

425

174

-44,9%

-13,0%

16,0%

-25,4%

-30,3%

1,8%

14,8%

-2,6%

-7,9%

250

-9,7%

0,0%

-17,7%

-6,6%

4,2%

-13,5%

-2,6%

-4,8%

40,4%

232

-25,6%

-22,4%

6,6%

-19,0%

-3,8%

17,4%

5,9%

70,0%

-45,4%

Table 3.5.1 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for specific case categories (Q101)

Table 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 Variations of CR and DT for specific case categories of first instance cases (Q101)

CR Litigious divorce cases

91,7%

84,7%

95,7%

107,6%

108,7%

99,3%

96,6%

100,6%

102,3%

11,49

(7,70)

13,07

12,42

1,00

(8,67)

(2,65)

4,08

1,66

CR Employment dismissal cases

96,7%

95,8%

101,9%

101,0%

87,2%

102,2%

98,2%

99,7%

75,7%

(21,73)

(0,92)

6,35

(0,82)

(13,67)

17,23

(3,93)

1,46

(24,07)

CR Insolvency cases

95,4%

98,5%

96,9%

100,1%

101,5%

97,5%

94,9%

98,7%

97,3%

2,03

3,22

(1,57)

3,27

1,42

(3,96)

(2,68)

3,98

(1,34)

DT Litigious divorce cases

DT Employment dismissal cases

DT Insolvency cases

193

316

104

172

234

69

133

218

73

99

199

67

67

208

61

75

193

67

91

246

63

80

224

96

74

-61,7%

-11,0%

-22,3%

-25,6%

-32,1%

11,3%

21,4%

-11,9%

-7,9%

358

13,3%

-25,9%

-6,9%

-8,5%

4,5%

-7,6%

28,0%

-9,1%

59,7%

54

-48,0%

-33,7%

6,3%

-8,8%

-9,1%

11,1%

-6,0%

52,2%

-44,0%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

431 / 1555

       
        
       
       
         
        
        
         
         
      
        
         
        
      
       
        
         
      
         
         
        
         
         
        
        
         
        
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.7.1 to 3.7.5 (2019 and 2020) Second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Table 3.9.1 to 3.9.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

1 515

1 358

1 432

1 214

1 135

97.1.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.1.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.1.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.1.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.1.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.1.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.1.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.1.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

97.1.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.1.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

97.1.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases 

97.2.1 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.2.2 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.2.3 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.2.4 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.2.5 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.2.6 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.2.7 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.2.8 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

97.2.9 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

732

138

138

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

645

NAP

4 583

2 021

908

908

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

591

123

123

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

644

NAP

4 731

1 932

1 013

1 013

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

602

114

114

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

716

NAP

4 409

1 789

982

982

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

497

100

100

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

617

NAP

559

109

109

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

467

NAP

988

610

146

146

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

323

NAP

1 154

644

222

222

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

288

NAP

4 425

4 221

3 822

4 060

1 890

1 928

1 841

1 745

979

979

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

989

989

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

865

865

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 070

1 070

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-10,4%

5,4%

-15,2%

-6,5%

-13,0%

16,8%

-19,3%

1,9%

-17,4%

12,5%

9,1%

5,6%

-10,9%

-7,3%

-12,3%

9,0%

33,9%

52,1%

-10,9%

-7,3%

-12,3%

9,0%

33,9%

52,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-0,2%

11,2%

-13,8%

-24,3%

-30,8%

-10,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,2%

-6,8%

0,4%

-4,6%

-9,5%

6,2%

-4,4%

-7,4%

5,6%

2,0%

-4,5%

-5,2%

11,6%

-3,1%

-0,3%

1,0%

-12,5%

23,7%

11,6%

-3,1%

-0,3%

1,0%

-12,5%

23,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

8,0%

-8,3%

-5,0%

-16,2%

-14,4%

11,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

97.2.10 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

1 654

1 786

1 638

1 556

1 304

1 116

1 245

97.2.11 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases 

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

432 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.3.1 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.3.2 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.3.3 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.3.4 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.3.5 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.3.6 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.3.7 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.3.8 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

97.3.9 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

4 753

2 164

939

939

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4 645

1 925

1 018

1 018

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4 626

1 897

998

998

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4 473

4 237

3 751

4 015

1 829

1 874

1 792

1 784

966

966

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

916

916

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

814

814

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 045

1 045

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

97.3.10 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

1 650

1 702

1 731

1 678

1 447

1 145

1 186

97.3.11 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases 

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

97.4.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.4.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.4.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.4.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.4.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.4.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.4.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.4.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

97.4.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.4.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

97.4.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases

97.5.1 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.5.2 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.5.10 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1 341

1 434

1 209

1 139

1 116

1 109

1 148

590

106

106

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

645

NAP

-

-

-

598

118

118

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

718

NAP

-

-

-

494

98

98

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

617

NAP

2

1

1

558

113

113

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

468

NAP

3

1

2

612

182

182

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

322

NAP

1

1

5

639

182

182

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

288

NAP

-

-

-

585

221

221

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

342

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,3%

-0,4%

-3,3%

-5,3%

-11,5%

7,0%

-11,0%

-1,5%

-3,6%

2,5%

-4,4%

-0,4%

8,4%

-2,0%

-3,2%

-5,2%

-11,1%

28,4%

8,4%

-2,0%

-3,2%

-5,2%

-11,1%

28,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,2%

1,7%

-3,1%

-13,8%

-20,9%

3,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

6,9%

-15,7%

-5,8%

-2,0%

-0,6%

3,5%

1,4%

-17,4%

13,0%

9,7%

4,4%

-8,5%

11,3%

-16,9%

15,3%

61,1%

0,0%

21,4%

11,3%

-16,9%

15,3%

61,1%

0,0%

21,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

11,3%

-14,1%

-24,1%

-31,2%

-10,6%

18,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

50,0%

-66,7%

0,0%

0,0%

100,0%

150,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

433 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 (2019 and 2020): Second instance clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.9.4 and 3.9.5 (2019 and 2020): Variation of second clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

103,7%

98,2%

104,9%

101,1%

100,4%

98,1%

98,9%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

107,1%

99,6%

106,0%

96,8%

97,2%

97,3%

102,2%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

103,4%

100,5%

101,6%

98,7%

92,6%

94,1%

97,7%

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

103,4%

100,5%

101,6%

98,7%

92,6%

94,1%

97,7%

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

99,8%

95,3%

105,7%

107,8%

111,0%

102,6%

95,3%

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

103

100

41

41

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

143

NAP

113

113

42

42

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

154

NAP

95

95

36

36

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

130

NAP

93

111

43

43

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

102

NAP

96

119

73

73

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

81

108

130

82

82

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

92

NAP

NAP

104

120

77

77

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

105

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(5,33)

6,86

(3,66)

(0,70)

(2,23)

0,76

(6,95)

6,42

(8,74)

0,44

0,14

5,03

(2,82)

1,13

(2,91)

(6,13)

1,60

3,78

(2,82)

1,13

(2,91)

(6,13)

1,60

3,78

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(4,47)

10,89

2,05

2,90

(7,54)

(7,15)

-

-

-

-

-

-

9,4%

-15,3%

-2,6%

3,4%

12,2%

-3,3%

13,9%

-16,2%

17,2%

7,0%

9,2%

-8,0%

2,7%

-15,3%

19,1%

69,9%

12,5%

-5,4%

2,7%

-15,3%

19,1%

69,9%

12,5%

-5,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7,9%

-15,5%

-21,8%

-20,2%

13,0%

14,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

434 / 1555

        
         
        
        
        
         
        
         
        
         
         
         
        
         
        
        
         
         
        
         
        
        
         
         
        
       
         
         
        
        
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.10.1 to 3.10.5 (2019 and 2020) Supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Table 3.12.1 to 3.12.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of the supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.1.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.1.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.1.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.1.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.1.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.1.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.1.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.1.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

99.1.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.1.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

99.1.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.2.1 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.2.2 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.2.3 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.2.4 High inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.2.5 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.2.6 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.2.7 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.2.8 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

99.2.9 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.2.10 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

99.2.11 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

96

54

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

42

NAP

290

190

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

100

NAP

93

58

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

35

NAP

289

194

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

95

NAP

91

49

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

42

NAP

285

184

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

101

NAP

99

57

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

42

108

62

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

46

73

29

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

44

61

28

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

33

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

259

182

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

77

238

158

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

80

210

140

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

70

196

122

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

74

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-3,1%

-2,2%

8,8%

9,1%

-32,4%

-16,4%

7,4%

-15,5%

16,3%

8,8%

-53,2%

-3,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-16,7%

20,0%

0,0%

9,5%

-4,3%

-25,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-0,3%

-1,4%

-9,1%

-8,1%

-11,8%

-6,7%

2,1%

-5,2%

-1,1%

-13,2%

-11,4%

-12,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-5,0%

6,3%

-23,8%

3,9%

-12,5%

5,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

435 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.3.1 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.3.2 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.3.3 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.3.4 High inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.3.5 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.3.6 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.3.7 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.3.8 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

99.3.9 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.3.10 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

99.3.11 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.4.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.4.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.4.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.4.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.4.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.4.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.4.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.4.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry 
cases

99.4.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.4.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative 
law cases

99.4.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.5.1 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.5.2 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.5.10 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

296

186

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

110

NAP

89

58

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

38

NAP

-

-

-

293

203

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

90

NAP

89

49

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

40

NAP

-

-

-

269

172

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

97

NAP

108

62

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

46

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

279

194

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

85

231

155

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

76

223

141

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

82

170

102

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

68

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

80

45

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

35

NAP

-

-

-

71

28

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

43

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

61

28

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

33

87

48

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

38

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-1,0%

-8,2%

3,7%

-17,2%

-3,5%

-23,8%

9,1%

-15,3%

12,8%

-20,1%

-9,0%

-27,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-18,2%

7,8%

-12,4%

-10,6%

7,9%

-17,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

21,3%

-25,9%

-11,3%

-14,1%

42,6%

-15,5%

26,5%

-27,4%

-37,8%

0,0%

71,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5,3%

15,0%

-23,9%

22,9%

-23,3%

15,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

436 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 Supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.12.4 and 3.12.5 Variation of the supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

102,1%

101,4%

94,4%

107,7%

97,1%

106,2%

86,7%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

97,9%

104,6%

93,5%

106,6%

98,1%

100,7%

83,6%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

110,0%

94,7%

96,0%

110,4%

95,0%

117,1%

91,9%

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

110

114

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

126

NAP

111

88

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

162

NAP

147

132

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

173

NAP

105

85

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

150

NAP

112

66

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

207

NAP

100

72

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

147

NAP

187

172

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

204

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(0,67)

(6,90)

14,13

(9,90)

9,41

(18,32)

6,89

(10,67)

14,03

(7,97)

2,66

(16,99)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(13,88)

1,38

14,94

(13,94)

23,31

(21,56)

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,0%

32,2%

-28,6%

7,2%

-11,0%

87,1%

-22,6%

49,3%

-35,7%

-22,1%

9,9%

137,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

28,7%

6,7%

-13,2%

37,4%

-28,9%

38,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

437 / 1555

        
        
       
        
         
      
         
      
       
        
         
      
      
         
       
      
       
      
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.14.1 to 3.14.5 First instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

094.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

094.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

094.2.1 Total -incoming

094.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

094.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

094.2.4 Other - incoming

094.3.1 Total - resolved

094.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

094.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

094.3.4 Other - resolved

094.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

094.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

094.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

094.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

1 859

597

675

587

20 392

5 210

5 952

9 230

20 385

5 114

5 926

9 345

1 688

642

574

472

59

28

19

12

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

438 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.15.1 to 3.10.2 CR and DT for first instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

098.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

098.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

098.2.1 Total -incoming

098.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

098.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

098.2.4 Other - incoming

098.3.1 Total - resolved

098.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

098.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

098.3.4 Other - resolved

Table 3.16.1 to 3.16.5 Second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

100,0%

98,2%

99,6%

101,2%

30

46

35

18

136

126

10

NAP

1 993

1 874

119

NAP

1 982

1 860

122

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

439 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

098.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

098.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

098.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

098.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

146

139

7

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

Table 3.17.1 to 3.17.2 CR and DT for second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

99,4%

99,3%

102,5%

NAP

27

27

21

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

440 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.18.1 to 3.18.5 Supreme court criminal law cases (Q100)

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

100.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

100.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

100.2.1 Total -incoming

100.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

100.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

100.2.4 Other - incoming

100.3.1 Total - resolved

100.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

100.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

100.3.4 Other - resolved

100.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

100.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

100.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

100.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

10

NAP

NAP

NAP

101

NAP

NAP

NAP

88

NAP

NAP

NAP

23

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

441 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.19.1 to 3.19.2 CR and DT for supreme court  criminal law cases (Q100)

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

87,1%

NAP

NAP

NAP

95

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

442 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 5: Access to justice

Legal aid

Table 5.1 to Table 5.6 (Q12-2, Q16, Q18, Q19, Q20, Q20-1)

12-2.1.1 Coverage of court fees

12-2.1.2 Exemption from court fees

16.1.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (criminal cases)

16.1.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (criminal cases)

16.2.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (other than criminal 
cases)

16.2.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (other than criminal cases)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

-

-

-

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

18.1.1 Legal aid for the enforcement of judicial decisions

19.1.1  Legal aid granted for other costs - criminal cases

19.1.2  Legal aid granted for other costs - other than criminal cases

020.1.1 Total

020.1.2 Total - criminal cases

020.1.3 Total - other than criminal cases

020.2.1 Total brought to court

020.2.2 Broight to court - criminal cases

020.2.3 Brought to court - other then criminal

020.3.1 Total not brought to court

020.3.2 Not broight to court - criminal cases

020.3.3 Not brought to court - other then criminal

020-1.1.1 Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulation

020-1.1.2 Average duration

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

12 421

7 067

5 354

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

443 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

System for compensating users

Table 5.7.1 and Table 5.7.2 (Q37)

037.1.1 Requests for compensation - Total

037.1.2 Requests for compensation - Excessive length of 
proceedings

037.1.3 Requests for compensation - Non-execution of court 
decisions

037.1.4 Requests for compensation - Wrongful arrest

037.1.5 Requests for compensation - Wrongful conviction

037.1.6 Requests for compensation - Other

037.2.1 Condemnations - Total

037.2.2 Condemnations - Excessive length of proceedings

037.2.3 Condemnations - Non-execution of court decisions

037.2.4 Condemnations - Wrongful arrest

037.2.5 Condemnations - Wrongful conviction

037.2.6 Condemnations - Other

037.3.1 Amount - Total

037.3.2 Amount - Excessive length of proceedings

037.3.3 Amount - Non-execution of court decisions

037.3.4 Amount - Wrongful arrest

037.3.5 Amount - Wrongful conviction

037.3.6 Amount - Other

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

444 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 6.1 to Table 6.11 (Q62-7, Q62-7-1, Q62-8,  Q62-8-1, Q63-1, Q63-1-1, Q63-2 Q63-6, Q63-7, Q63-7-1, Q64-2,  Q64-4, Q64-6, Q64-3, Q64-3-1, Q64-7, Q64-7-1, 
Q64-9)

Indicator 6: The ICT tools of courts and for court users

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

62-7 Writing assistance tools coordinated at national level

62-7-1.1 Deployment rate in civil matter

62-7-1.2 Deployment rate in criminal matter

62-7-1.3 Deployment rate in administrative matter

62-8 Voice recording tools

62-8-1.1.1 Availability of simple dictation tools in civil matter

62-8-1.1.2 Availability of simple dictation tools in criminal matter

62-8-1.1.3 Availability of simple dictation tools in administrative 
matter

62-8-1.2.1 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in civil 
matter

62-8-1.2.2 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in criminal 
matter

62-8-1.2.3 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in 
administrative matter

62-8-1.3.1 Availability of voice recognition in civil matter

62-8-1.3.2 Availability of voice recognition in criminal matter

62-8-1.3.3 Availability of voice recognition in administrative matter

062-9 Availability of intranet site within the judicial system for 
distribution of news/novelties

63.1 Is there a case management system? 

63.1-1.1 CMS for civil matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for criminal matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for administrative matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.2 CMS for civil matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for criminal matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for administrative matter (status of case onlinee)

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

True

False

True

NA

NA

NA

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

No

No

No

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

-

-

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

445 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63.1-1.3 CMS for civil matter (Centralised or interoperable database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for criminal matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for administrative matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.4 CMS for civil matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for criminal matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for administrative matter (Early warning signals)

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS civil matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS criminal matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS administrative matter

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - land registry

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - business registry

63-2.2 Data consolidated at national level for land registry

63-2.2  Data consolidated at national level for business registry

63-2.3 Service available online for land registry

63-2.3  Service available online for business registry

63-2.4 Statistical module integrated or connected for land registry

63-2.4  Statistical module integrated or connected for business 
registry

063-6.1.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (deployment 
rate)

063-6.1.2 Justice expenses management (deployment rate)

063-6.1.3 Other financial management tools (deployment rate)

063-6.2.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (Data 
consolidated at national level)

063-6.2.2 Justice expenses management (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.2.3 Other financial management tools (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.3.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (System 
communicating with other ministries)

063-6.3.2 Justice expenses management (System communicating 
with other ministries)

063-6.3.3 Other financial management tools (System communicating 
with other ministries)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

NA

True

True

False

True

True

False

NA

100%

True

True

NA

True

True

NA

True

True

True

True

True

True

446 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63-7.1 Measurement tools to assess the workload

63-7-1.1.1 Deployment rate - workload of judges

63-7-1.1.2 Deployment rate - workload of prosecutors

63-7-1.1.3 Deployment rate - workload of non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.2.1 Monitoring on national level - judges

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - prosecutors

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.3.1 Monitoring on court level - judges

63-7-1.3.2 Monitoring on court level - prosecutors

63-7-1.3.3 Monitoring on court level - non-judge and non-prosecutor 
staff

064-2 - Possibility to submit a case to courts by electronic means

064-2 - Civil and/or commercial

064-2 - Criminal

064-2 - Administrative

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - civil

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - criminal

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory  - administrative

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - civil

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - criminal

064-2 - Specific legislative framework  - administrative

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - civil

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - criminal

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - administrative

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

447 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-3 - Is it possible to request for granting legal aid by electronic 
means? 

064-3-1.1 - Equipment rate

064-3-1.2 - Request in paper mandatory

064-3-1.3 - Specific legislative framework

064-3-1.4 - Granting LA is also electronic

064-3-1.5 - Information available in CMS

064-4 - Possibility to transmit summons to a judicial meeting or a 
hearing by electronic means

064-4-1.1.1 - Summons produced by CMS- civil

064-4-1.1.2 - Summons produced by CMS- criminal

064-4-1.1.3 - Summons produced by CMS- administrative

064-4-1.2.1 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- civil

064-4-1.2.2 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- criminal

064-4-1.2.3 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- administrative

064-4-1.3.1 - Consent of the user - civil

064-4-1.3.2 - Consent of the user - criminal

064-4-1.3.3 - Consent of the user - administrative

064-6.1.1 - Civil and/or commercial (deployment rate)

064-6.1.2 - Criminal (deployment rate)

064-6.1.3 - Administrative (deployment rate)

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

448 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-6.2.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.2 - Criminal (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.3 - Administrative (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.3.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Modalities)

064-6.3.2 - Criminal (Modalities)

064-6.3.3 - Administrative (Modalities)

064-6.4.1 - Civil and/or commercial (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.2 - Criminal (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.3 - Administrative (specific legal framework)

064-6.5.1 - Civil and/or commercial (availability for)

064-6.5.2 - Criminal (availability for)

064-6.5.3 - Administrative (availability for)

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 

phases     

Decision 
Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
E-mail  
Specific 
application  

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
E-mail  
Specific 
application  

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer
Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer
Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

449 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-7.1.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (deployment rate)

064-7.1.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.2.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (Modalities)

064-7.2.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.3.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (specific legal framework)

064-7.32.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-7.3.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts (specific 
legal framework)

064-7.3.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-9 - Existance of online processing devices of specialised 
litigation

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

100%

100%

100%

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

450 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

46.1.1 Total Number of professional judges

46.1.2 Number of 1st inst professional judges

46.1.3 Number of 2nd inst professional judges

46.1.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges

46.2.1 Number of professional judges_males

46.2.2 Number of 1st instance professional judges_males

46.2.3 Number of 2nd instance professional judges_males

46.2.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges_males

46.3.1  Number of professional judges_females

46.3.2  Number of 1st inst professional judges_females

46.3.3  Number of 2nd inst professional judges_females

46.3.4  Number of Supreme court professional judges_females

046-2.1.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Total

046-2.2.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Civil and commercial

046-2.2.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.3.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Criminal

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

Indicator 7: Professionals of justice  (Indicator 9 in 2019)

Table 7.1.1 to 7.5.6 for judges, non judge staff, prosecutors, non prosecutor staff and salaries

228

167

42

19

83

49

17

17

145

118

25

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

226

165

43

18

83

50

17

16

143

115

26

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

231

169

44

18

86

51

20

15

145

118

24

3

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

234

170

45

19

86

51

20

15

148

119

25

4

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

232

168

45

19

85

51

20

14

147

117

25

5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

227

163

45

19

83

49

20

14

144

114

25

5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

233

169

45

19

87

52

20

15

146

117

25

4

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

229

164

46

19

86

49

22

15

143

115

24

4

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

234

2,6%

-0,9%

2,2%

1,3%

-0,9%

-2,2%

2,6%

-1,7%

2,2%

169

1,2%

-1,2%

2,4%

0,6%

-1,2%

-3,0%

3,7%

-3,0%

3,0%

46

19

85

50

20

9,5%

2,4%

2,3%

2,3%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

2,2%

0,0%

0,0%

-5,3%

0,0%

5,6%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

2,4%

0,0%

3,6%

0,0%

-1,2%

-2,4%

4,8%

-1,1%

-1,2%

2,0%

2,0%

2,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-3,9%

6,1%

-5,8%

2,0%

17,6%

0,0%

17,6%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

10,0%

-9,1%

15

-11,8%

-5,9%

-6,3%

0,0%

-6,7%

0,0%

7,1%

0,0%

0,0%

149

2,8%

-1,4%

1,4%

2,1%

-0,7%

-2,0%

1,4%

-2,1%

4,2%

119

0,8%

-2,5%

2,6%

0,8%

-1,7%

-2,6%

2,6%

-1,7%

3,5%

26

4,0%

4,0%

-7,7%

4,2%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-4,0%

8,3%

4

100,0%

0,0%

50,0%

33,3%

25,0%

0,0%

-20,0%

0,0%

0,0%

234

169

46

19

NA

NA

23

8

NA

NA

12

5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

451 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

046-2.4.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - 
Administrative

046-2.4.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.5.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Other

 52.1.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in courts 

52.1.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)

52.1.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges

52.1.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks

52.1.5 Number of Technical staff

52.1.6 Number of Other non judge staff

52.2.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(men)

52.2.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(men)

52.2.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(men)

52.2.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(men)

52.2.5 Number of Technical staff(men)

52.2.6 Number of Other non judge staff(men)

52.3.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(women)

52.3.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(women)

52.3.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(women)

52.3.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(women)

52.3.5 Number of Technical staff(women)

52.3.6 Number of Other non judge staff(women)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

957

63

220

489

138

47

-

-

-

-

-

-

828

58

186

466

75

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

990

54

239

501

149

47

-

-

-

-

-

-

865

49

210

483

81

42

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 017

51

684

78

161

43

126

4

39

14

65

4

891

47

645

64

96

39

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

965

71

652

87

111

44

146

20

40

17

64

5

819

51

612

70

47

39

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

877

51

615

82

88

41

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

846

51

596

80

81

38

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

819

51

583

77

73

35

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

802

51

569

79

72

31

42

25

11

6

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

825

-13,8%

3,4%

2,7%

-5,1%

-9,1%

-3,5%

-3,2%

-2,1%

2,9%

51

-19,0%

-14,3%

-5,6%

39,2%

-28,2%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

591

168,6%

8,6%

186,2%

-4,7%

-5,7%

-3,1%

-2,2%

-2,4%

3,9%

77

-84,3%

2,5%

-84,4%

11,5%

-5,7%

-2,4%

-3,8%

2,6%

-2,5%

73

-47,1%

8,0%

8,1%

-31,1%

-20,7%

-8,0%

-9,9%

-1,4%

1,4%

33

-29,8%

0,0%

-8,5%

2,3%

-6,8%

-7,3%

-7,9%

-11,4%

6,5%

128

130

122

122

124

5

42

16

60

5

749

46

573

66

28

36

5

43

22

56

4

716

46

553

58

25

34

5

43

21

51

2

697

46

540

56

22

33

5

43

21

51

2

680

46

526

58

21

29

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

15,9%

-12,3%

1,6%

-6,2%

0,0%

1,6%

400,0%

-75,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

2,6%

5,0%

2,4%

0,0%

0,0%

4,7%

21,4%

-5,9%

37,5%

-4,5%

0,0%

0,0%

-1,5%

-6,3%

-6,7%

-8,9%

0,0%

0,0%

25,0%

0,0%

-20,0%

-50,0%

0,0%

0,0%

5

45

21

51

2

701

-15,3%

4,5%

3,0%

-8,1%

-8,5%

-4,4%

-2,7%

-2,4%

3,1%

46

-20,7%

-15,5%

-4,1%

8,5%

-9,8%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

546

193,5%

12,9%

207,1%

-5,1%

-6,4%

-3,5%

-2,4%

-2,6%

3,8%

56

-88,0%

3,6%

-86,7%

9,4%

-5,7%

-12,1%

-3,4%

3,6%

-3,4%

22

-70,7%

8,0%

18,5%

-51,0%

-40,4%

-10,7%

-12,0%

-4,5%

4,8%

31

-

-

-7,1%

0,0%

-7,7%

-5,6%

-2,9%

-12,1%

6,9%

452 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

052-1.1.1 Non-judge staff (Total)

052-1.1.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (total)

052-1.1.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (total)

052-1.1.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (total)

052-1.2.1 Non-judge staff  (Males)

052-1.2.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (males)

052-1.2.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (males)

052-1.2.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (males)

052-1.3.1 Non-judge staff  (females)

052-1.3.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (females)

052-1.3.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (females)

052-1.3.4 Non-judge staff  at supreme court (females)

055.1.1 Prosecutors (total)

055.1.2 Prosecutors (1st inst.)

055.1.3 Prosecutors (2nd inst.)

055.1.4 Prosecutors (Highest instance)

055.2.1 Prosecutors - Males -total

055.2.2 Prosecutors - Males, 1st inst.

055.2.3 Prosecutors - Males, 2nd inst.

055.2.4 Prosecutors - Males, Supreme courts

055.3.1 Prosecutors - Females, Total

055.3.2 Prosecutors - Females, 1st inst.

055.3.3 Prosecutors - Females, 2nd inst.

055.3.4 Prosecutors - Females, Supreme courts

825

648

88

89

124

78

13

33

701

570

75

56

169

NAP

NAP

NAP

50

NAP

NAP

NAP

119

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

453 / 1555

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

060.1.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Total

060.2.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Males

060.3.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Females

004 Annual average salary in the country

132.1.1 Gross annual salary, in €  - Professional judge at the 
beginning of career

132.1.2 Gross annual salary, in €  - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.1.3 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor at the beginning 
of career

132.1.4 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

132.2.1 Net annual salary, in € - Professional judge at the beginning 
of career

132.2.2 Net annual salary, in € - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.2.3 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor at the beginning of 
career

132.2.4 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

133.1.1.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Reduced taxation

133.1.2.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Special pension

133.1.3.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Housing

133.1.4.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Other financial benefit

133.2.1.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Reduced taxation

133.2.2.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Special pension

133.2.3.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Housing

133.2.4.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Other financial benefit

89

29

60

17 376 €

51 962 €

67 942 €

47 556 €

53 353 €

40 068 €

52 392 €

36 672 €

41 145 €

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

454 / 1555

         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

144.1.1 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - Total number (1+2+3+4)

144.1.2 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 1. Breach of professional 
ethics 

144.1.3 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.1.4 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 3. Criminal offence 

144.1.5 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 4. Other

144.2.1 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - Total number 
(1+2+3+4)

144.2.2 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 1. Breach of 
professional ethics 

144.2.3 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.2.4 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 3. Criminal offence

144.2.5 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 4. Other 

145.1.1 Sanctions against Judges - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.1.2 Sanctions against Judges - 1. Reprimand

145.1.3 Sanctions against Judges - 2. Suspension

145.1.4 Sanctions against Judges - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.1.5 Sanctions against Judges - 4. Fine

145.1.6 Sanctions against Judges - 5. Temporary reduction of salary

145.1.7 Sanctions against Judges - 6. Position downgrade

145.1.8 Sanctions against Judges - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.1.9 Sanctions against Judges - 8. Resignation

145.1.10 Sanctions against  Judges - 9. Other

145.1.11 Sanctions against  Judges - 10. Dismissal

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

455 / 1555

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

145.2.1 Sanctions against Prosecutors - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.2.2 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 1. Reprimand

145.2.3 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 2. Suspension

145.2.4 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.2.5 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 4. Fine

145.2.6 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 5. Temporary reduction of 
salary

145.2.7 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 6. Position downgrade

145.2.8 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.2.9 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 8. Resignation

145.2.10 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 9. Other

145.2.11 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 10. Dismissal

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lawyers

Tables 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.7 and 7.8

146.1.1 Total number of lawyers practising

846

878

934

970

993

1 024

1 041

1 076

1 096

29,6%

3,8%

6,4%

3,9%

2,4%

3,1%

1,7%

3,4%

1,9%

146.2.1 Practicing lawyers - man

146.3.1 Practicing lawyers - woman

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

552

562

559

489

514

537

147 Does this figure include “legal advisors” who cannot represent 
their clients in court (for example, some solicitors or in-house 
counsellors)? 

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,8%

-0,5%

5,1%

4,5%

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

456 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Estonia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

166 Number of accredited or registered mediators who practice 
judicial mediation: 

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

Indicator 8: The existence and use of alternative dispute resolution methods

Table 8.1 8.2 and 8.3

167.1.1 Total number started

167. 1.2 Civil and commercial cases(cid:9) - started

167. 1.2 Family cases - started

167.1.4 Administrative cases - started

167.1.5 Labour cases including employment dismissal cases - started

167.1.6. Criminal cases - started

167.1.7 Consumer cases - started

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Key: Variation of more than (+ -) 20% 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

457 / 1555

Judiciary at a glance in Finland

General data

Population:

5 533 793

GDP per capita: 42 701 €

Average annual 

salary:

43 140 €

Professionals

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Finland

Finland

EU Median

EU Median

Professional judges

Professional judges

19,67

23,92

19,67

23,92

Non-judge staff

39,07

59,00

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

7,05

39,07

59,00

9,91

2,51

7,05

9,91

15,22

2,51

Lawyers

Lawyers

73,86

15,22

73,86
122,09

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual 
salary in the country
EU Median

Finland

Finland

EU Median

Judge at the beginning of a career 
4,09

1,55

2,02

3,16

Judge of the highest court 3,16

2,02

4,09

1,55

1,71
Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

1,18

1,71

1,18

Public prosecutor at highest instance

NA

3,61

122,09

Judge at the beginning of a
career

Judge of the highest court

Prosecutor at the beginning of
a career

Efficiency

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

1st instance 2nd instance

Supreme Court
Supreme 
Court

100%

,

%
3
8
0
1

,

,

%
4
4
%
0
1
6
Civil and
3
9
commercial
Administrativ
e
cases
Total 
criminal law 
cases

%
7
8
9

,

93,6%

,

%
5
4
0
1

,

%
1
3
0
1

%
3
104,4%
9
8

,

%
4
3
9

,

108,3%

98,7% NAP

103,1%

89,3%

104,5%

93,4%

1
1

1

1
1

P
A
N

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

Administrative
cases

Total criminal law
cases

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance 2nd instance Supreme Court

127

Civil and commercial litigious cases
Administrative cases 274 NAP

300

Total criminal law cases189

210

214

300

274

210

182

127
214

122
122

182

189

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

Information and communication technology

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

Assistance toolsCase management system
2018

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the workload
2019

Electronic communication

EU Median 2020

2020

2018
2019
2020

2,00
2,00
2,00

EU Median 2020

4,58

2,00

4,67

2,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

4,58
4,67
5,58
5,58

5,17

5,17

2,00
2,00
1,00

4,00
4,00
3,67

7,96
7,41
9,44

9,44

7,96

7,41

6,94

1,25

2,50

6,94

4,00

4,00

3,67

2,00

2,00

1,00

1,25

2,50

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

*ICT calculations are described in more details in Annex 5 - IT Calculation methodology

458

2020

Synthesis table for the main indicators for:

Finland

Economic and demographic data

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Variations

Population

GDP per capita

Exchange rate (local currency needed to 
obtain 1€)

5 426 674

5 451 270

5 471 753

5 486 616

5 503 297

5 513 130

5 521 773

5 525 292

5 533 793

2,0%

35 571

37 018

37 559

38 162

38 959

40 612

42 340

43 567

42 701

20,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

Average annual salary

38 472

39 624

40 416

41 580

42 336

43 140

12,1%

0,6%

3,7%

NAP

2,0%

0,3%

8,7%

NAP

2,9%

0,2%

4,3%

0,1%

2,9%

0,2%

-2,0%

NAP NAP

NAP

1,8%

1,9%

Resources

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Professional judges per 100 000 inhab.

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhab.

Lawyers per 100 000 inh.

Mediators

ICT overall assesment

First instance incoming cases per 100 
inhab.

18,1

40,8

35,7

NAP

18,1

40,3

36,9

NAP

18,1

39,5

38,7

NAP

18,1

39,1

64,7

NAP

19,4

39,4

68,9

NAP

19,0

38,8

69,8

NAP

19,6

38,6

71,8

NAP

7,3

19,7

38,5

72,8

NAP

7,2

19,5

39,1

73,9

NAP

7,7

7,7%

7,5%

0,9%

3,3%

0,5%

-1,1%

-4,2%

-0,2%

-2,1%

-0,4%

-0,2%

107,1%

78,2%

NAP

NAP

4,2%

NAP

2,9%

NAP

1,4%

NAP

-2,3%

1,4%

1,5%

NAP

8,1%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Civil and commercial litigious cases

0,190

0,195

0,195

0,202

0,156

0,150

0,149

0,153

0,166

-12,6%

-20,0%

-4,3%

-0,3%

2,4%

8,7%

Administrative law cases

0,508

0,5

0,5

0,494

0,706

0,505

0,445

0,460

0,447

-12,0%

36,6%

-36,9%

-11,7%

3,2%

-2,7%

Total criminal law cases

1,029

First instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

103%

106%

105%

94%

125%

111%

102%

100%

CR administrative law cases

101%

95%

97%

102%

79%

107%

112%

100%

-9,58

-2,25

94%

99%

89%

20,26

-22,60

-8,59

-2,36

-17,72

32,90

4,85

-12,45

-6,22

-1,07

CR total criminal law cases

First instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
cases (days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

First instance pending cases per 100 
inhab. on 31 dec.

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

 Supreme court 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Supreme court
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

325

248

288

277

289

280

332

271

252

279

258

255

273

235

280

254

-7,8%

-12,8%

8,4%

5,9%

10,4%

-0,4%

-15,9%

-8,0%

2,4%

8,4%

7,3%

7,7%

300

274

189

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

0,17

0,35

0,16

0,37

0,16

0,38

0,17

0,37

0,13

0,43

0,12

0,38

0,11

0,32

0,12

0,32

-26,9%

-16,7%

-15,1%

-2,6%

-5,0%

11,3%

-24,9%

-15,1%

2,5%

-0,5%

9,4%

3,6%

0,13

0,33

0,48

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

NA

101%

119%

NAP

NAP

NAP

95%

NAP

107%

NAP

97%

NAP

104%

NAP

104%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

NA

NAP

-11,93

11,40

-10,00

NAP

NAP

NAP

7,62

NAP

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

NA

NAP

206

NAP

150

NAP

212

NAP

177

NAP

205

NAP

210

NAP

182

NA

NAP

17,8%

-16,7%

15,9%

NAP

NAP

NAP

2,2%

NAP

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

93%

103%

107%

115%

108%

97%

108%

13,52

1,38

102%

93%

112%

104%

95%

100%

103%

10,79

-17,27

93%

-6,53

-8,33

-11,12

11,38

5,20

2,68

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

224

312

219

358

165

225

132

169

131

207

163

197

127

214

122

-26,3%

-20,8%

-0,6%

24,7%

-22,2%

-27,8%

-7,8%

23,0%

-5,0%

8,8%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

459 / 1555

1. Judicial organisation in Finland

In Finland, there are 20 district courts with 36 offices, five courts of appeal, the Supreme Court, six administrative courts, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Market 
Court, the Labour Court and the Insurance Court. One of the Administrative Courts, the Labour Court and the Market Court are located in the same location. In total there 
are 36 courts in 52 geographic locations.

It is noteworthy recalling that the number of district courts was reduced from 27 to 20 courts at the re-structuring on 1 January 2019.  A court can have more than one office. 
The number of the district courts’ offices has been reduced from 57 to 36 offices.

Besides, as of 1 September 2019, undisputed civil cases (for example debt collection, unpaid rents, other small debts and eviction cases) which are handled and decided in 
summary proceedings are centralised from all 20 district courts to 9 district courts.

Distribution of general courts in Finland

Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Finland - 1st instance
Finland - Higher instances

EU Median - 1st instance

EU Median - Higher instances

FinlandDistribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

According to 2020 data, the distribution between 1st instance and higher instances courts of 
general jurisdiction in Finland is quite different from the EU median of 87% - 13%.

Finland - 1st instanceFinland - Higher instances

General courts - Finland

77%

23%

General courts - Finland
EU Median

77%
87%

23%
13%

EU Median

87%

13%

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Finland

Geographic 
locations

Legal entities

General jurisdiction

Specialised 
jurisdiction

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Finland

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

82

78

81

79

73

73

71

52

52

27

27

27

27

27

27

27

20

20

11

11

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

100

80

60

40

20

0

Geographic locations
Legal entities General jurisdiction
Legal entities Specialised jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

460 / 1555

Distribution of first instance general jurisdiction and specialised courts

Finland

Ratio general jurisdiction vs specialised

Finland

General jurisdiction Specialised courts

31%

69%

75%

31%

25%

69%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

EU Median

25%

75%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

The distribution between number of general jurisdiction courts and specialised courts of 69,0% - 31,0% is around the EU median (distribution 
tendency in EU: 75,5% - 24,5%).

Specialised courts
Total

Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

Insolvency courts

Labour courts

Family courts

Rent and tenancies courts

Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

Internet related disputes

Administrative courts

Insurance and / or social welfare courts

Military courts

Juvenile courts

Other specialised 1st instance courts

First instance

Higher instance

9

1

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

6

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

In Finland, there are nine first instance specialised courts, namely: six regional administrative courts, the Market Court, the Labour Court and the Insurance Court.

Another specialised court is the High Court of Impeachment that hears charges against ministers (i.e. members of the Government), the Chancellor of Justice, the 
Parliamentary Ombudsman and members of the Supreme Court or the Supreme Administrative Court for unlawful conduct in office. In addition, the High Court of 
Impeachment deals with charges concerning the criminal liability of the President of the Republic. However, it is convened only when necessary.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

461 / 1555

2. Professionals of justice in Finland

● Professional judges and non-judge staff

Evolution of the number of professional judges since 2012 (Q46)

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Absolute 
number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

981

986

988

991

1 068

1 045

1 081

1 087

1 077

18,08

18,09

18,06

18,06

19,41

18,95

19,58

19,67

19,46

EU median

23,9

Professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants

18,08

18,09

18,06

18,06

19,41

18,95

19,58

19,67

19,46

23,9

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

According to 2020 data, the total number of professional judges sitting in courts (all instances) in Finland is 1 077, which is -0,9% less than in previous cycle.

More precisely, in Finland, there are 19,46 professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants (this figure is below the EU median of 23,92 judges per 100 000 inhabitants) and about 2,01 non-
judge staff per judge .

There has been a small increase compared with previous cycle when this ratio was at 1,96 non-judge staff per judge.

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and gender

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

854

178

45

1 077

Distribution by 
instance

79,3%

16,5%

4,2%

Male

Female

% Male

% Female

323

81

29

433

531

97

16

644

37,8%

45,5%

64,4%

40,2%

62,2%

54,5%

35,6%

59,8%

Distribution of professional judges by instance

Finland

EU Median

Distribution of professional judges by gender and by instance

% Female

% Male

79,3%

72,39%

EU Median

72,39%

23,98%

4,03%

23,98%

16,5%

4,2%

4,03%

62,2%

37,8%

54,5%

45,5%

35,6%

64,4%

59,8%

40,2%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female professional judges (all instances) is 644, which represents 59,8% of the total number of judges.

The total number of judges is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 854 are sitting in first instance courts (of which 531 are female); 178 are sitting in 
second instance courts (of which 97 are female)  and 45 are sitting in Supreme Court (of which 16 are female).  

Compared with the EU distribution of professional judges per instance the trend in Finland is similar. However, we can notice that first instance and Supreme Court judges are more 
numerous, while second instance judges are fewer. 

As regards the distribution male/female, it has to be specified that that female judges do not have the majority only at third instance. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

462 / 1555

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Total

Civil and commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

854

178

45

1 077

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

251

NAP

27

278

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

In Finland, the distribution of judges per categories of cases is possible for some categories only as presented in the graph below.

Distribution of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Civil and 
commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

29,4%

NAP

60,0%

25,8%

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

TRUE

TRUE

FALSE

FALSE

NA

2

NA

NA

NA

NA

It should be pointed out that, in Finland, there are not statistics on the number of civil and/ or commercial and criminal judges in the general courts as in many courts judges work in both 
types of cases. In Market Court, there are 21 judges who are civil/commercial judges. 

Non-judge staff

Year

2012

Number of non-judge staff

2 214

Per 100 000 inhabitants

40,80

2013

2 196

40,28

2014

2 161

39,49

2015

2 145

39,10

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants

2016

2 170

39,43

59,00

40,80

40,28

39,49

39,10

39,43

38,76

38,59

38,51

39,07

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

2017

2 137

38,76

2018

2 131

38,59

2020

Total

Rechtspfleger

Non-judge staff assisting the judge

Staff in charge of administrative tasks

Technical staff

Other

2019

2 128

38,51

Absolute 
number

2 162

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

E
U 
m

2020

2 162

39,07

in %

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

In 2020, Finland has 2 162 non-judge staff (of which 1 646 are females). The total number of non-judge staff in comparison with the previous cycle reveals an increase of 1,6%.

In 2020, the number of non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants has increased (from 38,5 in 2019 to 39,1 in 2020).

During the same period, the number of judges per 100 000 inhabitants evolves from 19,7 judges per 100 000 inhabitants in 2019 to 19,5 in 2020.

It is noteworthy that the Finnish court staff organisation does not correspond to the CEPEJ subcategories. Therefore, only the total of non-judge staff can be provided, including office staff 
(1477), summoners (273), trainee district judges (137) and referendaries (275).

Office staff has tasks mentioned in the categories 2-5. 

Summoners' tasks are for example to serve summons, subpoenas and other documents. 

Trainee judges have the same responsibility as judges, but they do not have competence to deal with difficult cases. They are always appointed for a fixed term period (one year). In the 
courts of appeal, the administrative courts, the Supreme Court, the Supreme Administrative Court, the Labour Court and the Market Court a referendary prepares and presents a case to 
the judges but the final judgment is decided by the judges. The tasks of trainee judges and referendaries correspond to the categories 1 and 2.

As concerns Rechtspfleger, the senior judge of a district court may appoint in writing a member of the office personnel at the district court who has given an affirmation corresponding to 
the judge’s affirmation, who has received sufficient training and who has sufficient skills to attend to the duties: (1) in cases referred to in Chapter 5, section 3 of the Code of Judicial 
Procedure: (a) to give judgments by default; (b) to give, on the basis of Chapter 21, section 8(c) of the Code of Judicial Procedure, decisions and judgments on court costs, if the 
respondent has conceded the claim; (c) to decide on the staying of an action if the plaintiff has withdrawn the action and the respondent does not call for a decision in the case; (2) to 
decide on applications for divorce on the basis of section 25, subsection 1 of the Marriage Act (234/1929) if both spouses are domiciled in Finland. If the case to be decided by office 
personnel, as referred to in subsection 1, proves to be extensive, subject to interpretation or otherwise difficult to decide, the case shall be transferred for a decision of a notary or a legally 
trained judge at the district court. The chief judge of a district court may appoint in writing a member of the office personnel at the district court who has sufficient skills, to issue summons 
and certificates, to effect service of documents and to attend to other duties connected to the preparation, consideration or enforcement of administration of justice matters. Before taking 
such tasks, the staff member must give an oath. (Courts Act, Chapter 19, Section 6). 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

463 / 1555

Professional judges, non-judge staff and their ratio (Q46, Q52)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Finland

EU median

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

19,46

39,07

Non-judge staff per judge

2,01

23,92

59,00

3,30

Professional judges and non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Non-judge staff per judge

39,07

2,01

19,46

59,00

3,30

23,92

Finland

EU median

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff  (Q46, Q52)

Judges 
per 100 000 inh.

Non-judge staff per
100 000 inh.

Ratio between professional judges and 
non-judge staff

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff 
Non-judge staff per 100 000 inh.
(Q46, Q52)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

18,08

18,09

18,06

18,06

19,41

18,95

19,58

19,67

19,46

40,80

40,28

39,49

39,10

39,43

38,76

38,59

38,51

39,07

EU median 2020

3,30

2,26

2,23

2,19

2,16

2,03

2,04

1,97

1,96

2,01

2,26

2,23

2,19

2012

2013

2014

2,26
2,23
2,19
2,16
2,03
2,04
1,97
1,96
2,01

2,16

2,03

2,04

1,97

1,96

2,01

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

464 / 1555

● Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff

Absolute number of public prosecutors by instance and gender (Q55)

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

NAP

NAP

NAP

390

Distribution by 
instance

NAP

NAP

NAP

Male

NAP

NAP

NAP

155

Female

NAP

NAP

NAP

235

Male

NAP

NAP

NAP

Female

NAP

NAP

NAP

39,7%

60,3%

EU Median

73,30%

21,28%

4,66%

Distribution of public prosecutors by gender

Male

Female

39,7%

60,3%

In this cycle, the total number of female prosecutors (all instances) is 235, which represents 60,3% of the total number of prosecutors.

The total number of prosecutors cannot be distributed among the different judicial instances.

As regards the methodology of presentation of data in respect of the number of prosecutors, it should be noticed that prosecutors in Finland are not bound on Court instances. Each 
prosecutor is expected, in a normal situation, to handle and prosecute the criminal case all the way to the Supreme Court, if necessary.

It should be noted that the National Prosecution Authority comprises the Office of the Prosecutor General that acts as the general administrative unit, and five prosecution districts, namely, 
Southern Finland, Western Finland, Northern Finland, Eastern Finland and Åland. The National Prosecution Authority has 34 offices around Finland. 

The Prosecutor General is the supreme prosecutor and the head of the prosecution service. The Prosecutor General directs and develops prosecutorial activity by issuing general 
instructions and guidelines to the prosecutors. She/he also appoints district prosecutors. The Prosecutor General may take over a case from a prosecutor, but cannot order a prosecutor to 
decide the case in any given manner. She/he can also self-decide on the bringing of charges and designate a prosecutor to pursue the case in the courts. 

The Deputy Prosecutor General decides the matters in his/her competence on the same authority as the Prosecutor General. He/she also acts as a deputy for the Prosecutor General 
when necessary. 

For regular prosecutorial tasks, the Office of the Prosecutor General has state prosecutors whose jurisdiction covers the entire country. Most criminal matters (about 91 3000 cases 
annually) are dealt with by the prosecution areas. The Office of the Prosecutor General deals mainly with criminal cases with wider significance to society as a whole, a few dozen every 
year. 

Non-prosecutor staff by gender (Q60)

Non-prosecutor staff

Total

2020

139

Male

11

Female

128

Non-prosecutor staff by gender

8%

Male

Female

92%

Public prosecutors, non-prosecutor staff and their ratio (Q55, Q60)

Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Finland

EU median

Public prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per 
prosecutor

7,05

2,51

0,36

9,91

15,22

1,11

Public prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per prosecutor

7,05

2,51

0,36

15,22

9,91

1,11

Finland

EU median

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

465 / 1555

● Salaries of professional judges and prosecutors at beginning of a career and at the highest instance (Q132, Q4)

Salaries of professional judges and 
prosecutors (Q132, Q4)

Average gross annual 
salary 
in €

Average net annual 
salary 
in €

Ratio with national 
average annual 
gross salary

Judge at the beginning of a career 

66 900 €

Judge of the highest court 

136 300 €

Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

50 880 €

NA

NA

NA

Public prosecutor at highest instance

NAP

NAP

1,55

3,16

1,18

NA

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual salary in the 
country

Salaries of 
judges and 
prosecutors in 
Judge

4,09

3,16

2,02

EU Median

2,02

1,55
4,09

1,71

at the beginning 
of a career

at the highest 
1,71
instance

1,18

3,61

66900

136300

NA

50880

Prosecutor

at the beginning 
of a career

Judge at the beginning of
career

Judge on highest instance

3,61

Finland

Prosecutor at the
beginning of career

EU Median

at the highest 
instance

Prosecutor at highest
instance

NAP

According to 2020 data, the absolute gross salary of a judge at the begining of a career in Finland of 66 900€ is somewhat above when compared to the EU median of 51 946€. As a ratio 
with the annual average salary of the country, the salary for a judge at the begining of career is: 1,55 compared with EU median of : 2,02.

In Finland, there are several salary categories for judges. The salary depends also on the years of work experience. A first instance judge is in a salary category T11 in which the gross 
salary is from 4731,58€/month to 6042,23€/month depending on his/her experience. A permanent first instance judge has usually at least nine years of work experience which means the 
salary is 5441,32€/month. In Finland, the taxation is progressive so the information on net salary depends from person to person and is therefore not available. 

● Lawyers

Lawyers

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

Number of lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

1 935

2 009

2 115

3 550

3 791

3 846

3 965

4 022

4 087

35,66

36,85

38,65

64,70

68,89

69,76

71,81

72,79

73,86

EU median 2020

122,09

In 2020, there are 4 087 lawyers, which is 1,6% more than in 2019.

64,70

68,89

69,76

71,81

72,79

73,86

35,66

36,85

38,65

122,09

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median
2020

Finland has 73,9 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants, which is below the EU median of 122,1 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants.

In 2020, the total number of lawyers includes 2211 attorneys-at-law, 1664 licensed legal counsels and 212 public legal aid lawyers. These lawyers can represent a client in court. The title 
of attorney-at-law is protected by law and can only be used by lawyers accepted into the Finnish Bar Association.
The total number of in-house lawyers, trade union lawyers and lawyers working for public authorities is not available.

It is important recalling that as of 2014, only attorneys-at-law, public legal aid lawyers and licenced legal counsels are allowed to represent a client in court. 
In addition, in-house lawyers can represent their company in court. Lawyers working for trade unions can represent a client in a district court and in the Labour Court in disputes regarding 
employment relationship. Lawyers working for public authorities can represent the public authority in court.

Generally speaking, in order to qualify as an attorney-at-law, a lawyer needs to have at least four years of work experience and must pass the demanding three-part professional 
qualification test known as the bar examination. The titles of attorney-at-law and attorney’s office are protected by law and can only be used by lawyers accepted into the Finnish Bar 
Association. Attorney's offices employ also associate lawyers, that is lawyers who are not yet members of the bar.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

466 / 1555

● Judicial professionals (summary)

Judicial professionals in absolute number and per 100 000 inhabitants (Q46, Q52, Q55, Q60, Q146)

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

EU Median

Professional judges

1 087

19,67

Non-judge staff

2 162

39,07

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

390

139

7,05

2,51

23,92

59,00

9,91

15,22

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Finland

EU Median

122,09

73,86

59,00

39,07

19,67

23,92

7,05

9,91

15,22

2,51

Lawyers

4 087

73,86

122,09

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

% Male

% Female

Professional judges

40,2%

59,8%

Non judge staff

23,9%

76,1%

Finland % Male Finland % Femalelabels

Judicial professionals: Gender balance
59,8%

-40,2%
Finland % Male

40,2%
Finland % Female

EU Median  % Male
-39,0%

EU Median  % Female

61,0%

39,0%

0,0%

59,8%

61,0%

Professional judges

Professional judges

40,2%

39,0%

Non judge staff

Prosecutors

39,7%

60,3%

Non judge staff

Non-prosecutor staff

7,9%

92,1%

Lawyers

NA

NA

Prosecutors

Prosecutors

39,7%

40,5%

Non-prosecutor staff

-23,9%

23,9%
-24,0%
24,0%

-39,7%
-40,5%

-7,9%
-28,1%

76,1%

23,9%

76,0%

24,0%

60,3%
59,5%

92,1%
71,9%

0,0%

39,7%
40,5%
0,0%
7,9%
28,1%
0,0%

#VALUE!

47,7%

52,3%

76,1%

76,0%

60,3%

59,5%

92,1%

71,9%

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

7,9%

NA

#VALUE!
28,1%

-52,3%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

467 / 1555

3. Legal aid and court fees in Finland

0

1

In Finland, legal aid includes:

◦ Coverage of court fees: 

◦ Exemption from court fees: 

In Finland, legal aid is available for :

> Representation in court:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

> Legal advice, ADR and other legal services:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

>

Fees related to enforcement of judicial decisions as fees for enforcement agents (Q18) 

>

 Other costs than above (Q19) 

1

1

1

1

1

1

The granting of legal aid exempts the recipient from liability for the enforcement fees pertaining to the judgment or the court order and any expenses payable in advance. All 
necessary costs of enforcement are covered from state funds, if they cannot be collected from the opposing party (Legal Aid Act, Section 4(4)).

The fees and compensations arising from the interpretation and translation services required in the consideration of the matter are waived for a recipient of legal aid. 
Compensation for a witness called by a party receiving legal aid is paid from the state funds. Other costs arising from presenting evidence by a party receiving legal aid are paid 
from the state funds if the evidence was necessary for deciding the case. If a party receiving legal aid, other than the defendant in a criminal case, has been summoned to the 
court in person, the compensation for the costs of appearing before the court are paid from the state funds.

Legal aid can be granted for travel and lodging costs for the lawyer, as well as for the expenses of witnesses, expert witnesses included. A state-covered support person may be 
appointed to a victim of violent or sexual crimes, in addition to his/her legal representation.

 Number of cases for which legal aid has been granted

Absolute number 
(in 2020)

Total

Cases brought to court

Cases not brought to 
court

Number of cases for which legal has been granted per 
100 000 inhabitants

Total

82 628

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Finland

NA

1 493,2

NA

NA

NA

EU Median

Per 100 000 inhabitants
 (in 2020)

Finland

EU Median

Total

1 493,2

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

NA

NA

734,2

330,9

402,7

734,2

Total

Currently, the reporting system of the legal aid is being renewed, therefore, the number of cases for which legal aid has been granted cannot be provided. 

Legal aid decisions are done by the State Legal Aid Offices. Legal aid can be provided in respect of almost any sort of legal matter. In court cases, the applicant has a choice of 
lawyers: (1) a public legal aid lawyer (working at the State Legal Aid Office) or (2) a private lawyer, who can be an advocate (member of the Finnish Bar Association) or a licensed 
lawyer (lawyer who has been granted a permit by the Licensed Lawyers Board to act as a licensed lawyer). 
In certain matters, legal aid is only given by public legal aid lawyers. 

Timeframes of the procedure for granting legal aid (in relation to the duration from the initial legal aid request to the final approval of the legal aid request)

◦ Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulations: 

◦ Actual average duration: 

NAP

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

468 / 1555

4. Performance of courts in Finland

● Efficiency indicators

◦ Clearance Rate (CR) and Disposition Time (DT)

The Clearance Rate shows the capacity of a judicial system to deal with the incoming cases. A Clearance Rate of 100% and higher does not generate backlog. 

The Disposition Time determines the estimated number of days necessary for a pending case to be solved in a court. 

First instance Total of other than criminal cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Evolution of number of all other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants
Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Incoming

9,66

9,52

8,05

9,16

9,52

8,23

6
6
9

,

6
1
9

,

2
5
9

,

2
5
9

,

5
0
8

,

3
2
8

,

5
0
8

,

5
9
7

,

0
2
8

,

4
0
8

,

1
0
9

,

8
6
8

,

0
6
9

,

5
0
9

,

7
4
9

,

2
5
2

,

2
5
2

,

3
3
2

,

2
4
2

,

9
4
2

,

0
8
2

,

5
2
2

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2,52

2,52

2,33

2,42

2,49

0
6
6

,

2,80

2,25

6
6
2

,

8,05

7
9
8

,

8,20

9,01

9,05

9
5
2

,

9
8
8

,

7,95

6
4
8

,

2
8
6

,

8,04

8,68

9,60

7
3
2

,

9,47

8,46

2019

6,82

8,97

8,89

6,60

2020

2,59

2,37
EU median
2,66

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Finland (8,46 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat above EU median (6,82 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Finland (8,89 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat above EU median (6,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Finland (2,37 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below EU median (2,66 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Other than criminal cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Other than criminal 
cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

95%

100%

102%

99%

98%

96%

106%

95%

105%

101

97

103

111

113

118

86

105

97

EU median

99%

109

95%

100%

102%

99%

98%

96%

106%

105%

99%

95%

DT (days)

CR (%)

101

2012

97

2013

103

2014

111

2015

113

2016

118

2017

86

2018

105

2019

97

109

2020

EU median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 105,1% in 2020 Finland seems to be able to deal with its other than criminal cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased by 10,3 points.

In 2020, other than criminal cases are solved in approximately 97 days, which is slightly below EU median of 109 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a -7,4% decrease of the Disposition Time.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

469 / 1555

First instance Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of civil and commercial litigious cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

0,19
0,20
0,20
0,20
0,16
0,15
0,15
0,15
0,17
1,56

6
5
1

,

0,20
0,21
0,20
0,19
0,19
0,17
0,15
0,15
0,16
1,50

0,17
0,16
0,16
0,17
0,13
0,12
0,11
0,12
0,13
1,05

0
5
1

,

5
0
1

,

9
1
0

,

0
2
0

,

7
1
0

,

0
2
0

,

1
2
0

,

6
1
0

,

0
2
0

,

0
2
0

,

6
1
0

,

0
2
0

,

9
1
0

,

7
1
0

,

9
1
0

,

6
1
0

,

3
1
0

,

5
1
0

,

7
1
0

,

2
1
0

,

5
1
0

,

5
1
0

,

1
1
0

,

5
1
0

,

5
1
0

,

2
1
0

,

7
1
0

,

6
1
0

,

3
1
0

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Finland (0,17 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (1,56 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Finland (0,16 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (1,50 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Finland (0,13 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (1,05 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

103,2%

106,3%

104,6%

94,2%

124,8%

110,8%

102,2%

99,9%

93,6%

325

288

289

332

252

258

273

280

300

EU Median

98%

221

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

103,2%

106,3%

104,6%

94,2%

DT (days)

CR (%)

124,8%

110,8%

102,2%

99,9%

93,6%

98%

325

2012

288

2013

289

2014

332

2015

252

2016

258

2017

273

2018

280

2019

300

221

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 93,6% in 2020, Finland seems to encounter some difficulties to deal with its civil and commercial litigious cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -6,2 points.

In 2020, the civil and commercial litigious cases are solved in approximately 300 days, which is somewhat above EU median of 221 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 7,3% increase of the Disposition Time.

The number of civil and commercial litigious cases older than 2 years is not available.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

470 / 1555

First instance Administrative cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of administrative cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

1
5
0

,

1
5
0

,

2
5
0

,

9
4
0

,

2
5
0

,

0
5
0

,

9
4
0

,

0
5
0

,

5
3
0

,

7
3
0

,

8
3
0

,

7
3
0

,

1
7
0

,

6
5
0

,

3
4
0

,

4
5
0

,

0
5
0

,

8
3
0

,

0
5
0

,

5
4
0

,

2
3
0

,

6
4
0

,

0,51
0,52
0,52
0,49
0,71
0,50
0,45
0,46
0,45
0,30

6
4
0

,

2
3
0

,

0,51
0,49
0,50
0,50
0,56
0,54
0,50
0,46
0,44
0,26

3
3
0

,

5
4
0

,

4
4
0

,

0
3
0

,

0,35
0,37
0,38
0,37
0,43
0,38
0,32
0,32
0,33
0,21

1
2
0

,

6
2
0

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Finland (0,45 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat above EU median (0,30 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Finland (0,44 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly above EU median (0,26 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Finland (0,33 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly above EU median (0,21 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Administrative cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

101,0%

94,8%

97,1%

101,8%

79,4%

107,4%

112,3%

99,8%

98,7%

248

277

280

271

279

255

235

254

274

EU Median

100%

388

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Administrative cases

101,0%

94,8%

97,1%

101,8%

DT (days)

CR (%)

107,4%

112,3%

79,4%

99,8%

98,7%

100%

248

2012

277

2013

280

2014

271

2015

279

2016

255

2017

235

2018

254

2019

274

388

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 98,7% in 2020, Finland seems to be able to deal with its administrative cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased for -1,1 points.

In 2020, the administrative cases are solved in approximately 274 days, which is somewhat below EU median of 388 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 7,7% increase of the Disposition Time.

The number of administrative law cases includes cases dealt by the administrative courts, the Market Court and the Insurance Court.

The number of administrative law cases older than 2 years is not available. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

471 / 1555

Insolvency cases

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Insolvency cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Insolvency cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

97,1%

95,1%

103,5%

109,9%

104,7%

108,8%

94,8%

98,7%

121,6%

250

262

243

235

246

243

260

253

198

EU Median

105%

281

DT (days)

CR (%)

97,1%

95,1%

103,5%

109,9%

104,7%

108,8%

94,8%

98,7%

121,6%

105%

250

2012

262

2013

243

2014

235

2015

246

2016

243

2017

260

2018

253

2019

198

281

2020

EU Median

The Clearance Rate was calculated at 121,6% in 2020 for insolvency cases, Finland seems to deal efficiently with its insolvency cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased by 22,9 points.

In 2020, insolvency cases are solved in a approximately 198 days, which is somewhat below the EU median of 281 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a -22,0% decrease of the Disposition Time.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

472 / 1555

● First instance Criminal Law Cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

20 227

56 932

50 834

26 325

Severe criminal cases 

Misdemeanour and/or 
minor cases

Other cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

Per 100 inhabitants

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 
Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

0,37

NAP

NAP

NAP

1,03

NAP

NAP

NAP

0,92

NAP

NAP

NAP

0,48

NAP

NAP

NAP

Incoming cases Resolved casesPending 

Finland

1,03

0,92

0,48

Total criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

EU Median

1,60

1,48

0,46

Incoming cases

Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

0
6
1

,

8
4
1

,

3
0
1

,

2
9
0

,

8
4
0

,

6
4
0

,

Finland

EU Median

The number of total incoming criminal cases in 2020 in Finland (1,03 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below EU median (1,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total resolved criminal cases in 2020 in Finland (0,92 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below EU median (1,48 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total pending criminal cases at the end of 2020 in Finland (0,48 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly above EU median (0,46 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Total criminal law cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Total

89,3%

Severe criminal 
cases 

Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

189

NAP

NAP

NAP

EU Median

95,2%

139

EU Median

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT)

DT (days)

CR (%)

Total Criminal law cases
95,2%
89,3%

189

Total

139

EU Median

With the Clearance Rate calculated at 89,3% in 2020 for total criminal cases, Finland seems to encounter difficulties to deal with its total criminal cases.

In 2020, criminal law cases were solved in approximately 189 days, which is somewhat above EU median of 139 days.

In Finland, criminal cases are not statistically catecorised in severe criminal cases and misdemeanour and / or minor cases.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

473 / 1555

Overall efficiency by instance and by case matter

CR (%)

DT (days)

CR (%)

DT (days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases

93,6%

104,4%

108,3%

Administrative cases

98,7%

NAP

103,1%

Total criminal law cases

89,3%

104,5%

93,4%

300

274

189

210

NAP

182

127

214

122

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)
2nd instance

1st instance

1st instance

Supreme Court

2nd instance
%
1
3
0
1

,

Supreme Court
%
5
4
0
1

,

,

%
3
9
8

,

104,4%

%
4
3
9

%
7
8
9

,

93,6%
98,7% NAP

108,3%
103,1%

,

%
4
4
0
1

,

%
3
8
0
1

%
6
Civil and commercial 
3
9
litigious cases
Administrative cases

,

100%

Total criminal law cases

P
A
N

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1

1
1

127

210

300

214

274

122

182

189

Civil and commercial
litigious cases

89,3%

Administrative cases Total criminal law

104,5%
cases

93,4%

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

1
1

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

As regards civil and administrative cases, the Clearance rate indicator is below the 100% threshold only in respect of first instance civil cases, while in criminal matters, it 
is above the efficiency treshold only at second instance. 

As to the Disposition Time indicator, the Finnish value is beyond the EU median only with regard to first instance civil cases (the EU median being 221 days). Generally 
speaking, the cases are processed faster at the Supreme Court level and much longer at first instance. Besides, civil proceedings seem to be the longest at all instances.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

474 / 1555

5. Public prosecution services in Finland

● Role and powers of the public prosecutor

In the criminal procedure, the public prosecutor in Finland has the following 7 out of 11 possible roles and powers:

To conduct or supervise police investigation

To appeal

To conduct investigations

To supervise the enforcement procedure

When necessary, to request investigation measures from the judge

To discontinue a case without needing a decision by a judge

To charge

To present the case in the court

To propose a sentence to the judge

To end the case by imposing or negotiating a penalty or measure 
without requiring a judicial decision

Other significant powers

The pre-trial investigation is the duty of the pre-trial authorities who are the police, the Finnish Border Guard, the Finnish Customs and the Finnish Defence Forces. Once the 
criminal investigation is completed, the material compiled during the investigation which is called 'pre-trial investigation material' is sent to the prosecutor. Then the prosecutor 
evaluates whether a criminal offence has been committed and whether there is sufficient evidence for prosecution and for what kind of charges. The prosecutor cooperates with 
the police in the pre-trial investigation and serves as the head of the pre-trial investigation in cases where the suspect is a police officer. On the request of the public prosecutor, 
the pre-trial investigation authority shall conduct a criminal investigation or perform a criminal investigation measure. The pre-trial investigation authority shall also comply with 
orders given by the public prosecutor intended to ensure clarification of the matter. The pre-trial investigation authority shall, in the manner required by the nature or scope of the 
matter, notify the prosecutor of the conducting of a criminal investigation and of circumstances connected with criminal investigation measures and otherwise of progress in the 
investigation.

A prosecutor's task is to make sure that a criminal act is punished by a legal sanction. A prosecutor has to consider a case impartially, promptly and economically in a manner 
consistent with the legal safeguards of the parties and the public interest. A charge must be brought if there is a prima facie case against the suspect. If a charge is not brought, 
the prosecutor must make a decision not to prosecute. A prosecutor is independent in his or her decision-making. The prosecutor cannot accept instructions or orders from 
anyone in his or her cases. For example, the police's opinion on who has committed an offence or which offence has been committed does not bind the prosecutor. In certain 
circumstances, based on the proposal of the pre-trial investigation officer in charge of the investigation the prosecutor may order that a pre-trial investigation is carried out or a pre-
trial investigation already started is discontinued. The prosecutor brings a charge by filing a written application for a summons to the district court. If the court allows it, the 
prosecutor may bring a charge by self-issuing a summons.

The prosecutor must present the case orally in the court. It is the duty of the prosecutor to prove the charge, by obtaining sufficient evidence in support of the charge and by 
presenting the evidence to the court. After the trial, it is for the court to decide whether to accept or dismiss the charge, to determine the punishment and to assess the 
compensation for damages and the other possible sanctions. Like other parties of the case, the prosecutor has the right to appeal the judgment of a lower court to a higher court.

In certain simple cases, the prosecutor has the competence to order a fine and a confiscatory sanction in written proceedings without bringing the case to the court. (Art 3 of the 
"Law on Ordering Fines and Summary Fines (754/2010)") This option is available if the suspect does not demand that a court hears the case (Art 4). A prosecutor orders a 
summary fine or a fine based on the seriousness of the act and the suspect's income (Art 1). The decision can be appealed to the district court (Art 35).

The public prosecutor does not have any role in civil, administrative or insolvency cases.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

475 / 1555

● Public prosecutors: Number of first instance criminal cases

Type of cases

Absolute 
number

Per 100 
inhabitants

1. Pending cases on 1 Jan. ref. year 

13 991

0,25

2. Incoming/received cases

91 246

1,65

Public prosecutors: Total number of first instance criminal 
cases per 100 inhabitants
Pendin
Incoming/rec
Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. Year
g cases 
2,85
eived cases
on 31 

Processed 
2,84
cases

Processed cases

Incoming/received cases

3. Processed cases (3.1 + 3.2 + 3.3 + 3.4)

87 530

1,58

Finland

1,65 1,58

0,32

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year (3.1.1 + 3.1.2 + 3.1.3 
+ 3.1.4)

25 888

0,47

EU Median

2,85 2,84

0,84

0,84

1,65

1,58

3.1.1 Discontinued by the public prosecutor because the 
offender could not be identified 

NAP

NAP

0,32

3.1.2 Discontinued by the public prosecutor due to the lack 
of an established offence or a specific legal situation 

389

0,01

3.1.3 Discontinued by the public prosecutor for reasons of 
opportunity

16 809

0,30

3.1.4 Discontinued for other reasons 

8 690

0,16

Finland

EU Median

Processed cases per 100 inhabitants
EU Median

Finland

Processed cases

Finland

EU Median

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated 
by the public prosecutor

12

0,00

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

0,47
3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

1,05

-0,47

1,05

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons

4 917

0,09

3.4. Cases brought to court

56 713

1,02

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed
or negotiated by the public prosecutor

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor

0,00

0,12

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other
reasons

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons
0,30
0,30

-0,09

0,09

0,00

0,12

4. Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. year

17 707

0,32

3.4. Cases brought to court

3.4. Cases brought to court

1,02

-1,02

0,53

0,53

If a series is NAP or NA, please unselect the series in "select data"

It should be noted that notice cases of summary fines are not included in the category cases "Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public 
prosecutor". The number of summary fines is 38 433.

The decrease in the number of cases “Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor” is due to a change in the law. The law on certain type 
of fine (rangaistusmääräysmenettely) was abolished in 2016 and replaced with the law on fines and summary penalty fee (laki sakon ja rikesakon määräämisestä (754/2010). 
According to this law, the police can order the summary penal fee. The following page, in Finnish, shows figures of the amount in euros of these summary fines imposed by 
prosecutors (2nd graph) and by the police (3rd graph): https://www.oikeusrekisterikeskus.fi/fi/index/tietopalvelu/tilastotjaavoindata/sakot.html 

With regard to the categories "Discontinued cases for other reasons" and "Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons", it should be pointed out that:
The prosecutor must waive prosecution if: (1) the prerequisites for the bringing of charges provided in section 6, subsection 1 are not met; (2) the prosecutor waives prosecution 
on the basis of section 6, subsection 2; (3) the injured party has not requested that charges be brought or another special prerequisite provided in law for the bringing of charges 
referred to in section 2, subsection 2 is not met and the nature of the case requires that a separate decision be made. 
The prosecutor may waive prosecution if: (1) if no sentence more severe than a fine is to be anticipated for the offence and the offence, with consideration to its detrimental effects 
or the degree of culpability of the offender manifested in it, is to be deemed petty as a whole; and (2) if the suspect had not reached the age of eighteen at the time of the 
commission of the suspected offence and no sentence more severe than a fine or imprisonment for at most six months is to be anticipated for this offence and it is to be deemed 
to be more the result of lack of understanding or thoughtlessness than of heedlessness of the prohibitions and commands of the law. In addition, the prosecutor may waive 
prosecution, unless an important public or private interest requires otherwise if: 1) if criminal proceedings and punishment are to be deemed unreasonable or inappropriate in view 
of a settlement reached by the suspect in the offence and the injured party, the other action of the suspect in the offence to prevent or remove the effects of the offence, the 
personal circumstances of the suspect in the offence, the other consequences of the act to him or her, the welfare and health care measures undertaken and the other 
circumstances; (2) under the provisions on joint punishment or on the consideration of previous punishments in sentencing, the suspected offence would not have an essential 
effect on the total punishment; or (3) the expenses in continuing to consider the case would be in manifest disproportion to the nature of the case and to the sanction possibly to be 
expected in it. 
Also, If charges are being considered for two or more offences for which the same person is suspected and if he or she has contributed to the clarification of one or more of the 
suspected offences, the prosecutor may decide not to bring charges for all of the suspected offences. However, charges shall be brought if required by an important public or 
private interest.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

476 / 1555

 
6. Existence and use of alternative dispute resolution in Finland

Number of mediators

In Finland, there is no accreditation or register for court-related mediators. All mediators are trained in a special training program for mediation. 

The variation between  2019 and  2020 cannot be calculated.

Number of court related mediations

Type of cases

All cases

Civil and commercial

Family cases

Administrative

Employment dismissal

Criminal cases

Consumer cases

Number of cases 
for which the parties
agreed to start 
mediation

Number of finished 
court-related
mediations

Number of cases 
in which there is a 
settlement agreement

2417

946

1258

NAP

213

NAP

NA

2288,00

869,00

1217,00

NAP

202,00

NAP

NA

1802,00

690,00

956,00

NAP

156,00

NAP

NA

In Finland, consumer cases are not statistically specified. Therefore, the number of cases in which consumers are involved is included in the number of civil 
and commercial cases. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

477 / 1555

7. ICT tools of courts in Finland

●The ICT tools of courts and for court users

The use of ICT in courts in 2020 has been evaluated as  :

EU Median

Total 
(0 to 10)

Assistance tools (0 to 3)

Case management system (0 to 7)
Financial management tools (0 to 3)

Measurement tools to assess the workload (0 to 5)
Electronic communication (0 to 10)

7,7
2,0

5,6

1,0
3,7

9,4

6,6
2,0

5,2

1,3
2,5

6,9

The calculation of this values for each field is based on the answers for that question/s and weighted according the avaiability 
or deployment rate. The total value is normalised to max 10 points for readability and comparison.

The details of the calculation are given in Annex 5 - IT calculations

The result by area may be summarized in these graphics, where each field has been evaluated from 0 to 4 points.

Note: index is modified based on the available questions. This cycle the recalculation was made for the last three cycles to be 
able to follow the development.

Assistance 
tools

Year
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
EU Median 20202,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

2018

2019

2020

EU Median 2020

Case 
management 
system

Financial 
management 
tools

Measurement 
tools to assess 
the workload

Electronic 
communication

9,44

7,96

7,41

6,94

4,58

4,67

5,58

4,58

2,00

5,58

2,00

4,67

1,00

4,00

5,17

4,00

3,67

7,96

7,41

9,44

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

4,00

4,00

3,67

2,50

2,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

1,25

1,00

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

478 / 1555

Comments on voice recording tools
Simple dictation tools are not used to dictate for someone to type it later. 
Regarding the availability of multiple speakers recording tools, it should be mentioned that witness statements are recorded in the courts to a 
centralised server from which they can be accessed by a higher court handling the appeal.

As regards the case management systems, it should be highlighted that courts are in transition from the old systems (Sakari and Tuomas) to 
the new system (AIPA). Some of the cases were still handled in the old systems but some have already moved to the new system (secret 
coersive measures, petitionary matters). As the development of the new system is still ongoing, for example the statistical tools are not yet 
fully functional/automated.

In HAIPA (administrative and specialized courts), the parties can access the following data from the system: a date and time of hearing which 
is open to parties, documents that they themselves have sent to the court, documents sent by other parties after the judge has classified them 
available, the status of the case including "decided", and the decision after the judge has classified it as available.

More information on AIPA project (the development of the case management system for general courts), and HAIPA project (the development 
of the case management system for administrative court) can be found from the web-pages of the Finnish National Courts Administration, at 
www.tuomioistuinvirasto.fi

Comments on measurment tools on workload
There is a system for collecting data on handling cases and this is deployed to all courts.
In administrative courts, Power BI software is compatible with the new case management system, HAIPA. During the transition period, the 
administrative courts also use the Business Objects Board software (BOBI) the cases still pending in the old case management system.

The general courts are also transitioning to a new case management system, AIPA. However, the number of cases in the new system was 
much lower than in the administrative courts. Similarly, during the transition period, the general courts also use the Business Objects Board 
software (BOBI) regarding the cases still pending in the old case management system.

Due to data protection, only the court were the judge / staff member works, consults the data related to an individual. The heads of courts are 
able follow the number of cases resolved by the judge. Often, this data is not used on detailed/short term manner. Rather, it may be used at a 
court level (for example in budget negotiations) and as a long term indicator, or in case of a sudden and radical change in judges output (but 
even then not as a tool for disciplinary measure). 

In addition, there is a tool for reporting the working hours is 'deployed' to the courts 100% in the sense that it is available and accessible. The 
estimated use corresponds '50-99%'.

As concerns prosecutors, the data is used for monitoring at national level and at local level. The tool used (BOBI) is not connected to the 
CMS. PowerBI software will be introduced in 2021 for statistical and monitoring purposes. It was prepared in 2020. 

Similarly, the introduction of the new case management system AIPA and the new administrative register HILDA in 2021 were prepared in 
2020. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

479 / 1555

Comments on communication tools 
With respec to submission of a case to courts by electronic means, it should be recalled that as of 1 September 2019, it has been mandatory 
to submit the applications for summons in undisputed civil cases via electronic services. Only private individuals representing themselves can 
submit their applications for summons in person, by post or by e-mail.

Regarding the transmission of summons, the Supreme Administrative Court has ruled that providing its email address to the court is 
interpreted as a consent to use it. The portal for parties for administrative courts is technically a secured internet page. If this functionality is 
approved by the parties to the procedure, the administrative court's case management system HAIPA sends an SMS to notify them of new 
messages in the system. These messages do not contain the content of the court's message. For the general courts, an email including an 
invitation to a preparatory hearing to a civil case or a petitionary case can be sent directly from the case management system AIPA. This 
message includes a separate document for "acknowledgement of service" that the invited person is asked to return to the court. For other 
messages, the AIPA case management system has an interesting semi-electronic feature - a letter will be send directly from the system in 
electronic form, but an external service provider will print the letter and post it to the recipient as a ordinary letter. 

With respect to the possibilities of electronic communication between courts and lawyers and/or parties, it should be pointed out that in a 
summary civil case (an undisputed debt, undisputed cases concerning evictions, restoration of possession or a disrupted circumstance), 
except for a private individual, initiating the matter must be done using electronic services. The digitalization project for the prosecutors and 
the general courts, AIPA, is ongoing. As already mentioned, this case management system will replace their current case management 
systems. Since spring 2018, the tool has been used for secret coercive measure cases and since spring 2020, for petitionary matters. 
As mentioned above, the administrative and special courts have their own case management system, HAIPA. There are three different ways 
to communicate electronically with the administrative and special courts: 1) email (signature not required if there is no doubt about identity of 
the sender) except when a document needs to be served in a "verifiable way", 2) via the customer portal of the HAIPA-system (also available 
to those govt agencies integrated with the system), or 3) the "Verifiable electronic service" described below (from parties to the courts).
The Code on Judicial Procedure (Chapter 11 Section 3) allows for serving documents electronically: "[…] (2) by letter, (3) by an electronic 
message as is stipulated in the Act on Electronic Services and Communication in the Public Sector (13/2003), Section 18. […] The 
documents referred to above in subsection 1(2) may also be sent as an electronic message in the manner identified by the addressee." 
Similarly, the Administrative Procedure Act acknowledges the electronic service – it refers both to the Code on Judicial Procedure (Chapter 
11) and the Act on Electronic Services and Communication in the Public Sector (13/2003). In turn, the Act on Electronic Services and 
Communication in the Public Sector (13/2003), Section 18 stipulates on the "Verifiable electronic service" with the consent of the party. In 
such cases, the authority notifies the party that the decision is available for retrieval by the party or a representative of the party. After 
verifiable identification the party or the representative of the party can retrieve the decision. The service of the decision shall be considered 
effected when the document has been retrieved. If the decision is not retrieved within seven days of the notification, the document will be 
served in another matter. 
In practice, however, electronic communication is not used in the manner described in the Act on Electronic Services and Communication in 
the Public Sector. After the parties have approved to the use of electronic messages and verified the correct the address, the courts use email 
in communication with the parties (with the exception of the decisions which required a verifiable service / acknowledgment of receipt). 

Electronic communication used by professionals other than lawyers: as concerns notaries, their tasks do not require them to deal with courts. 
However, as they are civil servants, their decisions can be appealed. In such case, they can deal with the courts with an email that includes 
electronic signature. When a notary is a party to the procedure, there is no specific computer application. 

As regards enforcement agents, enforcement here includes Enforcement Agency (fines, confiscation, forfeitures) but also prison and 
probation services. Enforcement Agency can interact with the courts by email. Prison and probation Services has a specific computer 
application that transfers data from the courts to them. Similarly, the courts send data to Legal Register Centre/Fines via a specific 
application. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

480 / 1555

8. Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and public prosecution services in Finland

In Finland, quality standards are determined for the judicial system at national level (e.g. quality systems for the judiciary and/or judicial quality policies). Specialised personnel 
within the public prosecution services is entrusted with implementation of these national level quality standards.

More precisely, there are quality projects covering civil and/or criminal cases in the Court of Appeal of Rovaniemi judicial district and in the Helsinki Court of Appeal judicial 
district. In a quality project, one or several working groups are set up usually for a year. There are judges from district courts within the judicial district of a court of appeal and 
court of appeal judges and referendaries in the working group. Depending on the topic, prosecutors, attorneys-at-law and other lawyers, public legal aid lawyers and police may 
also participate in the working group's work. The working group writes a report on a specific theme, for example developing conduct of the court proceedings or legal costs in 
criminal and civil cases. The written report is presented and discussed in a formal event and published. The aim is to provide legal professionals with practical information and 
guidelines on a certain topic.

In addition, there are co-operation projects between administrative courts.

The Finnish Association of Judges compiled and published Ethical Principles for Judges in 2012.

Finally, it should be highlighted that Prosecution Services' system quality improvement project is underway.

● Systems for measuring and evaluating courts' performance

A regular monitoring system of court activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

All courts keep statistics of the mentioned court activities in the operational case management systems. National Courts Administration can access these figures through a 
reporting system. 

In Finland, there is a system to regularly evaluate the court performance based primarily on defined indicators and the frequency of the reporting is annual.

More precisely, the performance of each court is evaluated during the annual budget negotiations. However, the general performance of the courts as a whole (for example 
disposition times) is monitored more frequently. 

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each court.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

Statistics Finland (until 2013) or Ministry of Justice (until 2019) no longer collect statistical data regarding the functioning of the courts and the judiciary. 
From 2020, onward the National Courts Administration collects data and publishes the annual operational statistics.

The evaluation of the courts' activities is used for the later allocation of means in the courts.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

481 / 1555

● Systems for measuring and evaluating public prosecution services' performance

A regular monitoring system of public prosecution services activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases 

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs 

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecution) 

Costs of the judicial procedures 

Clearance rate 

Disposition time 

Percentage of convictions and aquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

In respect of the category "backlogs”, it should be pointed out that the cases that are monitored are the cases that have been pending for longer than a year . 

In Finland, there is a system to evaluate regularly the activity of each public prosecution service and the reporting is more frequent than annual.

More precisely, the prosecution services are evaluated biannually. 

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each public prosecution service.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecutors)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Percentage of convictions and acquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff

In Finland, only performance indicators are defined for the activity of each public prosecution service.

As mentionned above, Prosecution Services' system quality improvement project is underway.

The evaluation of the public prosecution services' activities is not used for the later allocation of means in the public prosecution services.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

482 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table General Data: Economic and demographic data, in absolute values (Q1, Q3, Q5)

Q1 Number of inhabitants

5 426 674

5 451 270

5 471 753

5 486 616

5 503 297

5 513 130

5 521 773

5 525 292

5 533 793

2,0%

0,5%

0,4%

0,3%

0,3%

0,2%

0,2%

0,1%

0,2%

Q.3 GDP Per capita (in €) in current prices

35 571

37 018

37 559

38 162

38 959

40 612

42 340

43 567

42 701

20,0%

4,1%

1,5%

1,6%

2,1%

4,2%

4,3%

2,9%

-2,0%

Q5. Exchange rate of Nat currency to € on 1 Jan

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Indicator 1: Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and prosecution services  (Indicator 4 in 2019)

Table 1.1 to Table 1.10 (Q66, Q67, Q77, Q78, Q77-1, Q78-1, Q73, Q73-0, Q73-1, Q73-2, Q73-3, Q73-4, Q73-5, Q73-6, Q70, Q70-1, Q71, Q72, Q83-2, Q83-3, Q120 
and Q120-1)

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

66 Qlty standards formulated_jud system

67 Specialised court staff entrusted_qlty standards

77 Performance and quality indicators of court activities

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

078.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078.1.5 Backlogs 

078.1.6 Productivity of judges and court staff

078.1.7 Satisfaction of court staff 

078.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts) 

078.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078.1.10 Number of appeals

078.1.11 Appeal ratio

078.1.12 Clearance rate 

078.1.13 Disposition time 

078.1.14 Other

077-1.1.1 Defined performance and quality indicators

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

483 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

078-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078-1.1.5 Backlogs 

078-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

078-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

078-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

078-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

078-1.1.11 Disposition time 

078-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

078-1.1.13 Other

73 Regular system_evaluation_performance_each court

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

073-0.1.1 Annual

073-0.1.2 Less frequent

073-0.1.3 More frequent

073-1.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
court

073-2.1.1 Courses of action taken in the evaluation is used for the 
allocation of resources

073-2.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-2.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-2.1.4 Other

073-3.1.1 Regular evaluation of the public prosecution services 
performance

Yes

Yes

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

484 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

073-4.1.1 Annual

073-4.1.2 Less frequent

073-4.1.3 More frequent

073-5.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
public prosecution services

073-6.1.1 Identifying the causes of improved or deteriorated 
performance

073-6.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-6.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-6.1.4 Other

070.1.1 number of incoming cases

070.1.2 length of proceedings (timeframes)

070.1.3 number of resolved cases

070.1.4 number of pending cases

070.1.5 backlogs

070.1.6 productivity of judges and court staff

070.1.7 satisfaction of court staff

070.1.8 satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts)

070.1.9 costs of the judicial procedures

070.1.10 number of appeals

070.1.11 appeal ratio

070.1.12 clearance rate

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

485 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

070-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases 

070-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

070-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

070-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

070-1.1.5 Backlogs 

070-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

070-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

070-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

070-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

070-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

070-1.1.11 Disposition time 

070-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

070-1.1.13 Other

071.1.1 Monitoring backlogs in Civil law cases

071.1.2 Monitoring backlogs in Criminal law cases

071.1.3 Monitoring backlogs in Administrative law cases

072.1.1 Monitoring timeframes Within the courts

072.1.2 Monitoring timeframes Within the public prosecution services

083-2.1.1 Quantitative performance tagets defined for each 
prosecutors

083-3.1.1 Body responsible - Executive power (for example the 
Ministry of Justice)

083-3.1.2 Body responsible - Prosecutor General /State public 
prosecutor

083-3.1.3 Body responsible - Public Prosecutorial Council

083-3.1.4 Body responsible - Head of the organisational unit or 
hierarchically superior public prosecutor

083-3.1.5 Body responsible - Other

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

486 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

120.1.1 Qualitative individual assessment of the public prosecutors' 
work

120-1.1.1 Feequency - Annual

120-1.1.2 Feequency - Less frequent

120-1.1.3 Feequency - More frequent

Indicator 2: The judicial organisation

Tables 2.1a; 2.1b; 2.2a; 2.2b; 2.3a; 2.3b; 2.4 and 2.5(EC) (Q42, Q43 and Q44)

Q42.1.1Total number of all courts - legal entities 

Q42.1.2 Total number of courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.3 First instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.4 Second instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.5 Highest instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.6 Total number of specialised courts - legal entities

43.1.1 Total number of specialised courts of first instance

43.1.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

-

-

27

-

-

-

11

1

-

-

27

-

-

-

11

1

-

-

27

-

-

-

9

1

-

-

27

-

-

-

9

1

-

-

27

-

-

-

9

1

-

-

27

-

-

-

9

1

-

-

27

-

-

-

9

1

-

-

20

-

-

-

9

1

False

-

-

-

36

26

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

20

-25,9%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-25,9%

0,0%

5

1

10

9

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-18,2%

0,0%

-18,2%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

43.1.3 Insolvency courts

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

43.1.4 Labour courts

43.1.5 Family courts

43.1.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.1.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.1.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.1.9 Internet related disputes

43.1.10 Administrative courts

43.1.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.1.12 Military courts

43.1.13 Juvenile courts

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

8

1

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

8

1

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

6

1

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

6

1

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

6

1

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

6

1

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

6

1

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

6

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

6

1

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-25,0%

0,0%

-25,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

487 / 1555

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

43.1.14 Other specialised courts

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

43.2.1 Total number of specialised courts of higher instances

43.2.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.2.3 Insolvency courts

43.2.4 Labour courts

43.2.5 Family courts

43.2.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.2.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.2.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.2.9 Internet related disputes

43.2.10 Administrative courts

43.2.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.2.12 Military courts

43.2.13 Juvenile courts

43.2.14 Other specialised courts

44.1.1 First instance courts geographic locations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

45

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

44.1.2 All courts geographic locations

82

78

81

79

73

73

71

52

52

-36,6%

-4,9%

3,8%

-2,5%

-7,6%

0,0%

-2,7%

-26,8%

0,0%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

488 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 3: The performance of courts at all stages of the proceedings

Tables 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.4 (all years) Number of other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 Variation of first instance other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants (Q1, Q91)

Table 3.13.7 (EC) to 3.13.12 (EC) First instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

91.1.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.1.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.1.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.1.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.1.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.1.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.1.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.1.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

91.1.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.1.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

91.1.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

91.2.1 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.2.2 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.2.3 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.2.4 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.2.5 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.2.6 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.2.7 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.2.8 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

91.2.9 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

109 588

137 004

137 261

127 125

128 042

136 237

154 229

115 918

155 291

41,7%

25,0%

0,2%

-7,4%

0,7%

6,4%

13,2%

-24,8%

34,0%

9 829

9 600

9 321

8 883

9 530

7 358

6 487

6 451

6 497

-33,9%

-2,3%

-2,9%

-4,7%

7,3%

-22,8%

-11,8%

-0,6%

0,7%

-

-

102 233

91 790

97 217

100 644

121 848

86 233

125 526

-

-

-

-10,2%

5,9%

3,5%

21,1%

-29,2%

45,6%

75 446

103 192

102 233

91 790

97 217

100 644

121 848

86 233

125 526

66,4%

36,8%

-0,9%

-10,2%

5,9%

3,5%

21,1%

-29,2%

45,6%

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

19 203

18 849

20 233

20 955

15 553

22 940

20 765

17 620

18 029

-6,1%

-1,8%

7,3%

3,6%

-25,8%

47,5%

-9,5%

-15,1%

2,3%

5 110

5 363

5 474

5 497

5 742

5 295

5 129

5 614

5 242

2,6%

5,0%

2,1%

0,4%

4,5%

-7,8%

-3,1%

9,5%

-6,6%

524 352

519 154

440 553

441 823

451 430

496 472

499 995

522 977

467 946

-10,8%

-1,0%

-15,1%

0,3%

2,2%

10,0%

0,7%

4,6%

-10,5%

10 320

10 644

10 677

11 108

8 587

8 259

8 244

8 448

9 201

-10,8%

3,1%

0,3%

4,0%

-22,7%

-3,8%

-0,2%

2,5%

8,9%

-

-

391 260

393 554

393 960

450 958

457 303

480 320

425 171

-

-

-

0,6%

0,1%

14,5%

1,4%

5,0%

-11,5%

476 764

470 137

391 260

393 554

393 960

450 958

457 303

480 320

425 171

-10,8%

-1,4%

-16,8%

0,6%

0,1%

14,5%

1,4%

5,0%

-11,5%

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

91.2.10 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

27 579

28 214

28 254

27 112

38 831

27 817

24 593

25 396

24 743

-10,3%

2,3%

0,1%

-4,0%

43,2%

-28,4%

-11,6%

3,3%

-2,6%

91.2.11 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

9 689

10 159

10 362

10 049

10 052

9 438

9 855

8 813

8 831

-8,9%

4,9%

2,0%

-3,0%

0,0%

-6,1%

4,4%

-10,6%

0,2%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

489 / 1555

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

91.3.1 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.3.2 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.3.3 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.3.4 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.3.5 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.3.6 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.3.7 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.3.8 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

91.3.9 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

497 063

518 725

450 486

436 443

442 641

478 438

529 974

495 812

491 856

-1,0%

4,4%

-13,2%

-3,1%

1,4%

8,1%

10,8%

-6,4%

-0,8%

10 653

11 319

11 164

10 463

10 718

9 152

8 427

8 436

8 616

-19,1%

6,3%

-1,4%

-6,3%

2,4%

-14,6%

-7,9%

0,1%

2,1%

-

-

401 590

388 228

390 607

429 811

484 490

452 792

449 309

-

-

-

-3,3%

0,6%

10,0%

12,7%

-6,5%

-0,8%

449 101

470 722

401 590

388 228

390 607

429 811

484 490

452 792

449 309

0,0%

4,8%

-14,7%

-3,3%

0,6%

10,0%

12,7%

-6,5%

-0,8%

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

91.3.10 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

27 852

26 745

27 429

27 595

30 815

29 878

27 608

25 348

24 432

-12,3%

-4,0%

2,6%

0,6%

11,7%

-3,0%

-7,6%

-8,2%

-3,6%

91.3.11 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

91.4.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.4.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.4.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.4.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.4.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.4.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.4.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.4.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

91.4.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.4.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

91.4.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

9 457

9 939

10 303

10 157

10 501

9 597

9 449

9 236

9 499

0,4%

5,1%

3,7%

-1,4%

3,4%

-8,6%

-1,5%

-2,3%

2,8%

136 877

137 433

127 328

132 586

136 831

154 271

124 250

143 083

131 384

-4,0%

0,4%

-7,4%

4,1%

3,2%

12,7%

-19,5%

15,2%

-8,2%

9 496

8 925

8 834

9 528

7 399

6 465

6 304

6 463

7 082

-25,4%

-6,0%

-1,0%

7,9%

-22,3%

-12,6%

-2,5%

2,5%

9,6%

-

-

91 903

97 116

100 570

121 791

94 661

113 761

101 388

-

-

-

5,7%

3,6%

21,1%

-22,3%

20,2%

-10,9%

103 109

102 607

91 903

97 116

100 570

121 791

94 661

113 761

101 388

-1,7%

-0,5%

-10,4%

5,7%

3,6%

21,1%

-22,3%

20,2%

-10,9%

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

18 930

20 318

21 058

20 475

23 569

20 879

17 750

17 668

18 340

-3,1%

7,3%

3,6%

-2,8%

15,1%

-11,4%

-15,0%

-0,5%

3,8%

5 342

5 583

5 533

5 467

5 293

5 136

5 535

5 191

4 574

-14,4%

4,5%

-0,9%

-1,2%

-3,2%

-3,0%

7,8%

-6,2%

-11,9%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

490 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.2 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.4 to 3.3.7 Variation of Clearence Rate and Disposition Time of first instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

Table 3.13.1 (EC) to 3.13.6 (EC) First instance courts: Disposition time and clearance rate for other than criminal cases  (Q91)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

94,8%

99,9%

102,3%

98,8%

98,1%

96,4%

106,0%

94,8%

105,1%

10,88

5,40

2,34

(3,40)

(0,74)

(1,72)

9,99

(10,56)

10,87

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

103,2%

106,3%

104,6%

94,2%

124,8%

110,8%

102,2%

99,9%

93,6%

(9,29)

3,02

(1,67)

(9,92)

32,51

(11,22)

(7,75)

(2,31)

(6,22)

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

-

-

102,6%

98,6%

99,1%

95,3%

105,9%

94,3%

105,7%

-

-

-

(3,89)

0,51

(3,87)

11,16

(11,02)

12,10

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

94,2%

100,1%

102,6%

98,6%

99,1%

95,3%

105,9%

94,3%

105,7%

12,19

6,29

2,51

(3,89)

0,51

(3,87)

11,16

(11,02)

12,10

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CR Administrative law cases

101,0%

94,8%

97,1%

101,8%

79,4%

107,4%

112,3%

99,8%

98,7%

(2,22)

(6,14)

2,41

4,84

(22,03)

35,35

4,52

(11,09)

(1,07)

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

97,6%

97,8%

99,4%

101,1%

104,5%

101,7%

95,9%

104,8%

107,6%

10,20

0,23

1,63

1,65

3,36

(2,66)

(5,71)

9,30

2,64

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

101

325

-

84

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

248

206

97

288

-

80

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

277

205

103

289

84

84

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

280

196

111

332

91

91

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

271

196

113

252

94

94

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

279

184

118

258

103

103

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

255

195

86

273

71

71

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

235

214

105

280

92

92

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

254

205

97

-3,0%

-3,8%

6,7%

7,5%

1,8%

4,3%

-27,3%

23,1%

-7,4%

300

-7,8%

-11,5%

0,4%

15,1%

-24,2%

2,3%

5,9%

2,4%

7,3%

82

82

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

9,3%

2,9%

10,1%

-31,0%

28,6%

-10,2%

-1,7%

-5,1%

5,0%

9,3%

2,9%

10,1%

-31,0%

28,6%

-10,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

274

10,4%

11,8%

1,1%

-3,4%

3,1%

-8,6%

-8,0%

8,4%

7,7%

176

-14,8%

-0,6%

-4,4%

0,2%

-6,4%

6,2%

9,5%

-4,1%

-14,3%

491 / 1555

       
         
         
        
        
        
         
      
       
        
         
        
        
       
      
        
        
        
        
         
        
       
      
       
       
         
         
        
         
        
       
      
       
        
        
         
         
      
       
         
      
        
       
         
         
         
         
        
        
         
         
Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.4.1 (all years) First instance courts, number of cases for specific case categories (Q101)

101.1.1 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Litigious divorce case

11 706

12 203

12 127

12 326

12 384

11 255

11 444

11 999

12 069

3,1%

4,2%

-0,6%

1,6%

0,5%

-9,1%

1,7%

4,8%

0,6%

101.1.2 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Employment dismissal case

559

509

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

480

-14,1%

-8,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

101.1.3 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Insolvency

2 135

2 251

2 439

2 326

2 050

1 936

1 745

1 946

2 031

-4,9%

5,4%

8,4%

-4,6%

-11,9%

-5,6%

-9,9%

11,5%

4,4%

101.2.1 Incoming cases_Litigious divorce case

17 075

18 185

18 542

18 579

17 023

17 648

18 001

17 553

17 058

-0,1%

6,5%

2,0%

0,2%

-8,4%

3,7%

2,0%

-2,5%

-2,8%

101.2.2 Incoming cases_Employment dismissal case

577

638

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

452

-21,7%

10,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

101.2.3 Incoming cases_Insolvency

3 359

3 553

3 372

2 882

2 725

2 384

2 801

2 894

2 321

-30,9%

5,8%

-5,1%

-14,5%

-5,4%

-12,5%

17,5%

3,3%

-19,8%

101.3.1 Resolved cases_Litigious divorce case

17 696

18 262

18 325

18 545

18 145

17 458

17 579

19 042

17 593

-0,6%

3,2%

0,3%

1,2%

-2,2%

-3,8%

0,7%

8,3%

-7,6%

101.3.2 Resolved cases_Employment dismissal case

647

601

658

666

662

557

529

505

463

-28,4%

-7,1%

9,5%

1,2%

-0,6%

-15,9%

-5,0%

-4,5%

-8,3%

101.3.3 Resolved cases_Insolvency

3 261

3 379

3 489

3 168

2 852

2 593

2 654

2 857

2 823

-13,4%

3,6%

3,3%

-9,2%

-10,0%

-9,1%

2,4%

7,6%

-1,2%

101.4.1 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Litigious divorce case

11 085

12 126

12 344

12 360

11 262

11 445

11 866

10 510

11 534

4,1%

9,4%

1,8%

0,1%

-8,9%

1,6%

3,7%

-11,4%

9,7%

101.4.2 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Employment dismissal case

489

546

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

469

-4,1%

11,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

101.4.3 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Insolvency

2 233

2 425

2 322

2 040

1 923

1 727

1 892

1 983

1 529

-31,5%

8,6%

-4,2%

-12,1%

-5,7%

-10,2%

9,6%

4,8%

-22,9%

Table 3.5.1 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for specific case categories (Q101)

Table 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 Variations of CR and DT for specific case categories of first instance cases (Q101)

CR Litigious divorce cases

103,6%

100,4%

98,8%

99,8%

106,6%

98,9%

97,7%

108,5%

103,1%

(0,48)

(3,10)

(1,59)

1,00

6,79

(7,19)

(1,28)

11,09

(4,93)

CR Employment dismissal cases

112,1%

94,2%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

102,4%

(8,65)

(15,99)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CR Insolvency cases

97,1%

95,1%

103,5%

109,9%

104,7%

108,8%

94,8%

98,7%

121,6%

25,28

(2,04)

8,80

6,24

(4,79)

3,92

(12,89)

4,19

23,20

DT Litigious divorce cases

DT Employment dismissal cases

DT Insolvency cases

229

276

250

242

332

262

246

NA

243

243

NA

235

227

NA

246

239

NA

243

246

NA

260

201

NA

253

239

4,7%

6,0%

1,4%

-1,1%

-6,9%

5,6%

3,0%

-18,2%

18,8%

370

34,0%

20,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

198

-20,9%

4,8%

-7,3%

-3,2%

4,7%

-1,2%

7,0%

-2,6%

-22,0%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

492 / 1555

        
        
        
         
         
        
        
       
        
        
      
       
        
         
         
        
         
      
         
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.7.1 to 3.7.5 (2019 and 2020) Second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Table 3.9.1 to 3.9.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.1.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.1.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.1.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.1.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.1.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.1.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.1.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.1.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

97.1.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.1.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

97.1.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases 

97.2.1 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.2.2 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.2.3 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.2.4 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.2.5 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.2.6 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.2.7 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.2.8 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

97.2.9 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.2.10 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

97.2.11 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases 

1 843

NA

240

240

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

64

3 835

NA

828

828

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

54

1 913

1 651

206

206

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

56

3 780

2 806

914

914

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

60

1 912

1 606

252

252

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

54

3 069

2 376

651

651

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

42

1 363

1 456

1 288

1 395

1 161

1 267

1 120

1 181

162

162

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

40

138

138

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

51

117

117

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

51

177

177

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

37

2 894

2 739

2 801

2 493

2 281

2 163

2 187

1 833

562

562

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

51

529

529

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

47

569

569

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

45

581

581

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

79

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,8%

-0,1%

-28,7%

6,8%

-11,5%

8,3%

-

-2,7%

-27,7%

9,1%

-11,6%

5,4%

-14,2%

22,3%

-35,7%

-14,8%

-15,2%

51,3%

-14,2%

22,3%

-35,7%

-14,8%

-15,2%

51,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-12,5%

-3,6%

-25,9%

27,5%

0,0%

-27,5%

-1,4%

-18,8%

-5,7%

-5,4%

2,3%

-11,0%

-

-15,3%

-4,0%

-5,2%

1,1%

-16,2%

10,4%

-28,8%

-13,7%

-5,9%

7,6%

2,1%

10,4%

-28,8%

-13,7%

-5,9%

7,6%

2,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

11,1%

-30,0%

21,4%

-7,8%

-4,3%

75,6%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

493 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.3.1 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.3.2 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.3.3 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.3.4 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.3.5 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.3.6 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.3.7 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.3.8 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

97.3.9 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.3.10 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

97.3.11 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases 

97.4.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.4.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.4.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.4.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.4.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.4.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.4.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.4.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

97.4.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.4.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

97.4.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases

97.5.1 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.5.2 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.5.10 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

3 763

NA

861

861

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

62

1 915

NA

207

207

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

56

-

-

-

3 779

2 848

869

869

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

62

1 914

1 609

251

251

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

54

-

-

-

3 618

2 821

741

741

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

56

1 363

1 161

162

162

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

40

NA

NA

NAP

2 804

2 905

2 698

2 604

2 176

2 310

2 117

1 914

586

586

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

42

550

550

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

45

523

523

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

58

625

625

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

65

1 453

1 290

1 391

1 284

1 266

1 120

1 190

1 100

138

138

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

49

NA

NA

NA

117

117

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

53

NA

NA

163

163

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

38

NA

NA

133

133

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

51

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,4%

-4,3%

-22,5%

3,6%

-7,1%

-3,5%

-

-0,9%

-22,9%

6,2%

-8,4%

-9,6%

0,9%

-14,7%

-20,9%

-6,1%

-4,9%

19,5%

0,9%

-14,7%

-20,9%

-6,1%

-4,9%

19,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

-9,7%

-25,0%

7,1%

28,9%

12,1%

-0,1%

-28,8%

6,6%

-11,2%

7,8%

-7,7%

-

-27,8%

9,0%

-11,5%

6,3%

-7,6%

21,3%

-35,5%

-14,8%

-15,2%

39,3%

-18,4%

21,3%

-35,5%

-14,8%

-15,2%

39,3%

-18,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-3,6%

-25,9%

22,5%

8,2%

-28,3%

34,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

494 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 (2019 and 2020): Second instance clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.9.4 and 3.9.5 (2019 and 2020): Variation of second clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

98,1%

100,0%

117,9%

96,9%

106,1%

96,3%

104,5%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

NA

101,5%

118,7%

95,4%

106,8%

96,8%

104,4%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

104,0%

95,1%

113,8%

104,3%

104,0%

91,9%

107,6%

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

104,0%

95,1%

113,8%

104,3%

104,0%

91,9%

107,6%

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

114,8%

103,3%

133,3%

82,4%

95,7%

128,9%

82,3%

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

186

NA

88

88

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

330

185

206

105

105

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

318

138

150

80

80

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

261

189

212

86

86

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

426

162

177

78

78

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

430

188

205

114

114

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

239

180

210

78

78

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

286

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,89

17,92

(17,81)

9,46

(9,18)

8,44

-

16,98

(19,65)

11,95

(9,36)

7,87

(8,57)

19,72

(8,39)

(0,29)

(11,59)

17,03

(8,57)

19,72

(8,39)

(0,29)

(11,59)

17,03

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(10,00)

29,03

(38,24)

16,26

34,62

(36,16)

-0,5%

-25,6%

37,5%

-14,3%

16,1%

-4,4%

-

-27,2%

41,4%

-16,7%

15,9%

2,2%

20,1%

-24,3%

7,7%

-9,7%

46,5%

-31,7%

20,1%

-24,3%

7,7%

-9,7%

46,5%

-31,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-3,6%

-18,0%

63,3%

1,0%

-44,4%

19,8%

495 / 1555

         
       
      
         
        
         
       
      
       
        
         
        
       
        
        
      
       
        
       
        
        
      
       
      
       
      
       
       
      
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.10.1 to 3.10.5 (2019 and 2020) Supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Table 3.12.1 to 3.12.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of the supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.1.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.1.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.1.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.1.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.1.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.1.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.1.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.1.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

99.1.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.1.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

99.1.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.2.1 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.2.2 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.2.3 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.2.4 High inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.2.5 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.2.6 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.2.7 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.2.8 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

99.2.9 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

4 536

4 519

4 746

4 012

3 648

3 791

3 758

510

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

579

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

549

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

482

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

359

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

292

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

314

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

3 719

3 625

3 916

3 294

3 057

3 337

3 312

307

5 747

1 013

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

315

281

236

232

162

132

5 720

6 195

7 736

7 321

7 177

6 188

884

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

999

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

862

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

767

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

725

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

683

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

99.2.10 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

4 201

4 319

4 785

6 411

6 199

6 113

5 204

99.2.11 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

533

517

411

463

355

339

301

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-0,4%

5,0%

-15,5%

-9,1%

3,9%

-0,9%

13,5%

-5,2%

-12,2%

-25,5%

-18,7%

7,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,5%

8,0%

-15,9%

-7,2%

9,2%

-0,7%

2,6%

-10,8%

-16,0%

-1,7%

-30,2%

-18,5%

-0,5%

8,3%

24,9%

-5,4%

-2,0%

-13,8%

-12,7%

13,0%

-13,7%

-11,0%

-5,5%

-5,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,8%

10,8%

34,0%

-3,3%

-1,4%

-14,9%

-3,0%

-20,5%

12,7%

-23,3%

-4,5%

-11,2%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

496 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.3.1 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.3.2 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.3.3 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.3.4 High inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.3.5 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.3.6 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.3.7 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.3.8 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

99.3.9 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

5 741

5 475

944

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

914

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

6 905

1 066

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

8 094

7 155

7 215

6 383

988

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

829

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

703

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

740

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

99.3.10 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

4 272

4 012

5 382

6 638

5 902

6 138

5 365

99.3.11 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.4.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.4.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.4.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.4.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.4.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.4.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.4.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.4.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry 
cases

99.4.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.4.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative 
law cases

99.4.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.5.1 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.5.2 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.5.10 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

525

549

457

468

424

374

278

4 542

4 764

4 036

3 654

3 814

3 753

3 563

579

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

549

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

482

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

356

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

297

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

314

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

257

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

3 648

3 932

3 319

3 067

3 354

3 312

3 151

315

283

-

-

-

-

-

-

235

NA

NA

NA

231

NA

NA

NA

163

NA

NA

NA

127

NA

NA

NA

155

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-4,6%

26,1%

17,2%

-11,6%

0,8%

-11,5%

-3,2%

16,6%

-7,3%

-16,1%

-15,2%

5,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-6,1%

34,1%

23,3%

-11,1%

4,0%

-12,6%

4,6%

-16,8%

2,4%

-9,4%

-11,8%

-25,7%

4,9%

-15,3%

-9,5%

4,4%

-1,6%

-5,1%

-5,2%

-12,2%

-26,1%

-16,6%

5,7%

-18,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7,8%

-15,6%

-7,6%

9,4%

-1,3%

-4,9%

-10,2%

-17,0%

-1,7%

-29,4%

-22,1%

22,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

497 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 Supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.12.4 and 3.12.5 Variation of the supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

99,9%

95,7%

111,5%

104,6%

97,7%

100,5%

103,2%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

93,2%

103,4%

106,7%

114,6%

108,1%

97,0%

108,3%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

101,7%

92,9%

112,5%

103,5%

95,2%

100,4%

103,1%

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

98,5%

106,2%

111,2%

101,1%

119,4%

110,3%

92,4%

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

289

224

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

312

219

318

219

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

358

188

213

165

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

225

188

165

132

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

169

180

195

131

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

207

140

190

163

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

197

124

204

127

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

214

204

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(4,18)

16,45

(6,13)

(6,59)

2,86

2,61

10,95

3,20

7,41

(5,70)

(10,29)

11,74

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(8,65)

21,08

(7,94)

(8,05)

5,46

2,67

7,81

4,71

(9,09)

18,16

(7,63)

(16,28)

10,0%

-32,8%

-22,8%

18,1%

-2,4%

7,3%

-2,1%

-24,7%

-20,3%

-0,6%

24,7%

-22,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

14,8%

-37,1%

-25,1%

23,0%

-5,0%

8,8%

-14,1%

-0,2%

-4,0%

-22,1%

-11,7%

64,2%

498 / 1555

        
       
        
        
         
         
       
         
         
        
      
       
        
       
        
        
         
         
         
         
        
       
        
      
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.14.1 to 3.14.5 First instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

094.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

094.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

094.2.1 Total -incoming

094.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

094.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

094.2.4 Other - incoming

094.3.1 Total - resolved

094.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

094.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

094.3.4 Other - resolved

094.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

094.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

094.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

094.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

20 227

NAP

NAP

NAP

56 932

NAP

NAP

NAP

50 834

NAP

NAP

NAP

26 325

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

499 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.15.1 to 3.10.2 CR and DT for first instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

098.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

098.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

098.2.1 Total -incoming

098.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

098.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

098.2.4 Other - incoming

098.3.1 Total - resolved

098.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

098.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

098.3.4 Other - resolved

Table 3.16.1 to 3.16.5 Second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

89,3%

NAP

NAP

NAP

189

NAP

NAP

NAP

2 760

NAP

NAP

NAP

4 876

NAP

NAP

NAP

5 094

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

500 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

098.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

098.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

098.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

098.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

2 542

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

Table 3.17.1 to 3.17.2 CR and DT for second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

104,5%

NAP

NAP

NAP

182

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

501 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.18.1 to 3.18.5 Supreme court criminal law cases (Q100)

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

100.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

100.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

100.2.1 Total -incoming

100.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

100.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

100.2.4 Other - incoming

100.3.1 Total - resolved

100.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

100.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

100.3.4 Other - resolved

100.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

100.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

100.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

100.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

205

NAP

NAP

NAP

833

NAP

NAP

NAP

778

NAP

NAP

NAP

260

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

502 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.19.1 to 3.19.2 CR and DT for supreme court  criminal law cases (Q100)

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

93,4%

NAP

NAP

NAP

122

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

503 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 5: Access to justice

Legal aid

Table 5.1 to Table 5.6 (Q12-2, Q16, Q18, Q19, Q20, Q20-1)

12-2.1.1 Coverage of court fees

12-2.1.2 Exemption from court fees

16.1.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (criminal cases)

16.1.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (criminal cases)

16.2.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (other than criminal 
cases)

16.2.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (other than criminal cases)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

-

-

-

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

18.1.1 Legal aid for the enforcement of judicial decisions

19.1.1  Legal aid granted for other costs - criminal cases

19.1.2  Legal aid granted for other costs - other than criminal cases

020.1.1 Total

020.1.2 Total - criminal cases

020.1.3 Total - other than criminal cases

020.2.1 Total brought to court

020.2.2 Broight to court - criminal cases

020.2.3 Brought to court - other then criminal

020.3.1 Total not brought to court

020.3.2 Not broight to court - criminal cases

020.3.3 Not brought to court - other then criminal

020-1.1.1 Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulation

020-1.1.2 Average duration

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

82 628

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

504 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

System for compensating users

Table 5.7.1 and Table 5.7.2 (Q37)

037.1.1 Requests for compensation - Total

037.1.2 Requests for compensation - Excessive length of 
proceedings

037.1.3 Requests for compensation - Non-execution of court 
decisions

037.1.4 Requests for compensation - Wrongful arrest

037.1.5 Requests for compensation - Wrongful conviction

037.1.6 Requests for compensation - Other

037.2.1 Condemnations - Total

037.2.2 Condemnations - Excessive length of proceedings

037.2.3 Condemnations - Non-execution of court decisions

037.2.4 Condemnations - Wrongful arrest

037.2.5 Condemnations - Wrongful conviction

037.2.6 Condemnations - Other

037.3.1 Amount - Total

037.3.2 Amount - Excessive length of proceedings

037.3.3 Amount - Non-execution of court decisions

037.3.4 Amount - Wrongful arrest

037.3.5 Amount - Wrongful conviction

037.3.6 Amount - Other

NA

56

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NA

40

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NA

154 264 €

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

505 / 1555

       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 6.1 to Table 6.11 (Q62-7, Q62-7-1, Q62-8,  Q62-8-1, Q63-1, Q63-1-1, Q63-2 Q63-6, Q63-7, Q63-7-1, Q64-2,  Q64-4, Q64-6, Q64-3, Q64-3-1, Q64-7, Q64-7-1, 
Q64-9)

Indicator 6: The ICT tools of courts and for court users

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

62-7 Writing assistance tools coordinated at national level

62-7-1.1 Deployment rate in civil matter

62-7-1.2 Deployment rate in criminal matter

62-7-1.3 Deployment rate in administrative matter

62-8 Voice recording tools

62-8-1.1.1 Availability of simple dictation tools in civil matter

62-8-1.1.2 Availability of simple dictation tools in criminal matter

62-8-1.1.3 Availability of simple dictation tools in administrative 
matter

62-8-1.2.1 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in civil 
matter

62-8-1.2.2 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in criminal 
matter

62-8-1.2.3 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in 
administrative matter

62-8-1.3.1 Availability of voice recognition in civil matter

62-8-1.3.2 Availability of voice recognition in criminal matter

62-8-1.3.3 Availability of voice recognition in administrative matter

062-9 Availability of intranet site within the judicial system for 
distribution of news/novelties

63.1 Is there a case management system? 

63.1-1.1 CMS for civil matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for criminal matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for administrative matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.2 CMS for civil matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for criminal matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for administrative matter (status of case onlinee)

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

-

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

-

-

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Both

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

506 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63.1-1.3 CMS for civil matter (Centralised or interoperable database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for criminal matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for administrative matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.4 CMS for civil matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for criminal matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for administrative matter (Early warning signals)

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS civil matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS criminal matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS administrative matter

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - land registry

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - business registry

63-2.2 Data consolidated at national level for land registry

63-2.2  Data consolidated at national level for business registry

63-2.3 Service available online for land registry

63-2.3  Service available online for business registry

63-2.4 Statistical module integrated or connected for land registry

63-2.4  Statistical module integrated or connected for business 
registry

063-6.1.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (deployment 
rate)

063-6.1.2 Justice expenses management (deployment rate)

063-6.1.3 Other financial management tools (deployment rate)

063-6.2.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (Data 
consolidated at national level)

063-6.2.2 Justice expenses management (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.2.3 Other financial management tools (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.3.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (System 
communicating with other ministries)

063-6.3.2 Justice expenses management (System communicating 
with other ministries)

063-6.3.3 Other financial management tools (System communicating 
with other ministries)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Integrated

Not integrated 
but connected

Integrated

Fully integrated 
including BI

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

False

False

False

False

False

False

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

NA

True

True

False

NA

True

True

NA

NA

True

True

NA

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

NA

NA

507 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63-7.1 Measurement tools to assess the workload

63-7-1.1.1 Deployment rate - workload of judges

63-7-1.1.2 Deployment rate - workload of prosecutors

63-7-1.1.3 Deployment rate - workload of non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.2.1 Monitoring on national level - judges

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - prosecutors

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.3.1 Monitoring on court level - judges

63-7-1.3.2 Monitoring on court level - prosecutors

63-7-1.3.3 Monitoring on court level - non-judge and non-prosecutor 
staff

064-2 - Possibility to submit a case to courts by electronic means

064-2 - Civil and/or commercial

064-2 - Criminal

064-2 - Administrative

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - civil

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - criminal

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory  - administrative

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - civil

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - criminal

064-2 - Specific legislative framework  - administrative

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - civil

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - criminal

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - administrative

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

50-99%

100%

100%

100%

True

True

False

False

False

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

508 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-3 - Is it possible to request for granting legal aid by electronic 
means? 

064-3-1.1 - Equipment rate

064-3-1.2 - Request in paper mandatory

064-3-1.3 - Specific legislative framework

064-3-1.4 - Granting LA is also electronic

064-3-1.5 - Information available in CMS

064-4 - Possibility to transmit summons to a judicial meeting or a 
hearing by electronic means

064-4-1.1.1 - Summons produced by CMS- civil

064-4-1.1.2 - Summons produced by CMS- criminal

064-4-1.1.3 - Summons produced by CMS- administrative

064-4-1.2.1 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- civil

064-4-1.2.2 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- criminal

064-4-1.2.3 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- administrative

064-4-1.3.1 - Consent of the user - civil

064-4-1.3.2 - Consent of the user - criminal

064-4-1.3.3 - Consent of the user - administrative

064-6.1.1 - Civil and/or commercial (deployment rate)

064-6.1.2 - Criminal (deployment rate)

064-6.1.3 - Administrative (deployment rate)

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

509 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-6.2.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.2 - Criminal (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.3 - Administrative (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.3.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Modalities)

064-6.3.2 - Criminal (Modalities)

064-6.3.3 - Administrative (Modalities)

064-6.4.1 - Civil and/or commercial (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.2 - Criminal (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.3 - Administrative (specific legal framework)

064-6.5.1 - Civil and/or commercial (availability for)

064-6.5.2 - Criminal (availability for)

064-6.5.3 - Administrative (availability for)

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

E-mail    

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
E-mail  
Specific 
application  

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer
Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer
Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

510 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-7.1.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (deployment rate)

064-7.1.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.2.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (Modalities)

064-7.2.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.3.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (specific legal framework)

064-7.32.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-7.3.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts (specific 
legal framework)

064-7.3.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-9 - Existance of online processing devices of specialised 
litigation

100%

NA

100%

0% (NAP)

NA

0% (NAP)

NA

NA

100%

-

100%

100%

0% (NAP)

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

True

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

False

True

False

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

511 / 1555

    
    
    
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

46.1.1 Total Number of professional judges

46.1.2 Number of 1st inst professional judges

46.1.3 Number of 2nd inst professional judges

46.1.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges

46.2.1 Number of professional judges_males

46.2.2 Number of 1st instance professional judges_males

46.2.3 Number of 2nd instance professional judges_males

46.2.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges_males

46.3.1  Number of professional judges_females

46.3.2  Number of 1st inst professional judges_females

46.3.3  Number of 2nd inst professional judges_females

46.3.4  Number of Supreme court professional judges_females

046-2.1.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Total

046-2.2.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Civil and commercial

046-2.2.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.3.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Criminal

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

Indicator 7: Professionals of justice  (Indicator 9 in 2019)

Table 7.1.1 to 7.5.6 for judges, non judge staff, prosecutors, non prosecutor staff and salaries

981

744

194

43

482

350

105

27

499

394

89

16

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

986

758

185

43

484

362

95

27

502

396

90

16

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

988

758

186

44

473

356

89

28

515

402

97

16

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

991

761

188

42

451

338

85

28

540

423

103

14

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 068

1 045

1 081

1 087

1 077

9,8%

0,5%

0,2%

0,3%

7,8%

-2,2%

3,4%

0,6%

-0,9%

834

184

50

485

368

84

33

583

466

100

17

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

817

178

50

460

350

78

32

585

467

100

18

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

850

184

47

452

344

78

30

629

506

106

17

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

850

191

46

451

342

90

29

636

508

111

17

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

854

14,8%

1,9%

0,0%

0,4%

9,6%

-2,0%

4,0%

0,0%

0,5%

178

-8,2%

-4,6%

0,5%

1,1%

-2,1%

-3,3%

3,4%

3,8%

-6,8%

45

4,7%

0,0%

2,3%

-4,5%

19,0%

0,0%

-6,0%

-2,1%

-2,2%

433

-10,2%

0,4%

-2,3%

-4,7%

7,5%

-5,2%

-1,7%

-0,2%

-4,0%

323

-7,7%

3,4%

-1,7%

-5,1%

8,9%

-4,9%

-1,7%

-0,6%

-5,6%

81

-22,9%

-9,5%

-6,3%

-4,5%

-1,2%

-7,1%

0,0%

15,4%

-10,0%

29

7,4%

0,0%

3,7%

0,0%

17,9%

-3,0%

-6,3%

-3,3%

0,0%

644

29,1%

0,6%

2,6%

4,9%

8,0%

0,3%

7,5%

1,1%

1,3%

531

34,8%

0,5%

1,5%

5,2%

10,2%

0,2%

8,4%

0,4%

4,5%

97

16

1 077

854

178

45

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

9,0%

1,1%

7,8%

6,2%

-2,9%

0,0%

6,0%

4,7%

-12,6%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-12,5%

21,4%

5,9%

-5,6%

0,0%

-5,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

512 / 1555

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

046-2.4.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - 
Administrative

046-2.4.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.5.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Other

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

278

251

NAP

27

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 52.1.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in courts 

2 214

2 196

2 161

2 145

2 170

2 137

2 131

2 128

2 162

-2,3%

-0,8%

-1,6%

-0,7%

1,2%

-1,5%

-0,3%

-0,1%

1,6%

52.1.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)

52.1.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges

52.1.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks

52.1.5 Number of Technical staff

52.1.6 Number of Other non judge staff

52.2.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(men)

52.2.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(men)

52.2.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(men)

52.2.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(men)

52.2.5 Number of Technical staff(men)

52.2.6 Number of Other non judge staff(men)

52.3.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(women)

52.3.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(women)

52.3.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(women)

52.3.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(women)

52.3.5 Number of Technical staff(women)

52.3.6 Number of Other non judge staff(women)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

488

498

516

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1 643

1 630

1 646

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,0%

3,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-0,8%

1,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

513 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

052-1.1.1 Non-judge staff (Total)

052-1.1.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (total)

052-1.1.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (total)

052-1.1.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (total)

052-1.2.1 Non-judge staff  (Males)

052-1.2.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (males)

052-1.2.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (males)

052-1.2.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (males)

052-1.3.1 Non-judge staff  (females)

052-1.3.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (females)

052-1.3.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (females)

052-1.3.4 Non-judge staff  at supreme court (females)

055.1.1 Prosecutors (total)

055.1.2 Prosecutors (1st inst.)

055.1.3 Prosecutors (2nd inst.)

055.1.4 Prosecutors (Highest instance)

055.2.1 Prosecutors - Males -total

055.2.2 Prosecutors - Males, 1st inst.

055.2.3 Prosecutors - Males, 2nd inst.

055.2.4 Prosecutors - Males, Supreme courts

055.3.1 Prosecutors - Females, Total

055.3.2 Prosecutors - Females, 1st inst.

055.3.3 Prosecutors - Females, 2nd inst.

055.3.4 Prosecutors - Females, Supreme courts

2 162

1 783

233

146

516

426

53

37

1 646

1 357

180

109

390

NAP

NAP

NAP

155

NAP

NAP

NAP

235

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

514 / 1555

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

060.1.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Total

060.2.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Males

060.3.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Females

004 Annual average salary in the country

132.1.1 Gross annual salary, in €  - Professional judge at the 
beginning of career

132.1.2 Gross annual salary, in €  - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.1.3 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor at the beginning 
of career

132.1.4 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

132.2.1 Net annual salary, in € - Professional judge at the beginning 
of career

132.2.2 Net annual salary, in € - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.2.3 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor at the beginning of 
career

132.2.4 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

133.1.1.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Reduced taxation

133.1.2.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Special pension

133.1.3.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Housing

133.1.4.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Other financial benefit

133.2.1.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Reduced taxation

133.2.2.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Special pension

133.2.3.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Housing

133.2.4.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Other financial benefit

139

11

128

43 140 €

66 900 €

136 300 €

50 880 €

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

515 / 1555

         
         
       
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

144.1.1 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - Total number (1+2+3+4)

144.1.2 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 1. Breach of professional 
ethics 

144.1.3 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.1.4 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 3. Criminal offence 

144.1.5 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 4. Other

144.2.1 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - Total number 
(1+2+3+4)

144.2.2 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 1. Breach of 
professional ethics 

144.2.3 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.2.4 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 3. Criminal offence

144.2.5 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 4. Other 

145.1.1 Sanctions against Judges - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.1.2 Sanctions against Judges - 1. Reprimand

145.1.3 Sanctions against Judges - 2. Suspension

145.1.4 Sanctions against Judges - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.1.5 Sanctions against Judges - 4. Fine

145.1.6 Sanctions against Judges - 5. Temporary reduction of salary

145.1.7 Sanctions against Judges - 6. Position downgrade

145.1.8 Sanctions against Judges - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.1.9 Sanctions against Judges - 8. Resignation

145.1.10 Sanctions against  Judges - 9. Other

145.1.11 Sanctions against  Judges - 10. Dismissal

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

516 / 1555

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

145.2.1 Sanctions against Prosecutors - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.2.2 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 1. Reprimand

145.2.3 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 2. Suspension

145.2.4 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.2.5 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 4. Fine

145.2.6 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 5. Temporary reduction of 
salary

145.2.7 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 6. Position downgrade

145.2.8 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.2.9 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 8. Resignation

145.2.10 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 9. Other

145.2.11 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 10. Dismissal

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lawyers

Tables 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.7 and 7.8

146.1.1 Total number of lawyers practising

1 935

2 009

2 115

3 550

3 791

3 846

3 965

4 022

4 087

111,2%

3,8%

5,3%

67,8%

6,8%

1,5%

3,1%

1,4%

1,6%

146.2.1 Practicing lawyers - man

146.3.1 Practicing lawyers - woman

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

147 Does this figure include “legal advisors” who cannot represent 
their clients in court (for example, some solicitors or in-house 
counsellors)? 

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

517 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Finland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

166 Number of accredited or registered mediators who practice 
judicial mediation: 

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

Indicator 8: The existence and use of alternative dispute resolution methods

Table 8.1 8.2 and 8.3

167.1.1 Total number started

167. 1.2 Civil and commercial cases(cid:9) - started

167. 1.2 Family cases - started

167.1.4 Administrative cases - started

167.1.5 Labour cases including employment dismissal cases - started

167.1.6. Criminal cases - started

167.1.7 Consumer cases - started

673

204

425

NAP

44

NA

-

726

237

432

NAP

57

NAP

-

1 671

2 349

2 417

505

857

946

1 034

1 293

1 258

NAP

132

NAP

NAP

NAP

199

NAP

NA

NAP

213

NAP

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7,9%

130,2%

40,6%

2,9%

16,2%

113,1%

69,7%

10,4%

1,6%

139,4%

25,0%

-2,7%

-

-

-

-

29,5%

131,6%

50,8%

7,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Key: Variation of more than (+ -) 20% 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

518 / 1555

Judiciary at a glance in France

General data

Population:

67 407 241

GDP per capita: 33 959 €

Average annual 

salary:

34 495 €

Professionals

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

France

France

EU Median

EU Median

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual 
salary in the country

France

France

EU Median

EU Median

Professional judges

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

11,07

23,92

11,07

35,70

23,92

59,00

3,19

35,70

59,00

9,91

1,06

3,19

9,91

1,34

15,22

1,06

15,22

Judge at the beginning of a career 

1,34

4,09

2,02

3,57

3,57

3,61

Judge of the highest court 3,57
2,02

4,09

1,71
Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 
1,71

1,41

1,41

Public prosecutor at highest instance

3,57

3,61

Lawyers

Lawyers

103,95

122,09

103,95

122,09

Judge at the
beginning of a career

Judge of the highest
court

Prosecutor at the
beginning of a career

Public prosecutor at
highest instance

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

Efficiency

1st instance

2nd instance

1st instance 2nd instance

100%

,

,

%
3
5
0
%
1
9
Civil and
2
9
commercial
Administrativ
e
cases
Total 
criminal law 
cases

%
0
8
7

,

,

%
6
1
0
1

%
2
5
9

,

92,9%

%
4
6
9

,

%
3
105,3%
1
9

,

Supreme Court
Supreme 
Court
%
2
4
0
1

,

,

%
4
2
0
1

78,0%

95,2%

101,6%

96,4%

91,3%

102,4%

104,2%

1
1

1

1
1

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance 2nd instance Supreme Court

Civil and commercial litigious cases
637
Administrative cases 333

773

607
362

Total criminal law cases

NA

399

607

637

221

362

333

773
221

146

146

399

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

Administrative
cases

Total criminal law
cases

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

Information and communication technology

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

Assistance toolsCase management system
2018

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the workload
2019

Electronic communication

EU Median 2020

2020

2018
2019
2020

0,50
0,64
0,39

5,25

EU Median 2020

2,00

2,00

0,50

0,64

0,39

5,25
3,85
4,84
4,84

5,17

3,85

2,00
2,00
2,00

5,17

0,00
0,00
1,67

2,08
3,30
5,26

6,94

5,26

1,25

2,50

6,94

2,00

2,00

2,00

1,25

2,50

1,67

3,30

2,08

0,00

0,00

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

*ICT calculations are described in more details in Annex 5 - IT Calculation methodology

519

2020

Synthesis table for the main indicators for:

France

Economic and demographic data

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Variations

Population

GDP per capita

Exchange rate (local currency needed to 
obtain 1€)

65 585 857

65 821 000

66 317 994

66 627 602

66 991 000

67 186 638

66 992 699

67 063 703

67 407 241

31 059

32 112

32 227

32 796

33 337

34 150

34 978

35 960

33 959

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

Average annual salary

34 100

34 500

35 400

35 763

36 705

34 495

2,8%

9,3%

NAP

1,2%

1,0%

3,4%

NAP

2,6%

0,0%

4,9%

NAP

1,0%

-0,3%

2,4%

0,1%

2,8%

0,5%

-5,6%

NAP NAP

NAP

2,6%

-6,0%

Resources

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Professional judges per 100 000 inhab.

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhab.

Lawyers per 100 000 inh.

Mediators

ICT overall assesment

First instance incoming cases per 100 
inhab.

10,7

33,2

85,7

NA

10,7

33,3

91,5

3,7

10,5

33,7

93,6

3,7

10,5

33,5

93,2

3,9

10,4

33,9

97,7

4,4

10,5

33,8

99,7

4,4

10,9

34,1

99,9

2,1

3,5

11,1

34,9

11,2

35,7

4,1%

7,6%

102,6

104,0

21,4%

-0,1%

0,6%

4,4%

4,0%

0,6%

2,3%

3,3%

0,9%

0,3%

NA

3,5

3,8

4,9

NA

18,8%

-51,2%

-51,0%

2,0%

2,3%

2,7%

NA

0,8%

2,3%

1,3%

NA

-0,5%

40,7%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Civil and commercial litigious cases

2,575

2,719

2,636

2,612

2,536

2,468

2,236

2,093

1,586

-38,4%

-3,8%

-11,8%

-9,4%

-6,4%

-24,2%

Administrative law cases

0,272

0,3

0,3

0,288

0,289

0,294

0,318

0,345

0,312

14,8%

-2,1%

10,1%

8,3%

8,5%

-9,4%

Total criminal law cases

1,433

First instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

99%

98%

CR administrative law cases

107%

104%

94%

96%

98%

98%

99%

99%

103%

102%

96%

98%

100%

97%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

-6,37

-11,46

4,65

2,80

-3,27

-0,65

-6,79

-3,74

3,93

-1,88

-6,83

-1,32

93%

95%

91%

CR total criminal law cases

First instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
cases (days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

First instance pending cases per 100 
inhab. on 31 dec.

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

 Supreme court 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Supreme court
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

311

302

308

284

348

305

346

313

353

314

341

290

420

285

432

284

104,7%

10,2%

1,6%

2,9%

19,0%

23,3%

2,8%

47,5%

-9,0%

-1,5%

-0,4%

17,1%

637

333

NA

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

2,18

0,24

2,24

0,22

2,37

0,24

2,42

0,24

2,43

0,25

2,36

0,24

2,47

0,24

2,47

0,26

18,0%

12,9%

2,6%

3,7%

1,4%

-0,5%

4,3%

2,8%

0,2%

5,9%

4,1%

4,6%

2,57

0,27

NA

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

93%

95%

100%

100%

95%

98%

104%

105%

102%

105%

100%

97%

96%

102%

1,92

-2,49

9,34

-0,48

1,09

-2,72

-2,49

-1,27

3,04

5,57

102%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

477

334

476

329

487

341

464

334

466

327

481

329

607

362

399

2,1%

2,0%

-4,2%

0,4%

-4,0%

-1,9%

3,3%

0,5%

26,1%

10,0%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

92%

88%

105%

90%

123%

102%

101%

109%

100%

103%

100%

101%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

12,64

-1,54

18,26

32,82

-20,75

-24,35

0,34

-2,58

0,81

-4,64

78%

96%

104%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

425

185

516

206

376

207

469

184

337

200

402

188

773

221

146

-11,4%

-10,5%

-28,2%

19,2%

92,6%

12,3%

-3,5%

8,5%

-5,9%

17,5%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

520 / 1555

In 2020 in France, following the implementation of the justice reform (Law No. 2016-1547 of November 18, 2016 on the modernization of justice in the 21st century; Law no. 
2019-222 of 23 March 2019 on programming 2018-2022 and reform for justice) the number of courts considered as legal entities is 1 066. Namely, there are 206 courts of 
general jurisdiction and 860 specialised courts. 

1. Judicial organisation in France

Among the 206 legal entities of general jurisdiction, the 168 “tribunaux judiciaires” have competence at first instance, the 37 Courts of appeal are the second instance 
courts of general jurisdiction, while the Cassation Court is the highest instance court of general jurisdiction in the French judicial system.

Among the 860 legal entities of specialised jurisdiction, 851 are of first while 9 are higher instance specialised courts (infra).

In terms of geographic locations, there are 672 courts among which 618 are of first instance. More precisely, as concerns civil and criminal courts, there are 576 courts of 
first instance - geographical locations and in total 619 Courts - geographical locations. As regards the administrative order, there are 42 administrative courts of first 
instance - geographic locations and in total 53 administrative courts – geographic locations. 

Distribution of general courts in France

Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

France - 1st instance
France - Higher instances

EU Median - 1st instance

EU Median - Higher instances

FranceDistribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

According to 2020 data, the distribution between 1st instance and higher instances courts of 
general jurisdiction in France is around the EU median of 87% - 13%.

France - 1st instanceFrance - Higher instances

General courts - France

82%

18%

General courts - France
EU Median

82%
87%

18%
13%

EU Median

87%

13%

Evolution of number of first instance courts in France

Geographic 
locations

Legal entities

General jurisdiction

Specialised 
jurisdiction

640

641

643

643

641

641

641

641

672

778

783

786

786

786

786

168

168

168

1 156

1 089

1 094

1 094

1 086

1 086

1 463

1 186

851

1 600
1 400
1 200
1 000
800
600
400
200
0

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Evolution of number of first instance courts in France

Geographic locations

Legal entities General jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

521 / 1555

France

France

Ratio general jurisdiction vs specialised

16%
General jurisdiction Specialised courts

16%

75%

84%

25%

Distribution of first instance general jurisdiction and specialised courts

EU Median

25%

84%
General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

75%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

The distribution between number of general jurisdiction courts and specialised courts of 16,5% - 83,5% is quite different from the EU median 
(distribution tendency in EU: 75,5% - 24,5%).

In fact, France constitutes an extreme configuration with its 860 secialised courts. 

Specialised courts
Total

Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

Insolvency courts

Labour courts

Family courts

Rent and tenancies courts

Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

Internet related disputes

Administrative courts

Insurance and / or social welfare courts

Military courts

Juvenile courts

Other specialised 1st instance courts

First instance

Higher instance

851

152

NAP

216

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

42

NAP

NAP

155

286

9

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

9

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

In France in 2020, at first instance there are 216 labor courts (210 “conseils de prud’hommes” and 6 labor courts); 152 commercial courts; 42 administrative courts; 155 
juvenile courts and 286 other specialised courts (275 parity courts for rural leases (tribunaux paritaires des baux ruraux (TPBR)), the Court for navigation on the Rhine; the 
Court for navigation on the Moselle; 6 Maritime courts; the National court of asylum; the “Commission du contentieux du stationnement payant”). 

In matters of enforcement of sentences, the enforcement judge (JAP) is a court of first instance for the enforcement of sentences, being at the same time a decision-
making, monitoring and follow-up body. The Court for the Enforcement of Sentences (TAP) is a court of first instance, composed of three JAPs of the judicial courts (most 
complex and sensitive cases). In each court of appeal, a TAP is established. The exact number of enforcement of criminal sanctions courts is not available. However, as it 
is a small number it would not significantly affect the total. 

In matters of terrorism, a derogatory jurisdiction is provided for under ordinary law (articles 706-22-1 and D 49-75 to D49-81-5 of the CPP). The Paris enforcement courts 
specialized in terrorist matters (JAPAT, the TAPAT and the enforcement chamber) have exclusive jurisdiction to monitor persons convicted by specialized terrorism trial 
courts; shared jurisdiction with ordinary law enforcement courts to monitor persons convicted of acts of terrorism and other offenses falling within the scope of Article 706-
16 of the CPP by ordinary law courts.

Since January 1, 2019, social litigation is within the competence of first instance courts of general jurisdiction (tribunaux judiciaires) and the specialized jurisdictions have 
been abolished. 
Concerning military jurisdictions, in peacetime courts of general jurisdiction are competent, while in times of war, the territorial courts of the armed forces are competent as 
exceptional jurisdictions. Since November 1, 2019, litigation concerning military disability pensions has been transferred to administrative courts.

As to insolvency cases, depending on the nature of the litigants, they are within the competence of “tribunaux judiciaires”, Commercial courts or TPBR. Family law judges 
work within the “tribunaux judiciaires”. Same applies to rental/lease cases. 

Higher instance specialised courts exist only in administrative matters - the 8 Administrative court of appeal and the Council fo State. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

522 / 1555

2. Professionals of justice in France

● Professional judges and non-judge staff

Evolution of the number of professional judges since 2012 (Q46)

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020
EU median

Absolute 
number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

7 033

7 054

6 935

6 967

6 995

7 066

7 277

7 427

7 522

10,72

10,72

10,46

10,46

10,44

10,52

10,86

11,07

11,16

23,9

Professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants

23,9

10,72

10,72

10,46

10,46

10,44

10,52

10,86

11,07

11,16

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

According to 2020 data, the total number of professional judges sitting in courts (all instances) in France is 7 522, which is 1,3% more than in previous cycle.

More precisely, in France, there are 11,16 professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants (this figure is below the EU median of 23,92 judges per 100 000 inhabitants) and about 3,20 non-judge staff per 
judge .

There has been a small increase compared with previous cycle when this ratio was at 3,15 non-judge staff per judge.

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and gender

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

5 288

1 880

354

7 522

Distribution by 
instance

70,3%

25,0%

4,7%

Male

Female

% Male

% Female

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

EU Median

72,39%

23,98%

4,03%

Distribution of professional judges by instance

France

EU Median

70,3%

72,39%

25,0%

23,98%

4,7%

4,03%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

In this cycle,it was not possible to carry out a gender breakdown in respect of number of judges. 

The total number of judges is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 5 288 are sitting in first instance courts; 1 880 are sitting in second instance courts and 354 are sitting 
in Supreme Court.  

Compared with the EU distribution of professional judges per instance, a similar trend is observed in France. However, the predominance of first instance judges is less pronounced, while second and 
third instance judges are more numerous. 

As regards the methodology of presentation of data in respect of the number of judges, some useful details have been provided.  

In respect of civil and criminal courts, the data are expressed in full-time equivalent. These figures concern only judges (and not paralegals) who sit in court (judges seconded to the central 
administration are not counted). 
Total number of professional judges: total 6177.9; men 1725.5; women 4452.4
1. Number of first instance professional judges: total 4378.6; men 1133.7; women 3244.9
2. Number of professional judges in courts of appeal: total 1577.8; men 503.8; women 1074
3. Number of professional judges in the Cassation court: total 221.5; men 88; women 133.5

For the administrative order, the data includes the National Court of Asylum (CNDA) and the "Commission du contentieux du stationnement payant (CCSP)". In FTE, only the total is available. The 
detail in physical staff is as follows:
Total number of professional judges: total 1357; men 727; women 630
1. Number of professional judges of first instance: total 920; men 487; women 433
2. Number of professional judges in the courts of appeal: total 306; men 156; women 150
3. Number of professional judges in the Council of State: total 131; men 84; women 47

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

523 / 1555

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Total

Civil and commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

5 288

1 880

354

7 522

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

909

303

132

1 343

NA

NA

NA

NA

In France, the distribution of judges per categories of cases is possible for some categories only.

Distribution of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Civil and 
commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

17,2%

16,1%

37,3%

17,9%

NA

NA

NA

NA

TRUE

TRUE

FALSE

TRUE

NA

3

NA

NA

NA

NA

The distinction by type of case is not possible in respect of civil and criminal cases (ordre judiciaire ). Namely, the distribution of the processing of civil and criminal cases within courts, which depends on 
the organization of the jurisdictions, does not allow providing the requested information. With regard to administrative courts, the FTEs have been rounded up. 

Non-judge staff

Year

2012

2013

Number of non-judge staff

21 758

21 946

Per 100 000 inhabitants

33,17

33,34

2014

22 360

33,72

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

22 326

22 712

22 714

22 844

23 396

24 062

33,51

33,90

33,81

34,10

34,89

35,70

E
U 
m

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants

59,00

33,17

33,34

33,72

33,51

33,90

33,81

34,10

34,89

35,70

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

2020

Total

Rechtspfleger

Absolute 
number

24 062

NAP

Non-judge staff assisting the judge

19 573

Staff in charge of administrative tasks

3 045

Technical staff

Other

889

554

in %

NAP

81,3%

12,7%

3,7%

2,3%

In 2020, France has 24 062 non-judge staff (of which 19 678 are females). The total number of non-judge staff in comparison with the previous cycle reveals an increase of 2,8%.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

524 / 1555

In this cycle, the non-judge staff is broken down as follows:

◦ 19 573 non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges such as registrars (of which 16 839 are women);
◦ 3 045 staff in charge of different administrative tasks and of the court management (of which 2 279 are women);
◦ 889 technical staff (of which 146 are women);
◦ 554 other (of which 413 are women);

In 2020, the number of non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants has increased (from 34,9 in 2019 to 35,7 in 2020).

During the same period, the number of judges per 100 000 inhabitants evolves from 11,1 judges per 100 000 inhabitants in 2019 to 11,2 in 2020.

"Other non-judicial staff" encompasses legal assistants and specialized assistants who do not work for the prosecution service. Unlike in previous years, this distinction could be made for the numbers in 
2020, which explains the decrease in the figures provided compared to the previous year. 

The category "Non-judge (judicial) staff whose task is to assist the judges" includes the category B contractual employees recruited under the plan to support justice, implemented since the second half of 
2020 on the sole basis of article 7bis of the law n°84-16 of January 11, 1984, concerning statutory provisions relating to the State civil service, created by the law on the transformation of the civil service 
of August 6, 2019, instituting the project contract. These contract employees are hired for 3 years.
As of 12/31/2020, 1,699 category A and B agents (including 1,388 women) were undergoing initial training at the National School of Clerks, most of whom were on practical training in the courts. These 
personnel will join the courts during 2021 or 2022, which will significantly increase the number of staff working in the courts and regional administrative services.

Trainee judges are not included. 

The data compiles data from civil, criminal and administrative courts. 

Professional judges, non-judge staff and their ratio (Q46, Q52)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

France

EU median

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

11,16

35,70

Non-judge staff per judge

3,20

23,92

59,00

3,30

Professional judges and non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

3,20

35,70

Non-judge staff per judge

11,16

59,00

3,30

23,92

France

EU median

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff  (Q46, Q52)

Judges 
per 100 000 inh.

Non-judge staff per
100 000 inh.

Ratio between professional judges and non-judge 
staff

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff 
(Q46, Q52)

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inh.

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

10,72

10,72

10,46

10,46

10,44

10,52

10,86

11,07

11,16

33,17

33,34

33,72

33,51

33,90

33,81

34,10

34,89

35,70

EU median 2020

3,30

3,09

3,11

3,22

3,20

3,25

3,21

3,14

3,15

3,20

3,09

3,11

3,22

2012

2013

2014

3,09
3,11
3,22
3,20
3,25
3,21
3,14
3,15
3,20

3,20

3,25

3,21

3,14

3,15

3,20

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

525 / 1555

● Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff

Absolute number of public prosecutors by instance and gender (Q55)

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

1 605

489

57

2 151

Distribution by 
instance

74,6%

22,7%

2,6%

Male

594

247

30

871

Female

1 011

242

27

1 280

Male

37,0%

50,5%

52,6%

40,5%

Female

63,0%

49,5%

47,4%

59,5%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance
EU Median

France

74,6%

73,30%
EU Median

73,30%

21,28%

4,66%

22,7%

21,28%

2,6%

4,66%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance and gender

Female

Male

63,0%

37,0%

49,5%

50,5%

47,4%

52,6%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

59,5%

40,5%

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female prosecutors (all instances) is 1 280, which represents 59,5% of the total number of prosecutors.

The total number of prosecutors is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 1 605 in first instance (of which 1 011 are female); 489 are in second instance (of which 242 are 
female)  and 57 in final instance (of which 27 are female).  

As regards the distribution male/female, it has to be specified that female prosecutors have the majority only at first instance. 

Non-prosecutor staff by gender (Q60)

Non-prosecutor staff

Total

2020

712

Male

180

Female

532

Public prosecutors, non-prosecutor staff and their ratio (Q55, Q60)

Non-prosecutor staff by gender

25%

Male

Female

75%

Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor  staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Per 100 000 inhabitants

France

EU median

Public prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per 
prosecutor

3,19

1,06

0,33

9,91

15,22

1,11

Public prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per prosecutor

3,19

0,33

1,06

15,22

9,91

1,11

France

EU median

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

526 / 1555

● Salaries of professional judges and prosecutors at beginning of a career and at the highest instance (Q132, Q4)

Salaries of professional judges and 
prosecutors (Q132, Q4)

Average gross annual 
salary 
in €

Average net annual salary 
in €

Ratio with national 
average annual 
gross salary

Judge at the beginning of a career 

46 149 €

37 716 €

Judge of the highest court 

123 213 €

101 922 €

Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

48 738 €

38 502 €

Public prosecutor at highest instance

123 213 €

101 922 €

1,34

3,57

1,41

3,57

2,02

2,02

1,34
4,09

1,71

Judge at the beginning of
career

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual salary in the 
country

EU Median

3,57

Salaries of 
judges and 
prosecutors in 
Judge

4,09

at the beginning 
of a career

3,57

3,61

46149

1,41

at the highest 
1,71
instance

123213

48738

Prosecutor

at the beginning 
of a career

Judge on highest instance Prosecutor at the beginning

of career

at the highest 
instance

Prosecutor at highest
instance

123213

3,61

France

EU Median

According to 2020 data, the absolute gross salary of a judge at the begining of a career in France of 46 149€ is around the EU median when compared to the EU median of 51 946€. As a ratio with the 
annual average salary of the country, the salary for a judge at the begining of career is: 1,34 compared with EU median of : 2,02.

The following clarifications have been provided:
First-instance professional judge (civil and criminal courts) at the beginning of his/her career: judge at the 3rd step of the second grade - lump-sum compensation: 35% - flexible bonus 12%.
Public prosecutor at the beginning of his/her career: prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor's Office at the 3rd step of the second grade - lump-sum compensation: 38% - flexible bonus 12%.
Judge of the Court of Cassation: President of Chamber CC (F: 1369) - flexible bonus 14%.
Prosecutor at the Court of Cassation: First Advocate General CC (F: 1369) - flexible premium 14%.

It is important to highlight that the provided data concern only judges of civil and criminal courts ("ordre judiciaire") excluding administrative judges ("ordre administratif"). 

For the administrative order: 
-gross annual salary in euros of a professional judge of 1st instance at the beginning of his/her career: 47,100 euros
-gross annual salary in euros of a Council of State judge: 94,000 euros
-net annual salary in euros of a professional judge of first instance at the beginning of his career: 38,700 euros
-net annual salary in euros of a Council of State judge: 76,000 euros.

● Lawyers

Lawyers

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

Number of lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

56 176

60 223

62 073

62 073

65 480

66 958

66 958

68 835

70 073

85,65

91,50

93,60

93,16

97,74

99,66

99,95

102,64

103,95

EU median 2020

122,09

In 2020, there are 70 073 lawyers, which is 1,8% more than in 2019.

85,65

91,50

93,60

93,16

97,74

99,66

99,95

102,64

103,95

122,09

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median 2020

France has 104,0 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants, which is below the EU median of 122,1 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

527 / 1555

● Judicial professionals (summary)

Judicial professionals in absolute number and per 100 000 inhabitants (Q46, Q52, Q55, Q60, Q146)

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

EU Median

Professional judges

7 427

11,07

Non-judge staff

24 062

35,70

Prosecutors

2 151

Non-prosecutor staff

712

3,19

1,06

23,92

59,00

9,91

15,22

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

France

EU Median

122,09

103,95

59,00

35,70

23,92

11,07

9,91

3,19

15,22

1,06

Lawyers

70 073

103,95

122,09

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

% Male

% Female

Professional judges

NA

NA

Non judge staff

18,2%

81,8%

Judicial professionals: Gender balance
France % Male France % Femalelabels

Professional judges #VALUE!

France % Male

NA

EU Median  % Male

France % Female

#VALUE!

EU Median  % Female

Non judge staff

18,2%

24,0%

-39,0%

61,0%

39,0%

81,8%

0,0%

76,0%

Prosecutors

40,5%

59,5%

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

25,3%

74,7%

Non judge staff

-18,2%

81,8%

18,2%

40,5%

40,5%

-24,0%

76,0%

24,0%

59,5%

59,5%

Lawyers

43,2%

56,8%

Non-prosecutor staff

Prosecutors

25,3%

28,1%

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

43,2%
Lawyers

52,3%

-40,5%
-40,5%

-25,3%
-28,1%

-43,2%
-52,3%

59,5%
59,5%

74,7%
71,9%

56,8%
47,7%

74,7%

71,9%

0,0%

40,5%
40,5%
0,0%
25,3%
28,1%
0,0%
43,2%
52,3%
47,7%

56,8%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

528 / 1555

3. Legal aid and court fees in France

In France, legal aid includes:

◦ Coverage of court fees: 

◦ Exemption from court fees: 

1

0

Article 24 of the law n°91-647 of July 10, 1991 relating to legal aid states that "the expenses which would be incurred by the recipient of legal aid if he or she did not have such aid 
shall be borne by the State".

More precisely, the law n°91-647 has several components, as follows:

- Assistance in accessing the law, which includes general information for people on their rights and obligations, help in carrying out any procedure, legal advice and assistance in 
drafting and concluding legal acts. Assistance in accessing the law is based on a network of "Points-Justice" spread throughout the country. This assistance is free, anonymous 
and unconditionally accessible to everyone;

- Mediation assistance (art. 11-1 of the law);

- Legal aid, which may be granted to parties in non-litigious or litigious matters before any court; this aid may also be granted for all or part of the proceedings and with a view to 
reaching a settlement or agreement before the court proceedings. This aid may also be granted in cases of divorce by mutual consent before a notary. Finally, it may be granted in 
connection with the enforcement on French territory of a court decision or any other enforceable title, including if they emanate from another EU Member State with the exception 
of Denmark (Article 10 of the Act);

- Assistance with the intervention of a lawyer in non-judicial criminal proceedings (cf. Articles 11-2 to 11-4 of the Act), which allows for the assistance of persons in police custody, 
customs detention or detention of foreigners for the purpose of verifying the right to move and reside and the right to asylum

In France, legal aid is available for :

> Representation in court:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

> Legal advice, ADR and other legal services:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

>

Fees related to enforcement of judicial decisions as fees for enforcement agents (Q18) 

>

 Other costs than above (Q19) 

1

1

1

1

1

1

Article 11 of the aforementioned law provides that legal aid "shall apply as of right to proceedings, acts or measures for the enforcement of legal decisions obtained with its 
benefit, unless enforcement is suspended for more than one year for a reason other than the exercise of an appeal or a decision to suspend enforcement. Enforcement agents 
may be appointed to enforce any legal decision for a beneficiary of legal aid, either as a continuation of the proceedings or separately. Moreover, as mentioned above, legal aid 
may be granted on the occasion of the enforcement, on French territory, of a court decision or any other enforceable title, including if they emanate from another EU Member State 
except for Denmark.

Legal aid covers all legal costs related to a case (in case of total legal aid). Concretely, articles 40 and 40-1 of the aforementioned Act provide that the beneficiary of legal aid is 
entitled to the assistance of a lawyer and any public or ministerial officials (bailiffs, solicitors, and notaries in particular). He/she is also exempt from the payment of advance or 
deposit of all costs relating to the proceedings, procedures or acts for which it has been granted (expertise, social inquiry, family mediation, etc.), with the exception of a hearing 
right of €13.

 Number of cases for which legal aid has been granted

Total

Cases brought to court

Cases not brought to 
court

Absolute number 
(in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

888 343

348 715

In other than criminal cases

539 628

Per 100 000 inhabitants
 (in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

France

1 317,9

517,3

800,5

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

EU Median

734,2

330,9

402,7

Ratio of total number of cases for which legal aid has been 
granted

In criminal cases

In other than criminal
NA
cases

NA

NA

NA

NA
61%

NA

39%

Number of cases for which legal has been granted per 100 000 
inhabitants

France

EU Median

1 317,9

734,2

517,3

330,9

800,5

402,7

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

529 / 1555

The data provided is the number of admissions to legal aid per year.

It is not possible distinguishing between cases brought and not brought to court.

 The decrease in the number of cases granted with legal aid is explained by the particular context of the health crisis in 2020.

Timeframes of the procedure for granting legal aid (in relation to the duration from the initial legal aid request to the final approval of the legal aid request)

◦ Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulations: 

◦ Actual average duration: 

45

52

The processing time for legal aid applications has been set at less than 45 days in the 2020 Annual Performance Project indicators. The actual average time is the time between 
the filing of the application and the date of the admission or rejection decision, calculated from the time limits maintained by each legal aid office. There is no distinction provided 
for criminal and other than criminal cases.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

530 / 1555

4. Performance of courts in France

● Efficiency indicators

◦ Clearance Rate (CR) and Disposition Time (DT)

The Clearance Rate shows the capacity of a judicial system to deal with the incoming cases. A Clearance Rate of 100% and higher does not generate backlog. 

The Disposition Time determines the estimated number of days necessary for a pending case to be solved in a court. 

AT the outset, it should be noticed that in 2020 in France the number of resolved cases decreased more significantly than the number of incoming cases in both civil and 
criminal matters. The health crisis and lockdown measures may have affected the number of resolved cases (reducing the ability of courts to process cases) but also the 
number of incoming cases (fewer misdemeanor offences committed, fewer cases brought to court). Prior to this, a major lawyers' strike and a transport strike had mainly 
affected the number of resolved cases.

First instance Total of other than criminal cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Evolution of number of all other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants
Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Incoming

3,33

3,48

3,45

3,43

3,36

3,34

3,41

3,27

3,36

3,31

2
8
6

,

2,52

2,56

2,73

2,80

0
6
6

,

2,83

2,71

6
6
2

,

3
3
3

,

4
3
3

,

2
5
2

,

8
4
3

,

1
4
3

,

6
5
2

,

5
4
3

,

7
2
3

,

3
7
2

,

3
4
3

,

6
3
3

,

0
8
2

,

6
3
3

,

1
3
3

,

3
8
2

,

8
1
3

,

0
3
3

,

1
7
2

,

1
8
2

,

1
7
2

,

2
8
2

,

9
6
2

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

3,18

7
6
2

,

4
8
2

,

2,81

2,69

2,08

2019

6,82

8
0
2

,

4
9
1

,

2020

3,30

5
9
2

,

2,71

2,67

1,94

6,60

2,82

2,84

2,95
EU median
2,66

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in France (2,08 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below the EU median (6,82 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in France (1,94 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below the EU median (6,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in France (2,95 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly above the EU median (2,66 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Other than criminal cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Other than criminal 
cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

100%

98%

95%

98%

98%

104%

96%

99%

94%

275

274

304

304

312

300

381

388

554

EU median

99%

109

100%

98%

95%

98%

98%

104%

96%

99%

94%

99%

DT (days)

CR (%)

275

2012

274

2013

304

2014

304

2015

312

2016

300

2017

381

2018

388

2019

554

109

2020

EU median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 93,6% in 2020 France seems to face difficulties in dealing with its other than criminal cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -5,8 points.

In 2020, other than criminal cases are solved in approximately 554 days, which is well above EU median of 109 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 43,0% increase of the Disposition Time.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

531 / 1555

First instance Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

8
5
2

,

6
5
2

,

8
1
2

,

2
7
2

,

5
6
2

,

4
2
2

,

Evolution of number of civil and commercial litigious cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

4
6
2

,

9
4
2

,

7
3
2

,

1
6
2

,

5
5
2

,

2
4
2

,

4
5
2

,

1
5
2

,

3
4
2

,

3
5
2

,

7
4
2

,

6
3
2

,

7
4
2

,

4
2
2

,

4
1
2

,

9
0
2

,

9
0
2

,

7
4
2

2,58
2,72
2,64
2,61
2,54
2,47
2,24
2,09
1,59
1,56

,

7
5
2

,

9
5
1

,

7
4
1

,

2,56
2,65
2,49
2,55
2,51
2,53
2,14
2,09
1,47
1,50

6
5
1

,

2,18
2,24
2,37
2,42
2,43
2,36
2,47
2,47
2,57
1,05

0
5
1

,

5
0
1

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in France (1,59 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly above the EU median (1,56 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in France (1,47 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below the EU median (1,50 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in France (2,57 per 100 inhabitants) is well above the EU median (1,05 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

99,2%

97,5%

94,4%

97,7%

99,0%

102,5%

95,8%

99,7%

92,9%

311

308

348

346

353

341

420

432

637

EU Median

98%

221

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

DT (days)

CR (%)

99,2%

97,5%

94,4%

97,7%

99,0%

102,5%

95,8%

99,7%

92,9%

98%

311

2012

308

2013

348

2014

346

2015

353

2016

341

2017

420

2018

432

2019

637

221

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 92,9% in 2020, France seems facing difficulties in dealing with its civil and commercial litigious cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -6,8 points.

In 2020, the civil and commercial litigious cases are solved in approximately 637 days, which is well above the EU median of 221 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 47,5% increase of the Disposition Time.

The number of civil and commercial litigious cases older than 2 years is not available.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

532 / 1555

First instance Administrative cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of administrative cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

9
2
0

,

7
2
0

,

4
2
0

,

8
2
0

,

7
2
0

,

2
2
0

,

9
2
0

,

8
2
0

,

4
2
0

,

9
2
0

,

8
2
0

,

4
2
0

,

9
2
0

,

9
2
0

,

5
2
0

,

9
2
0

,

0
3
0

,

4
2
0

,

4
3
0

,

2
3
0

,

1
3
0

,

4
2
0

,

,

3
3
0

0,27
0,27
0,29
0,29
0,29
0,29
0,32
0,34
0,31
0,30

6
2
0

,

1
3
0

,

0
3
0

,

0,29
0,28
0,28
0,28
0,29
0,30
0,31
0,33
0,30
0,26

7
2
0

,

0
3
0

,

0,24
0,22
0,24
0,24
0,25
0,24
0,24
0,26
0,27
0,21

1
2
0

,

6
2
0

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in France (0,31 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly above the EU median (0,30 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in France (0,30 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly above the EU median (0,26 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in France (0,27 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat above the EU median (0,21 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Administrative cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

106,7%

104,2%

96,3%

98,3%

99,1%

102,1%

98,4%

96,5%

95,2%

302

284

305

313

314

290

285

284

333

EU Median

100%

388

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Administrative cases

106,7%

104,2%

96,3%

98,3%

99,1%

102,1%

98,4%

96,5%

95,2%

100%

DT (days)

CR (%)

302

2012

284

2013

305

2014

313

2015

314

2016

290

2017

285

2018

284

2019

333

388

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 95,2% in 2020, France seems to encounter some difficulties in dealing with its administrative cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased for -1,3 points.

In 2020, the administrative cases are solved in approximately 333 days, which is slightly below the EU median of 388 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 17,1% increase of the Disposition Time.

In France, there are 16 309 administrative law cases older than 2 years. This is 8,9% of the total number of pending cases at the end of the year.

The measures derogating from the ordinary law of litigious administrative procedure adopted to respond to the situation arising from the health crisis caused by the Covid-
19 epidemic were provided for by order no. 2020-305 of March 25, 2020, then by order no. 2020-1402 of November 18, 2020, and decree no. 2020-1406 of the same 
day. For example: 1°) Use of audiovisual or any other means of electronic communication; 2°) Provisions allowing to limit the number of persons attending the hearing 
and those allowing the president of the court to decide that the hearing will be held without the presence of the public; 3°) The dispensation of the public rapporteur's 
conclusions for cases that did not present any difficulty; 4°) The orders of March and November 2020 allowed the interim relief judge to rule without a hearing, in addition 
to the cases provided for in article L. 522-3 of the Code of Administrative Justice; 5°) The possibility for the administrative courts of appeal to rule by order without a 
hearing on applications for a stay of execution; 6°) In matters of DALO-Injunction, the possibility of ruling by order. 
Courts made very little use of the derogation provisions relating to the composition of the trial panels, namely the possibility of completing a panel of judges with the 
participation of an honorary magistrate from another court. 
The provisions allowing heads of court to appoint advisers to rule by order under the conditions set out in article R. 222-13 of the CJA were hardly used. In total, it 
appears that the measures provided for have been used very differently depending on the measure taken into account. Video hearings and the new rules for summary 
proceedings have opened up possibilities, with provisions that can be seen as having been the medium for experimentation. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

533 / 1555

Insolvency cases

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Insolvency cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Insolvency cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

86,3%

84,9%

90,8%

103,1%

106,1%

110,4%

101,9%

105,6%

147,5%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

DT (days)

CR (%)

147,5%

86,3%

84,9%

90,8%

103,1%

106,1%

110,4%

101,9%

105,6%

105%

281

EU Median

105%

281

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU Median

The Clearance Rate was calculated at 147,5% in 2020 for insolvency cases, France seems to deal efficiently with its insolvency cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased by 41,9 points.

The Disposition Time for insolvency cases cannot be calculated.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

534 / 1555

● First instance Criminal Law Cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Incoming cases

France

Total criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases Resolved casesPending 
Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

Total

Severe criminal cases 

Misdemeanour and/or 
minor cases

NA

NA

NA

965 679

882 087

497 526

490 172

468 153

391 915

NA

NA

NA

Other cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

Per 100 inhabitants

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 
Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

NA

NA

NA

Other cases

NAP

1,43

0,74

0,69

NAP

1,31

0,73

0,58

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

3
4
1

,

1
3
1

EU Median

,

1,43

0
6
1

,

8
4
1

,

1,31

NA

1,60

1,48

0,46

6
4
0

,

A
N

France

EU Median

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, and other 
criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases

Resolved cases

1,43

1,31

Total

Severe criminal
cases

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

0,74
0,73

0,69

0,58

The number of total incoming criminal cases in 2020 in France (1,43 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below the EU median (1,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total resolved criminal cases in 2020 in France (1,31 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below the EU median (1,48 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total pending criminal cases at the end of 2020 in France is not available.

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT)

Total criminal law cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

DT (days)

CR (%)

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 

Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

91,3%

98,5%

83,7%

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

Total Criminal law cases

95,2%

91,3%

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, 
and other criminal law cases 

98,5%

83,7%

EU Median

95,2%

139

EU Median

139

Total

EU Median

Severe criminal
cases

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

NAP

Other cases

With the Clearance Rate calculated at 91,3% in 2020 for total criminal cases, France seems to encounter difficulties in dealing with its total criminal cases.

The Disposition Time for criminal law cases cannot be calculated.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

535 / 1555

Overall efficiency by instance and by case matter

CR (%)

DT (days)

CR (%)

DT (days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases

92,9%

105,3%

78,0%

Administrative cases

95,2%

101,6%

96,4%

Total criminal law cases

91,3%

102,4%

104,2%

637

333

NA

607

362

399

773

221

146

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)
2nd instance

1st instance

1st instance
%
3
5
0
1

,

%
2
5
9

,

%
0
8
7

,

92,9%
95,2%

2nd instance
%
6
1
0
1

,

%
4
6
9

,

%
3
1
9

,

105,3%
101,6%

Supreme Court
Supreme Court
%
2
4
0
1

%
4
2
0
1

,

,

78,0%
96,4%

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases
Administrative cases

100%

%
9
2
9

,

Total criminal law cases

Civil and commercial
litigious cases

Administrative cases Total criminal law
102,4%

91,3%

104,2%

cases

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1

1
1

773

607

637

Civil and commercial litigious
1
cases
1

221

362

333

146

399

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

It seems that in 2020 in France courts of all instances faced difficulties in dealing with their case-flow. As explained above, the pandemic and the measures adopted in its 
respect have considerably affected the functioning of the courts, resulting in meaningful decreases in the number of resolved cases. In civil and administrative matters, 
only second instance courts register a positive Clearance Rate, while in criminal matters the Cassation Court has a very satisfactory Clearance Rate indicator just as 
second instance courts.     

In terms of Disposition Time, only in administrative matters the values remained below or aligned to the EU medians at different instances (first instance - 388 days; 
second instance - 362 days; third instance - 281). In civil matters, this indicator is meaningfully above the EU medians (first instance - 221 days; second instance - 177 
days; third instance - 224 days). The same applies to criminal courts, the EU medians for second and third instance being respectively 101 days and 120 days.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

536 / 1555

5. Public prosecution services in France

● Role and powers of the public prosecutor

In the criminal procedure, the public prosecutor in France has the following 10 out of 11 possible roles and powers:

To conduct or supervise police investigation

To appeal

To conduct investigations

To supervise the enforcement procedure

When necessary, to request investigation measures from the judge

To discontinue a case without needing a decision by a judge

To charge

To present the case in the court

To propose a sentence to the judge

To end the case by imposing or negotiating a penalty or measure 
without requiring a judicial decision

Other significant powers

The prosecutor does not conduct the investigation stricto sensu, s/he directs and supervises it. However, there are certain cases provided for by law in which the prosecutor must 
carry out the investigation him/herself. These are, for example, searches of the home of a lawyer, a doctor, etc.
The public prosecutor has other responsibilities in the area of child protection (placement) and public policies (local security and prevention policies, local commissions in the fight 
against illegal work, domestic violence, racism, discrimination, etc.).The public prosecutor is also responsible, in conjunction with the president of the court, for the hearing of 
criminal cases.

Other significant powers are those in the enforcement phase.

The public prosecutor also has a role in civil and insolvency cases.

The public prosecutor has other responsibilities in the areas of commercial and civil matters, child protection, civil status and parentage law. 

● Public prosecutors: Number of first instance criminal cases

Type of cases

Absolute 
number

Per 100 
inhabitants

1. Pending cases on 1 Jan. ref. year 

NA

NA

2. Incoming/received cases

4 124 168

6,12

Public prosecutors: Total number of first instance criminal 
Incoming/rec
cases per 100 inhabitants
eived cases

Processed 
cases

Pendin
g cases 
on 31 
Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. Year

Processed cases

Incoming/received cases

3. Processed cases (3.1 + 3.2 + 3.3 + 3.4)

2 655 865

3,94

6,12

France

6,12 3,94

NA

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year (3.1.1 + 3.1.2 + 3.1.3 
+ 3.1.4)

1 648 743

2,45

3,94

EU Median

2,85 2,84
2,85

2,84

0,84

3.1.1 Discontinued by the public prosecutor because the 
offender could not be identified 

903 345

1,34

3.1.2 Discontinued by the public prosecutor due to the lack 
of an established offence or a specific legal situation 

553 520

0,82

3.1.3 Discontinued by the public prosecutor for reasons of 
opportunity

191 878

0,28

3.1.4 Discontinued for other reasons 

NAP

NAP

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated 
by the public prosecutor

477 768

0,71

NA

France

EU Median

0,84

Processed cases per 100 inhabitants
EU Median

France

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

Processed cases

France
2,45

EU Median

1,05

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed
or negotiated by the public prosecutor

-2,45

0,71

1,05

0,12

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons

NAP

NAP

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other
reasons

-0,71

0,12

NAP

0,30

3.4. Cases brought to court

529 354

0,79

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons
0,30

0,00

3.4. Cases brought to court

0,79

4. Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. year

NA

NA

3.4. Cases brought to court

-0,79

0,53

The complexity and diversity of criminal data do not permit the production of estimates of pending cases.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

0,53

537 / 1555

 
6. Existence and use of alternative dispute resolution in France

Number of mediators

Mediators

Total

Per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NA

2435

2450

2571

2940

2940

1436

NA

2542

NA

3,7

3,7

3,9

4,4

4,4

2,1

NA

3,8

EU Median 2020

EU median in 2019

14,4

EU Median
2020

2020

2019

NA

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

Number of mediators per 100 000 inhabitants

14,4

2,1

3,8

4,4

4,4

3,9

3,7

3,7

In 2020, there are 2 542 accredited or registered mediators who practise court related mediation which represents 3,8 accredited or registered mediators per 

There are also 312 legal persons.

It should be pointed out that the provided data concern only civil mediation. The increase in the number of mediators registered on the lists of mediators 
established by the Courts of Appeal is indicative of the development of the use of alternative dispute resolution methods and more particularly mediation. 

The Ministry of Justice strongly encourages mediators to register on these lists. The registration obeys certain conditions as mentioned in the decree n°2021-
95 of January 29, 2021 amending the decrees n°2017-1457 of October 9, 2017 relating to the list of mediators with the court of appeal. In addition, the 
mediator wishing to be registered must provide, in support of his/her application, supporting documents attesting in particular to his/her training (decree of 
January 29, 2021). A verification of his or her criminal record is also carried out. These requirements help to ensure the minimum guarantees (training, 
impartiality, independence and verification of criminal status) required of a mediator recommended by the courts. Finally, the mediators registered on these 
lists have a better visibility since the litigants are led to go to the lists of the courts of appeal to find a mediator (https://www.justice.fr/r%C3%A9gler-litiges-
autrement/m%C3%A9diation). A mediator recommended by the justice is, moreover, a guarantee of confidence for the litigants. 

Number of court related mediations

Type of cases

All cases

Civil and commercial

Family cases

Number of cases 
for which the parties
agreed to start 
mediation

Number of finished 
court-related
mediations

Number of cases 
in which there is a 
settlement agreement

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Administrative

1394

927,00

386,00

Employment dismissal

Criminal cases

Consumer cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

It is worth mentioning that France has launched a voluntarist project in the field of mediation at the initiative of the judge before the administrative jurisdiction, 
each jurisdiction having to reach a quantified objective of mediations proposed by the judge and accepted by the parties (but without obligation to see these 
mediations leading to an agreement, which the jurisdiction does not control). The objective is, over the period 2019-2022, to reach about 2000 mediations 
initiated by the judge before the administrative courts (i.e. about 1% of the entries of the TA and CAA).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

538 / 1555

7. ICT tools of courts in France

●The ICT tools of courts and for court users

The use of ICT in courts in 2020 has been evaluated as  :

EU Median

Total 
(0 to 10)

Assistance tools (0 to 3)

Case management system (0 to 7)
Financial management tools (0 to 3)

Measurement tools to assess the workload (0 to 5)
Electronic communication (0 to 10)

4,9
0,0

4,8

2,0
1,7

5,3

6,6
2,0

5,2

1,3
2,5

6,9

The calculation of this values for each field is based on the answers for that question/s and weighted according the avaiability 
or deployment rate. The total value is normalised to max 10 points for readability and comparison.

The details of the calculation are given in Annex 5 - IT calculations

The result by area may be summarized in these graphics, where each field has been evaluated from 0 to 4 points.

Note: index is modified based on the available questions. This cycle the recalculation was made for the last three cycles to be 
able to follow the development.

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

2018

2019

2020

EU Median 2020

Case 
management 
system

Financial 
management 
tools

Measurement 
tools to assess 
the workload

Electronic 
communication

5,25

3,85

4,84

2,00

5,25

5,17

4,84

2,00

2,00

3,85

2,00

0,00

0,00

1,67

2,08

3,30

5,26

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

2,00

2,00

2,00

1,25

0,00

0,00

Assistance 
tools

Year
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
EU Median 20202,00

0,64

0,50

0,00

0,64

0,50

0,00

6,94

5,26

3,30

2,08

2,50

1,67

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

539 / 1555

Comments on measurment tools on workload

Concerning non-judge staff, the Civil Servant Job Management and Distribution Tool (OUTILGREF) was created in 1992 (online since 2006). 
It measures the workload of court clerks (i.e., excluding legal assistants and specialized assistants) and evaluates the need for court clerks in 
the courts and regional administrative services (SAR), the need being understood as the volume of staff necessary for the annual processing 
of the flow of cases in order to not generate any stock. This tool also includes an evaluation of the workload of the common or support 
services. It is regularly updated according to the reforms and the evolution of working methods. A data collection operation is carried out each 
year to feed it.

With regard to judges and prosecutors, the French Ministry of Justice is currently conducting work to better measure their workload. A system 
for evaluating their activity, based on the weighting of court cases, is being developed and should, by the end of 2022, provide a better 
understanding of the activity of courts, as well as a more accurate allocation of resources between jurisdictions and within the departments of 
the same jurisdiction. With this in mind, a working group has been set up and has met more than ten times since December 2019, with the 
Ministry favouring peer-to-peer meetings (Delphi method), which is based on an estimate of time in order to establish the weighting table.

As to administrative courts, a negative reply has been provided.

Comments on communication tools 

With regard to criminal law: with the deployment of digital criminal procedure currently underway, transmission from the investigation services 
is done in waves of deployment and according to criminal law orientations. It has therefore been specified at this stage 10-49% but this will 
increase sharply at the beginning of 2022 and France should be close to 100% by the end of 2023.

The option "specific computer application" concerning criminal cases is validated for 2020. The Ministry of Justice has indeed set up a 
dedicated computer application, the digital criminal procedure, which is currently being deployed in the jurisdictions (Digital Criminal 
Procedure Program, PPN). This is a very important information systems project for criminal justice and a flagship IT program of the Ministry of 
Justice, in the same way as Portalis in civil matters. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

540 / 1555

8. Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and public prosecution services in France

In France, quality standards are determined for the judicial system at national level (e.g. quality systems for the judiciary and/or judicial quality policies). Specialised personnel 
within courts (except for administrative courts) and the public prosecution services is entrusted with implementation of these national level quality standards.

Quality standards developed for public administration are used in the judicial system. The charter of the administrations thus sets the rules for the reception of litigants in all the 
courts and can lead to certification. There are also local initiatives aimed at setting up a "quality system" based on certification by an external body, which consist in 
establishing procedures describing the reception process, the organization of work and the management of a case.

With regard to administrative justice: the rate of annulment and reversal of jurisdictional decisions must be kept below 15% and the stock of cases older than two years below 
7.5% of the total stock.

● Systems for measuring and evaluating courts' performance

A regular monitoring system of court activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

The replies are combination of the replies of both orders - administrative on the one hand and civil and criminal on the one hand.

In France, there is a system to regularly evaluate the court performance based primarily on defined indicators and the reporting is more frequent than annual.

With regard to courts of the civil and criminal order, there are two objectives for evaluating their performance. The first is the need to provide the heads of courts with steering 
elements via monthly dashboards (civil and criminal); the second consists, in the context of annual management dialogues, in proposing dashboards covering a whole year. 
These dashboards are freely accessible in order to allow for a very wide distribution to all the actors and thus encourage comparison, the first vector of performance analysis.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each court.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

The evaluation of the courts' activities is used for the later allocation of means in the courts.

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

541 / 1555

● Systems for measuring and evaluating public prosecution services' performance

A regular monitoring system of public prosecution services activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases 

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs 

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecution) 

Costs of the judicial procedures 

Clearance rate 

Disposition time 

Percentage of convictions and aquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

In France, there is a system to evaluate regularly the activity of each public prosecution service and the reporting is more frequent than annual.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each public prosecution service. However, the 2020 data on specific indicators that are used is not available.

The evaluation of the public prosecution services' activities is used for the later allocation of means in the public prosecution services.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

542 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table General Data: Economic and demographic data, in absolute values (Q1, Q3, Q5)

Q1 Number of inhabitants

65 585 857

65 821 000

66 317 994

66 627 602

66 991 000

67 186 638

66 992 699

67 063 703

67 407 241

2,8%

0,4%

0,8%

0,5%

0,5%

0,3%

-0,3%

0,1%

0,5%

Q.3 GDP Per capita (in €) in current prices

31 059

32 112

32 227

32 796

33 337

34 150

34 978

35 960

33 959

9,3%

3,4%

0,4%

1,8%

1,6%

2,4%

2,4%

2,8%

-5,6%

Q5. Exchange rate of Nat currency to € on 1 Jan

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Indicator 1: Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and prosecution services  (Indicator 4 in 2019)

Table 1.1 to Table 1.10 (Q66, Q67, Q77, Q78, Q77-1, Q78-1, Q73, Q73-0, Q73-1, Q73-2, Q73-3, Q73-4, Q73-5, Q73-6, Q70, Q70-1, Q71, Q72, Q83-2, Q83-3, Q120 
and Q120-1)

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

66 Qlty standards formulated_jud system

67 Specialised court staff entrusted_qlty standards

77 Performance and quality indicators of court activities

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

078.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078.1.5 Backlogs 

078.1.6 Productivity of judges and court staff

078.1.7 Satisfaction of court staff 

078.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts) 

078.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078.1.10 Number of appeals

078.1.11 Appeal ratio

078.1.12 Clearance rate 

078.1.13 Disposition time 

078.1.14 Other

077-1.1.1 Defined performance and quality indicators

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

True

False

False

False

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

True

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

543 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

078-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078-1.1.5 Backlogs 

078-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

078-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

078-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

078-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

078-1.1.11 Disposition time 

078-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

078-1.1.13 Other

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

73 Regular system_evaluation_performance_each court

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

073-0.1.1 Annual

073-0.1.2 Less frequent

073-0.1.3 More frequent

073-1.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
court

073-2.1.1 Courses of action taken in the evaluation is used for the 
allocation of resources

073-2.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-2.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-2.1.4 Other

073-3.1.1 Regular evaluation of the public prosecution services 
performance

Yes

Yes

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

544 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

073-4.1.1 Annual

073-4.1.2 Less frequent

073-4.1.3 More frequent

073-5.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
public prosecution services

073-6.1.1 Identifying the causes of improved or deteriorated 
performance

073-6.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-6.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-6.1.4 Other

070.1.1 number of incoming cases

070.1.2 length of proceedings (timeframes)

070.1.3 number of resolved cases

070.1.4 number of pending cases

070.1.5 backlogs

070.1.6 productivity of judges and court staff

070.1.7 satisfaction of court staff

070.1.8 satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts)

070.1.9 costs of the judicial procedures

070.1.10 number of appeals

070.1.11 appeal ratio

070.1.12 clearance rate

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

545 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

070-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases 

070-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

070-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

070-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

070-1.1.5 Backlogs 

070-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

070-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

070-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

070-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

070-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

070-1.1.11 Disposition time 

070-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

070-1.1.13 Other

071.1.1 Monitoring backlogs in Civil law cases

071.1.2 Monitoring backlogs in Criminal law cases

071.1.3 Monitoring backlogs in Administrative law cases

072.1.1 Monitoring timeframes Within the courts

072.1.2 Monitoring timeframes Within the public prosecution services

083-2.1.1 Quantitative performance tagets defined for each 
prosecutors

083-3.1.1 Body responsible - Executive power (for example the 
Ministry of Justice)

083-3.1.2 Body responsible - Prosecutor General /State public 
prosecutor

083-3.1.3 Body responsible - Public Prosecutorial Council

083-3.1.4 Body responsible - Head of the organisational unit or 
hierarchically superior public prosecutor

083-3.1.5 Body responsible - Other

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

False

False

False

True

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

True

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

546 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

120.1.1 Qualitative individual assessment of the public prosecutors' 
work

120-1.1.1 Feequency - Annual

120-1.1.2 Feequency - Less frequent

120-1.1.3 Feequency - More frequent

True

False

True

False

Indicator 2: The judicial organisation

Tables 2.1a; 2.1b; 2.2a; 2.2b; 2.3a; 2.3b; 2.4 and 2.5(EC) (Q42, Q43 and Q44)

Q42.1.1Total number of all courts - legal entities 

Q42.1.2 Total number of courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 066

206

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Q42.1.3 First instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

778

783

786

786

786

786

168

168

168

-78,4%

0,6%

0,4%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-78,6%

0,0%

0,0%

Q42.1.4 Second instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.5 Highest instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.6 Total number of specialised courts - legal entities

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

37

1

860

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

43.1.1 Total number of specialised courts of first instance

1 156

1 089

1 094

1 094

1 086

1 086

1 463

1 186

851

-26,4%

-5,8%

0,5%

0,0%

-0,7%

0,0%

34,7%

-18,9%

-28,2%

43.1.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.1.3 Insolvency courts

43.1.4 Labour courts

43.1.5 Family courts

43.1.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.1.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.1.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.1.9 Internet related disputes

43.1.10 Administrative courts

43.1.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.1.12 Military courts

43.1.13 Juvenile courts

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

143

NAP

216

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

42

115

143

NAP

216

NAP

281

50

8

148

NAP

216

NAP

281

50

8

148

NAP

216

NAP

281

50

8

143

NAP

216

NAP

281

50

8

143

NAP

216

NAP

281

50

8

143

NAP

216

NAP

289

49

9

143

NAP

216

NAP

289

49

9

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

42

141

42

141

42

141

42

141

42

141

42

241

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

42

NAP

NAP

-

152

6,3%

0,0%

3,5%

0,0%

-3,4%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

6,3%

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

216

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

2,8%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-2,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

12,5%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

42

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

NAP

NAP

155

-

-

-

22,6%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

70,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

547 / 1555

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

43.1.14 Other specialised courts

640

208

208

208

200

200

474

438

286

-55,3%

-67,5%

0,0%

0,0%

-3,8%

0,0%

137,0%

-7,6%

-34,7%

43.2.1 Total number of specialised courts of higher instances

43.2.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.2.3 Insolvency courts

43.2.4 Labour courts

43.2.5 Family courts

43.2.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.2.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.2.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.2.9 Internet related disputes

43.2.10 Administrative courts

43.2.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.2.12 Military courts

43.2.13 Juvenile courts

43.2.14 Other specialised courts

44.1.1 First instance courts geographic locations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

9

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

618

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

44.1.2 All courts geographic locations

640

641

643

643

641

641

641

641

672

5,0%

0,2%

0,3%

0,0%

-0,3%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

4,8%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

548 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 3: The performance of courts at all stages of the proceedings

Tables 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.4 (all years) Number of other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 Variation of first instance other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants (Q1, Q91)

Table 3.13.7 (EC) to 3.13.12 (EC) First instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

91.1.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.1.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.1.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.1.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.1.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.1.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.1.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.1.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

91.1.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.1.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

91.1.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

91.2.1 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.2.2 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.2.3 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.2.4 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.2.5 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.2.6 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.2.7 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.2.8 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

91.2.9 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

1 654 187

1 643 188

1 692 658

1 810 803

1 863 243

1 899 497

1 821 752

1 892 584

1 903 120

15,0%

-0,7%

3,0%

7,0%

2,9%

1,9%

-4,1%

3,9%

0,6%

1 415 720

1 428 811

1 473 097

1 571 438

1 611 461

1 630 342

1 588 116

1 651 625

1 655 997

17,0%

0,9%

3,1%

6,7%

2,5%

1,2%

-2,6%

4,0%

0,3%

-

-

69 629

80 597

88 926

105 064

73 162

75 218

73 331

-

-

-

15,8%

10,3%

18,1%

-30,4%

2,8%

-2,5%

69 108

64 473

69 629

80 597

88 926

105 064

73 162

75 218

73 331

6,1%

-6,7%

8,0%

15,8%

10,3%

18,1%

-30,4%

2,8%

-2,5%

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

169 359

149 904

149 932

158 768

162 856

164 091

160 474

165 741

173 792

2,6%

-11,5%

0,0%

5,9%

2,6%

0,8%

-2,2%

3,3%

4,9%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 185 753

2 288 177

2 285 876

2 288 643

2 253 976

2 135 602

1 882 289

1 801 871

1 400 368

-35,9%

4,7%

-0,1%

0,1%

-1,5%

-5,3%

-11,9%

-4,3%

-22,3%

1 688 929

1 789 902

1 747 989

1 740 302

1 698 704

1 658 004

1 498 080

1 403 505

1 068 850

-36,7%

6,0%

-2,3%

-0,4%

-2,4%

-2,4%

-9,6%

-6,3%

-23,8%

-

-

342 262

356 334

361 740

280 355

171 180

167 086

121 004

-

-

-

4,1%

1,5%

-22,5%

-38,9%

-2,4%

-27,6%

318 333

322 513

342 262

356 334

361 740

280 355

171 180

167 086

121 004

-62,0%

1,3%

6,1%

4,1%

1,5%

-22,5%

-38,9%

-2,4%

-27,6%

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

91.2.10 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

178 491

175 762

195 625

192 007

193 532

197 243

213 029

231 280

210 514

17,9%

-1,5%

11,3%

-1,8%

0,8%

1,9%

8,0%

8,6%

-9,0%

91.2.11 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

549 / 1555

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

91.3.1 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.3.2 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.3.3 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.3.4 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.3.5 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.3.6 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.3.7 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.3.8 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

91.3.9 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

2 189 186

2 246 155

2 169 237

2 237 067

2 219 465

2 213 947

1 813 313

1 791 335

1 310 960

-40,1%

2,6%

-3,4%

3,1%

-0,8%

-0,2%

-18,1%

-1,2%

-26,8%

1 675 838

1 745 616

1 649 648

1 700 279

1 682 166

1 700 230

1 434 571

1 399 133

992 473

-40,8%

4,2%

-5,5%

3,1%

-1,1%

1,1%

-15,6%

-2,5%

-29,1%

-

-

331 294

348 005

345 602

312 257

169 124

168 973

118 076

-

-

-

5,0%

-0,7%

-9,6%

-45,8%

-0,1%

-30,1%

322 968

317 357

331 294

348 005

345 602

312 257

169 124

168 973

118 076

-63,4%

-1,7%

4,4%

5,0%

-0,7%

-9,6%

-45,8%

-0,1%

-30,1%

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

91.3.10 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

190 380

183 182

188 295

188 783

191 697

201 460

209 618

223 229

200 411

5,3%

-3,8%

2,8%

0,3%

1,5%

5,1%

4,0%

6,5%

-10,2%

91.3.11 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

91.4.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.4.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.4.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.4.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.4.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.4.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.4.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.4.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

91.4.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.4.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

91.4.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 650 754

1 685 210

1 809 297

1 862 379

1 897 754

1 821 152

1 890 728

1 903 120

1 991 346

20,6%

2,1%

7,4%

2,9%

1,9%

-4,0%

3,8%

0,7%

4,6%

1 428 811

1 473 097

1 571 438

1 611 461

1 627 999

1 588 116

1 651 625

1 655 997

1 732 374

21,2%

3,1%

6,7%

2,5%

1,0%

-2,4%

4,0%

0,3%

4,6%

-

-

80 597

88 926

105 064

73 162

75 218

73 331

76 259

-

-

-

10,3%

18,1%

-30,4%

2,8%

-2,5%

4,0%

64 473

69 629

80 597

88 926

105 064

73 162

75 218

73 331

76 259

18,3%

8,0%

15,8%

10,3%

18,1%

-30,4%

2,8%

-2,5%

4,0%

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

157 470

142 484

157 262

161 992

164 691

159 874

163 885

173 792

182 713

16,0%

-9,5%

10,4%

3,0%

1,7%

-2,9%

2,5%

6,0%

5,1%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

550 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.2 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.4 to 3.3.7 Variation of Clearence Rate and Disposition Time of first instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

Table 3.13.1 (EC) to 3.13.6 (EC) First instance courts: Disposition time and clearance rate for other than criminal cases  (Q91)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

100,2%

98,2%

94,9%

97,7%

98,5%

103,7%

96,3%

99,4%

93,6%

(6,53)

(1,99)

(3,33)

3,00

0,74

5,28

(7,07)

3,20

(5,83)

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

99,2%

97,5%

94,4%

97,7%

99,0%

102,5%

95,8%

99,7%

92,9%

(6,42)

(1,71)

(3,23)

3,52

1,36

3,55

(6,62)

4,10

(6,86)

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

-

-

96,8%

97,7%

95,5%

111,4%

98,8%

101,1%

97,6%

-

-

-

0,90

(2,17)

16,58

(11,29)

2,36

(3,51)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

101,5%

98,4%

96,8%

97,7%

95,5%

111,4%

98,8%

101,1%

97,6%

(3,82)

(3,01)

(1,63)

0,90

(2,17)

16,58

(11,29)

2,36

(3,51)

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CR Administrative law cases

106,7%

104,2%

96,3%

98,3%

99,1%

102,1%

98,4%

96,5%

95,2%

(10,74)

(2,29)

(7,65)

2,15

0,74

3,12

(3,66)

(1,91)

(1,37)

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

275

311

-

73

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

302

NAP

274

308

-

80

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

284

NAP

304

348

89

89

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

305

NAP

304

346

93

93

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

313

NAP

312

353

111

111

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

314

NAP

300

341

86

86

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

290

NAP

381

420

162

162

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

285

NAP

388

432

158

158

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

284

NAP

554

101,4%

-0,5%

11,2%

-0,2%

2,7%

-3,8%

26,8%

1,9%

43,0%

637

104,7%

-1,0%

12,9%

-0,5%

2,1%

-3,5%

23,3%

2,8%

47,5%

236

-

-

-

5,0%

19,0%

-22,9%

89,8%

-2,4%

48,8%

236

223,5%

9,9%

10,9%

5,0%

19,0%

-22,9%

89,8%

-2,4%

48,8%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

333

10,2%

-6,0%

7,4%

2,7%

0,1%

-7,6%

-1,5%

-0,4%

17,1%

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

551 / 1555

        
        
        
         
         
         
        
         
        
        
        
        
         
         
         
        
         
        
         
        
       
      
         
        
        
        
        
         
        
       
      
         
        
      
        
        
         
         
         
        
        
        
France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.4.1 (all years) First instance courts, number of cases for specific case categories (Q101)

101.1.1 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Litigious divorce case

101.1.2 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Employment dismissal case

101.1.3 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Insolvency

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

101.2.1 Incoming cases_Litigious divorce case

92 864

90 694

91 882

86 926

84 579

94 560

92 802

89 026

75 733

-18,4%

-2,3%

1,3%

-5,4%

-2,7%

11,8%

-1,9%

-4,1%

-14,9%

101.2.2 Incoming cases_Employment dismissal case

124 434

145 779

134 837

128 489

108 193

94 099

90 504

80 566

71 501

-42,5%

17,2%

-7,5%

-4,7%

-15,8%

-13,0%

-3,8%

-11,0%

-11,3%

101.2.3 Incoming cases_Insolvency

55 561

57 743

56 820

57 902

53 072

49 626

49 083

46 375

30 931

-44,3%

3,9%

-1,6%

1,9%

-8,3%

-6,5%

-1,1%

-5,5%

-33,3%

101.3.1 Resolved cases_Litigious divorce case

92 659

89 956

88 220

84 602

85 560

82 562

86 771

90 569

79 589

-14,1%

-2,9%

-1,9%

-4,1%

1,1%

-3,5%

5,1%

4,4%

-12,1%

101.3.2 Resolved cases_Employment dismissal case

130 478

128 657

130 574

136 021

131 063

122 120

97 053

96 580

68 734

-47,3%

-1,4%

1,5%

4,2%

-3,6%

-6,8%

-20,5%

-0,5%

-28,8%

101.3.3 Resolved cases_Insolvency

47 942

49 024

51 577

59 686

56 300

54 768

50 039

48 969

45 621

-4,8%

2,3%

5,2%

15,7%

-5,7%

-2,7%

-8,6%

-2,1%

-6,8%

101.4.1 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Litigious divorce case

101.4.2 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Employment dismissal case

101.4.3 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Insolvency

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Table 3.5.1 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for specific case categories (Q101)

Table 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 Variations of CR and DT for specific case categories of first instance cases (Q101)

CR Litigious divorce cases

99,8%

99,2%

96,0%

97,3%

101,2%

87,3%

93,5%

101,7%

105,1%

5,32

(0,59)

(3,20)

1,37

3,94

(13,69)

7,09

8,80

3,30

CR Employment dismissal cases

104,9%

88,3%

96,8%

105,9%

121,1%

129,8%

107,2%

119,9%

96,1%

(8,32)

(15,83)

9,73

9,32

14,43

7,13

(17,37)

11,79

(19,81)

CR Insolvency cases

86,3%

84,9%

90,8%

103,1%

106,1%

110,4%

101,9%

105,6%

147,5%

70,93

(1,61)

6,92

13,56

2,91

4,03

(7,62)

3,58

39,68

DT Litigious divorce cases

DT Employment dismissal cases

DT Insolvency cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

552 / 1555

         
        
        
         
         
      
         
         
         
        
      
         
         
       
         
      
       
      
       
        
         
       
         
         
        
         
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.1.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.1.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.1.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.1.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.1.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.1.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.1.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.1.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

97.1.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.1.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

Table 3.7.1 to 3.7.5 (2019 and 2020) Second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Table 3.9.1 to 3.9.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

294 069

294 210

307 020

317 778

310 011

302 841

295 549

254 353

254 567

266 127

276 110

268 669

260 673

247 769

12 215

12 170

12 996

NA

12 798

12 700

16 837

12 215

12 170

12 996

13 068

12 798

12 700

16 837

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

27 501

27 473

27 897

28 600

28 544

29 468

30 943

97.1.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases 

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

97.2.1 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.2.2 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.2.3 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.2.4 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.2.5 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.2.6 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.2.7 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.2.8 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

97.2.9 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

282 436

279 740

282 835

273 682

263 086

263 044

201 536

220 119

215 160

217 135

203 792

194 060

190 203

137 434

32 460

33 983

34 392

NA

35 253

37 157

33 873

32 460

33 983

34 392

38 607

35 253

37 157

33 873

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

97.2.10 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

29 857

30 597

31 308

31 283

33 773

35 684

30 229

97.2.11 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases 

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

4,4%

3,5%

-2,4%

-2,3%

-2,4%

0,1%

4,5%

3,8%

-2,7%

-3,0%

-5,0%

-0,4%

6,8%

-

-

-0,8%

32,6%

-0,4%

6,8%

0,6%

-2,1%

-0,8%

32,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-0,1%

1,5%

2,5%

-0,2%

3,2%

5,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-1,0%

1,1%

-3,2%

-3,9%

0,0%

-23,4%

-2,3%

0,9%

-6,1%

-4,8%

-2,0%

-27,7%

4,7%

1,2%

-

-

5,4%

-8,8%

4,7%

1,2%

12,3%

-8,7%

5,4%

-8,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,5%

2,3%

-0,1%

8,0%

5,7%

-15,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

553 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.3.1 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.3.2 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.3.3 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.3.4 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.3.5 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.3.6 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.3.7 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.3.8 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

97.3.9 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

267 325

267 682

272 077

281 393

270 311

264 733

207 617

205 772

203 896

207 152

211 233

203 258

194 479

144 706

31 623

33 246

34 320

NA

34 199

35 994

32 205

31 623

33 246

34 320

38 877

34 199

35 994

32 205

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

97.3.10 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

29 930

30 540

30 605

31 283

32 854

34 260

30 706

97.3.11 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases 

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

97.4.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.4.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.4.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.4.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.4.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.4.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.4.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.4.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

97.4.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.4.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

309 180

306 268

317 778

310 067

302 786

301 152

289 468

268 700

265 831

276 110

268 669

259 471

256 397

240 497

13 052

12 907

13 068

NA

13 852

13 863

18 505

13 052

12 907

13 068

12 798

13 852

13 863

18 505

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

27 428

27 530

28 600

28 600

29 463

30 892

30 466

97.4.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

97.5.1 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.5.2 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.5.10 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

950

NA

NA

1 108

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,1%

1,6%

3,4%

-3,9%

-2,1%

-21,6%

-0,9%

1,6%

2,0%

-3,8%

-4,3%

-25,6%

5,1%

3,2%

-

-

5,2%

-10,5%

5,1%

3,2%

13,3%

-12,0%

5,2%

-10,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,0%

0,2%

2,2%

5,0%

4,3%

-10,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-0,9%

3,8%

-2,4%

-2,3%

-0,5%

-3,9%

-1,1%

3,9%

-2,7%

-3,4%

-1,2%

-6,2%

-1,1%

1,2%

-

-

0,1%

33,5%

-1,1%

1,2%

-2,1%

8,2%

0,1%

33,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,4%

3,9%

0,0%

3,0%

4,9%

-1,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

16,6%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

554 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 (2019 and 2020): Second instance clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.9.4 and 3.9.5 (2019 and 2020): Variation of second clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

94,6%

95,7%

96,2%

102,8%

102,7%

100,6%

103,0%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

93,5%

94,8%

95,4%

103,7%

104,7%

102,2%

105,3%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

97,4%

97,8%

99,8%

NA

97,0%

96,9%

95,1%

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

97,4%

97,8%

99,8%

100,7%

97,0%

96,9%

95,1%

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

100,2%

99,8%

97,8%

100,0%

97,3%

96,0%

101,6%

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

422

477

151

151

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

334

NAP

418

476

142

142

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

329

NAP

426

487

139

139

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

341

NAP

402

464

NA

120

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

334

NAP

409

466

148

148

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

327

NAP

415

481

141

141

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

329

NAP

509

607

210

210

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

362

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,10

0,53

6,88

(0,07)

(2,05)

2,36

1,37

0,67

8,65

1,05

(2,38)

2,98

0,42

2,00

-

-

(0,14)

(1,85)

0,42

2,00

0,91

(3,66)

(0,14)

(1,85)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(0,43)

(2,06)

2,30

(2,72)

(1,30)

5,80

-

-

-

-

-

-

-1,1%

2,1%

-5,7%

1,7%

1,6%

22,6%

-0,2%

2,2%

-4,6%

0,4%

3,3%

26,1%

-5,9%

-1,9%

-

-

-4,9%

49,2%

-5,9%

-1,9%

-13,5%

23,0%

-4,9%

49,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-1,6%

3,7%

-2,2%

-1,9%

0,5%

10,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

555 / 1555

         
         
         
        
        
         
         
         
         
         
        
         
         
         
        
        
         
         
         
        
        
        
        
        
         
        
        
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.10.1 to 3.10.5 (2019 and 2020) Supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Table 3.12.1 to 3.12.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of the supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.1.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.1.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.1.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.1.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.1.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.1.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.1.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.1.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

99.1.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.1.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

99.1.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.2.1 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.2.2 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.2.3 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.2.4 High inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.2.5 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.2.6 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.2.7 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.2.8 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

99.2.9 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

27 568

29 070

28 489

29 757

29 145

25 062

24 729

21 199

22 858

23 041

24 358

23 870

19 635

19 231

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

6 369

6 212

5 448

5 399

5 275

5 427

5 498

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

33 377

29 139

30 018

32 754

27 021

27 287

23 451

21 295

20 412

20 398

22 890

17 458

17 071

13 417

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

99.2.10 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

12 082

8 727

9 620

9 864

9 563

10 216

10 034

99.2.11 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5,4%

-2,0%

4,5%

-2,1%

-14,0%

-1,3%

7,8%

0,8%

5,7%

-2,0%

-17,7%

-2,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,5%

-12,3%

-0,9%

-2,3%

2,9%

1,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-12,7%

3,0%

9,1%

-17,5%

1,0%

-14,1%

-4,1%

-0,1%

12,2%

-23,7%

-2,2%

-21,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-27,8%

10,2%

2,5%

-3,1%

6,8%

-1,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

556 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.3.1 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.3.2 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.3.3 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.3.4 High inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.3.5 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.3.6 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.3.7 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.3.8 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

99.3.9 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

31 888

27 476

30 994

30 806

31 076

27 795

20 138

19 636

17 923

21 387

20 667

21 493

17 475

10 467

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

99.3.10 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

12 252

9 553

9 607

10 139

9 583

10 320

9 671

99.3.11 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.4.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.4.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.4.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.4.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.4.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.4.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.4.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.4.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry 
cases

99.4.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.4.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative 
law cases

99.4.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.5.1 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.5.2 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.5.10 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

29 057

30 733

27 513

31 705

25 090

24 554

28 042

22 858

25 347

22 052

26 581

19 835

19 231

22 181

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

6 199

5 386

5 461

5 124

5 255

5 323

5 861

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

89

NA

NA

132

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-13,8%

12,8%

-0,6%

0,9%

-10,6%

-27,5%

-8,7%

19,3%

-3,4%

4,0%

-18,7%

-40,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-22,0%

0,6%

5,5%

-5,5%

7,7%

-6,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

5,8%

-10,5%

15,2%

-20,9%

-2,1%

14,2%

10,9%

-13,0%

20,5%

-25,4%

-3,0%

15,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-13,1%

1,4%

-6,2%

2,6%

1,3%

10,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

48,3%

557 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 Supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.12.4 and 3.12.5 Variation of the supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

95,5%

94,3%

103,3%

94,1%

115,0%

101,9%

85,9%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

92,2%

87,8%

104,8%

90,3%

123,1%

102,4%

78,0%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

101,4%

109,5%

99,9%

102,8%

100,2%

101,0%

96,4%

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

333

425

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

185

NAP

408

516

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

206

NAP

324

376

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

207

NAP

376

469

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

184

NAP

295

337

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

200

NAP

322

402

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

188

NAP

508

773

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

221

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(1,30)

9,50

(8,91)

22,28

(11,43)

(15,70)

(4,78)

19,41

(13,89)

36,35

(16,85)

(23,79)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7,95

(8,77)

2,93

(2,51)

0,81

(4,59)

-

-

-

-

-

-

22,8%

-20,6%

15,9%

-21,6%

9,4%

57,6%

21,5%

-27,1%

24,7%

-28,2%

19,2%

92,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

11,4%

0,8%

-11,1%

8,5%

-5,9%

17,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

558 / 1555

        
         
        
       
      
      
        
       
      
       
      
      
         
        
         
        
         
        
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.14.1 to 3.14.5 First instance criminal law cases (Q94)

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

094.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

094.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

094.2.1 Total -incoming

094.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

094.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

094.2.4 Other - incoming

094.3.1 Total - resolved

094.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

094.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

094.3.4 Other - resolved

094.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

094.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

094.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

094.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

NA

NA

NA

NAP

965 679

497 526

468 153

NAP

882 087

490 172

391 915

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

559 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.15.1 to 3.10.2 CR and DT for first instance criminal law cases (Q94)

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

098.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

098.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

098.2.1 Total -incoming

098.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

098.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

098.2.4 Other - incoming

098.3.1 Total - resolved

098.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

098.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

098.3.4 Other - resolved

Table 3.16.1 to 3.16.5 Second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

91,3%

98,5%

83,7%

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

43 287

NA

NA

NA

37 811

NA

NA

NA

38 730

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

560 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

098.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

098.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

098.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

098.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

42 368

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Table 3.17.1 to 3.17.2 CR and DT for second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

102,4%

NA

NA

NA

399

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

561 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.18.1 to 3.18.5 Supreme court criminal law cases (Q100)

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

100.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

100.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

100.2.1 Total -incoming

100.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

100.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

100.2.4 Other - incoming

100.3.1 Total - resolved

100.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

100.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

100.3.4 Other - resolved

100.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

100.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

100.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

100.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

3 302

NAP

NAP

NAP

7 199

NAP

NAP

NAP

7 503

NAP

NAP

NAP

2 998

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

562 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.19.1 to 3.19.2 CR and DT for supreme court  criminal law cases (Q100)

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

104,2%

NAP

NAP

NAP

146

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

563 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 5: Access to justice

Legal aid

Table 5.1 to Table 5.6 (Q12-2, Q16, Q18, Q19, Q20, Q20-1)

12-2.1.1 Coverage of court fees

12-2.1.2 Exemption from court fees

16.1.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (criminal cases)

16.1.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (criminal cases)

16.2.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (other than criminal 
cases)

16.2.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (other than criminal cases)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

-

-

-

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

18.1.1 Legal aid for the enforcement of judicial decisions

19.1.1  Legal aid granted for other costs - criminal cases

19.1.2  Legal aid granted for other costs - other than criminal cases

020.1.1 Total

020.1.2 Total - criminal cases

020.1.3 Total - other than criminal cases

020.2.1 Total brought to court

020.2.2 Broight to court - criminal cases

020.2.3 Brought to court - other then criminal

020.3.1 Total not brought to court

020.3.2 Not broight to court - criminal cases

020.3.3 Not brought to court - other then criminal

020-1.1.1 Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulation

020-1.1.2 Average duration

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

888 343

348 715

539 628

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

45

52

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

564 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

System for compensating users

Table 5.7.1 and Table 5.7.2 (Q37)

037.1.1 Requests for compensation - Total

037.1.2 Requests for compensation - Excessive length of 
proceedings

037.1.3 Requests for compensation - Non-execution of court 
decisions

037.1.4 Requests for compensation - Wrongful arrest

037.1.5 Requests for compensation - Wrongful conviction

037.1.6 Requests for compensation - Other

037.2.1 Condemnations - Total

037.2.2 Condemnations - Excessive length of proceedings

037.2.3 Condemnations - Non-execution of court decisions

037.2.4 Condemnations - Wrongful arrest

037.2.5 Condemnations - Wrongful conviction

037.2.6 Condemnations - Other

037.3.1 Amount - Total

037.3.2 Amount - Excessive length of proceedings

037.3.3 Amount - Non-execution of court decisions

037.3.4 Amount - Wrongful arrest

037.3.5 Amount - Wrongful conviction

037.3.6 Amount - Other

908

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

249

217

NA

NA

NA

NA

1 975 018 €

1 388 393 €

NA

NA

NA

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

565 / 1555

    
    
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 6.1 to Table 6.11 (Q62-7, Q62-7-1, Q62-8,  Q62-8-1, Q63-1, Q63-1-1, Q63-2 Q63-6, Q63-7, Q63-7-1, Q64-2,  Q64-4, Q64-6, Q64-3, Q64-3-1, Q64-7, Q64-7-1, 
Q64-9)

Indicator 6: The ICT tools of courts and for court users

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

62-7 Writing assistance tools coordinated at national level

62-7-1.1 Deployment rate in civil matter

62-7-1.2 Deployment rate in criminal matter

62-7-1.3 Deployment rate in administrative matter

62-8 Voice recording tools

62-8-1.1.1 Availability of simple dictation tools in civil matter

62-8-1.1.2 Availability of simple dictation tools in criminal matter

62-8-1.1.3 Availability of simple dictation tools in administrative 
matter

62-8-1.2.1 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in civil 
matter

62-8-1.2.2 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in criminal 
matter

62-8-1.2.3 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in 
administrative matter

62-8-1.3.1 Availability of voice recognition in civil matter

62-8-1.3.2 Availability of voice recognition in criminal matter

62-8-1.3.3 Availability of voice recognition in administrative matter

062-9 Availability of intranet site within the judicial system for 
distribution of news/novelties

63.1 Is there a case management system? 

63.1-1.1 CMS for civil matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for criminal matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for administrative matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.2 CMS for civil matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for criminal matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for administrative matter (status of case onlinee)

True

True

True

NA

NA

50-99%

50-99%

NA

NA

50-99%

100%

100%

False

True

True

NA

NA

NA

NA

in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases

in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

-

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

100%

50-99%

50-99%

100%

50-99%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

-

-

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

566 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63.1-1.3 CMS for civil matter (Centralised or interoperable database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for criminal matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for administrative matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.4 CMS for civil matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for criminal matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for administrative matter (Early warning signals)

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS civil matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS criminal matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS administrative matter

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - land registry

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - business registry

63-2.2 Data consolidated at national level for land registry

63-2.2  Data consolidated at national level for business registry

63-2.3 Service available online for land registry

63-2.3  Service available online for business registry

63-2.4 Statistical module integrated or connected for land registry

63-2.4  Statistical module integrated or connected for business 
registry

063-6.1.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (deployment 
rate)

063-6.1.2 Justice expenses management (deployment rate)

063-6.1.3 Other financial management tools (deployment rate)

063-6.2.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (Data 
consolidated at national level)

063-6.2.2 Justice expenses management (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.2.3 Other financial management tools (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.3.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (System 
communicating with other ministries)

063-6.3.2 Justice expenses management (System communicating 
with other ministries)

063-6.3.3 Other financial management tools (System communicating 
with other ministries)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Integrated

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

NA

NA

100%

NA

50-99%

100%

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

NA

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

NA

True

True

False

True

True

False

NA

True

True

NA

True

True

NA

NA

True

True

NA

True

True

NA

567 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63-7.1 Measurement tools to assess the workload

63-7-1.1.1 Deployment rate - workload of judges

63-7-1.1.2 Deployment rate - workload of prosecutors

63-7-1.1.3 Deployment rate - workload of non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.2.1 Monitoring on national level - judges

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - prosecutors

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.3.1 Monitoring on court level - judges

63-7-1.3.2 Monitoring on court level - prosecutors

63-7-1.3.3 Monitoring on court level - non-judge and non-prosecutor 
staff

064-2 - Possibility to submit a case to courts by electronic means

064-2 - Civil and/or commercial

064-2 - Criminal

064-2 - Administrative

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - civil

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - criminal

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory  - administrative

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - civil

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - criminal

064-2 - Specific legislative framework  - administrative

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - civil

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - criminal

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - administrative

False

False

True

NA

NA

100%

NA

NA

NA

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

NA

NA

NA

10-49%

50-99%

100%

100%

False

False

NA

NA

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

NA

NA

True

True

False

False

NA

NA

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

568 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-3 - Is it possible to request for granting legal aid by electronic 
means? 

064-3-1.1 - Equipment rate

064-3-1.2 - Request in paper mandatory

064-3-1.3 - Specific legislative framework

064-3-1.4 - Granting LA is also electronic

064-3-1.5 - Information available in CMS

064-4 - Possibility to transmit summons to a judicial meeting or a 
hearing by electronic means

064-4-1.1.1 - Summons produced by CMS- civil

064-4-1.1.2 - Summons produced by CMS- criminal

064-4-1.1.3 - Summons produced by CMS- administrative

064-4-1.2.1 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- civil

064-4-1.2.2 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- criminal

064-4-1.2.3 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- administrative

064-4-1.3.1 - Consent of the user - civil

064-4-1.3.2 - Consent of the user - criminal

064-4-1.3.3 - Consent of the user - administrative

064-6.1.1 - Civil and/or commercial (deployment rate)

064-6.1.2 - Criminal (deployment rate)

064-6.1.3 - Administrative (deployment rate)

False

False

True

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

10-49%

False

NA

True

False

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

NA

50-99%

50-99%

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

50-99%

50-99%

100%

100%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

569 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-6.2.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.2 - Criminal (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.3 - Administrative (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.3.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Modalities)

064-6.3.2 - Criminal (Modalities)

064-6.3.3 - Administrative (Modalities)

064-6.4.1 - Civil and/or commercial (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.2 - Criminal (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.3 - Administrative (specific legal framework)

064-6.5.1 - Civil and/or commercial (availability for)

064-6.5.2 - Criminal (availability for)

064-6.5.3 - Administrative (availability for)

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling  

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling  

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

  Specific 
application  

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
E-mail  
Specific 
application  

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer

Lawyers

Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

570 / 1555

      
      
      
    
    
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-7.1.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (deployment rate)

064-7.1.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.2.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (Modalities)

064-7.2.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.3.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (specific legal framework)

064-7.32.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-7.3.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts (specific 
legal framework)

064-7.3.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-9 - Existance of online processing devices of specialised 
litigation

50-99%

50-99%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

10-49%

1-9%

50-99%

-

  Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

E-mail    

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

True

False

True

True

True

False

True

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

571 / 1555

    
    
    
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

46.1.1 Total Number of professional judges

46.1.2 Number of 1st inst professional judges

46.1.3 Number of 2nd inst professional judges

46.1.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges

46.2.1 Number of professional judges_males

46.2.2 Number of 1st instance professional judges_males

46.2.3 Number of 2nd instance professional judges_males

46.2.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges_males

46.3.1  Number of professional judges_females

46.3.2  Number of 1st inst professional judges_females

46.3.3  Number of 2nd inst professional judges_females

46.3.4  Number of Supreme court professional judges_females

046-2.1.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Total

046-2.2.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Civil and commercial

046-2.2.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.3.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Criminal

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

Indicator 7: Professionals of justice  (Indicator 9 in 2019)

Table 7.1.1 to 7.5.6 for judges, non judge staff, prosecutors, non prosecutor staff and salaries

7 033

4 962

1 695

376

2 829

1 819

787

223

4 204

3 143

908

153

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7 054

4 977

1 708

369

2 746

1 772

760

214

4 308

3 205

948

155

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6 935

4 876

1 706

353

2 617

1 701

719

197

4 318

3 175

987

156

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6 967

4 883

1 721

363

2 555

1 657

701

197

4 412

3 226

1 020

166

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6 995

4 919

1 731

345

2 491

1 628

687

176

4 504

3 291

1 044

169

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7 066

7 277

7 427

7 522

7,0%

0,3%

-1,7%

0,5%

0,4%

1,0%

3,0%

2,1%

1,3%

4 982

5 121

5 243

5 288

6,6%

0,3%

-2,0%

0,1%

0,7%

1,3%

2,8%

2,4%

0,9%

1 748

1 805

1 827

1 880

10,9%

0,8%

-0,1%

0,9%

0,6%

1,0%

3,3%

1,2%

2,9%

336

351

355

354

-5,9%

-1,9%

-4,3%

2,8%

-5,0%

-2,6%

4,5%

1,1%

-0,3%

2 443

2 466

2 454

1 608

1 611

1 629

668

167

685

170

656

167

4 623

4 811

4 973

3 374

3 510

3 613

1 080

1 120

1 171

169

181

188

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

7 522

5 288

1 880

354

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,9%

-4,7%

-2,4%

-2,5%

-1,9%

0,9%

-0,5%

-2,6%

-4,0%

-2,6%

-1,8%

-1,2%

0,2%

1,1%

-3,4%

-5,4%

-2,5%

-2,0%

-2,8%

2,5%

-4,2%

-4,0%

-7,9%

0,0%

-10,7%

-5,1%

1,8%

-1,8%

2,5%

0,2%

2,2%

2,1%

2,6%

4,1%

3,4%

2,0%

-0,9%

1,6%

2,0%

2,5%

4,0%

2,9%

4,4%

4,1%

3,3%

2,4%

3,4%

3,7%

4,6%

1,3%

0,6%

6,4%

1,8%

0,0%

7,1%

3,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

572 / 1555

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

046-2.4.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - 
Administrative

046-2.4.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.5.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Other

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 343

909

303

132

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 52.1.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in courts 

21 758

21 946

22 360

22 326

22 712

22 714

22 844

23 396

24 062

10,6%

0,9%

1,9%

-0,2%

1,7%

0,0%

0,6%

2,4%

2,8%

52.1.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

52.1.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges

17 663

17 920

18 816

18 906

18 904

19 074

18 894

18 891

19 573

10,8%

1,5%

5,0%

0,5%

0,0%

0,9%

-0,9%

0,0%

3,6%

52.1.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks

52.1.5 Number of Technical staff

52.1.6 Number of Other non judge staff

52.2.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(men)

52.2.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(men)

52.2.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(men)

52.2.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(men)

52.2.5 Number of Technical staff(men)

52.2.6 Number of Other non judge staff(men)

52.3.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(women)

1 352

964

1 779

2 979

1 047

NAP

2 493

1 051

NAP

907

NAP

923

272

937

NAP

651

554

-68,9%

2 513

2 613

2 703

2 657

2 853

3 045

125,2%

120,3%

-16,3%

0,8%

4,0%

3,4%

-1,7%

7,4%

6,7%

1 025

1 001

889

-7,8%

8,6%

0,4%

-13,7%

1,8%

1,5%

9,4%

-2,3%

-11,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3 902

3 797

3 969

4 007

4 244

4 383

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2 454

2 450

2 497

2 585

585

863

603

744

NAP

NAP

621

759

92

658

764

NAP

2 530

2 734

687

843

184

765

742

141

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,7%

4,5%

1,0%

-

-

-

-0,2%

1,9%

3,5%

3,1%

3,0%

6,0%

-13,8%

2,0%

0,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

16 767

18 215

18 458

18 529

18 743

18 707

19 152

19 678

17,4%

8,6%

1,3%

0,4%

1,2%

-0,2%

268

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

52.3.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(women)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

52.3.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(women)

15 517

15 662

16 362

16 456

16 407

16 489

52.3.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(women)

1 060

2 300

1 908

1 910

1 992

2 045

52.3.5 Number of Technical staff(women)

52.3.6 Number of Other non judge staff(women)

190

-

253

NAP

188

NAP

163

NAP

164

180

173

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

16 361

16 839

8,5%

0,9%

4,5%

0,6%

-0,3%

0,5%

2 165

2 279

115,0%

117,0%

-17,0%

0,1%

4,3%

2,7%

158

467

146

-23,2%

33,2%

-25,7%

-13,3%

0,6%

5,5%

413

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

142,9%

-14,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,3%

-

8,1%

11,4%

-12,0%

-23,4%

2,7%

-

2,9%

5,3%

-7,6%

-11,6%

573 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

052-1.1.1 Non-judge staff (Total)

052-1.1.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (total)

052-1.1.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (total)

052-1.1.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (total)

052-1.2.1 Non-judge staff  (Males)

052-1.2.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (males)

052-1.2.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (males)

052-1.2.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (males)

052-1.3.1 Non-judge staff  (females)

052-1.3.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (females)

052-1.3.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (females)

052-1.3.4 Non-judge staff  at supreme court (females)

055.1.1 Prosecutors (total)

055.1.2 Prosecutors (1st inst.)

055.1.3 Prosecutors (2nd inst.)

055.1.4 Prosecutors (Highest instance)

055.2.1 Prosecutors - Males -total

055.2.2 Prosecutors - Males, 1st inst.

055.2.3 Prosecutors - Males, 2nd inst.

055.2.4 Prosecutors - Males, Supreme courts

055.3.1 Prosecutors - Females, Total

055.3.2 Prosecutors - Females, 1st inst.

055.3.3 Prosecutors - Females, 2nd inst.

055.3.4 Prosecutors - Females, Supreme courts

24 062

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

2 151

1 605

489

57

871

594

247

30

1 280

1 011

242

27

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

574 / 1555

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

060.1.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Total

060.2.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Males

060.3.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Females

004 Annual average salary in the country

132.1.1 Gross annual salary, in €  - Professional judge at the 
beginning of career

132.1.2 Gross annual salary, in €  - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.1.3 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor at the beginning 
of career

132.1.4 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

132.2.1 Net annual salary, in € - Professional judge at the beginning 
of career

132.2.2 Net annual salary, in € - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.2.3 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor at the beginning of 
career

132.2.4 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

133.1.1.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Reduced taxation

133.1.2.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Special pension

133.1.3.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Housing

133.1.4.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Other financial benefit

133.2.1.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Reduced taxation

133.2.2.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Special pension

133.2.3.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Housing

133.2.4.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Other financial benefit

712

180

532

34 495 €

46 149 €

123 213 €

48 738 €

123 213 €

37 716 €

101 922 €

38 502 €

101 922 €

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

575 / 1555

         
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

144.1.1 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - Total number (1+2+3+4)

144.1.2 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 1. Breach of professional 
ethics 

144.1.3 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.1.4 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 3. Criminal offence 

144.1.5 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 4. Other

144.2.1 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - Total number 
(1+2+3+4)

144.2.2 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 1. Breach of 
professional ethics 

144.2.3 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.2.4 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 3. Criminal offence

144.2.5 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 4. Other 

145.1.1 Sanctions against Judges - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.1.2 Sanctions against Judges - 1. Reprimand

145.1.3 Sanctions against Judges - 2. Suspension

145.1.4 Sanctions against Judges - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.1.5 Sanctions against Judges - 4. Fine

145.1.6 Sanctions against Judges - 5. Temporary reduction of salary

145.1.7 Sanctions against Judges - 6. Position downgrade

145.1.8 Sanctions against Judges - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.1.9 Sanctions against Judges - 8. Resignation

145.1.10 Sanctions against  Judges - 9. Other

145.1.11 Sanctions against  Judges - 10. Dismissal

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4

1

1

2

0

3

2

NAP

1

0

7

0

0

NAP

NAP

1

2

3

NAP

1

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

576 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

145.2.1 Sanctions against Prosecutors - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.2.2 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 1. Reprimand

145.2.3 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 2. Suspension

145.2.4 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.2.5 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 4. Fine

145.2.6 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 5. Temporary reduction of 
salary

145.2.7 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 6. Position downgrade

145.2.8 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.2.9 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 8. Resignation

145.2.10 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 9. Other

145.2.11 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 10. Dismissal

2

0

0

NAP

NAP

1

0

0

NAP

1

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lawyers

Tables 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.7 and 7.8

146.1.1 Total number of lawyers practising

56 176

60 223

62 073

62 073

65 480

66 958

66 958

68 835

70 073

24,7%

7,2%

3,1%

0,0%

5,5%

2,3%

0,0%

2,8%

1,8%

146.2.1 Practicing lawyers - man

146.3.1 Practicing lawyers - woman

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

29 700

29 835

30 304

37 258

38 464

39 769

147 Does this figure include “legal advisors” who cannot represent 
their clients in court (for example, some solicitors or in-house 
counsellors)? 

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,5%

1,6%

3,2%

3,4%

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

577 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

France (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 8: The existence and use of alternative dispute resolution methods

Table 8.1 8.2 and 8.3

166 Number of accredited or registered mediators who practice 
judicial mediation: 

NA

2 435

2 450

2 571

2 940

2 940

1 436

0,6%

4,9%

14,4%

0,0%

-51,2%

167.1.1 Total number started

167. 1.2 Civil and commercial cases(cid:9) - started

167. 1.2 Family cases - started

167.1.4 Administrative cases - started

167.1.5 Labour cases including employment dismissal cases - started

167.1.6. Criminal cases - started

167.1.7 Consumer cases - started

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

11 995

-

NA

NA

NA

261

NA

NA

-

NA

NA

1 156

NA

NA

2 724

2 751

2 542

NA

NA

NA

780

1 021

1 394

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

198,9%

30,9%

36,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Key: Variation of more than (+ -) 20% 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

578 / 1555

Judiciary at a glance in Germany

General data

Population:

83 155 031

GDP per capita: 40 027 €

Average annual 

salary:

56 580 €

Professionals

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Germany

Germany

EU Median

EU Median

Professional judges

Professional judges

24,73

23,92

24,73

23,92

Non-judge staff

65,07

59,00

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

7,45

9,91

14,68

15,22

65,07

59,00

7,45

9,91

14,68

15,22

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual 
salary in the country

Germany
Germany

EU Median

EU Median

Judge at the beginning of a career 

0,94

4,09

2,02

3,61

Judge of the highest court 1,60
2,02

4,09

1,71
Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 
1,71

0,94

1,60

0,94

0,94

1,60

Public prosecutor at highest instance

1,60

3,61

Lawyers

Lawyers

199,24

122,09

122,09

199,24

Judge at the
beginning of a career

Judge of the highest
court

Prosecutor at the
beginning of a career

Public prosecutor at
highest instance

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

Efficiency

1st instance

2nd instance

1st instance 2nd instance

,

%
0
0
1
1

,

%
7
6
0
1

,

%
2
6
0
1

Supreme Court
Supreme 
Court
%
2
4
0
1

,

98,1%

102,9% NA

110,0%

106,7%

106,2%

NA

NA

104,2%

100%

,

,

%
9
%
2
1
0
1
8
Civil and
9
commercial
Administrativ
e
cases
Total 
criminal law 
cases

A
N

A
N

A
N

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

Administrative
cases

Total criminal law
cases

1
1

1

1
1

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance 2nd instance Supreme Court

Civil and commercial litigious cases
237
Administrative cases 426

197

265 NA
419

Total criminal law cases

NA

419

NA

265

237

426

197

77

77

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

Information and communication technology

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

Assistance toolsCase management system
2018

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the workload
2019

Electronic communication

EU Median 2020

2020

2018
2019
2020

2,33
2,33
2,33

3,25
3,25
3,25

1,25
1,25
1,25

2,50
2,50
2,50

9,44
9,44
10,00

9,44

9,44

10,00

6,94

EU Median 2020

2,00

5,17

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

2,33

2,33

2,33

2,00

3,25

3,25

3,25

1,25

1,25

1,25

1,25

2,50

2,50

2,50

2,50

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

*ICT calculations are described in more details in Annex 5 - IT Calculation methodology

579

2020

Synthesis table for the main indicators for:

Germany

Economic and demographic data

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Variations

Population

GDP per capita

Exchange rate (local currency needed to 
obtain 1€)

80 233 100

80 780 728

80 780 728

81 770 900

82 175 684

82 657 002

83 019 200

83 166 711

83 155 031

3,6%

1,7%

32 550

33 343

33 343

37 087

37 997

39 649

40 852

41 342

40 027

23,0%

14,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

Average annual salary

44 991

44 991

52 044

53 688

56 808

56 580

25,8%

15,7%

1,0%

7,5%

NAP

3,2%

0,4%

3,0%

0,2%

1,2%

0,0%

-3,2%

NAP NAP

NAP

5,8%

-0,4%

Resources

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Professional judges per 100 000 inhab.

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhab.

24,7

66,9

23,9

66,0

23,9

66,0

23,6

65,2

24,2

64,7

24,3

64,3

24,5

65,1

24,7

65,5

25,0

65,1

Lawyers per 100 000 inh.

200,5

201,4

202,4

200,3

200,1

199,2

198,9

199,5

199,2

Mediators

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

6,7

NAP

6,7

NAP

6,9

1,2%

-2,7%

-0,6%

1,1%

-1,9%

-1,2%

1,3%

0,6%

0,8%

1,2%

-0,6%

-0,2%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1,0%

0,5%

0,3%

NAP

0,0%

1,1%

-0,6%

-0,1%

NAP

3,0%

ICT overall assesment

First instance incoming cases per 100 
inhab.

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Civil and commercial litigious cases

1,961

1,763

1,781

1,741

1,592

1,506

1,520

1,542

1,466

-25,2%

-10,6%

-4,5%

0,9%

1,4%

-4,9%

Administrative law cases

0,856

0,8

0,8

0,804

0,900

1,049

0,901

0,818

0,700

-18,2%

10,8%

0,2%

-14,0%

-9,3%

-14,4%

Total criminal law cases

NA

First instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

100%

99%

100%

102%

103%

101%

CR administrative law cases

102%

100%

100%

103%

92%

84%

97%

97%

99%

98%

109%

110%

-2,22

8,34

2,51

-7,98

-5,45

4,78

-4,02

13,13

1,64

11,85

-0,75

1,06

CR total criminal law cases

NA

First instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
cases (days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

First instance pending cases per 100 
inhab. on 31 dec.

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

 Supreme court 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Supreme court
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

183

354

192

357

198

367

190

349

196

375

204

421

220

435

217

397

29,2%

-1,4%

12,4%

20,4%

2,1%

16,1%

7,8%

3,3%

-1,4%

-8,8%

9,3%

7,3%

237

426

NA

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

0,99

0,84

0,92

0,80

0,97

0,82

0,92

0,79

0,88

0,85

0,85

1,02

0,89

1,04

0,91

0,97

-5,5%

6,5%

-9,6%

1,6%

4,2%

22,3%

4,5%

2,7%

1,7%

-7,2%

3,1%

-7,2%

0,93

0,90

NA

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

100%

93%

NA

NA

101%

102%

96%

96%

99%

94%

85%

98%

103%

107%

NA

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

0,96

3,30

-2,30

-2,74

-3,40

-2,08

-13,83

17,84

4,31

8,71

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

233

320

NA

NA

245

452

254

430

262

443

299

427

265

419

NA

5,0%

7,1%

41,4%

-2,0%

3,3%

2,9%

14,0%

-11,4%

-3,5%

-1,9%

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

97%

102%

NA

109%

NA

NA

NA

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

100%

107%

107%

100%

98%

103%

106%

104%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

NA

6,50

NA

-8,90

-2,65

NA

5,01

NA

3,53

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

358

206

349

185

NA

172

261

198

NA

228

NA

219

NA

197

77

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-16,6%

32,8%

15,3%

-4,2%

-9,8%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

580 / 1555

1. Judicial organisation in Germany

The court system in Germany has a federal structure. The administration of justice is entrusted to federal courts and the courts of the 16 federal states (Landers). The 
ordinary jurisdiction consists of the civil and criminal jurisdictions. The specialised courts are the Administrative courts, the Finance courts, the Labour courts and the Social 
courts. In addition, there is the constitutional jurisdiction, which consists of the Federal Constitutional Court and the Constitutional courts of the Landers.

Distribution of general courts in Germany

Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Germany - 1st instance
Germany - Higher instances

EU Median - 1st instance

EU Median - Higher instances

GermanyDistribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

According to 2020 data, the distribution between 1st instance and higher instances courts of 
general jurisdiction in Germany is around the EU median of 87% - 13%.

Germany - 1st instanceGermany - Higher instances

General courts - Germany

82%

18%

General courts - Germany
EU Median

82%
87%

18%
13%

EU Median

87%

13%

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Germany

Geographic 
locations

Legal entities

General jurisdiction

Specialised 
jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

1 108

1 107

1 101

1 095

1 102

1 093

1 076

1 076

1 092

765

765

761

754

761

753

753

753

753

250

248

247

247

247

246

245

245

245

1 200

1 000

800

600

400

200

0

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Germany

Geographic locations

Legal entities General jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Even though the German legal system generally knows three instances (first instance, appeal on questions of fact and law, appeal on questions of law only), the different 
kinds of courts do not correspond directly to the stages of appeal. Local Courts (Amtsgerichte) are first instance courts with the Regional Courts (Landgerichte) as next 
stage of appeal (exceptions apply in family matters). However, Regional Courts do not only serve as second instance courts but also deal with first instance cases. 
Whether a case is initially dealt with at a Local or Regional Court depends (among other things) on the value at dispute (civil cases) or on the kind of the suspected offence 
(criminal cases). Similarly, the Higher Regional Courts may serve as Second Instance courts (for cases that were initially dealt with at Regional Courts or for cases in family 
matters) and as Highest Instance Courts for cases that were initiated at the Local Courts (especially in criminal cases).
The Constitutional Courts of the Länder and the Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) are not part of the stages of appeal. Constitutional jurisdiction is 
also seen as separate from general and specialised jurisdiction. Constitutional Courts review legislation with regard to constitutional provisions. The Federal Constitutional 
Court mainly assesses alleged violations of base rights by public authorities. However, in order to have access to the Constitutional Courts, the regular path of legal 
proceedings must generally be exhausted.

First instance courts include: 638 Local Courts, 115 Regional Courts
Second instance courts include: 115 Regional Courts, 24 Higher Regional Courts
Highest instance courts include: 24 Higher Regional Courts, Federal Surpreme Court
The "vertical consistency" is not fulfilled, since the 115 Regional Courts appear as "First instance courts" as well as "Second instance courts" and 24 Higher Regional 
Courts appear as "Second Instance Courts" as well as "Highest Instance Courts".
The total number of specialised courts includes 16 Constitutional Courts of the Länder.

In Germany, in general, one legal entity equals to one geographic location. A small number of courts may have a additional points of presence in other geographic 
locations, but the exact number of geographic locations in comparison to legal entities is unknown.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

581 / 1555

Distribution of first instance general jurisdiction and specialised courts

Germany

Germany

Ratio general jurisdiction vs specialised

25%

General jurisdiction Specialised courts

75%

75%

25%

25%

75%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

EU Median

25%

75%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

The distribution between number of general jurisdiction courts and specialised courts of 75,5% - 24,5% is around the EU median (distribution 
tendency in EU: 75,5% - 24,5%).

Specialised courts
Total

Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

Insolvency courts

Labour courts

Family courts

Rent and tenancies courts

Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

Internet related disputes

Administrative courts

Insurance and / or social welfare courts

Military courts

Juvenile courts

Other specialised 1st instance courts

First instance

Higher instance

245

NAP

NAP

108

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

51

68

NAP

NAP

18

69

NAP

NAP

18

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

15

14

NAP

NAP

22

As regards "commercial courts" and "insolvecny courts", is noteworthy that depending on the value at dispute, commercial cases are dealt with at Local or Regional Courts, 
on application in a chamber established at the Regional Court for commercial cases. There are no separate commercial courts. Likewise, there are no independent rent 
and tenancies courts, enforcement courts or courts for insurance cases. Depending on the caseload, special panels of judges are established for this purpose at the Local 
and Regional Courts. Family cases are dealt with at first instance in special departments of the Local Courts (second instance: Higher Regional Courts). The Federal 
Armed Forces do not have any military courts of their own; its members are subject to civil jurisdiction. Juvenile courts do not exist as independet courts either. They are 
established at the Local Courts or Regional Courts, depending on the severity of the expected sentence and the type of offence. The Juvenile Courts may be composed of 
a single criminal judge sitting as youth judge or one or more jugdes together with lay youth assessors.

The category “other” covers:
18 Finance Courts (first instance)
16 Constitutional Courts of the Länder, the Federal Constitutional Court, Federal Patent Court, Federal Labour Court, Federal Administrative Court, Federal Social Court 
and the Federal Finance Court (higher instances)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

582 / 1555

2. Professionals of justice in Germany

● Professional judges and non-judge staff

Evolution of the number of professional judges since 2012 (Q46)

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Absolute 
number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

19 832

19 323

19 323

19 282

19 867

20 069

20 323

20 570

20 793

24,72

23,92

23,92

23,58

24,18

24,28

24,48

24,73

25,01

EU median

23,9

Professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants

24,72

23,92

23,92

23,58

24,18

24,28

24,48

24,73

25,01

23,9

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

According to 2020 data, the total number of professional judges sitting in courts (all instances) in Germany is 20 793, which is 1,1% more than in previous cycle.

More precisely, in Germany, there are 25,01 professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants (this figure is above the EU median of 23,92 judges per 100 000 inhabitants) and about 2,60 non-
judge staff per judge.

There is no significant difference compared with previous cycle when this ratio was at 2,65 non-judge staff per judge.

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and gender

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

16 207

4 125

461

20 793

Distribution by 
instance

77,9%

19,8%

2,2%

Male

Female

% Male

% Female

NA

NA

304

NA

NA

NA

157

NA

NA

NA

65,9%

NA

NA

NA

34,1%

NA

Distribution of professional judges by instance

Germany

EU Median

77,9%

72,39%

EU Median

72,39%

23,98%

4,03%

19,8%

23,98%

2,2%

4,03%

Distribution of professional judges by gender and by instance

% Female

% Male

34,1%

65,9%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Supreme courts

The staff-assignment statistics do not distinguish between male and female jugdes in first and second instance.

The total number of judges is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 16 207 are sitting in first instance courts; 4 125 are sitting in second instance courts  
and 461 are sitting in Supreme Court (of which 157 are female).  

As regards the methodology of presentation of data in respect of the number of judges, it should be noticed that: the number of first and second instance judges is taken from the "staff-
assignment statistics" of the Länder. It is derived from a complex calculation key as an annual average value of the actual personnel deployed (for example, excluding employees who 
were not present more than 20 working days during a quarter for reasons other than holiday and/or training). The data that regards highest instance judges are taken from the court-staff 
statistics and represent the number (FTE) of judges at the Federal Courts (Federal Court of Justice, Federal Patent Court, Federal Administrative Court, Federal Finance Court, Federal 
Labour Court, Federal Social Court, Federal Consitutional Court, Military Disciplinary Courts) as of 31 December 2020. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

583 / 1555

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Total

Civil and commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

16 207

4 125

461

20 793

5 511

1 467

NA

NA

4 125

564

NA

NA

1 909

345

52

2 305

4 663

1 749

NA

NA

In Germany, the distribution of judges per categories of cases is possible in first and second instance. First instance distribution is presented in the graph below. 

Distribution of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Civil and 
commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

34,0%

35,6%

NA

NA

25,5%

13,7%

NA

NA

11,8%

8,4%

11,3%

11,1%

28,8%

42,4%

NA

NA

Distribution of first instance judges by matter

FALSE

Other
29%

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

Civil and 
commercial

0

34%

Administrative
12%

25%

11%

29%

0%

Criminal
25%

"Other" includes: familiy cases (at the Local and Higher Regional Courts), cases at the Labour Courts, Social courts, Finance courts
The statistics of the supreme courts do not include information on the judges' assignment to civil or criminal cases. According to the website of the Federal Court of Justice, there are 
currently 114 judges (headcount) assigned to the civil panels and 47 to the criminal panels.

Non-judge staff

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Number of non-judge staff

53 649

53 302

53 302

53 292

53 181

53 178

54 072

54 434

54 107

Per 100 000 inhabitants

66,87

65,98

65,98

65,17

64,72

64,34

65,13

65,45

65,07

E
U 
m

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants

66,87

65,98

65,98

65,17

64,72

64,34

65,13

65,45

65,07

59,00

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

2020

Total

Rechtspfleger

Absolute 
number

54 107

8 642

Non-judge staff assisting the judge

28 071

Staff in charge of administrative tasks

Technical staff

Other

6 785

2 220

8 389

in %

16,0%

51,9%

12,5%

4,1%

15,5%

In 2020, Germany has 54 107 non-judge staff. The total number of non-judge staff in comparison with the previous cycle reveals a decrease of -0,6%.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

584 / 1555

In this cycle, the non-judge staff is broken down as follows:

◦ 8 642 Rechtspfleger (or similar bodies) with judicial or quasi-judicial tasks having autonomous competence and whose decisions could be subject to appeal (among which 
◦ 28 071 non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges such as registrars;
◦ 6 785 staff in charge of different administrative tasks and of the court management;
◦ 2 220 technical staff;
◦ 8 389 other;

In 2020, the number of non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants has decreased (from 65,5 in 2019 to 65,1 in 2020).

During the same period, the number of judges per 100 000 inhabitants evolves from 24,7 judges per 100 000 inhabitants in 2019 to 25,0 in 2020.

Data is taken from the "staff-assignment statistics" of the Länder and represents an annual average value of the actual personnel deployed (for example, excluding employees who were 
not present more than 20 working days during a quarter for reasons other than holiday and/or training). The staff-assignment statistics do not distinguish between male and female staff.

These figures denote the number of staff (full-time equivalent) who are:
• granted unpaid leave for training/further-training purposes,
• released to work in staff representation bodies, as representatives for staff with disabilities, and as gender equality commissioners,
• employed in a special facility,
• employed as reception/security staff,
• employed by the court switchboard,
• motorpool staff,
• cleaners and other non-salaried personnel

Professional judges, non-judge staff and their ratio (Q46, Q52)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Germany

EU median

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

25,01

65,07

Non-judge staff per judge

2,60

23,92

59,00

3,30

Professional judges and non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Non-judge staff per judge

65,07

2,60

25,01

59,00

3,30

23,92

Germany

EU median

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff  (Q46, Q52)

Judges 
per 100 000 inh.

Non-judge staff per
100 000 inh.

Ratio between professional judges and 
non-judge staff

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff 
Non-judge staff per 100 000 inh.
(Q46, Q52)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

24,72

23,92

23,92

23,58

24,18

24,28

24,48

24,73

25,01

66,87

65,98

65,98

65,17

64,72

64,34

65,13

65,45

65,07

EU median 2020

3,30

2,71

2,76

2,76

2,76

2,68

2,65

2,66

2,65

2,60

2,71

2,76

2,76

2012

2013

2014

2,71
2,76
2,76
2,76
2,68
2,65
2,66
2,65
2,60

2,76

2,68

2,65

2,66

2,65

2,60

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

585 / 1555

● Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff

Absolute number of public prosecutors by instance and gender (Q55)

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

5 562

492

143

6 197

Distribution by 
instance

89,8%

7,9%

2,3%

Male

2 667

308

87

3 062

Female

2 895

184

56

3 135

Male

48,0%

62,6%

60,8%

49,4%

Female

52,0%

37,4%

39,2%

50,6%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance

Germany

EU Median

89,8%

73,30%

EU Median

73,30%

23,98%

23,98%

7,9%

4,66%

2,3%

4,66%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance and gender

Female

Male

52,0%

48,0%

37,4%

62,6%

39,2%

60,8%

50,6%

49,4%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female prosecutors (all instances) is 3 135, which represents 50,6% of the total number of prosecutors.

The total number of prosecutors is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 5 562 in first instance (of which 2 895 are female); 492 are in second instance (of 
which 184 are female) and 143 in final instance (of which 56 are female).  

Figures represent full-time equivalents as of 31 December 2020

Non-prosecutor staff by gender (Q60)

Non-prosecutor staff

Total

2020

12 204

Male

3 143

Female

9 061

Public prosecutors, non-prosecutor staff and their ratio (Q55, Q60)

Non-prosecutor staff by gender

26%

Male

Female

74%

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Germany

EU median

Public prosecutors

7,45

Non-prosecutor staff

14,68

Non-prosecutor staff per 
prosecutor

1,97

9,91

15,22

1,11

Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

14,68

15,22

Public prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per prosecutor

1,97

7,45

9,91

1,11

Germany

EU median

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

586 / 1555

● Salaries of professional judges and prosecutors at beginning of a career and at the highest instance (Q132, Q4)

Salaries of professional judges and 
prosecutors (Q132, Q4)

Average gross annual 
salary 
in €

Average net annual 
salary 
in €

Ratio with national 
average annual 
gross salary

Judge at the beginning of a career 

52 928 €

40 117 €

Judge of the highest court 

90 670 €

61 253 €

Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

52 928 €

40 117 €

Public prosecutor at highest instance

90 670 €

61 253 €

0,94

1,60

0,94

1,60

EU Median

2,02

4,09
0,94

1,71

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual salary in the 
country

Salaries of 
judges and 
prosecutors in 
Judge

4,09

at the beginning 
of a career

2,02

1,60

at the highest 
1,71
instance

1,60

0,94

Prosecutor

at the beginning 
of a career

Judge at the beginning of
career

Judge on highest instance

3,61

Germany

Prosecutor at the
beginning of career

EU Median

at the highest 
instance

Prosecutor at highest
instance

90670

3,61

52928

90670

52928

According to 2020 data, the absolute gross salary of a judge at the begining of a career in Germany of 52 928 € is somewhat above when compared to the EU median of 51 946 €. As a 
ratio with the annual average salary of the country, the salary for a judge at the begining of career is 0,94 compared with EU median of 2,02.

No information on annual net salary is available on the basis of the personal circumstances of judges and public prosecutors. The federal average was calculated unweighted: the annual 
salaries of the Federal Länder were added and divided by the number of Länder, regardless of how many judges and prosecutors work in the respective Federal Land (the corresponding 
data are not known).

● Lawyers

Lawyers

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

Number of lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

160 880

162 695

163 513

163 772

164 393

164 656

165 104

165 901

165 680

200,52

201,40

202,42

200,28

200,05

199,20

198,87

199,48

199,24

EU median 2020

122,09

In 2020, there are 165 680 lawyers, which is -0,1% less than in 2019.

200,52

201,40

202,42

200,28

200,05

199,20

198,87

199,48

199,24

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

122,09

EU median
2020

Germany has 199,2 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants, which is above the EU median of 122,1 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

587 / 1555

● Judicial professionals (summary)

Judicial professionals in absolute number and per 100 000 inhabitants (Q46, Q52, Q55, Q60, Q146)

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

EU Median

Professional judges

20 570

24,73

Non-judge staff

54 107

65,07

Prosecutors

6 197

7,45

23,92

59,00

9,91

Non-prosecutor staff

12 204

14,68

15,22

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Germany

EU Median

199,24

122,09

65,07

59,00

24,73

23,92

7,45

9,91

14,68

15,22

Lawyers

165 680

199,24

122,09

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

% Male

% Female

Professional judges

Non judge staff

NA

NA

NA

NA

Prosecutors

49,4%

50,6%

Germany % MaleGermany % Femalelabels

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

Professional judges #VALUE!

Germany % Male

NA

EU Median  % Male

Germany % Female

#VALUE!
EU Median  % Female

-39,0%

61,0%

39,0%

Prosecutors

49,4%

Non judge staff

40,5%
#VALUE!

NA

0,0%

#VALUE!

50,6%

59,5%

-24,0%

76,0%

24,0%

Non-prosecutor staff

25,8%

74,2%

Non-prosecutor staff

25,8%

Lawyers

64,1%

35,9%

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

64,1%

Lawyers

52,3%

28,1%

-49,4%
-40,5%

-25,8%
-28,1%

-64,1%
-52,3%

50,6%
59,5%

74,2%
71,9%

35,9%
47,7%

74,2%

71,9%

0,0%

49,4%
40,5%
0,0%
25,8%
28,1%
0,0%
64,1%
52,3%

35,9%

47,7%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

588 / 1555

3. Legal aid and court fees in Germany

In Germany, legal aid includes:

◦ Coverage of court fees: 

◦ Exemption from court fees: 

0

1

An application for legal aid is decided upon by the court that also decides the lawsuit. Where legal aid is approved, this will have the effect that the Federal or Land cash office can 
assert the court costs against the recipient of legal aid only in accordance with the provisions made by the court (Section 122 of the Code of Civil Procedure - ZPO). The court can 
decide that the recipient of legal aid can be fully or partially exempt of the obligation to pay court fees or a delay of payment can be granted.

In Germany, legal aid is available for :

> Representation in court:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

> Legal advice, ADR and other legal services:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

>

Fees related to enforcement of judicial decisions as fees for enforcement agents (Q18) 

>

 Other costs than above (Q19) 

1

1

1

1

1

1

With regard to criminal cases: there is a kind of legal aid for legal representation in criminal cases in the form of the so called “necessary defense” implying mandatory legal 
representation which is initially financed by the state.
As to witnesses and victims of crimes it has to be differentiated between situations, when a lawyer is attributed by the criminal court free of charge without the necessity of having 
to check that the victim is in financial need (comparable to “necessary defense”) and legal aid, which might be granted in certain situations to persons who cannot afford a lawyer 
themselves.

The approval of legal aid includes the costs for the taking of evidence (e.g. witnesses, experts), as well as travel expenses of the recipient to attend a court hearing if personal 
attendance at the hearing is necessary. Expenditure for the preparation of the proceedings (e.g. expert witnesses, interpreters) may be refundable as necessary expenditure of the 
appointed solicitor.

 Number of cases for which legal aid has been granted

Absolute number 
(in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

Total

Cases brought to court

Cases not brought to 
court

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

433 536

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

######### NA

In criminal cases, legal aid is granted. However, this is not separately statistically recorded. Therefore the value is NA

Timeframes of the procedure for granting legal aid (in relation to the duration from the initial legal aid request to the final approval of the legal aid request)

◦ Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulations: 

◦ Actual average duration: 

NAP

NA

The duration of the proceedings depends, among other things, on when the evidence for the means test is submitted in full, whether a statement by the opposing party has to be 
considered and whether the court has to issue legal notices if necessary.

Regarding the statement of the opposing party:
According to the Code if Civil Procedure (Section 118 Approval Procedure), the opponent is to be given the opportunity to state his position as to whether or not he believes the 
prerequisites for the approval of legal aid have been met, unless this is deemed inappropriate for special reasons (e.g. in the case of a claim for an injunction). The Act on 
Proceedings in Family Matters and in Matters of Non-contentious Jurisdiction includes a similar provision (Section 77).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

589 / 1555

4. Performance of courts in Germany

● Efficiency indicators

◦ Clearance Rate (CR) and Disposition Time (DT)

The Clearance Rate shows the capacity of a judicial system to deal with the incoming cases. A Clearance Rate of 100% and higher does not generate backlog. 

The Disposition Time determines the estimated number of days necessary for a pending case to be solved in a court. 

First instance Total of other than criminal cases

Caseflow data collection in Germany is peculiar, and many data are not collected following the CEPEJ categorisation, this is why the total number of "other than 
criminal cases" is not available.
Once per year, the Federal Statistical Office compiles and publishes the statistics of the civil, criminal, administrative, finance, social, family and labour courts. 
Nationwide uniform ordinances define the scope and rules of data collection for these statistics. The courts collect the data and submit it to the statistical offices of the 
Länder, who check and edit the data and send it to the Federal Statistical Office. In simplified terms, the ordinances provide two different kinds of data collection 
sheets: The "procedural surverys" that collect data on the specifics of the proceedings happening at a court and the "monthly surveys" that track the caseload of a 
court. With regard to the caseload count, the monthly surveys distinguish between "caseload of proceedings covered by the procedural surveys" and "other caseload". 
For the cases from the first category (proceedings covered by the procedural surveys), the monthly surveys collect the number of cases pending at the beginning and 
at the end of a month as well as the number of received and resolved cases. For the "other caseload", the monthly surveys only count the number of received cases.

First instance Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of civil and commercial litigious cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

6
9
1

,

7
9
1

,

6
7
1

,

5
7
1

,

8
7
1

,

8
7
1

,

4
7
1

,

8
7
1

,

9
5
1

,

3
6
1

,

1
5
1

,

2
5
1

,

2
5
1

,

8
4
1

,

4
5
1

,

2
5
1

,

9
9
0

,

2
9
0

,

7
9
0

,

2
9
0

,

8
8
0

,

5
8
0

,

9
8
0

,

1,96
1,76
1,78
1,74
1,59
1,51
1,52
1,54
1,47
1,56

1
9
0

,

7
4
1

,

4
4
1

,

3
9
0

,

1,97
1,75
1,78
1,78
1,63
1,52
1,48
1,52
1,44
1,50

6
5
1

,

0,99
0,92
0,97
0,92
0,88
0,85
0,89
0,91
0,93
1,05

0
5
1

,

5
0
1

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Germany (1,47 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below EU median (1,56 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Germany (1,44 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below EU median (1,50 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Germany (0,93 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below EU median (1,05 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

100,4%

99,4%

100,2%

102,0%

102,7%

101,3%

97,2%

98,9%

98,1%

183

192

198

190

196

204

220

217

237

EU Median

98%

221

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

DT (days)

CR (%)

100,4%

99,4%

100,2%

102,0%

102,7%

101,3%

97,2%

98,9%

98,1%

98%

183

2012

192

2013

198

2014

190

2015

196

2016

204

2017

220

2018

217

2019

237

221

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 98,1% in 2020, Germany seems to face some difficulties in dealing with its civil and commercial litigious cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -0,7 points.

In 2020, the civil and commercial litigious cases are solved in approximately 237 days, which is slightly above EU median of 221 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 9,3% increase of the Disposition Time.

The number of civil and commercial litigious cases older than 2 years is not available.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

590 / 1555

First instance Administrative cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of administrative cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

6
8
0

,

7
8
0

,

4
8
0

,

2
8
0

,

2
8
0

,

0
8
0

,

1
8
0

,

1
8
0

,

2
8
0

,

0
8
0

,

2
8
0

,

9
7
0

,

0
9
0

,

3
8
0

,

5
8
0

,

5
0
1

,

2
0
1

,

8
8
0

,

4
0
1

,

0
9
0

,

8
8
0

,

2
8
0

,

7
9
0

,

0,86
0,82
0,81
0,80
0,90
1,05
0,90
0,82
0,70
0,30

9
8
0

,

0,87
0,82
0,81
0,82
0,83
0,88
0,88
0,89
0,77
0,26

0
9
0

,

7
7
0

,

0
7
0

,

0,84
0,80
0,82
0,79
0,85
1,02
1,04
0,97
0,90
0,21

0
3
0

,

6
2
0

,

1
2
0

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Germany (0,70 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (0,30 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Germany (0,77 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (0,26 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Germany (0,90 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (0,21 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Administrative cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

101,7%

99,7%

100,3%

102,6%

92,3%

84,0%

97,1%

109,0%

110,0%

354

357

367

349

375

421

435

397

426

EU Median

100%

388

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Administrative cases

101,7%

99,7%

100,3%

102,6%

DT (days)

CR (%)

92,3%

84,0%

97,1%

109,0%

110,0%

100%

354

2012

357

2013

367

2014

349

2015

375

2016

421

2017

435

2018

397

2019

426

388

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 110,0% in 2020, Germany seems to be able to deal with its administrative cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased for 1,1 points.

In 2020, the administrative cases are solved in approximately 426 days, which is slightly above EU median of 388 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 7,3% increase of the Disposition Time.

The number of administrative law cases older than 2 years is not available.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

591 / 1555

● First instance Criminal Law Cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Incoming cases

Germany

Total criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases Resolved casesPending 
Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

Total

NA

NA

1 166 493

NA

Severe criminal cases 

247 214

640 143

628 662

258 492

Misdemeanour and/or 
minor cases

109 040

390 866

381 932

117 953

Other cases

NA

NA

155 899

NA

Per 100 inhabitants

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 
Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

NA

0,30

0,13

NA

NA

0,77

0,47

NA

1,40

0,76

0,46

0,19

NA

0,31

0,14

NA

0
4
1

,

EU Median

1,40

NA

NA

0
6
1

,

8
4
1

,

1,60

1,48

0,46

6
4
0

,

A
N

A
N

Germany

EU Median

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, and other 
criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases

Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

Total

NA
NA

1,40

Severe criminal
cases

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

Other cases

0,77
0,76

0,31

0,47
0,46

0,14

0,19

NA
NA

The number of total incoming criminal cases in 2020 in Germany is not available.

The number of total resolved criminal cases in 2020 in Germany (1,40 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below EU median (1,48 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total pending criminal cases at the end of 2020 in Germany is not available.

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Total criminal law cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 

Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

NA

98,2%

97,7%

NA

NA

150

113

NA

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT)

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, and other criminal law cases 

98,2%

97,7%

DT (days)

CR (%)

EU Median

95,2%

139

EU Median

150

Severe criminal
cases

113

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

NA

Other cases

The Clearance Rate of total criminal cases cannot be calculated

The Disposition Time for criminal law cases cannot be calculated.

The category “severe criminal cases” includes criminal proceedings in accordance with the Criminal Code and ancillary criminal laws. The category “misdemeanour 
and/or minor criminal cases” subsumes regulatory fine proceedings before criminal courts.
“Other cases” include:
- proceedings concerning suspension of execution of the remainder of a sentence of life imprisonment or concerning suspension of execution of placement in a 
psychiatric hospital or in preventive detention - determinate custodial sentences - proceedings under sections 109, 110, 138 of the Prison Act (Strafvollzugsgesetz, 
StVollzG) - proceedings under Part IV of the Act on International Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (Gesetz über die internationale Rechtshilfe in Strafsachen, IRG) 
and section 71 (4) of Part II - supervision of conduct
- complaints about costs/fees - complaints against search/seizure orders - complaints in economic cases and tax cases
- complaints in matters concerning detention - cases in matters falling within the Regulatory Offences Act (Ordnungswidrigkeitengesetz, OWiG) registered in the 
complaints register - other complaints - subsequent or reserved preventive detention
- proceedings regarding the order of subsequent or reserved preventive detention - proceedings regarding the suspension of execution of a sentence where the court has 
reserved the order of preventive detention, in the cases covered by section 462a (2), third sentence, of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Strafprozessordnung, StPO)
- proceedings before the judicial service court
- proceedings regarding health professionals, tax consultants, agents in tax matters, patent lawyers or architects
- other disciplinary proceedings - proceedings regarding legal remedies in matters of enforcement of youth custody, youth detention and remand detention
Only the number of incoming cases is available for "other criminal cases", because with regard to data collection through the "monthly surverys" these cases fall into the 
category “other caseload”

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

592 / 1555

Overall efficiency by instance and by case matter

CR (%)

DT (days)

CR (%)

DT (days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases

98,1%

102,9%

NA

Administrative cases

110,0%

106,7%

106,2%

Total criminal law cases

NA

NA

104,2%

237

426

NA

265

419

NA

NA

197

77

1st instance

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)
2nd instance
%
0
0
1
1

2nd instance
%
2
6
0
1

1st instance

%
7
6
0
1

,

,

,

,

%
9
2
0
1

,

%
2
4
0
1

Supreme Court

Supreme Court

98,1%
110,0%

102,9% NA
106,7%

%
1
Civil and commercial 
8
9
litigious cases
Administrative cases

,

100%

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

106,2%

1

1
1

265

237

197

419

426

Administrative cases

77
NA
Total criminal law cases

Total criminal law cases

A
N

A
N

A
N

NA
Civil and commercial
litigious cases

Administrative cases

NA

Total criminal law
cases

104,2%

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

1
1

In Germany, disposition times for civil and commercial litigious cases and administrative cases are longer than the EU median, while criminal cases in first instance are 
faster (77 days vs 139). In 2020, Slovak judges resolved more cases than received (Clearance rate is above 100%) except for civil and commercial litigious cases in 
first instance.
It is noteworthy that the structure of the courts does not entirely correspond to the stages of appeal. For example, Regional Courts can be 1st as well as 2nd instance 
courts, Higher Regional Courts can be 2nd and 3 instance courts. In the monthly surveys of a court, a statistical record with regard to the stage of appeal exists for the 
proceedings covered by the procedural surveys, while the case count for "other caseload" generally only exists for the whole court.
Other cases:
Only the number of incoming cases is available for "other cases", because with regard to data collection through the "monthly surverys" these cases fall into the 
category “other caseload”
The category "other cases" in first instance criminal law cases includes the cases that appear in the monthly surveys of the Regional Courts as "other caseload", which 
means that these cases are actually first and second instance cases. Due to the above mentioned structure of data collection, a distinction between 1st and 2nd 
instance cases ist unfortunately not possible for these cases.
As regards second instance criminal law cases, the provided numbers includes the cases that appear in the monthly surveys of the Higher Regional Courts as "other 
caseload" and that can definitely be identified as second instance cases due to their subject (complaints and objections in regulatory fining proceedings). 

It is not possible to differentiate between "severe criminal cases" and "minor criminal cases" (NA). The total number of cases means the number of appeals on points of 
law, including referrals and regulatory offences pursuant to the Act on Regulatory Offences (OWiG) as well as regulatory offences pursuant to the Act Against Restraints 
of Competition (GWB) and the Energy Act (EnBW) before the criminal panels (including antitrust panel).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

593 / 1555

5. Public prosecution services in Germany

● Role and powers of the public prosecutor

In the criminal procedure, the public prosecutor in Germany has the following 11 out of 11 possible roles and powers:

To conduct or supervise police investigation

To appeal

To conduct investigations

To supervise the enforcement procedure

When necessary, to request investigation measures from the judge

To discontinue a case without needing a decision by a judge

To charge

To present the case in the court

To propose a sentence to the judge

To end the case by imposing or negotiating a penalty or measure 
without requiring a judicial decision

Other significant powers

Unless otherwise provided by law, as soon as the public prosecution office receives knowledge of a criminal offence, it must investigate the facts for its decision on whether public 
charges are to be preferred. It is entitled to demand information from all authorities and to carry out investigations, either itself or to have them performed by the authorities of the 
police service unless other statutory provisions particularly regulate their powers. If the public prosecution office considers it to be necessary for the court to carry out investigation 
measures, it makes an application prior to lodging of the public charge to the respective Local Court. If, additionally, it considers it to be necessary to issue an arrest or custody 
order, it can, lodge such a motion with the court.
The public prosecution office is called on to prefer public charges. The written charge which it has to present to the court contains the application to open the main proceedings.
The public prosecution office can discontinue the proceedings without a court ruling. The same applies to minor secondary criminal offences, and to individual severable parts of 
an offence or some of several violations of the law committed as a result of the same offence if these are not particularly significant in addition to a penalty or measure of reform 
and prevention that is anticipated or has already been imposed with binding effect. Moreover, the public prosecution office may dispense with preferment of public charges if the 
accused is extradited to a foreign government because of the offence or is transferred out of the area of application of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The same applies if he/she 
is to be extradited to a foreign government or transferred to an international criminal court of justice because of another offence and the penalty or the measure of reform and 
prevention which might be the result of the domestic prosecution is negligible in comparison to these imposed or expected to be imposed with binding effect abroad.
If coercion or extortion was committed by threats to reveal a criminal offence, the public prosecution office may dispense with prosecuting the offence, the disclosure of which was 
threatened, unless expiation is imperative because of the seriousness of the offence. If the victim of coercion or extortion files charges in respect thereof and if as a result a 
misdemeanour committed by the victim comes to light, the public prosecution office may dispense with prosecution of the misdemeanour unless expiation is imperative because of 
the seriousness of the offence.
If the preferring of public charges for a misdemeanour depends on the evaluation of a question which must be determined according to civil law or administrative law, the public 
prosecution office may set a time limit to decide the question in civil or administrative proceedings. The person who reported the criminal offence shall be notified thereof. After this 
time limit has expired without any result, the public prosecution office may terminate the proceedings.
Public charges are not to be preferred for an erroneous suspicion or insult as long as criminal or disciplinary proceedings are pending for the reported or alleged offence. If the 
absence of the accused or some other personal impediment prevents the opening or conduct of the main proceedings for a considerable time, and if public charges have not yet 
been preferred, the public prosecution office may provisionally terminate the proceedings after it has clarified the facts so far as possible and secured the evidence so far as 
necessary.
In accordance with the Youth Courts Act, the Code of Criminal Procedure is also applicable in criminal proceedings against juveniles. The other possibilities of ending the 
proceedings stated above are, by contrast, generally applicable in proceedings against juveniles and young adults.

In general the public prosecutor does not have a role in insolvency cases. However, if the debtor is accused of having committed a criminal offense and the proceeds of the 
offense are seizable but insufficient to satisfy the claims of the victims, the public prosecution office may have a right to file for insolvency (Section 111i para (2) of the Code of 
Criminal Procedure). Whether the insolvency proceedings are to be opened or not, lies in the competence of the court. Section 111i of the Code of Criminal Procedure has also be 
taken into account in the enforcement of the ordered confiscation especially concerning the compensation procedure (sections 459h, 459m, 459n of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

594 / 1555

● Public prosecutors: Number of first instance criminal cases

Type of cases

Absolute 
number

Per 100 
inhabitants

1. Pending cases on 1 Jan. ref. year 

731 988

0,88

2. Incoming/received cases

4 984 552

5,99

Public prosecutors: Total number of first instance criminal 
cases per 100 inhabitants
Incoming/rec
eived cases

Processed 
cases

Processed cases

Incoming/received cases

Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. Year

Pendin
g cases 
on 31 

5,99

6,02

3. Processed cases (3.1 + 3.2 + 3.3 + 3.4)

5 004 542

6,02

Germany

5,99 6,02

0,86

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year (3.1.1 + 3.1.2 + 3.1.3 
+ 3.1.4)

2 682 373

3,23

3.1.1 Discontinued by the public prosecutor because the 
offender could not be identified 

NA

NA

3.1.2 Discontinued by the public prosecutor due to the lack 
of an established offence or a specific legal situation 

1 457 907

1,75

3.1.3 Discontinued by the public prosecutor for reasons of 
opportunity

1 213 206

1,46

3.1.4 Discontinued for other reasons 

11 260

0,01

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated 
by the public prosecutor

161 653

0,19

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons

1 199 972

1,44

3.4. Cases brought to court

960 544

1,16

EU Median

2,85
2,84
2,85 2,84

0,84

0,86

0,84

Germany

EU Median

Processed cases per 100 inhabitants
EU Median

Germany

Processed cases

Germany

EU Median

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

3,23

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

1,05

-3,23

1,05

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed
or negotiated by the public prosecutor

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor

0,19

0,12

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other
reasons

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons
0,30

1,44
-1,44

-0,19

0,12

4. Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. year

711 530

0,86

3.4. Cases brought to court

3.4. Cases brought to court

1,16

-1,16

0,53

0,30

0,53

General information on the public prosecution statistic used as a source for anwering this question:
Once per year, the Federal Statistical Office compiles and publishes the public prosecution statistic. Statistical ordinances define the scope and rules of data collection for these 
statistic. The public prosecution offices collect the data and submit it to the statistical offices of the Länder, who check and edit the data and send it to the Federal Statistical Office. 
In simplified terms, the statistical ordinance provides two different kinds of data collection sheets: The "procedural survery" that collects data on the specifics of the investigation 
proceedings carried out by the public prosecution and the "monthly survey" that collects data on the caseload and other workload of the public prosecution offices. The figures 
entered here do not include investigations against persons unknown. The public prosecution statistic only shows the number of charges filed against unknown perpetrators. 
Information on the further treatment of those charges is not available. This is because the monthly survey distinguishes between "caseload of investigation proceedings covered by 
the procedural surveys" and "other workload". Charges against persons unknown fall into the category “other workload”. The number of resolved and pending cases is only 
collected with regard to the first category (proceedings covered by the procedural surveys). If a suspect is identified in cases with an unknown perpetrator, the case receives a new 
file-number and then appears in the the category "covered by the procedural surveys".
As regards 3.2 Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor:
The number represents the the cases that were discontinued in accordance with Section 153a of the Code of Criminal Procedure ("Non-prosecution subject to imposition of 
conditions and directions")
These cases would also fit into the category "discontinued for reasons of opportunity" (3.1.3) but were allocated to 3.2 here.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

595 / 1555

 
In Germany, the number of mediators and the number of court-related mediations is not available.

6. Existence and use of alternative dispute resolution in Germany

Germany does not have a system of accreditation or registration for mediators. In addition, there is no statistical data available on the number of court annexed 
mediation cases. For these reasons, Germany cannot provide information on the number of accredited or registered mediators who practice judicial mediation.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

596 / 1555

7. ICT tools of courts in Germany

●The ICT tools of courts and for court users

The use of ICT in courts in 2020 has been evaluated as  :

EU Median

Total 
(0 to 10)

Assistance tools (0 to 3)

Case management system (0 to 7)
Financial management tools (0 to 3)

Measurement tools to assess the workload (0 to 5)
Electronic communication (0 to 10)

6,9
2,3

3,3

1,3
2,5

10,0

6,6
2,0

5,2

1,3
2,5

6,9

The calculation of this values for each field is based on the answers for that question/s and weighted according the avaiability 
or deployment rate. The total value is normalised to max 10 points for readability and comparison.

The details of the calculation are given in Annex 5 - IT calculations

The result by area may be summarized in these graphics, where each field has been evaluated from 0 to 4 points.

Note: index is modified based on the available questions. This cycle the recalculation was made for the last three cycles to be 
able to follow the development.

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

2018

2019

2020

EU Median 2020

Case 
management 
system

Financial 
management 
tools

Measurement 
tools to assess 
the workload

Electronic 
communication

3,25

3,25

3,25

1,25

1,25

1,25

5,17

2,50

2,50

2,50

9,44

9,44

10,00

5,17

3,25

3,25

1,25
3,25

2,50

6,94

10,00

9,44

9,44

6,94

Assistance 
tools

Year
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
EU Median 20202,00

2,33

2,33

2,33

2,33

2,33

2,33

2,00

2,50

2,50

2,50

2,50

1,25

1,25

1,25

1,25

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

597 / 1555

8. Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and public prosecution services in Germany

In Germany, quality standards are not detemined for the judicial system at the national level.

● Systems for measuring and evaluating courts' performance

A regular monitoring system of court activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

At the level of the Federal Government, statistics on proceedings encompass the number of incoming cases, the type of proceeding, the form of conclusion, and the time 
needed for conclusion. Moreover, information regarding other characteristics is also collected (legal aid in litigation and legal aid for proceedings, value of dispute, subject 
area, remedies, etc.) All of this information can be correlated to one another upon evaluation. The regular evaluations can be found in the publications of the Federal Statistical 
Office. Data regarding the business overviews usually do not contain – in that it involves manual statistics – additional information beyond the business workload, particularly 
as regards the duration of proceedings.

The monitoring activities mentioned unter "other" were reported only by some of the Länder. 
In Germany, there is no system to regularly evaluate the court performance based on defined indicators.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each court.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

Scarcely half of the Länder answered that quality indicators have been defined for backlogs, a few reported that quality indicators for costs, number of appeals, appeal ratio, 
clearance rate or disposition time have also been defined.

The evaluation of the courts' activities is not used for the later allocation of means in the courts.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

598 / 1555

● Systems for measuring and evaluating public prosecution services' performance

A regular monitoring system of public prosecution services activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases 

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs 

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecution) 

Costs of the judicial procedures 

Clearance rate 

Disposition time 

Percentage of convictions and aquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

A few Länder answered that they have also been monitoring productivity and costs.
In Germany, there is no system to evaluate regularly the activity of each public prosection service.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each public prosecution service.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecutors)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Percentage of convictions and acquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff

Just over half of the Länder answered that quality indicators have been defined for backlogs, a few reported that quality indicators for statisfaction of users, costs, clearance 
rate or disposition time have also been defined.

The evaluation of the public prosecution services' activities is not used for the later allocation of means in the public prosecution services.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

599 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table General Data: Economic and demographic data, in absolute values (Q1, Q3, Q5)

Q1 Number of inhabitants

80 233 100

80 780 728

80 780 728

81 770 900

82 175 684

82 657 002

83 019 200

83 166 711

83 155 031

3,6%

0,7%

0,0%

1,2%

0,5%

0,6%

0,4%

0,2%

0,0%

Q.3 GDP Per capita (in €) in current prices

32 550

33 343

33 343

37 087

37 997

39 649

40 852

41 342

40 027

23,0%

2,4%

0,0%

11,2%

2,5%

4,3%

3,0%

1,2%

-3,2%

Q5. Exchange rate of Nat currency to € on 1 Jan

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Indicator 1: Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and prosecution services  (Indicator 4 in 2019)

Table 1.1 to Table 1.10 (Q66, Q67, Q77, Q78, Q77-1, Q78-1, Q73, Q73-0, Q73-1, Q73-2, Q73-3, Q73-4, Q73-5, Q73-6, Q70, Q70-1, Q71, Q72, Q83-2, Q83-3, Q120 
and Q120-1)

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

66 Qlty standards formulated_jud system

67 Specialised court staff entrusted_qlty standards

77 Performance and quality indicators of court activities

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

False

False

True

078.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078.1.5 Backlogs 

078.1.6 Productivity of judges and court staff

078.1.7 Satisfaction of court staff 

078.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts) 

078.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078.1.10 Number of appeals

078.1.11 Appeal ratio

078.1.12 Clearance rate 

078.1.13 Disposition time 

078.1.14 Other

077-1.1.1 Defined performance and quality indicators

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

600 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

078-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078-1.1.5 Backlogs 

078-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

078-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

078-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

078-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

078-1.1.11 Disposition time 

078-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

078-1.1.13 Other

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

73 Regular system_evaluation_performance_each court

Yes

Yes

No

No

073-0.1.1 Annual

073-0.1.2 Less frequent

073-0.1.3 More frequent

073-1.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
court

073-2.1.1 Courses of action taken in the evaluation is used for the 
allocation of resources

073-2.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-2.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-2.1.4 Other

073-3.1.1 Regular evaluation of the public prosecution services 
performance

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

601 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

073-4.1.1 Annual

073-4.1.2 Less frequent

073-4.1.3 More frequent

073-5.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
public prosecution services

073-6.1.1 Identifying the causes of improved or deteriorated 
performance

073-6.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-6.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-6.1.4 Other

070.1.1 number of incoming cases

070.1.2 length of proceedings (timeframes)

070.1.3 number of resolved cases

070.1.4 number of pending cases

070.1.5 backlogs

070.1.6 productivity of judges and court staff

070.1.7 satisfaction of court staff

070.1.8 satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts)

070.1.9 costs of the judicial procedures

070.1.10 number of appeals

070.1.11 appeal ratio

070.1.12 clearance rate

-

-

-

False

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

True

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

602 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

070-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases 

070-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

070-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

070-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

070-1.1.5 Backlogs 

070-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

070-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

070-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

070-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

070-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

070-1.1.11 Disposition time 

070-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

070-1.1.13 Other

071.1.1 Monitoring backlogs in Civil law cases

071.1.2 Monitoring backlogs in Criminal law cases

071.1.3 Monitoring backlogs in Administrative law cases

072.1.1 Monitoring timeframes Within the courts

072.1.2 Monitoring timeframes Within the public prosecution services

083-2.1.1 Quantitative performance tagets defined for each 
prosecutors

083-3.1.1 Body responsible - Executive power (for example the 
Ministry of Justice)

083-3.1.2 Body responsible - Prosecutor General /State public 
prosecutor

083-3.1.3 Body responsible - Public Prosecutorial Council

083-3.1.4 Body responsible - Head of the organisational unit or 
hierarchically superior public prosecutor

083-3.1.5 Body responsible - Other

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

603 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

120.1.1 Qualitative individual assessment of the public prosecutors' 
work

120-1.1.1 Feequency - Annual

120-1.1.2 Feequency - Less frequent

120-1.1.3 Feequency - More frequent

True

False

True

False

Indicator 2: The judicial organisation

Tables 2.1a; 2.1b; 2.2a; 2.2b; 2.3a; 2.3b; 2.4 and 2.5(EC) (Q42, Q43 and Q44)

Q42.1.1Total number of all courts - legal entities 

Q42.1.2 Total number of courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 092

778

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Q42.1.3 First instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

765

765

761

754

761

753

753

753

753

-1,6%

0,0%

-0,5%

-0,9%

0,9%

-1,1%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

Q42.1.4 Second instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.5 Highest instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.6 Total number of specialised courts - legal entities

43.1.1 Total number of specialised courts of first instance

43.1.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.1.3 Insolvency courts

43.1.4 Labour courts

43.1.5 Family courts

43.1.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.1.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.1.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.1.9 Internet related disputes

43.1.10 Administrative courts

43.1.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.1.12 Military courts

43.1.13 Juvenile courts

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

250

NAP

NAP

113

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

51

68

-

-

-

248

NAP

NAP

111

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

51

68

-

-

-

247

NAP

NAP

110

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

51

68

-

-

-

247

NAP

NAP

110

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

51

68

-

-

-

247

NAP

NAP

110

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

51

68

-

-

-

246

NAP

NAP

110

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

51

67

-

-

-

245

NAP

NAP

108

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

51

68

-

-

-

245

NAP

NAP

108

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

51

68

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

139

25

314

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

245

-2,0%

-0,8%

-0,4%

0,0%

0,0%

-0,4%

-0,4%

0,0%

0,0%

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

108

-4,4%

-1,8%

-0,9%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-1,8%

0,0%

0,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

51

68

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-1,5%

1,5%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

604 / 1555

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

43.1.14 Other specialised courts

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

18

43.2.1 Total number of specialised courts of higher instances

43.2.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.2.3 Insolvency courts

43.2.4 Labour courts

43.2.5 Family courts

43.2.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.2.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.2.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.2.9 Internet related disputes

43.2.10 Administrative courts

43.2.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.2.12 Military courts

43.2.13 Juvenile courts

43.2.14 Other specialised courts

44.1.1 First instance courts geographic locations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

18

69

NAP

NAP

18

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

15

14

NAP

NAP

22

998

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

44.1.2 All courts geographic locations

1 108

1 107

1 101

1 095

1 102

1 093

1 076

1 076

1 092

-1,4%

-0,1%

-0,5%

-0,5%

0,6%

-0,8%

-1,6%

0,0%

1,5%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

605 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 3: The performance of courts at all stages of the proceedings

Tables 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.4 (all years) Number of other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 Variation of first instance other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants (Q1, Q91)

Table 3.13.7 (EC) to 3.13.12 (EC) First instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

4 966 112

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

798 265

736 340

785 606

782 964

754 864

719 662

703 935

738 824

753 054

-5,7%

-7,8%

6,7%

-0,3%

-3,6%

-4,7%

-2,2%

5,0%

1,9%

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1 657 420

1 691 876

1 727 738

1 766 395

1 806 827

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,1%

2,1%

2,2%

2,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

689 031

643 094

664 067

662 009

644 890

701 598

845 199

867 035

806 128

17,0%

-6,7%

3,3%

-0,3%

-2,6%

8,8%

20,5%

2,6%

-7,0%

1 957 181

1 851 995

1 851 995

1 748 709

1 468 300

462 519

440 716

444 077

453 757

-76,8%

-5,4%

0,0%

-5,6%

-16,0%

-68,5%

-4,7%

0,8%

2,2%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 573 220

1 424 016

1 439 072

1 423 489

1 308 135

1 244 697

1 261 954

1 282 250

1 219 203

-22,5%

-9,5%

1,1%

-1,1%

-8,1%

-4,8%

1,4%

1,6%

-4,9%

91.1.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.1.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.1.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.1.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.1.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.1.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.1.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.1.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

91.1.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.1.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

91.1.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

91.2.1 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.2.2 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.2.3 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.2.4 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.2.5 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.2.6 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.2.7 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

5 604 653

5 490 219

5 490 219

118 560

NA

117 251

91.2.8 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

91.2.9 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

-

NA

-

-

NA

NA

2 365 351

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

2 639 044

2 525 579

2 509 519

2 515 303

2 299 376

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5 551 746

5 476 346

5 428 233

5 531 883

5 550 420

-1,0%

-2,0%

0,0%

122 206

122 799

126 423

132 566

140 297

18,3%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-4,3%

-0,6%

0,2%

-8,6%

-

-

-

-

-1,4%

-0,9%

1,9%

0,3%

0,5%

3,0%

4,9%

5,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

91.2.10 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

686 985

661 706

655 687

657 108

739 325

866 662

748 328

680 061

582 323

-15,2%

-3,7%

-0,9%

0,2%

12,5%

17,2%

-13,7%

-9,1%

-14,4%

91.2.11 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

1 518 404

1 622 446

1 622 446

1 203 321

1 348 599

970 975

945 094

953 399

933 856

-38,5%

6,9%

0,0%

-25,8%

12,1%

-28,0%

-2,7%

0,9%

-2,0%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

606 / 1555

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

91.3.1 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.3.2 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.3.3 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.3.4 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.3.5 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.3.6 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.3.7 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.3.8 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

91.3.9 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

3 888 915

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 578 891

1 415 623

1 441 714

1 451 589

1 343 337

1 260 439

1 227 172

1 267 995

1 196 562

-24,2%

-10,3%

1,8%

0,7%

-7,5%

-6,2%

-2,6%

3,3%

-5,6%

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

88 326

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

87 843

87 136

87 651

90 370

89 367

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-0,8%

0,6%

3,1%

-1,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

91.3.10 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

698 569

659 613

657 745

674 226

682 617

727 832

726 730

741 004

640 706

-8,3%

-5,6%

-0,3%

2,5%

1,2%

6,6%

-0,2%

2,0%

-13,5%

91.3.11 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

91.4.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.4.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.4.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.4.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.4.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.4.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.4.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.4.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

91.4.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.4.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

91.4.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

1 519 898

1 418 949

1 418 949

1 224 780

1 355 615

994 402

960 583

953 682

942 192

-38,0%

-6,6%

0,0%

-13,7%

10,7%

-26,6%

-3,4%

-0,7%

-1,2%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

792 594

744 510

782 964

754 864

719 662

703 920

738 819

753 049

776 359

-2,0%

-6,1%

5,2%

-3,6%

-4,7%

-2,2%

5,0%

1,9%

3,1%

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1 691 795

1 727 539

1 766 513

1 808 598

1 861 202

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,1%

2,3%

2,4%

2,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

677 447

645 014

662 009

644 891

701 598

840 158

866 972

806 072

748 038

10,4%

-4,8%

2,6%

-2,6%

8,8%

19,7%

3,2%

-7,0%

-7,2%

1 955 687

1 838 550

1 838 550

1 728 710

1 463 852

440 747

443 995

453 747

450 720

-77,0%

-6,0%

0,0%

-6,0%

-15,3%

-69,9%

0,7%

2,2%

-0,7%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

607 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.2 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.4 to 3.3.7 Variation of Clearence Rate and Disposition Time of first instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

Table 3.13.1 (EC) to 3.13.6 (EC) First instance courts: Disposition time and clearance rate for other than criminal cases  (Q91)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

100,4%

99,4%

100,2%

102,0%

102,7%

101,3%

97,2%

98,9%

98,1%

(2,21)

(0,95)

0,78

1,79

0,70

(1,39)

(3,97)

1,69

(0,75)

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

75,3%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

71,9%

71,0%

69,3%

68,2%

63,7%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(1,28)

(2,29)

(1,68)

(6,56)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CR Administrative law cases

101,7%

99,7%

100,3%

102,6%

92,3%

84,0%

97,1%

109,0%

110,0%

8,20

(1,97)

0,63

2,28

(10,01)

(9,04)

15,64

12,20

0,98

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

100,1%

87,5%

87,5%

101,8%

100,5%

102,4%

101,6%

100,0%

100,9%

0,79

(12,63)

-

16,38

(1,24)

1,88

(0,76)

(1,58)

0,86

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

183

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

354

470

NA

192

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

357

473

NA

198

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

367

473

NA

190

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

349

515

NA

196

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

204

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

220

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

217

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

375

394

NA

NA

421

162

NA

NA

435

169

NA

NA

397

174

7030

7236

7356

7305

7602

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

237

29,2%

4,8%

3,3%

-4,2%

3,0%

4,2%

7,8%

-1,4%

9,3%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,9%

1,7%

-0,7%

4,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

426

20,4%

0,8%

2,9%

-5,0%

7,5%

12,3%

3,3%

-8,8%

7,3%

175

-62,8%

0,7%

0,0%

8,9%

-23,5%

-59,0%

4,3%

2,9%

0,5%

608 / 1555

        
        
         
         
         
        
        
         
        
        
        
        
        
         
        
         
         
      
        
       
       
         
         
      
           
       
        
         
        
        
         
Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.4.1 (all years) First instance courts, number of cases for specific case categories (Q101)

101.1.1 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Litigious divorce case

NA

NA

NA

101.1.2 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Employment dismissal case

26 968

40 175

40 175

101.1.3 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Insolvency

101.2.1 Incoming cases_Litigious divorce case

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

101.2.2 Incoming cases_Employment dismissal case

101 369

152 391

152 391

101.2.3 Incoming cases_Insolvency

-

143 662

143 662

101.3.1 Resolved cases_Litigious divorce case

190 258

167 014

167 014

101.3.2 Resolved cases_Employment dismissal case

144 293

152 919

152 919

101.3.3 Resolved cases_Insolvency

101.4.1 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Litigious divorce case

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

101.4.2 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Employment dismissal case

25 360

39 686

39 647

101.4.3 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Insolvency

-

303 654

303 654

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

159 395

149 526

139 752

135 212

92 999

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

49,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

50,3%

0,0%

-

0,0%

184 025

174 149

167 836

168 629

163 435

-14,1%

-12,2%

0,0%

192 161

180 886

173 096

178 797

198 766

37,8%

6,0%

0,0%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

293 924

293 027

280 659

292 436

250 154

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

56,5%

-0,1%

-

0,0%

Table 3.5.1 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for specific case categories (Q101)

Table 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 Variations of CR and DT for specific case categories of first instance cases (Q101)

CR Litigious divorce cases

NA

NA

NA

CR Employment dismissal cases

142,3%

100,3%

100,3%

CR Insolvency cases

DT Litigious divorce cases

DT Employment dismissal cases

DT Insolvency cases

NA

NA

64

NA

NA

NA

95

NA

NA

NA

95

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(29,50)

-

-

-

-

-

-

47,7%

-0,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-6,2%

-6,5%

-3,2%

-31,2%

-5,4%

-3,6%

0,5%

-3,1%

-5,9%

-4,3%

3,3%

11,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-0,3%

-4,2%

4,2%

-14,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

609 / 1555

      
           
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.7.1 to 3.7.5 (2019 and 2020) Second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Table 3.9.1 to 3.9.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.1.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.1.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.1.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.1.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.1.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.1.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.1.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.1.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

97.1.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.1.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

97.1.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases 

97.2.1 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.2.2 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.2.3 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.2.4 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.2.5 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.2.6 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.2.7 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.2.8 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

97.2.9 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.2.10 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

97.2.11 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases 

NA

65 321

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

55 796

19 288

NA

101 960

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

69 294

42 202

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

68 430

67 257

65 161

66 211

84 306

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

50 298

51 875

53 918

57 216

58 217

21 860

19 833

19 499

19 399

19 483

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

99 151

91 640

93 235

121 042

108 810

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

43 468

47 805

50 376

50 788

45 059

47 031

43 826

41 700

42 062

40 385

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-1,7%

-3,1%

1,6%

27,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,1%

3,9%

6,1%

1,7%

-9,3%

-1,7%

-0,5%

0,4%

-

-

-

-

-7,6%

1,7%

29,8%

-10,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

10,0%

5,4%

0,8%

-11,3%

-6,8%

-4,9%

0,9%

-4,0%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

610 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.3.1 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.3.2 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.3.3 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.3.4 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.3.5 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.3.6 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.3.7 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.3.8 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

97.3.9 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.3.10 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

97.3.11 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases 

97.4.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.4.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.4.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.4.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.4.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.4.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.4.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.4.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

97.4.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.4.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

97.4.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases

97.5.1 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.5.2 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.5.10 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

102 185

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

64 492

43 335

NA

65 227

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

56 458

18 155

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

100 324

93 736

92 194

102 945

111 956

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

41 891

45 754

47 169

49 744

48 058

49 058

44 085

41 629

41 506

40 418

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

67 257

65 161

66 211

84 305

81 223

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

51 849

53 926

57 214

58 217

55 197

19 833

19 574

19 348

19 882

19 826

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-6,6%

-1,6%

11,7%

8,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9,2%

3,1%

5,5%

-3,4%

-10,1%

-5,6%

-0,3%

-2,6%

-

-

-

-

-3,1%

1,6%

27,3%

-3,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4,0%

6,1%

1,8%

-5,2%

-1,3%

-1,2%

2,8%

-0,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

611 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 (2019 and 2020): Second instance clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.9.4 and 3.9.5 (2019 and 2020): Variation of second clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

100,2%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

93,1%

102,7%

NA

233

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

320

153

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

101,2%

102,3%

98,9%

85,0%

102,9%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

96,4%

95,7%

93,6%

97,9%

106,7%

104,3%

100,6%

99,8%

98,7%

100,1%

NA

245

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

452

148

NA

254

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

430

162

NA

262

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

443

170

NA

299

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

427

175

NA

265

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

419

179

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,09

(3,33)

(13,99)

20,98

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(0,69)

(2,17)

4,60

8,89

(3,57)

(0,76)

(1,15)

1,42

-

-

-

-

3,7%

3,3%

14,0%

-11,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-4,8%

2,9%

-3,5%

-1,9%

9,8%

4,7%

3,1%

2,4%

612 / 1555

         
        
      
       
        
        
         
         
        
        
        
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.10.1 to 3.10.5 (2019 and 2020) Supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Table 3.12.1 to 3.12.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of the supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.1.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.1.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.1.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.1.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.1.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.1.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.1.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.1.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

99.1.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.1.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

99.1.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.2.1 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.2.2 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.2.3 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.2.4 High inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.2.5 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.2.6 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.2.7 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.2.8 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

99.2.9 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.2.10 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

99.2.11 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

NA

NA

10 558

10 586

9 529

9 495

9 292

4 023

4 143

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

5 473

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

4 037

1 908

3 837

1 449

3 487

3 414

3 549

3 649

1 618

1 195

1 113

1 231

NA

15 591

15 396

13 678

13 606

14 472

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

4 040

1 868

NA

4 348

4 158

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

6 316

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

7 131

2 657

6 508

2 273

6 755

2 305

6 365

5 806

5 522

5 729

1 876

1 755

2 401

1 938

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,3%

-10,0%

-0,4%

-2,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-0,1%

-5,0%

-9,1%

-2,1%

4,0%

2,8%

2,1%

-24,1%

11,7%

-26,1%

-6,9%

10,6%

-

-4,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-1,3%

-11,2%

-0,5%

6,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-8,7%

3,8%

-5,8%

-8,8%

-4,9%

3,7%

-14,5%

1,4%

-18,6%

-6,4%

36,8%

-19,3%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

613 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.3.1 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.3.2 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.3.3 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.3.4 High inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.3.5 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.3.6 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.3.7 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.3.8 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

99.3.9 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.3.10 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

99.3.11 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.4.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.4.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.4.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.4.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.4.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.4.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.4.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.4.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry 
cases

99.4.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.4.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative 
law cases

99.4.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.5.1 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.5.2 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.5.10 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

NA

15 664

15 880

13 713

13 784

14 413

4 228

4 246

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

6 869

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

6 990

2 596

7 200

2 136

6 387

5 672

5 671

6 086

2 299

1 837

2 283

2 173

NA

10 485

10 102

9 494

9 317

9 351

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

7 137

2 617

NA

4 143

4 055

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

4 033

1 908

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

3 552

1 585

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

3 392

1 618

NA

NA

NA

4 920

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

3 465

3 548

3 400

3 292

1 195

1 113

1 231

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

995

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,4%

-13,6%

0,5%

4,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,1%

3,0%

-11,3%

-11,2%

0,0%

7,3%

-0,8%

-17,7%

7,6%

-20,1%

24,3%

-4,8%

-

-2,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-3,7%

-6,0%

-1,9%

0,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-11,9%

-4,5%

2,2%

2,4%

-4,2%

-3,2%

-16,9%

2,1%

-26,1%

-6,9%

10,6%

-19,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

614 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 Supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.12.4 and 3.12.5 Variation of the supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

NA

NA

100,5%

103,1%

100,3%

101,3%

99,6%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

97,2%

102,1%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

108,8%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

100,1%

107,4%

106,6%

100,3%

97,7%

102,7%

106,2%

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

98,5%

114,2%

92,7%

122,5%

104,7%

95,1%

112,1%

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

358

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

206

266

NA

349

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

185

223

244

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

172

276

232

261

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

198

190

253

247

237

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

228

221

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

219

197

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

197

167

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5,01

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,66

(2,80)

1,05

(1,69)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7,32

(0,76)

(5,86)

(2,64)

5,12

3,44

15,96

(18,86)

32,24

(14,59)

(9,16)

17,92

-

-2,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-5,0%

8,8%

-2,4%

-4,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-10,1%

-7,3%

15,2%

15,3%

-4,2%

-9,8%

-16,3%

24,1%

-31,4%

16,6%

-11,0%

-15,1%

615 / 1555

         
        
         
        
         
         
        
        
        
         
         
       
      
       
      
        
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.14.1 to 3.14.5 First instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

094.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

094.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

094.2.1 Total -incoming

094.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

094.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

094.2.4 Other - incoming

094.3.1 Total - resolved

094.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

094.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

094.3.4 Other - resolved

094.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

094.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

094.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

094.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

NA

247 214

109 040

NA

NA

640 143

390 866

NA

1 166 493

628 662

381 932

155 899

NA

258 492

117 953

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

616 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.15.1 to 3.10.2 CR and DT for first instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

098.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

098.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

098.2.1 Total -incoming

098.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

098.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

098.2.4 Other - incoming

098.3.1 Total - resolved

098.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

098.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

098.3.4 Other - resolved

Table 3.16.1 to 3.16.5 Second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

NA

98,2%

97,7%

NA

NA

150

113

NA

NA

20 987

1 614

NA

NA

45 005

12 760

NA

58 412

45 169

13 118

125

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

617 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

098.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

098.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

098.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

098.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

NA

20 807

1 246

Table 3.17.1 to 3.17.2 CR and DT for second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

100,4%

102,8%

NA

NA

168

35

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

618 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.18.1 to 3.18.5 Supreme court criminal law cases (Q100)

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

100.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

100.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

100.2.1 Total -incoming

100.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

100.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

100.2.4 Other - incoming

100.3.1 Total - resolved

100.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

100.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

100.3.4 Other - resolved

100.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

100.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

100.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

100.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

784

NA

NA

NA

2 984

NA

NA

NA

3 110

NA

NA

NA

658

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

619 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.19.1 to 3.19.2 CR and DT for supreme court  criminal law cases (Q100)

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

104,2%

NA

NA

NA

77

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

620 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 5: Access to justice

Legal aid

Table 5.1 to Table 5.6 (Q12-2, Q16, Q18, Q19, Q20, Q20-1)

12-2.1.1 Coverage of court fees

12-2.1.2 Exemption from court fees

16.1.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (criminal cases)

16.1.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (criminal cases)

16.2.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (other than criminal 
cases)

16.2.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (other than criminal cases)

NAP

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

18.1.1 Legal aid for the enforcement of judicial decisions

19.1.1  Legal aid granted for other costs - criminal cases

19.1.2  Legal aid granted for other costs - other than criminal cases

020.1.1 Total

020.1.2 Total - criminal cases

020.1.3 Total - other than criminal cases

020.2.1 Total brought to court

020.2.2 Broight to court - criminal cases

020.2.3 Brought to court - other then criminal

020.3.1 Total not brought to court

020.3.2 Not broight to court - criminal cases

020.3.3 Not brought to court - other then criminal

020-1.1.1 Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulation

020-1.1.2 Average duration

NAP

True

True

True

True

NAP

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

NAP

True

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

433 536

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

621 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

System for compensating users

Table 5.7.1 and Table 5.7.2 (Q37)

037.1.1 Requests for compensation - Total

037.1.2 Requests for compensation - Excessive length of 
proceedings

037.1.3 Requests for compensation - Non-execution of court 
decisions

037.1.4 Requests for compensation - Wrongful arrest

037.1.5 Requests for compensation - Wrongful conviction

037.1.6 Requests for compensation - Other

037.2.1 Condemnations - Total

037.2.2 Condemnations - Excessive length of proceedings

037.2.3 Condemnations - Non-execution of court decisions

037.2.4 Condemnations - Wrongful arrest

037.2.5 Condemnations - Wrongful conviction

037.2.6 Condemnations - Other

037.3.1 Amount - Total

037.3.2 Amount - Excessive length of proceedings

037.3.3 Amount - Non-execution of court decisions

037.3.4 Amount - Wrongful arrest

037.3.5 Amount - Wrongful conviction

037.3.6 Amount - Other

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

622 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 6.1 to Table 6.11 (Q62-7, Q62-7-1, Q62-8,  Q62-8-1, Q63-1, Q63-1-1, Q63-2 Q63-6, Q63-7, Q63-7-1, Q64-2,  Q64-4, Q64-6, Q64-3, Q64-3-1, Q64-7, Q64-7-1, 
Q64-9)

Indicator 6: The ICT tools of courts and for court users

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

62-7 Writing assistance tools coordinated at national level

62-7-1.1 Deployment rate in civil matter

62-7-1.2 Deployment rate in criminal matter

62-7-1.3 Deployment rate in administrative matter

62-8 Voice recording tools

62-8-1.1.1 Availability of simple dictation tools in civil matter

62-8-1.1.2 Availability of simple dictation tools in criminal matter

62-8-1.1.3 Availability of simple dictation tools in administrative 
matter

62-8-1.2.1 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in civil 
matter

62-8-1.2.2 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in criminal 
matter

62-8-1.2.3 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in 
administrative matter

62-8-1.3.1 Availability of voice recognition in civil matter

62-8-1.3.2 Availability of voice recognition in criminal matter

62-8-1.3.3 Availability of voice recognition in administrative matter

062-9 Availability of intranet site within the judicial system for 
distribution of news/novelties

63.1 Is there a case management system? 

63.1-1.1 CMS for civil matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for criminal matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for administrative matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.2 CMS for civil matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for criminal matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for administrative matter (status of case onlinee)

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

in most of the 
courts

in most of the 
courts

in most of the 
courts

in most of the 
courts

in most of the 
courts

in most of the 
courts

in most of the 
courts
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases

in most of the 
courts
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases

in most of the 
courts
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

-

-

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

623 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63.1-1.3 CMS for civil matter (Centralised or interoperable database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for criminal matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for administrative matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.4 CMS for civil matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for criminal matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for administrative matter (Early warning signals)

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS civil matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS criminal matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS administrative matter

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - land registry

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - business registry

63-2.2 Data consolidated at national level for land registry

63-2.2  Data consolidated at national level for business registry

63-2.3 Service available online for land registry

63-2.3  Service available online for business registry

63-2.4 Statistical module integrated or connected for land registry

63-2.4  Statistical module integrated or connected for business 
registry

063-6.1.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (deployment 
rate)

063-6.1.2 Justice expenses management (deployment rate)

063-6.1.3 Other financial management tools (deployment rate)

063-6.2.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (Data 
consolidated at national level)

063-6.2.2 Justice expenses management (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.2.3 Other financial management tools (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.3.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (System 
communicating with other ministries)

063-6.3.2 Justice expenses management (System communicating 
with other ministries)

063-6.3.3 Other financial management tools (System communicating 
with other ministries)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

10-49%

10-49%

10-49%

NA

True

True

True

True

True

NA

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

NA

True

True

NA

True

True

NA

624 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63-7.1 Measurement tools to assess the workload

63-7-1.1.1 Deployment rate - workload of judges

63-7-1.1.2 Deployment rate - workload of prosecutors

63-7-1.1.3 Deployment rate - workload of non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.2.1 Monitoring on national level - judges

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - prosecutors

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.3.1 Monitoring on court level - judges

63-7-1.3.2 Monitoring on court level - prosecutors

63-7-1.3.3 Monitoring on court level - non-judge and non-prosecutor 
staff

064-2 - Possibility to submit a case to courts by electronic means

064-2 - Civil and/or commercial

064-2 - Criminal

064-2 - Administrative

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - civil

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - criminal

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory  - administrative

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - civil

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - criminal

064-2 - Specific legislative framework  - administrative

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - civil

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - criminal

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - administrative

True

True

True

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

625 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-3 - Is it possible to request for granting legal aid by electronic 
means? 

064-3-1.1 - Equipment rate

064-3-1.2 - Request in paper mandatory

064-3-1.3 - Specific legislative framework

064-3-1.4 - Granting LA is also electronic

064-3-1.5 - Information available in CMS

064-4 - Possibility to transmit summons to a judicial meeting or a 
hearing by electronic means

064-4-1.1.1 - Summons produced by CMS- civil

064-4-1.1.2 - Summons produced by CMS- criminal

064-4-1.1.3 - Summons produced by CMS- administrative

064-4-1.2.1 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- civil

064-4-1.2.2 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- criminal

064-4-1.2.3 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- administrative

064-4-1.3.1 - Consent of the user - civil

064-4-1.3.2 - Consent of the user - criminal

064-4-1.3.3 - Consent of the user - administrative

064-6.1.1 - Civil and/or commercial (deployment rate)

064-6.1.2 - Criminal (deployment rate)

064-6.1.3 - Administrative (deployment rate)

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

626 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-6.2.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.2 - Criminal (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.3 - Administrative (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.3.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Modalities)

064-6.3.2 - Criminal (Modalities)

064-6.3.3 - Administrative (Modalities)

064-6.4.1 - Civil and/or commercial (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.2 - Criminal (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.3 - Administrative (specific legal framework)

064-6.5.1 - Civil and/or commercial (availability for)

064-6.5.2 - Criminal (availability for)

064-6.5.3 - Administrative (availability for)

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer
Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer
Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

627 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-7.1.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (deployment rate)

064-7.1.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.2.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (Modalities)

064-7.2.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.3.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (specific legal framework)

064-7.32.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-7.3.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts (specific 
legal framework)

064-7.3.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-9 - Existance of online processing devices of specialised 
litigation

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

100%

100%

100%

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

628 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Indicator 7: Professionals of justice  (Indicator 9 in 2019)

Table 7.1.1 to 7.5.6 for judges, non judge staff, prosecutors, non prosecutor staff and salaries

46.1.1 Total Number of professional judges

19 832

19 323

19 323

19 282

19 867

20 069

20 323

20 570

20 793

4,8%

-2,6%

0,0%

-0,2%

3,0%

1,0%

1,3%

1,2%

1,1%

46.1.2 Number of 1st inst professional judges

14 861

14 840

14 840

14 833

15 385

15 587

15 827

16 042

16 207

9,1%

-0,1%

0,0%

0,0%

3,7%

1,3%

1,5%

1,4%

1,0%

46.1.3 Number of 2nd inst professional judges

4 056

4 024

4 024

3 993

4 018

4 018

4 039

4 071

4 125

1,7%

-0,8%

0,0%

-0,8%

0,6%

0,0%

0,5%

0,8%

1,3%

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

46.1.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges

46.2.1 Number of professional judges_males

46.2.2 Number of 1st instance professional judges_males

46.2.3 Number of 2nd instance professional judges_males

46.2.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges_males

46.3.1  Number of professional judges_females

46.3.2  Number of 1st inst professional judges_females

46.3.3  Number of 2nd inst professional judges_females

46.3.4  Number of Supreme court professional judges_females

046-2.1.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Total

046-2.2.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Civil and commercial

046-2.2.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.3.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Criminal

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

457

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

459

NA

NA

NA

348

NA

NA

NA

111

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

459

NA

NA

NA

348

NA

NA

NA

111

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

456

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

464

NA

NA

NA

328

NA

NA

NA

136

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

464

NA

NA

NA

328

NA

NA

NA

136

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

457

NA

NA

NA

310

NA

NA

NA

147

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

457

NA

NA

NA

310

NA

NA

NA

147

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

461

0,8%

0,4%

0,0%

-0,7%

1,8%

0,0%

-1,5%

0,0%

0,9%

NA

NA

NA

304

NA

NA

NA

157

20 793

16 207

4 125

461

NA

5 511

1 467

NA

NA

4 125

564

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-0,1%

-

-

-

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

-5,5%

0,0%

-1,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

8,1%

0,0%

6,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

629 / 1555

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

046-2.4.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - 
Administrative

046-2.4.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.5.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Other

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 305

1 909

345

52

NA

4 663

1 749

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 52.1.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in courts 

53 649

53 302

53 302

53 292

53 181

53 178

54 072

54 434

54 107

0,9%

-0,6%

0,0%

0,0%

-0,2%

0,0%

1,7%

0,7%

-0,6%

52.1.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)

8 461

8 482

8 482

8 564

8 720

8 565

8 860

8 771

8 642

2,1%

0,3%

0,0%

1,0%

1,8%

-1,8%

3,4%

-1,0%

-1,5%

52.1.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges

29 144

28 621

28 621

28 336

28 069

28 084

28 469

28 464

28 071

-3,7%

-1,8%

0,0%

-1,0%

-0,9%

0,1%

1,4%

0,0%

-1,4%

52.1.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks

52.1.5 Number of Technical staff

52.1.6 Number of Other non judge staff

52.2.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(men)

52.2.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(men)

52.2.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(men)

52.2.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(men)

52.2.5 Number of Technical staff(men)

52.2.6 Number of Other non judge staff(men)

52.3.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(women)

52.3.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(women)

52.3.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(women)

52.3.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(women)

52.3.5 Number of Technical staff(women)

52.3.6 Number of Other non judge staff(women)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

7 478

1 281

7 285

7 503

1 119

7 578

7 503

1 119

7 577

7 626

1 087

7 679

6 524

1 866

8 002

6 580

6 678

6 844

6 785

-9,3%

0,3%

0,0%

1,6%

-14,5%

0,9%

1,5%

2,5%

-0,9%

1 937

1 996

2 089

2 220

73,3%

-12,7%

0,0%

-2,9%

71,7%

3,8%

3,0%

4,7%

6,3%

8 012

8 069

8 266

8 389

15,2%

4,0%

0,0%

1,3%

4,2%

0,1%

0,7%

2,4%

1,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

630 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

052-1.1.1 Non-judge staff (Total)

052-1.1.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (total)

052-1.1.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (total)

052-1.1.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (total)

052-1.2.1 Non-judge staff  (Males)

052-1.2.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (males)

052-1.2.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (males)

052-1.2.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (males)

052-1.3.1 Non-judge staff  (females)

052-1.3.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (females)

052-1.3.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (females)

052-1.3.4 Non-judge staff  at supreme court (females)

055.1.1 Prosecutors (total)

055.1.2 Prosecutors (1st inst.)

055.1.3 Prosecutors (2nd inst.)

055.1.4 Prosecutors (Highest instance)

055.2.1 Prosecutors - Males -total

055.2.2 Prosecutors - Males, 1st inst.

055.2.3 Prosecutors - Males, 2nd inst.

055.2.4 Prosecutors - Males, Supreme courts

055.3.1 Prosecutors - Females, Total

055.3.2 Prosecutors - Females, 1st inst.

055.3.3 Prosecutors - Females, 2nd inst.

055.3.4 Prosecutors - Females, Supreme courts

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

6 197

5 562

492

143

3 062

2 667

308

87

3 135

2 895

184

56

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

631 / 1555

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

060.1.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Total

060.2.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Males

060.3.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Females

004 Annual average salary in the country

132.1.1 Gross annual salary, in €  - Professional judge at the 
beginning of career

132.1.2 Gross annual salary, in €  - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.1.3 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor at the beginning 
of career

132.1.4 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

132.2.1 Net annual salary, in € - Professional judge at the beginning 
of career

132.2.2 Net annual salary, in € - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.2.3 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor at the beginning of 
career

132.2.4 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

133.1.1.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Reduced taxation

133.1.2.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Special pension

133.1.3.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Housing

133.1.4.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Other financial benefit

133.2.1.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Reduced taxation

133.2.2.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Special pension

133.2.3.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Housing

133.2.4.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Other financial benefit

12 204

3 143

9 061

56 580 €

52 928 €

90 670 €

52 928 €

90 670 €

40 117 €

61 253 €

40 117 €

61 253 €

False

True

False

True

False

True

False

True

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

632 / 1555

         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

144.1.1 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - Total number (1+2+3+4)

144.1.2 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 1. Breach of professional 
ethics 

144.1.3 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.1.4 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 3. Criminal offence 

144.1.5 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 4. Other

144.2.1 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - Total number 
(1+2+3+4)

144.2.2 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 1. Breach of 
professional ethics 

144.2.3 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.2.4 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 3. Criminal offence

144.2.5 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 4. Other 

145.1.1 Sanctions against Judges - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.1.2 Sanctions against Judges - 1. Reprimand

145.1.3 Sanctions against Judges - 2. Suspension

145.1.4 Sanctions against Judges - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.1.5 Sanctions against Judges - 4. Fine

145.1.6 Sanctions against Judges - 5. Temporary reduction of salary

145.1.7 Sanctions against Judges - 6. Position downgrade

145.1.8 Sanctions against Judges - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.1.9 Sanctions against Judges - 8. Resignation

145.1.10 Sanctions against  Judges - 9. Other

145.1.11 Sanctions against  Judges - 10. Dismissal

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

3

15

11

1

NA

2

1

9

0

NA

13

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

1

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

633 / 1555

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

145.2.1 Sanctions against Prosecutors - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.2.2 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 1. Reprimand

145.2.3 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 2. Suspension

145.2.4 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.2.5 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 4. Fine

145.2.6 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 5. Temporary reduction of 
salary

145.2.7 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 6. Position downgrade

145.2.8 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.2.9 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 8. Resignation

145.2.10 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 9. Other

145.2.11 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 10. Dismissal

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

NA

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lawyers

Tables 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.7 and 7.8

146.1.1 Total number of lawyers practising

160 880

162 695

163 513

163 772

164 393

164 656

165 104

165 901

165 680

3,0%

1,1%

0,5%

0,2%

0,4%

0,2%

0,3%

0,5%

-0,1%

146.2.1 Practicing lawyers - man

146.3.1 Practicing lawyers - woman

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

107 105

106 899

106 214

57 999

59 002

59 466

147 Does this figure include “legal advisors” who cannot represent 
their clients in court (for example, some solicitors or in-house 
counsellors)? 

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-0,2%

-0,6%

1,7%

0,8%

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

634 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Germany (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 8: The existence and use of alternative dispute resolution methods

Table 8.1 8.2 and 8.3

166 Number of accredited or registered mediators who practice 
judicial mediation: 

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

167.1.1 Total number started

167. 1.2 Civil and commercial cases(cid:9) - started

167. 1.2 Family cases - started

167.1.4 Administrative cases - started

167.1.5 Labour cases including employment dismissal cases - started

167.1.6. Criminal cases - started

167.1.7 Consumer cases - started

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Key: Variation of more than (+ -) 20% 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

635 / 1555

Judiciary at a glance in Greece

General data

Population:

10 718 565

GDP per capita: 15 424 €

Average annual 

salary:

NA

Professionals

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Greece

Greece

EU Median

EU Median

Professional judges

Professional judges

26,89

23,92

26,89

23,92

Non-judge staff

39,17

59,00

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

6,95

9,91

15,22

15,22

39,17

59,00

6,95

9,91

15,22

15,22

Professional judges and non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants, 
and their ratio

EU median

Greece

Professional judges 36,02

Professional judges

23,92

59,00

3,30

Non-judge staff

Non-judge staff

[CELLRANGE]

39,17
39,17

Non-judge staff per
judge

Non-judge staff per judge1,09

1,09

59,00

23,92

3,30

Lawyers

Lawyers

416,05

122,09

122,09

416,05

Greece

EU median

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

Efficiency

Supreme Court
Supreme 
Court

NA

118,3%

1st instance

2nd instance

1st instance 2nd instance

100%

,

%
8
2
6
1

Civil and
commercial
Administrativ
e
cases
Total 
criminal law 
cases

NA

%
1
8
9

,

NA

NA

,

%
3
8
1
1

162,8%

,

%
9
8
0
1

98,1%

108,9% NA

A
N

A
N

Administrative
cases

Total criminal law cases

1
1

1

1
1

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance 2nd instance Supreme Court

599

NA

NA

1107

Civil and commercial litigious cases
Administrative cases 551
1107

NA

NA

Total criminal law cases

NA

NA

599

551

Administrative cases

Information and communication technology

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

Assistance toolsCase management system
2018

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the workload
2019

Electronic communication

EU Median 2020

2020

2018
2019
2020

0,22
0,81
0,81

EU Median 2020

2,00

4,00

4,00

4,00
4,00
3,94

3,94
5,17

2,00
2,00
1,00

5,17

1,25
1,25
1,25

4,07
4,07
4,60

1,25

2,50

6,94

2,00

2,00

2,00

1,25

1,00

1,25

1,25

1,25

2,50

0,81

0,81

0,22

6,94

4,60

4,07

4,07

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

*ICT calculations are described in more details in Annex 5 - IT Calculation methodology

636

2020

Synthesis table for the main indicators for:

Greece

Economic and demographic data

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Variations

Population

GDP per capita

11 062 508

11 062 508

10 846 979

10 858 018

10 783 748

10 768 193

10 741 165

10 724 599

10 718 565

-3,1%

17 161

NA

16 250

16 181

16 154

16 736

16 736

16 736

15 424

-10,1%

Exchange rate (local currency needed to 
obtain 1€)

Average annual salary

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

16 243

16 243

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

-0,6%

-0,6%

NAP

0,0%

-0,4%

-0,3%

-0,2%

3,6%

NAP

NA

0,0%

0,0%

NAP NAP

NA NA

NAP

NA

-0,1%

-7,8%

Resources

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Professional judges per 100 000 inhab.

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhab.

23,3

48,2

35,0

48,6

20,6

50,5

20,3

51,3

25,8

39,3

26,6

38,5

26,8

38,9

26,9

39,9

36,0

39,2

54,8%

25,3%

3,8%

-18,7%

-22,2%

-1,0%

Lawyers per 100 000 inh.

380,7

381,3

387,7

388,9

390,3

389,1

399,9

396,3

416,1

Mediators

NA

NA

NA

NA

15,4

16,8

15,5

4,1

23,8

4,3

NA

4,1

9,3%

NA

0,7%

NA

2,4%

0,4%

0,7%

1,1%

2,8%

0,5%

2,7%

-0,9%

34,0%

-2,0%

5,0%

-7,7%

53,6%

NA

5,1%

-4,4%

ICT overall assesment

First instance incoming cases per 100 
inhab.

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Civil and commercial litigious cases

5,834

6,227

2,226

2,119

1,359

1,861

1,987

1,924

NA

NA

-38,9%

46,2%

6,8%

-3,2%

Administrative law cases

0,581

0,6

NA

0,501

0,500

0,558

0,562

NA

0,421

-27,5%

NA

12,3%

0,6%

NA

NA

NA

Total criminal law cases

NA

First instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

58%

80%

113%

102%

99%

96%

86%

86%

NA

NA

-14,02

-12,82

CR administrative law cases

143%

153%

NA

183%

148%

166%

164%

NA

163%

19,60

NA

15,42

-9,78

-2,49

-0,10

NA

NA

NA

CR total criminal law cases

NA

First instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
cases (days)

469

407

DT administrative law cases (days)

1 520

1 148

330

NA

378

964

610

1 086

479

735

559

601

637

NA

NA

84,9%

-8,3%

16,7%

13,9%

NA

551

-63,7%

NA

-44,6%

-18,2%

NA

NA

NA

DT total criminal law cases (days)

NA

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

4,32

3,47

5,56

3,12

2,28

NA

2,23

2,43

2,25

2,20

2,35

1,87

2,63

1,51

2,89

NA

NA

-1,1%

16,7%

12,0%

10,1%

-70,1%

NA

-31,3%

-18,9%

NA

NA

NA

NA

1,04

NA

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

102%

93%

75%

113%

97%

101%

NA

122%

107%

138%

114%

NA

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

-27,32

22,24

-15,75

NA

6,93

-23,52

4,21

NA

NA

NA

NA

98%

109%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

509

NA

588

683

1 149

915

640

509

662

564

638

NA

126,0%

-42,4%

3,5%

-3,6%

NA

599

NA

-38,4%

10,7%

NA

NA

NA

NA

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

119%

95%

95%

NA

130%

133%

107%

107%

118%

NA

NA

NA

-24,09

-23,51

-26,87

-0,73

0,35

NA

11,35

NA

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

279

331

352

NA

893

1 014

1 265

1 283

1 107

NA

NA

NA

18,6%

6,2%

NA

41,6%

24,7%

1,5%

-13,7%

NA

First instance pending cases per 100 
inhab. on 31 dec.

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

 Supreme court 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Supreme court
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

637 / 1555

1. Judicial organisation in Greece

Greece has 259 first instance courts of general jurisdiction (196 Local and District Criminal Courts and 63 Courts of First Instance). There are 19 second instance courts of 
general jurisdiction and the Supreme Court as the highest court of general jurisdiction (Areios Pagos). The accurate number of first instance specialized courts 
encompassing administrative courts, military courts and other courts is not available. However, it is reported that administrative courts include 30 first instance courts, 9 
second instance courts and 1 Supreme Court( the Council of State) that is considered as one of three supreme courts in Greece.
The higher instance other specialized courts is the Court of Auditors that is also considered as one of three supreme courts in Greece.
There are in total 320 courts as geographic locations. 

Distribution of general courts in Greece

Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Greece - 1st instance

EU Median - 1st instance

Greece - Higher instances

GreeceDistribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

EU Median - Higher instances

According to 2020 data, the distribution between 1st instance and higher instances courts of 
general jurisdiction in Greece is somewhat different from the EU median of 87% - 13%.

Greece - 1st instanceGreece - Higher instances

General courts - Greece

General courts - Greece
EU Median

93%
87%

7%
13%

93%

7%

EU Median

87%

13%

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Greece

Geographic 
locations

402

NA

329

329

319

319

319

319

320

Legal entities

General jurisdiction

402

NA

298

298

289

289

289

289

259

Specialised 
jurisdiction

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Greece
Geographic locations

Legal entities

General jurisdiction

Specialised jurisdiction

402

329

329

319

319

319

319

Geographic locations

402 NAP

Legal entities General jurisdiction

NA

298 NA

298 NA

289 NA

289 NA

289 NA

289 NA

2014

2015

2016

320

2017

2018

259 NA

2019

2020

Specialised courts
Total

Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

Insolvency courts

Labour courts

Family courts

Rent and tenancies courts

Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

Internet related disputes

Administrative courts

Insurance and / or social welfare courts

Military courts

Juvenile courts

Other specialised 1st instance courts

First instance

Higher instance

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

30

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

10

NAP

NAP

1

In Greece, there are no special courts for the fields of law described in the question 43, besides those already mentioned. The Greek Constitution is reluctant to provide 
specialised courts in the Greek legal system. Instead, within the Courts of First Instance and Courts of Appeal of large cities, there are special Chambers,  tasked with 
adjudicating in special categories of law (e.g. family law, commercial law, etc.). Judges entrusted with such duties have usually the correspondent specific studies. As far as 
other special courts are concerned, special provisions regulate the operation of courts for juveniles, military, navy and air force courts.  The military, navy and air force 
courts are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of National Defence, and no further information could have been provided for them. Juvenile courts are part of the Courts of 
First Instance and do not represent separate legal entities, hence they are not reported as separate courts in accordance with the CEPEJ methodology. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

638 / 1555

2. Professionals of justice in Greece

● Professional judges and non-judge staff

Evolution of the number of professional judges since 2012 (Q46)

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Absolute 
number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

2 574

3 877

2 231

2 206

2 780

2 861

2 874

2 884

3 861

23,27

35,05

20,57

20,32

25,78

26,57

26,76

26,89

36,02

EU median

23,9

Professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants

35,05

36,02

23,27

20,57

20,32

25,78

26,57

26,76

26,89

23,9

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

According to 2020 data, the total number of professional judges sitting in courts (all instances) in Greece is 3 861, which is 33,9% more than in previous cycle. 

More precisely, in Greece, there are 36,02 professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants (this figure is above the EU median of 23,92 judges per 100 000 inhabitants) and about 1,09 non-
judge staff per judge.

There is no significant difference compared with previous cycle when this ratio was at 1,49 non-judge staff per judge.

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and gender

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

2 676

934

251

3 861

Distribution by 
instance

69,3%

24,2%

6,5%

Male

Female

% Male

% Female

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Distribution of professional judges by instance

Greece

EU Median

69,3%

72,39%

EU Median

72,39%

23,98%

4,03%

24,2%

23,98%

6,5%

4,03%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

In this cycle, the total number of female professional judges (all instances) is NA, and consequently the percentage in the total number of judges cannot be calculated.

The total number of judges is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 2 676 are sitting in first instance courts; 934 are sitting in second instance courts and 
251 are sitting in Supreme Court.  

Compared with the EU distribution of professional judges per instance, Greece follows similar trends but with slightly less judges in the first instance courts and a bit more judges in the 
second instance and Supreme courts' levels. 

As regards the methodology of presentation of data in respect of the number of judges, it should be noticed that the methodology of replying changed which caused differences in 
numbers compared to the previous years.

As regards the distribution of the number of judges among the different judicial instances, Greece presents some peculiarities which should be mentioned: the number of first instance 
professional judges includes 593 first-instance administrative judges, 1167 first instance judges and 916 judges of local courts and District Criminal Courts; the Number of second 
instance (court of appeal) professional judges encompasses 336 second-instance administrative judges and 598 second instance judges; the Number of Supreme Court professional 
judges includes 170 administrative judges of Council of State, 5 of the General Committee of the Ordinary and Administrative Courts, 76 judges of Areios Pagos(Supreme Court).

As regards the distribution male/female, it has to be specified that gender statistics are not kept, and that is the reason why number of male/female professional judges appear as NA.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

639 / 1555

Non-judge staff

Year

2012

Number of non-judge staff

5 327

Per 100 000 inhabitants

48,15

2013

5 376

48,60

2014

5 474

50,47

2015

5 572

51,32

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants

48,15

48,60

50,47

51,32

39,28

38,49

38,91

39,95

39,17

2016

4 236

39,28

59,00

2017

4 145

38,49

2018

4 179

38,91

2020

Total

Rechtspfleger

Non-judge staff assisting the judge

Staff in charge of administrative tasks

Technical staff

2019

4 284

39,95

Absolute 
number

4 198

NAP

NA

NA

NA

E
U 
m

2020

4 198

39,17

in %

NAP

NA

NA

NA

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

Other

NAP

NAP

In 2020, Greece has 4 198 non-judge staff (of which 3 065 are females). The total number of non-judge staff in comparison with the previous cycle reveals a decrease of -2,0%.

The non-judge staff could not be divided into the listed subcategories. 

In 2020, the number of non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants has decreased (from 39,9 in 2019 to 39,2 in 2020).

During the same period, the number of judges per 100 000 inhabitants evolves from 26,9 judges per 100 000 inhabitants in 2019 to 36,0 in 2020.

It should be noted that above figures of non-judge staff include civil servants, permanent and those with a private law relationship of indefinite duration.

Professional judges, non-judge staff and their ratio (Q46, Q52)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Greece

EU median

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

36,02

39,17

Non-judge staff per judge

1,09

23,92

59,00

3,30

Professional judges and non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Non-judge staff per judge

36,02

39,17

1,09

Greece

59,00

3,30

23,92

EU median

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff  (Q46, Q52)

Judges 
per 100 000 inh.

Non-judge staff per
100 000 inh.

Ratio between professional judges and 
non-judge staff

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff 
Non-judge staff per 100 000 inh.
(Q46, Q52)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

23,27

35,05

20,57

20,32

25,78

26,57

26,76

26,89

36,02

48,15

48,60

50,47

51,32

39,28

38,49

38,91

39,95

39,17

EU median 2020

3,30

2,07

1,39

2,45

2,53

1,52

1,45

1,45

1,49

1,09

2,45

2,07

1,39

2012

2013

2014

2,07
1,39
2,45
2,53
1,52
1,45
1,45
1,49
1,09

2,53

1,52

1,45

1,45

1,49

1,09

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

640 / 1555

● Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff

Absolute number of public prosecutors by instance and gender (Q55)

2020

Total

Distribution by 
instance

Male

Female

Male

Female

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

524

196

25

745

70,3%

26,3%

3,4%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance

Greece

EU Median

70,3%

EU Median

73,30%

73,30%

21,28%
26,3%

4,66%

21,28%

3,4%

4,66%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

In this cycle, the total number of female prosecutors (all instances) is NA, and consequently the percentage in the total number of prosecutors cannot be calculated.

The total number of prosecutors is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 524 in first instance; 196 are in second instance and 25 in final instance.  

As regards the methodology of presentation of data in respect of the number of prosecutors, it should be noticed that the number of positions have been increased by law compared to 
previous years.

As regards the distribution male/female, it has to be specified that gender data are not kept and  that is the reason why number of male/female public prosecutors appear as NA.

Non-prosecutor staff by gender (Q60)

Non-prosecutor staff

2020

Total

1 631

Male

467

Female

1 164

Non-prosecutor staff by gender

29%

Male

Female

71%

Public prosecutors, non-prosecutor staff and their ratio (Q55, Q60)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Greece

EU median

Public prosecutors

6,95

Non-prosecutor staff

15,22

Non-prosecutor staff per 
prosecutor

2,19

9,91

15,22

1,11

Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

15,22

15,22

Public prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per prosecutor

2,19

6,95

9,91

1,11

Greece

EU median

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

641 / 1555

● Salaries of professional judges and prosecutors at beginning of a career and at the highest instance (Q132, Q4)

Salaries of professional judges and 
prosecutors (Q132, Q4)

Average gross annual 
salary 
in €

Average net annual 
salary 
in €

Ratio with national 
average annual 
gross salary

Judge at the beginning of a career 

31 710 €

22 795 €

Judge of the highest court 

87 247 €

49 749 €

Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

31 710 €

22 795 €

Public prosecutor at highest instance

87 247 €

49 749 €

EU Median

2,02

4,09

1,71

3,61

NA

NA

NA

NA

Salaries of 
judges and 
prosecutors in 
Judge

at the beginning 
of a career

at the highest 
instance

Prosecutor

at the beginning 
of a career

at the highest 
instance

31710

87247

31710

87247

According to 2020 data, the absolute gross salary of a judge at the beginning of a career in Greece of 31 710€ is somewhat below when compared to the EU median of 51 946€. As a 
ratio with the annual average salary of the country, the salary for a judge at the beginning of career could not be calculated, as Greece has not provided the national average annual gross 
salary. 

● Lawyers

Lawyers

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

Number of lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

42 113

42 177

42 052

42 226

42 091

41 903

42 949

42 500

44 595

380,68

381,26

387,68

388,89

390,32

389,14

399,85

396,29

416,05

EU median 2020

122,09

In 2020, there are 44 595 lawyers, which is 4,9% more than in 2019.

380,68

381,26

387,68

388,89

390,32

389,14

399,85

396,29

416,05

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

122,09

EU median
2020

Greece has 416,1 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants, which is well above the EU median of 122,1 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

642 / 1555

● Judicial professionals (summary)

Judicial professionals in absolute number and per 100 000 inhabitants (Q46, Q52, Q55, Q60, Q146)

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

EU Median

Professional judges

2 884

26,89

Non-judge staff

4 198

39,17

Prosecutors

745

6,95

23,92

59,00

9,91

Non-prosecutor staff

1 631

15,22

15,22

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Greece

EU Median

416,05

26,89

23,92

59,00

39,17

6,95

9,91

15,22

15,22

122,09

Lawyers

44 595

416,05

122,09

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

Greece % Male

Greece % Male Greece % Femalelabels

Greece % Female

% Male

% Female

Non judge staff

27,0%

-39,0%

61,0%

39,0%

Professional judges #VALUE!

EU Median  % Male

NA

EU Median  % Female

#VALUE!

Professional judges

NA

NA

Non judge staff

27,0%

73,0%

Prosecutors

NA

NA

24,0%

0,0%

Non judge staff

-27,0%

73,0%

27,0%

Non-prosecutor staff

28,6%

71,4%

Non-prosecutor staff

-24,0%

76,0%

24,0%

0,0%

28,6%

28,1%

73,0%

76,0%

71,4%

71,9%

Lawyers

41,0%

59,0%

Prosecutors

#VALUE!

NA

#VALUE!

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

41,0%

Lawyers

52,3%

-40,5%

-28,6%
-28,1%

-41,0%
-52,3%

59,5%

71,4%
71,9%

59,0%
47,7%

40,5%
0,0%
28,6%
28,1%
0,0%
41,0%
52,3%

59,0%

47,7%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

643 / 1555

3. Legal aid and court fees in Greece

1

1

In Greece, legal aid includes:

◦ Coverage of court fees: 

◦ Exemption from court fees: 

In Greece, legal aid is available for :

> Representation in court:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

> Legal advice, ADR and other legal services:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

>

Fees related to enforcement of judicial decisions as fees for enforcement agents (Q18) 

>

 Other costs than above (Q19) 

1

1

1

1

1

1

 Number of cases for which legal aid has been granted

The data on the number of cases for which legal aid has been granted is not available because only a part of the courts was able to provide them, so the full information 
could not have been obtained. 

Timeframes of the procedure for granting legal aid (in relation to the duration from the initial legal aid request to the final approval of the legal aid request)

◦ Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulations: 

◦ Actual average duration: 

15

3

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

644 / 1555

4. Performance of courts in Greece

● Efficiency indicators

◦ Clearance Rate (CR) and Disposition Time (DT)

The Clearance Rate shows the capacity of a judicial system to deal with the incoming cases. A Clearance Rate of 100% and higher does not generate backlog. 

The Disposition Time determines the estimated number of days necessary for a pending case to be solved in a court. 

First instance Total of other than criminal cases

The data for other than criminal cases is not available, as in previous cycles. 

The Clearance Rate and Disposition Time cannot be calculated due to unavailability of data.

First instance Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

3
2
6

,

6
5
5

,

9
9
4

,

3
8
5

,

2
3
4

,

7
3
3

,

Evolution of number of civil and commercial litigious cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

2
5
2

,

8
2
2

,

3
2
2

,

2
1
2

,

5
1
2

,

3
2
2

,

5
2
2

,

5
3
2

,

6
8
1

,

9
7
1

,

6
3
1

,

5
3
1

,

3
6
2

,

9
9
1

,

1
7
1

,

2
9
1

,

6
6
1

,

5,83
6,23
2,23
2,12
1,36
1,86
1,99
1,92
NA
1,56

9
8
2

,

3,37
4,99
2,52
2,15
1,35
1,79
1,71
1,66
NA
1,50

4,32
5,56
2,28
2,23
2,25
2,35
2,63
2,89
NA
1,05

6
5
1

,

0
5
1

,

5
0
1

,

A
N

A
N

A
N

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU Median

The data for incoming cases for Greece is not available.

The data for resolved cases for Greece is not available.

The data for pending cases for Greece is not available.

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

57,7%

80,1%

113,1%

101,7%

99,1%

96,0%

86,3%

86,2%

NA

469

407

330

378

610

479

559

637

NA

EU Median

98%

221

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

113,1%

DT (days)

CR (%)

101,7%

99,1%

96,0%

86,3%

86,2%

98%

80,1%

57,7%

469

2012

407

2013

330

2014

378

2015

610

2016

479

2017

559

2018

637

2019

NA

221

2020

EU Median

The Clearance Rate of the civil and commercial litigious cases cannot be calculated for 2020 due to unavailability of data.

The Disposition Time of the civil and commercial litigious cases cannot be calculated for 2020 due to unavailability of data.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

645 / 1555

First instance Administrative cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of administrative cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

7
4
3

,

2
1
3

,

3
4
2

,

0
2
2

,

3
8
0

,

8
5
0

,

9
9
0

,

5
6
0

,

2
9
0

,

0
5
0

,

4
7
0

,

0
5
0

,

3
9
0

,

6
5
0

,

A
N

A
N

A
N

7
8
1

,

1
5
1

,

2
9
0

,

6
5
0

,

0,58
0,65
NA
0,50
0,50
0,56
0,56
NA
0,42
0,30

9
6
0

,

2
4
0

,

A
N

A
N

A
N

0,83
0,99
NA
0,92
0,74
0,93
0,92
NA
0,69
0,26

4
0
1

,

3,47
3,12
NA
2,43
2,20
1,87
1,51
NA
1,04
0,21

0
3
0

,

6
2
0

,

1
2
0

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU Median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Greece (0,42 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat above EU median (0,30 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Greece (0,69 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (0,26 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Greece (1,04 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (0,21 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Administrative cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

143,2%

153,4%

NA

183,4%

148,1%

166,0%

163,5%

NA

162,8%

1520

1148

NA

964

1086

735

601

NA

551

EU Median

100%

388

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Administrative cases

143,2%

153,4%

183,4%

148,1%

166,0%

163,5%

162,8%

DT (days)

CR (%)

100%

1520

2012

1148

2013

NA

2014

964

2015

1086

2016

735

2017

601

2018

NA

2019

551

388

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 162,8% in 2020, Greece seems to deal efficiently with its administrative cases.

However, the administrative cases were solved in approximately 551 days in 2020, which is somewhat above EU median of 388 days.

The number of administrative law cases older than 2 years is not available.

Due to Covid-19 pandemic, from March 2020 the courts operated under special conditions and were giving priority mainly to criminal cases. This is the reason for the 
differentiation of pending cases of civil and administrative nature. 
Civil cases are answered NA, because not all courts were able to provide this data.

Insolvency cases

The data for insolvency cases is not available, because not all courts were able to provide this data. 

The Clearance Rate and Disposition Time cannot be calculated due to unavailability of data.

● First instance Criminal Law Cases

The data for first instance criminal cases is not available.  

The Clearance Rate and Disposition Time cannot be calculated due to unavailability of data.

A brief overview of the national criminal procedure might partly explain reasons for lack of data on the number of first instance criminal cases. The criminal cases are filed 
for admission in the Public Prosecutor’s Office, where they are further investigated. If a prosecution is initiated, the cases are discussed in courts. The Court of First 
Instance or the Court of Appeal discusses and issues a judgment on each case brought before the court. The decision can then either postpone the case (whereby the 
case is forwarded to the competent Prosecutor's Office for further processing), or convict/ acquit the defendants. When the case is forwarded to the competent 
Prosecutor's Office (after a postponement), it is uncertain if and when it will go back to the court for discussion. Criminal cases cannot be tracked down throughout the 
different stages of the criminal procedure at present. With the Integrated Civil and Criminal Court Case Management System (ΟSDDY-PP) currently being implemented 
in some courts, Greece might be able to extract the relevant data in the future. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

646 / 1555

Overall efficiency by instance and by case matter

CR (%)

DT (days)

CR (%)

DT (days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases

NA

NA

NA

Administrative cases

162,8%

98,1%

118,3%

Total criminal law cases

NA

108,9%

NA

NA

551

NA

NA

599

NA

NA

1107

NA

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)
2nd instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court
Supreme Court

1st instance

1st instance
%
8
2
6
1

,

NA

100%

Civil and
commercial
Administrative
cases

,

%
3
8
1
1

%
1
162,8%
8
9

,

NA

,

%
9
8
0
1

98,1%

NA

118,3%

Total criminal law cases

A
N

A
N

Administrative
cases

NA

Total criminal law cases

108,9% NA

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1

1

1

1
1

1107

599

551

Administrative cases

As regards the overall efficiency in Greece, the situation cannot be assessed due to unavailability of case flow data for most of the categories of cases. Apparently, 
only some courts are able to retrieve data on the number of cases but not all of them, which makes gathered information incomplete, hence most of the data are NA in 
this cycle. This is a point of concern and actions should be taken to improve the situation regarding courts' statistics. 

From the available data on administrative cases, it could be concluded that in spite of very high clearance rates (with the first instance reporting notably high level of 
162,8%), the DT levels are not as favourable since they are higher than EU medians in all three instances. This implies existence of large backlogs in administrative 
courts. The most problematic seems to be the situation in the third instance where DT at the level of 1107 is much higher than EU median of 281 days.  

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

647 / 1555

5. Public prosecution services in Greece

● Role and powers of the public prosecutor

In the criminal procedure, the public prosecutor in Greece has the following 10 out of 11 possible roles and powers:

To conduct or supervise police investigation

To appeal

To conduct investigations

To supervise the enforcement procedure

When necessary, to request investigation measures from the judge

To discontinue a case without needing a decision by a judge

To charge

To present the case in the court

To propose a sentence to the judge

The public prosecutor also has a role in  civil cases.

To end the case by imposing or negotiating a penalty or measure 
without requiring a judicial decision

Other significant powers

Regarding competences of the public prosecutors in Greece, it should be pointed out that it is within the competence of the prosecutor to conduct investigations with the 
assistance of the police. Regarding other roles, they can adopt temporary measures with regard to cases which concern the possession of real estate, when one of the litigants is 
the State or a public corporation or a municipality. Furthermore, they ensure the supervision and the control of correctional facilities. Public prosecuotrs also have some roles in 
family law (child custody), involuntary hospitalization / Family law (child custody), involuntary psychiatric hospitalization.

● Public prosecutors: Number of first instance criminal cases

The data for public prosecutors' first instance criminal cases is not available.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

648 / 1555

6. Existence and use of alternative dispute resolution in Greece

Number of mediators

Mediators

Total

Per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NA

NA

NA

NA

1665

1809

1665

2553

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

15,4

16,8

15,5

23,8

NA

EU Median 2020

EU median in 2019

14,4

EU Median
2020

2020

NA

2019

2018

2017

2016

The data for the number of mediators is not available for 2020.

Number of court related mediations

The data for the number of court related mediations is not available, as in previous cycles.

Number of mediators per 100 000 inhabitants

14,4

23,8

15,5

15,4

16,8

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

649 / 1555

7. ICT tools of courts in Greece

●The ICT tools of courts and for court users

The use of ICT in courts in 2020 has been evaluated as  :

EU Median

Total 
(0 to 10)

Assistance tools (0 to 3)

Case management system (0 to 7)
Financial management tools (0 to 3)

Measurement tools to assess the workload (0 to 5)
Electronic communication (0 to 10)

4,1
0,8

3,9

1,0
1,3

4,6

6,6
2,0

5,2

1,3
2,5

6,9

The calculation of this values for each field is based on the answers for that question/s and weighted according the avaiability 
or deployment rate. The total value is normalised to max 10 points for readability and comparison.

The details of the calculation are given in Annex 5 - IT calculations

The result by area may be summarized in these graphics, where each field has been evaluated from 0 to 4 points.

Note: index is modified based on the available questions. This cycle the recalculation was made for the last three cycles to be 
able to follow the development.

Assistance 
tools

Year
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
EU Median 20202,00

0,81

0,22

0,81

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

2018

2019

2020

EU Median 2020

Case 
management 
system

Financial 
management 
tools

Measurement 
tools to assess 
the workload

Electronic 
communication

5,17

4,00

4,00

3,94

2,00

4,00

4,00
2,00

3,94

1,00

1,25

1,25

1,25

4,07

4,07

4,60

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

2,00

2,00

2,00

6,94

4,60

4,07

4,07

2,50

0,81

0,81

0,22

1,25

1,00

1,25

1,25

1,25

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

Concerning availability of decisions online, it should be noted that some decisions of certain courts are published on the internet (e.g. Areios 
Pagos, Piraeus Court of First Instance, etc.).

Regarding relevant evolutions in the area of electronic means used in courts, it is reported that simultaneous submission of cases in paper 
form is not mandatory anymore due to recent changes in legislation. Also, the email communications between courts and lawyers and/or 
parties is now allowed by the special legislation for the use of information and Communication Technologies due to COVID pandemic.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

650 / 1555

8. Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and public prosecution services in Greece

In Greece, quality standards are determined for the judicial system at national level (e.g. quality systems for the judiciary and/or judicial quality policies). Specialised personnel 
within the courts and the public prosecution services is entrusted with implementation of these national level quality standards.

Quality standards are set by the Code of Organization of Courts and Status of Judicial Officers (Law 1756/1988). 

● Systems for measuring and evaluating courts' performance

A regular monitoring system of court activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

According to Law 1756/1988 (art. 85), supreme judges appointed as inspectors for one year’s term, redact every year general reports on the operation of each court and 
prosecutor's office in their district and recommend the necessary measures for the proper functioning of the service. Regarding administrative courts, this task is fulfilled by the 
General Commission of the State for ordinary administrative courts.

In Greece, there is a system to regularly evaluate the court performance based primarily on defined indicators and the frequency of the reporting is annual.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each court.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

The evaluation of the courts' activities is not used for the later allocation of means in the courts.

● Systems for measuring and evaluating public prosecution services' performance

A regular monitoring system of public prosecution services activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases 

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs 

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecution) 

Costs of the judicial procedures 

Clearance rate 

Disposition time 

Percentage of convictions and aquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

In Greece, there is a system to evaluate regularly the activity of each public prosecution service and the frequency of the reporting is annual.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each public prosecution service.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecutors)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Percentage of convictions and acquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff

The evaluation of the public prosecution services' activities is not used for the later allocation of means in the public prosecution services.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

651 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table General Data: Economic and demographic data, in absolute values (Q1, Q3, Q5)

Q1 Number of inhabitants

11 062 508

11 062 508

10 846 979

10 858 018

10 783 748

10 768 193

10 741 165

10 724 599

10 718 565

-3,1%

0,0%

-1,9%

0,1%

-0,7%

-0,1%

-0,3%

-0,2%

-0,1%

Q.3 GDP Per capita (in €) in current prices

17 161

NA

16 250

16 181

16 154

16 736

16 736

16 736

15 424

-10,1%

Q5. Exchange rate of Nat currency to € on 1 Jan

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-0,4%

-0,2%

3,6%

0,0%

0,0%

-7,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 1: Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and prosecution services  (Indicator 4 in 2019)

Table 1.1 to Table 1.10 (Q66, Q67, Q77, Q78, Q77-1, Q78-1, Q73, Q73-0, Q73-1, Q73-2, Q73-3, Q73-4, Q73-5, Q73-6, Q70, Q70-1, Q71, Q72, Q83-2, Q83-3, Q120 
and Q120-1)

66 Qlty standards formulated_jud system

67 Specialised court staff entrusted_qlty standards

77 Performance and quality indicators of court activities

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

078.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078.1.5 Backlogs 

078.1.6 Productivity of judges and court staff

078.1.7 Satisfaction of court staff 

078.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts) 

078.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078.1.10 Number of appeals

078.1.11 Appeal ratio

078.1.12 Clearance rate 

078.1.13 Disposition time 

078.1.14 Other

077-1.1.1 Defined performance and quality indicators

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

652 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

078-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078-1.1.5 Backlogs 

078-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

078-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

078-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

078-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

078-1.1.11 Disposition time 

078-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

078-1.1.13 Other

73 Regular system_evaluation_performance_each court

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

073-0.1.1 Annual

073-0.1.2 Less frequent

073-0.1.3 More frequent

073-1.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
court

073-2.1.1 Courses of action taken in the evaluation is used for the 
allocation of resources

073-2.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-2.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-2.1.4 Other

073-3.1.1 Regular evaluation of the public prosecution services 
performance

No

Yes

True

True

False

False

False

False

True

True

False

False

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

653 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

073-4.1.1 Annual

073-4.1.2 Less frequent

073-4.1.3 More frequent

073-5.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
public prosecution services

073-6.1.1 Identifying the causes of improved or deteriorated 
performance

073-6.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-6.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-6.1.4 Other

070.1.1 number of incoming cases

070.1.2 length of proceedings (timeframes)

070.1.3 number of resolved cases

070.1.4 number of pending cases

070.1.5 backlogs

070.1.6 productivity of judges and court staff

070.1.7 satisfaction of court staff

070.1.8 satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts)

070.1.9 costs of the judicial procedures

070.1.10 number of appeals

070.1.11 appeal ratio

070.1.12 clearance rate

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

654 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

070-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases 

070-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

070-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

070-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

070-1.1.5 Backlogs 

070-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

070-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

070-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

070-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

070-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

070-1.1.11 Disposition time 

070-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

070-1.1.13 Other

071.1.1 Monitoring backlogs in Civil law cases

071.1.2 Monitoring backlogs in Criminal law cases

071.1.3 Monitoring backlogs in Administrative law cases

072.1.1 Monitoring timeframes Within the courts

072.1.2 Monitoring timeframes Within the public prosecution services

083-2.1.1 Quantitative performance tagets defined for each 
prosecutors

083-3.1.1 Body responsible - Executive power (for example the 
Ministry of Justice)

083-3.1.2 Body responsible - Prosecutor General /State public 
prosecutor

083-3.1.3 Body responsible - Public Prosecutorial Council

083-3.1.4 Body responsible - Head of the organisational unit or 
hierarchically superior public prosecutor

083-3.1.5 Body responsible - Other

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

False

True

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

655 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

120.1.1 Qualitative individual assessment of the public prosecutors' 
work

120-1.1.1 Feequency - Annual

120-1.1.2 Feequency - Less frequent

120-1.1.3 Feequency - More frequent

True

True

False

False

Q42.1.1Total number of all courts - legal entities 

Q42.1.2 Total number of courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

279

-

-

Q42.1.3 First instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

402

NA

298

298

289

289

289

289

259

-35,6%

Indicator 2: The judicial organisation

Tables 2.1a; 2.1b; 2.2a; 2.2b; 2.3a; 2.3b; 2.4 and 2.5(EC) (Q42, Q43 and Q44)

Q42.1.4 Second instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.5 Highest instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.6 Total number of specialised courts - legal entities

43.1.1 Total number of specialised courts of first instance

43.1.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.1.3 Insolvency courts

43.1.4 Labour courts

43.1.5 Family courts

43.1.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.1.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.1.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.1.9 Internet related disputes

43.1.10 Administrative courts

43.1.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.1.12 Military courts

43.1.13 Juvenile courts

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

-

-

-

-

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

30

NAP

NA

-

-

-

-

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

30

NAP

NA

-

-

-

-

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

30

-

-

-

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

30

-

-

-

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

30

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

-

NA

-

NA

-

19

1

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

30

NAP

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

-3,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-10,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

656 / 1555

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

43.1.14 Other specialised courts

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

43.2.1 Total number of specialised courts of higher instances

43.2.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.2.3 Insolvency courts

43.2.4 Labour courts

43.2.5 Family courts

43.2.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.2.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.2.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.2.9 Internet related disputes

43.2.10 Administrative courts

43.2.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.2.12 Military courts

43.2.13 Juvenile courts

43.2.14 Other specialised courts

44.1.1 First instance courts geographic locations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

10

NAP

NA

NAP

1

289

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

44.1.2 All courts geographic locations

402

NA

329

329

319

319

319

319

320

-20,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

-3,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,3%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

657 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 3: The performance of courts at all stages of the proceedings

Tables 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.4 (all years) Number of other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 Variation of first instance other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants (Q1, Q91)

Table 3.13.7 (EC) to 3.13.12 (EC) First instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

91.1.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.1.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.1.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.1.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.1.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.1.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.1.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.1.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

91.1.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.1.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

91.1.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

91.2.1 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.2.2 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.2.3 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.2.4 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.2.5 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.2.6 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.2.7 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.2.8 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

91.2.9 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

616 391

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

205 198

478 241

278 913

246 691

241 441

244 637

252 811

281 705

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

411 193

383 402

NA

709 644

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

308 860

263 476

240 650

200 803

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

645 339

688 859

241 418

230 068

146 569

200 426

213 468

206 387

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

54 402

53 934

60 100

60 320

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

91.2.10 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

64 305

71 568

91.2.11 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

NA

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

139 880

-66,0%

-6,8%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

133,1%

-41,7%

-11,6%

-2,1%

1,3%

3,3%

11,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-14,7%

-8,7%

-16,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-0,9%

11,4%

0,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6,7%

-65,0%

-4,7%

-36,3%

36,7%

6,5%

-3,3%

45 159

-29,8%

11,3%

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

658 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

464 392

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

372 296

551 755

273 048

233 954

145 221

192 482

184 131

177 813

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

48,2%

-50,5%

-14,3%

-37,9%

32,5%

-4,3%

-3,4%

91.3.1 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.3.2 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.3.3 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.3.4 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.3.5 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.3.6 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.3.7 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.3.8 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

91.3.9 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

91.3.11 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

91.4.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.4.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.4.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.4.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.4.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.4.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.4.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.4.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

91.4.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

NA

861 643

NA

NA

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

99 763

79 872

99 772

98 633

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

263 473

237 593

200 978

162 490

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-19,9%

24,9%

-1,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-9,8%

-15,4%

-19,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

91.4.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

383 402

345 199

91.4.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

NA

NA

110 993

-71,1%

-10,0%

NAP

-

-

91.3.10 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

92 096

109 771

73 525

-20,2%

19,2%

478 241

615 345

246 839

242 209

242 789

252 654

282 148

310 279

28,7%

-59,9%

-1,9%

0,2%

4,1%

11,7%

10,0%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

659 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.2 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.4 to 3.3.7 Variation of Clearence Rate and Disposition Time of first instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

Table 3.13.1 (EC) to 3.13.6 (EC) First instance courts: Disposition time and clearance rate for other than criminal cases  (Q91)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

65,4%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

57,7%

80,1%

113,1%

101,7%

99,1%

96,0%

86,3%

86,2%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

CR Administrative law cases

143,2%

153,4%

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

677

469

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

1520

NA

NA

NA

407

-

NA

-

NA

NA

-

-

1148

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

330

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

183,4%

148,1%

166,0%

163,5%

NA

NA

378

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

964

NA

NA

NA

610

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1086

NA

NA

NA

479

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

735

NA

NA

NA

559

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

601

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

637

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

38,84

41,21

(10,09)

(2,57)

(3,07)

(10,18)

(0,12)

162,8%

13,68

7,10

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NAP

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

551

-63,7%

-24,5%

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(19,24)

12,10

(1,50)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

12,6%

-32,3%

-18,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-13,2%

-18,9%

14,5%

61,5%

-21,5%

16,7%

13,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

660 / 1555

       
       
      
        
        
      
        
       
         
      
       
        
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

101.1.1 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Litigious divorce case

101.1.2 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Employment dismissal case

101.1.3 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Insolvency

101.2.1 Incoming cases_Litigious divorce case

101.2.2 Incoming cases_Employment dismissal case

101.2.3 Incoming cases_Insolvency

101.3.1 Resolved cases_Litigious divorce case

101.3.2 Resolved cases_Employment dismissal case

101.3.3 Resolved cases_Insolvency

101.4.1 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Litigious divorce case

101.4.2 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Employment dismissal case

101.4.3 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Insolvency

CR Litigious divorce cases

CR Employment dismissal cases

CR Insolvency cases

DT Litigious divorce cases

DT Employment dismissal cases

DT Insolvency cases

Table 3.4.1 (all years) First instance courts, number of cases for specific case categories (Q101)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Table 3.5.1 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for specific case categories (Q101)

Table 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 Variations of CR and DT for specific case categories of first instance cases (Q101)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

661 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.7.1 to 3.7.5 (2019 and 2020) Second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Table 3.9.1 to 3.9.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.1.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.1.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.1.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.1.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.1.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.1.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.1.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.1.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

97.1.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.1.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

97.1.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases 

97.2.1 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.2.2 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.2.3 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.2.4 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.2.5 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.2.6 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.2.7 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.2.8 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

97.2.9 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.2.10 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

97.2.11 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases 

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

39 307

38 027

38 244

43 336

38 983

41 354

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

47 453

43 442

42 280

36 360

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

26 719

25 337

18 181

20 594

22 431

23 187

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

19 018

15 714

18 380

19 066

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

28 517

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

17 925

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-3,3%

0,6%

13,3%

-10,0%

6,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-8,5%

-2,7%

-14,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-5,2%

-28,2%

13,3%

8,9%

3,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-17,4%

17,0%

3,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

662 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.3.1 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.3.2 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.3.3 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.3.4 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.3.5 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.3.6 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.3.7 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.3.8 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

97.3.9 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.3.10 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

97.3.11 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases 

97.4.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.4.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.4.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.4.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.4.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.4.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.4.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.4.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

97.4.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.4.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

97.4.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases

97.5.1 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.5.2 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.5.10 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

27 284

23 641

13 599

23 228

21 767

23 477

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

23 195

16 867

25 326

21 786

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

17 585

NAP

65 912

38 027

38 054

42 826

40 702

39 492

41 064

34 954

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

43 407

42 289

35 334

33 640

NA

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

28 857

NAP

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-13,4%

-42,5%

70,8%

-6,3%

7,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-27,3%

50,2%

-14,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,1%

12,5%

-5,0%

-3,0%

4,0%

-14,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,6%

-16,4%

-4,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

663 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 (2019 and 2020): Second instance clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.9.4 and 3.9.5 (2019 and 2020): Variation of second clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

102,1%

93,3%

74,8%

112,8%

97,0%

101,3%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

509

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

122,0%

107,3%

137,8%

114,3%

NA

NA

588

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

683

NA

NA

NA

1149

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

915

NA

NA

NA

640

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

509

NA

NA

NA

662

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

564

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

638

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

98,1%

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

599

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(8,63)

(19,84)

50,79

(13,96)

4,34

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(11,99)

28,37

(17,07)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

15,5%

95,6%

-44,4%

3,5%

-3,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

34,0%

-44,4%

10,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

664 / 1555

        
      
       
      
         
      
       
      
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.10.1 to 3.10.5 (2019 and 2020) Supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Table 3.12.1 to 3.12.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of the supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.1.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.1.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.1.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.1.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.1.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.1.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.1.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.1.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

99.1.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.1.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

99.1.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.2.1 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.2.2 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.2.3 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.2.4 High inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.2.5 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.2.6 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.2.7 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.2.8 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

99.2.9 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.2.10 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

99.2.11 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

2 207

2 135

18 956

17 201

15 597

15 496

14 654

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2 309

1 904

2 012

2 000

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

16 296

14 892

13 693

13 484

12 654

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2 083

2 324

2 343

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-3,3%

787,9%

-9,3%

-9,3%

-0,6%

-5,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-17,5%

5,7%

-0,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-8,6%

-8,1%

-1,5%

-6,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

11,6%

0,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4 675

3 683

3 645

3 521

3 354

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-21,2%

-1,0%

-3,4%

-4,7%

-

-

-

-

1 865

2 322

6 597

5 766

5 969

5 864

24,5%

184,1%

-12,6%

3,5%

-1,8%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

665 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

1 937

1 797

6 977

7 404

6 102

5 983

-7,2%

288,3%

6,1%

-17,6%

-2,0%

99.3.1 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.3.2 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.3.3 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.3.4 High inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.3.5 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.3.6 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.3.7 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.3.8 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

99.3.9 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.3.10 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

99.3.11 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.4.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.4.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.4.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.4.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.4.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.4.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.4.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.4.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry 
cases

99.4.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.4.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative 
law cases

99.4.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.5.1 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.5.2 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.5.10 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

6 083

4 916

3 886

3 766

3 968

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-19,2%

-21,0%

-3,1%

5,4%

-

-

-

-

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2 488

2 216

2 217

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

2 135

2 660

17 197

15 563

15 475

15 377

14 339

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

-

-

-

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 904

2 012

2 138

2 300

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

14 888

13 659

13 463

13 239

12 039

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

8 586

NA

8 586

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-10,9%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

24,6%

546,5%

-9,5%

-0,6%

-0,6%

-6,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5,7%

6,3%

7,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-8,3%

-1,4%

-1,7%

-9,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

666 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 Supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.12.4 and 3.12.5 Variation of the supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

103,9%

77,4%

105,8%

128,4%

102,2%

102,0%

(25,49)

36,66

21,41

(20,39)

(0,19)

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

402

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

119,4%

95,4%

94,6%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

130,1%

133,5%

106,6%

107,0%

118,3%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

540

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

900

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

893

NAP

767

279

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1014

NAP

926

331

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1265

NAP

938

352

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1283

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1107

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,58

(20,13)

0,32

10,61

-

-

-

-

34,3%

66,5%

-14,7%

20,7%

1,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(20,17)

(0,77)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

18,6%

6,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

13,5%

24,7%

1,5%

-13,7%

-

-

-

-

667 / 1555

      
       
       
      
        
      
        
         
      
         
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.14.1 to 3.14.5 First instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

094.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

094.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

094.2.1 Total -incoming

094.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

094.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

094.2.4 Other - incoming

094.3.1 Total - resolved

094.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

094.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

094.3.4 Other - resolved

094.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

094.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

094.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

094.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

668 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.15.1 to 3.10.2 CR and DT for first instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

098.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

098.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

098.2.1 Total -incoming

098.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

098.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

098.2.4 Other - incoming

098.3.1 Total - resolved

098.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

098.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

098.3.4 Other - resolved

Table 3.16.1 to 3.16.5 Second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

18 375

NA

NA

NAP

20 003

NA

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

669 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

098.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

098.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

098.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

098.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

Table 3.17.1 to 3.17.2 CR and DT for second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

108,9%

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

670 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.18.1 to 3.18.5 Supreme court criminal law cases (Q100)

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

100.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

100.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

100.2.1 Total -incoming

100.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

100.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

100.2.4 Other - incoming

100.3.1 Total - resolved

100.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

100.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

100.3.4 Other - resolved

100.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

100.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

100.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

100.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

671 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.19.1 to 3.19.2 CR and DT for supreme court  criminal law cases (Q100)

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

672 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 5: Access to justice

Legal aid

Table 5.1 to Table 5.6 (Q12-2, Q16, Q18, Q19, Q20, Q20-1)

12-2.1.1 Coverage of court fees

12-2.1.2 Exemption from court fees

16.1.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (criminal cases)

16.1.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (criminal cases)

16.2.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (other than criminal 
cases)

16.2.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (other than criminal cases)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

-

-

-

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

18.1.1 Legal aid for the enforcement of judicial decisions

19.1.1  Legal aid granted for other costs - criminal cases

19.1.2  Legal aid granted for other costs - other than criminal cases

020.1.1 Total

020.1.2 Total - criminal cases

020.1.3 Total - other than criminal cases

020.2.1 Total brought to court

020.2.2 Broight to court - criminal cases

020.2.3 Brought to court - other then criminal

020.3.1 Total not brought to court

020.3.2 Not broight to court - criminal cases

020.3.3 Not brought to court - other then criminal

020-1.1.1 Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulation

020-1.1.2 Average duration

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

15

3

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

673 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

System for compensating users

Table 5.7.1 and Table 5.7.2 (Q37)

037.1.1 Requests for compensation - Total

037.1.2 Requests for compensation - Excessive length of 
proceedings

037.1.3 Requests for compensation - Non-execution of court 
decisions

037.1.4 Requests for compensation - Wrongful arrest

037.1.5 Requests for compensation - Wrongful conviction

037.1.6 Requests for compensation - Other

037.2.1 Condemnations - Total

037.2.2 Condemnations - Excessive length of proceedings

037.2.3 Condemnations - Non-execution of court decisions

037.2.4 Condemnations - Wrongful arrest

037.2.5 Condemnations - Wrongful conviction

037.2.6 Condemnations - Other

037.3.1 Amount - Total

037.3.2 Amount - Excessive length of proceedings

037.3.3 Amount - Non-execution of court decisions

037.3.4 Amount - Wrongful arrest

037.3.5 Amount - Wrongful conviction

037.3.6 Amount - Other

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

674 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 6.1 to Table 6.11 (Q62-7, Q62-7-1, Q62-8,  Q62-8-1, Q63-1, Q63-1-1, Q63-2 Q63-6, Q63-7, Q63-7-1, Q64-2,  Q64-4, Q64-6, Q64-3, Q64-3-1, Q64-7, Q64-7-1, 
Q64-9)

62-7 Writing assistance tools coordinated at national level

False

True

True

Indicator 6: The ICT tools of courts and for court users

62-7-1.1 Deployment rate in civil matter

62-7-1.2 Deployment rate in criminal matter

62-7-1.3 Deployment rate in administrative matter

62-8 Voice recording tools

62-8-1.1.1 Availability of simple dictation tools in civil matter

62-8-1.1.2 Availability of simple dictation tools in criminal matter

62-8-1.1.3 Availability of simple dictation tools in administrative 
matter

62-8-1.2.1 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in civil 
matter

62-8-1.2.2 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in criminal 
matter

62-8-1.2.3 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in 
administrative matter

62-8-1.3.1 Availability of voice recognition in civil matter

62-8-1.3.2 Availability of voice recognition in criminal matter

62-8-1.3.3 Availability of voice recognition in administrative matter

062-9 Availability of intranet site within the judicial system for 
distribution of news/novelties

63.1 Is there a case management system? 

63.1-1.1 CMS for civil matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for criminal matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for administrative matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.2 CMS for civil matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for criminal matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for administrative matter (status of case onlinee)

10-49%

10-49%

10-49%

10-49%

50-99%

50-99%

True

True

True

in most of the 
courts

in most of the 
courts

in most of the 
courts

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

in most of the 
courts

in most of the 
courts

in most of the 
courts

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

No

No

No

No

NA

NA

No

NA

NA

-

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

True

True

True

10-49%

10-49%

10-49%

10-49%

10-49%

10-49%

100%

100%

100%

-

-

-

Both

Both

Both

Both

Both

Both

Accessible to 
parties

Both

Both

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

675 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63.1-1.3 CMS for civil matter (Centralised or interoperable database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for criminal matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for administrative matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.4 CMS for civil matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for criminal matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for administrative matter (Early warning signals)

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS civil matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS criminal matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS administrative matter

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - land registry

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - business registry

63-2.2 Data consolidated at national level for land registry

63-2.2  Data consolidated at national level for business registry

63-2.3 Service available online for land registry

63-2.3  Service available online for business registry

63-2.4 Statistical module integrated or connected for land registry

63-2.4  Statistical module integrated or connected for business 
registry

063-6.1.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (deployment 
rate)

063-6.1.2 Justice expenses management (deployment rate)

063-6.1.3 Other financial management tools (deployment rate)

063-6.2.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (Data 
consolidated at national level)

063-6.2.2 Justice expenses management (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.2.3 Other financial management tools (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.3.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (System 
communicating with other ministries)

063-6.3.2 Justice expenses management (System communicating 
with other ministries)

063-6.3.3 Other financial management tools (System communicating 
with other ministries)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

0% (NAP)

NA

NA

0% (NAP)

50-99%

50-99%

False

False

False

False

True

True

False

False

False

False

True

True

False

False

False

False

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

676 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63-7.1 Measurement tools to assess the workload

63-7-1.1.1 Deployment rate - workload of judges

63-7-1.1.2 Deployment rate - workload of prosecutors

63-7-1.1.3 Deployment rate - workload of non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.2.1 Monitoring on national level - judges

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - prosecutors

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.3.1 Monitoring on court level - judges

63-7-1.3.2 Monitoring on court level - prosecutors

63-7-1.3.3 Monitoring on court level - non-judge and non-prosecutor 
staff

064-2 - Possibility to submit a case to courts by electronic means

064-2 - Civil and/or commercial

064-2 - Criminal

064-2 - Administrative

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - civil

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - criminal

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory  - administrative

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - civil

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - criminal

064-2 - Specific legislative framework  - administrative

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - civil

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - criminal

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - administrative

True

True

True

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

True

True

True

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

10-49%

10-49%

10-49%

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

677 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-3 - Is it possible to request for granting legal aid by electronic 
means? 

064-3-1.1 - Equipment rate

064-3-1.2 - Request in paper mandatory

064-3-1.3 - Specific legislative framework

064-3-1.4 - Granting LA is also electronic

064-3-1.5 - Information available in CMS

064-4 - Possibility to transmit summons to a judicial meeting or a 
hearing by electronic means

064-4-1.1.1 - Summons produced by CMS- civil

064-4-1.1.2 - Summons produced by CMS- criminal

064-4-1.1.3 - Summons produced by CMS- administrative

064-4-1.2.1 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- civil

064-4-1.2.2 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- criminal

064-4-1.2.3 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- administrative

064-4-1.3.1 - Consent of the user - civil

064-4-1.3.2 - Consent of the user - criminal

064-4-1.3.3 - Consent of the user - administrative

064-6.1.1 - Civil and/or commercial (deployment rate)

064-6.1.2 - Criminal (deployment rate)

064-6.1.3 - Administrative (deployment rate)

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

10-49%

10-49%

10-49%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

678 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-6.2.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.2 - Criminal (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.3 - Administrative (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.3.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Modalities)

064-6.3.2 - Criminal (Modalities)

064-6.3.3 - Administrative (Modalities)

064-6.4.1 - Civil and/or commercial (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.2 - Criminal (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.3 - Administrative (specific legal framework)

064-6.5.1 - Civil and/or commercial (availability for)

064-6.5.2 - Criminal (availability for)

064-6.5.3 - Administrative (availability for)

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 

Submission of 

Submission of 

a case       

a case       

a case       

Decision 
transmission

Decision 
transmission

Decision 
transmission

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

Lawyers

Lawyers

Lawyers

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

679 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-7.1.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (deployment rate)

064-7.1.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.2.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (Modalities)

064-7.2.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.3.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (specific legal framework)

064-7.32.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-7.3.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts (specific 
legal framework)

064-7.3.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-9 - Existance of online processing devices of specialised 
litigation

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

-

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

NA

NA

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

680 / 1555

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Indicator 7: Professionals of justice  (Indicator 9 in 2019)

Table 7.1.1 to 7.5.6 for judges, non judge staff, prosecutors, non prosecutor staff and salaries

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

46.1.1 Total Number of professional judges

46.1.2 Number of 1st inst professional judges

46.1.3 Number of 2nd inst professional judges

46.1.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges

46.2.1 Number of professional judges_males

46.2.2 Number of 1st instance professional judges_males

46.2.3 Number of 2nd instance professional judges_males

46.2.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges_males

46.3.1  Number of professional judges_females

46.3.2  Number of 1st inst professional judges_females

46.3.3  Number of 2nd inst professional judges_females

46.3.4  Number of Supreme court professional judges_females

046-2.1.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Total

046-2.2.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Civil and commercial

046-2.2.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.3.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Criminal

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

2 574

1 518

812

244

831

411

291

129

1 743

1 107

521

115

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3 877

2 643

984

250

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 231

1 540

459

232

616

369

132

115

1 615

1 171

327

117

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 206

1 517

450

239

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 780

1 750

892

138

795

468

251

76

1 985

1 282

641

62

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 861

2 874

2 884

3 861

50,0%

50,6%

-42,5%

-1,1%

26,0%

2,9%

0,5%

0,3%

33,9%

1 714

1 720

1 729

2 676

76,3%

74,1%

-41,7%

-1,5%

15,4%

-2,1%

0,4%

0,5%

54,8%

900

247

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

911

243

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

911

244

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

934

15,0%

21,2%

-53,4%

-2,0%

98,2%

0,9%

1,2%

0,0%

2,5%

251

2,9%

2,5%

-7,2%

3,0%

-42,3%

79,0%

-1,6%

0,4%

2,9%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

681 / 1555

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

046-2.4.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - 
Administrative

046-2.4.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.5.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Other

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 52.1.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in courts 

5 327

5 376

5 474

5 572

4 236

4 145

4 179

4 284

4 198

-21,2%

0,9%

1,8%

1,8%

-24,0%

-2,1%

0,8%

2,5%

-2,0%

52.1.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)

52.1.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges

52.1.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks

52.1.5 Number of Technical staff

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

52.1.6 Number of Other non judge staff

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

52.2.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(men)

52.2.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(men)

52.2.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(men)

52.2.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(men)

52.2.5 Number of Technical staff(men)

52.2.6 Number of Other non judge staff(men)

52.3.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(women)

52.3.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(women)

52.3.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(women)

52.3.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(women)

52.3.5 Number of Technical staff(women)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

1 523

1 543

1 133

1 097

1 112

1 001

1 133

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

3 951

4 029

3 103

3 048

3 067

3 283

3 065

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

52.3.6 Number of Other non judge staff(women)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,3%

-26,6%

-3,2%

1,4%

-10,0%

13,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,0%

-23,0%

-1,8%

0,6%

7,0%

-6,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

682 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

052-1.1.1 Non-judge staff (Total)

052-1.1.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (total)

052-1.1.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (total)

052-1.1.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (total)

052-1.2.1 Non-judge staff  (Males)

052-1.2.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (males)

052-1.2.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (males)

052-1.2.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (males)

052-1.3.1 Non-judge staff  (females)

052-1.3.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (females)

052-1.3.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (females)

052-1.3.4 Non-judge staff  at supreme court (females)

055.1.1 Prosecutors (total)

055.1.2 Prosecutors (1st inst.)

055.1.3 Prosecutors (2nd inst.)

055.1.4 Prosecutors (Highest instance)

055.2.1 Prosecutors - Males -total

055.2.2 Prosecutors - Males, 1st inst.

055.2.3 Prosecutors - Males, 2nd inst.

055.2.4 Prosecutors - Males, Supreme courts

055.3.1 Prosecutors - Females, Total

055.3.2 Prosecutors - Females, 1st inst.

055.3.3 Prosecutors - Females, 2nd inst.

055.3.4 Prosecutors - Females, Supreme courts

4 198

3 458

619

121

1 133

924

175

34

3 065

2 534

444

87

745

524

196

25

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

683 / 1555

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

060.1.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Total

060.2.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Males

060.3.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Females

004 Annual average salary in the country

132.1.1 Gross annual salary, in €  - Professional judge at the 
beginning of career

132.1.2 Gross annual salary, in €  - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.1.3 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor at the beginning 
of career

132.1.4 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

132.2.1 Net annual salary, in € - Professional judge at the beginning 
of career

132.2.2 Net annual salary, in € - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.2.3 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor at the beginning of 
career

132.2.4 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

133.1.1.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Reduced taxation

133.1.2.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Special pension

133.1.3.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Housing

133.1.4.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Other financial benefit

133.2.1.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Reduced taxation

133.2.2.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Special pension

133.2.3.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Housing

133.2.4.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Other financial benefit

1 631

467

1 164

NA

31 710 €

87 247 €

31 710 €

87 247 €

22 795 €

49 749 €

22 795 €

49 749 €

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

684 / 1555

         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

144.1.1 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - Total number (1+2+3+4)

144.1.2 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 1. Breach of professional 
ethics 

144.1.3 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.1.4 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 3. Criminal offence 

144.1.5 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 4. Other

144.2.1 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - Total number 
(1+2+3+4)

144.2.2 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 1. Breach of 
professional ethics 

144.2.3 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.2.4 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 3. Criminal offence

144.2.5 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 4. Other 

145.1.1 Sanctions against Judges - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.1.2 Sanctions against Judges - 1. Reprimand

145.1.3 Sanctions against Judges - 2. Suspension

145.1.4 Sanctions against Judges - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.1.5 Sanctions against Judges - 4. Fine

145.1.6 Sanctions against Judges - 5. Temporary reduction of salary

145.1.7 Sanctions against Judges - 6. Position downgrade

145.1.8 Sanctions against Judges - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.1.9 Sanctions against Judges - 8. Resignation

145.1.10 Sanctions against  Judges - 9. Other

145.1.11 Sanctions against  Judges - 10. Dismissal

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

685 / 1555

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

145.2.1 Sanctions against Prosecutors - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.2.2 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 1. Reprimand

145.2.3 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 2. Suspension

145.2.4 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.2.5 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 4. Fine

145.2.6 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 5. Temporary reduction of 
salary

145.2.7 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 6. Position downgrade

145.2.8 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.2.9 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 8. Resignation

145.2.10 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 9. Other

145.2.11 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 10. Dismissal

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lawyers

Tables 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.7 and 7.8

146.1.1 Total number of lawyers practising

42 113

42 177

42 052

42 226

42 091

41 903

42 949

42 500

44 595

5,9%

0,2%

-0,3%

0,4%

-0,3%

-0,4%

2,5%

-1,0%

4,9%

146.2.1 Practicing lawyers - man

146.3.1 Practicing lawyers - woman

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

18 292

NA

26 303

147 Does this figure include “legal advisors” who cannot represent 
their clients in court (for example, some solicitors or in-house 
counsellors)? 

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

686 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Greece (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

166 Number of accredited or registered mediators who practice 
judicial mediation: 

NA

NA

NA

NA

1 665

1 809

1 665

2 553

Indicator 8: The existence and use of alternative dispute resolution methods

Table 8.1 8.2 and 8.3

167.1.1 Total number started

167. 1.2 Civil and commercial cases(cid:9) - started

167. 1.2 Family cases - started

167.1.4 Administrative cases - started

167.1.5 Labour cases including employment dismissal cases - started

167.1.6. Criminal cases - started

167.1.7 Consumer cases - started

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

-

NA

41

NA

1 782

NA

NAP

-

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

8,6%

-8,0%

53,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Key: Variation of more than (+ -) 20% 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

687 / 1555

Judiciary at a glance in Hungary

General data

Population:

9 890 640

GDP per capita: 13 940 €

Average annual 

salary:

12 901 €

Professionals

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Hungary

Hungary

EU Median

EU Median

Professional judges

Professional judges

29,46

23,92

29,46

Non-judge staff

23,92

86,71

59,00

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

18,97

86,71

59,00

9,91

18,97
24,52

15,22

24,52

9,91

15,22

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual 
salary in the country

Hungary
Hungary

EU Median

EU Median

4,46

Judge at the beginning of a career 

1,69

4,09

2,02

3,56

3,61

1,69

Judge of the highest court 4,46
2,02

4,09

1,71
Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 
1,71

1,69

1,69

Public prosecutor at highest instance

3,56

3,61

Lawyers

Lawyers

131,08

122,09

131,08

122,09

Judge at the
beginning of a career

Judge of the highest
court

Prosecutor at the
beginning of a career

Public prosecutor at
highest instance

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

Efficiency

Supreme Court
Supreme 
Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance 2nd instance Supreme Court

1st instance

2nd instance

1st instance 2nd instance
%
5
5
4
1

,

,

%
8
1
3
1

100%

,

,

Civil and
%
%
1
commercial
Administrativ
2
7
0
0
1
e
0
1
cases
Total 
criminal law 
cases

,

%
6
8
0
1

100,2%

%
3
89,3%
9
8

,

107,1%
%
3
7
9

145,5%

,

,

%
4
2
0
1

,

131,8%
%
2
4
0
1

108,6%

97,3%

102,4%

104,2%

1
1

1

1
1

Civil and commercial litigious cases
165
Administrative cases 110

155

Total criminal law cases 54

116
4

48

116

165

58
4

110

155
58

66

66

48

54

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

Administrative
cases

Total criminal law
cases

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

Information and communication technology

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

Assistance toolsCase management system
2018

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the workload
2019

Electronic communication

EU Median 2020

2020

2018
2019
2020

2,25
2,50
3,00

EU Median 2020

2,00

6,17

6,17

2,25

2,50

3,00

2,00

6,17
6,17
6,67

6,67

5,17

2,00
2,00
2,00

3,33
3,33
3,33

9,44
9,44
10,00

9,44

9,44

10,00

6,94

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

2,00

2,00

2,00

1,25

3,33

3,33

3,33

2,50

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

*ICT calculations are described in more details in Annex 5 - IT Calculation methodology

688

2020

Synthesis table for the main indicators for:

Hungary

Economic and demographic data

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Variations

Population

GDP per capita

Exchange rate (local currency needed to 
obtain 1€)

9 908 798

9 877 365

9 855 571

9 830 485

9 797 561

9 877 365

9 591 495

9 769 000

9 890 640

-0,2%

-0,6%

-2,1%

-2,9%

9 800

9 900

10 500

10 900

11 200

11 800

12 500

13 180

13 940

42,2%

6,7%

11,6%

293

297

315

316

309

309

322

330

361

23,2%

-1,8%

4,1%

5,9%

4,1%

Average annual salary

9 137

9 759

10 537

12 288

13 375

12 901

41,2%

8,0%

16,6%

1,9%

5,4%

2,4%

8,8%

1,2%

5,8%

9,4%

-3,5%

Resources

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Professional judges per 100 000 inhab.

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhab.

27,9

82,2

28,4

81,0

28,5

81,4

28,6

81,2

28,7

81,7

28,6

84,8

30,2

88,9

29,5

87,4

28,2

86,7

1,0%

5,5%

0,5%

0,4%

5,1%

8,8%

5,3%

4,8%

Lawyers per 100 000 inh.

131,2

131,6

131,9

132,2

114,2

113,3

132,6

130,2

131,1

-0,1%

-13,4%

16,1%

17,0%

-2,3%

-1,7%

-1,8%

-4,3%

-0,8%

0,7%

Mediators

0,1

0,2

1,2

1,6

1,8

1,8

1,6

8,3

2,1

8,4

1,4

8,9

1077,2%

45,9%

-10,2%

-9,4%

30,3%

-31,4%

1,1%

6,6%

ICT overall assesment

First instance incoming cases per 100 
inhab.

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Civil and commercial litigious cases

4,364

1,831

1,830

1,794

1,886

1,805

1,382

1,366

1,288

-70,5%

3,1%

-26,7%

-23,5%

-1,2%

-5,7%

Administrative law cases

0,127

0,2

0,2

0,185

0,200

0,171

0,178

0,168

0,296

132,7%

9,4%

-10,7%

4,3%

-5,8%

75,8%

Total criminal law cases

3,648

First instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

105%

98%

104%

99%

98%

96%

116%

104%

100%

-4,88

CR administrative law cases

108%

104%

92%

105%

100%

102%

102%

103%

-5,94

7,59

17,89

19,83

-11,89

-4,20

1,94

-0,45

0,83

-13,18

-18,64

89%

97%

CR total criminal law cases

First instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
cases (days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

First instance pending cases per 100 
inhab. on 31 dec.

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

97

147

169

115

144

148

159

110

159

109

181

116

151

109

152

103

71,0%

10,2%

-4,8%

-16,6%

0,5%

-25,1%

-26,5%

-0,2%

-6,0%

-4,9%

8,6%

6,6%

165

110

54

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

1,21

0,06

0,83

0,05

0,75

0,07

0,77

0,06

0,81

0,06

0,86

0,06

0,67

0,05

0,59

0,05

-51,9%

7,1%

-17,5%

-23,0%

-10,8%

-1,6%

44,3%

-13,0%

-9,2%

-2,4%

-9,6%

63,4%

0,58

0,08

0,53

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

101%

101%

111%

102%

100%

CR administrative law cases

108%

94%

99%

102%

97%

99%

99%

106%

110%

107%

6,14

-11,16

97%

106%

146%

37,14

-1,59

5,39

0,29

6,50

-1,54

4,05

9,15

-2,56

39,18

CR total criminal law cases

102%

Second instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

 Supreme court 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Supreme court
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

125

60

127

91

114

94

123

87

121

83

133

91

112

91

105

64

116

-6,9%

6,6%

-7,4%

-15,2%

-6,6%

10,7%

-93,4%

-12,1%

10,7%

0,5%

-30,2%

-93,8%

4

48

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

102%

108%

96%

96%

86%

99%

88%

96%

110%

111%

132%

90%

118%

109%

-15,71

-8,64

23,71

-9,03

22,10

-6,04

1,20

28,07

20,81

-9,41

104%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

158

129

181

169

203

168

246

201

229

228

232

116

155

58

66

28,4%

13,0%

-6,8%

1,2%

-33,2%

29,8%

35,9%

13,3%

-48,9%

-50,0%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

689 / 1555

1. Judicial organisation in Hungary

The Hungarian court system is as follows: Kúria (1) – the Hungarian Supreme Court - its jurisdiction in criminal, civil and administrative cases covers adjudication of extraordinary remedies 
and appeals, adopting uniformity decisions. It also decides if municipal decrees are in compliance with higher level legislation. 
Regional courts of appeal (5) – their jurisdiction in criminal and civil cases covers the adjudication of appeals received from the regional courts (third instance in criminal cases). 
Regional courts (20) – their jurisdiction in criminal, civil and administrative cases covers the adjudication of appeals received from district courts, administrative and labour courts, and 
procedure at first instance in certain criminal and civil cases. 
District courts (113) – their jurisdiction in criminal and civil cases covers the procedures at first instance. The number of judges in the largest district court is 357, whereas the smallest court 
operates with one judge. Out of the 113 district courts, the district courts in the seat of the regional courts have special competences in many cases.

Distribution of general courts in Hungary

Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Hungary - 1st instance
Hungary - Higher instances

EU Median - 1st instance

EU Median - Higher instances

HungaryDistribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

According to 2020 data, the distribution between 1st instance and higher instances courts of general jurisdiction 
in Hungary is around the EU median of 87% - 13%.

Hungary - 1st instanceHungary - Higher instances

General courts - Hungary

81%

19%

General courts - Hungary
EU Median

81%
87%

19%
13%

EU Median

87%

13%

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Hungary

Geographic 
locations

Legal entities

General 
jurisdiction

Specialised 
jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

157

157

157

157

157

158

159

159

139

131

131

111

111

111

112

113

113

113

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

20

0

200

150

100

50

0

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Hungary

Geographic locations

Legal entities General jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Administrative and labour courts (20) were dismissed on the 31st of March 2020. From this date Regional Courts deal with labour cases on first instance while administrative cases are dealt 
with by eight Regional Court on a regional level. This change affected both the number of specialised jurisdiction courts and geographic locations.

Hungary

Distribution of first instance general jurisdiction and specialised courts

Ratio general jurisdiction vs specialised

0%

Hungary

General jurisdiction Specialised courts

100%

75%

0%

25%

100%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

EU Median

25%

75%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

Since there are no specialised courts anymore in Hungary, all courts (100%) are general jurisdiction courts. This is quite different from the EU median (distribution 
tendency in EU: 75,5% - 24,5%).

Specialised courts
Total

Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

Insolvency courts

Labour courts

Family courts

Rent and tenancies courts

Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

Internet related disputes

Administrative courts

Insurance and / or social welfare courts

Military courts

Juvenile courts

Other specialised 1st instance courts

First instance

Higher instance

0

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

0

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

As said before administrative and labour courts (20) were dismissed on the in March 2020 . There are military departments at five Regional Courts and at one Regional Court of Appeal. 
Although they only deal with military related criminal cases, they are not considered as specialized courts as they are a part of the ordinary court system both in administrative and professional 
management. Consequenty the table above filled with not applicable (NAP) for Hungary.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

690 / 1555

2. Professionals of justice in Hungary

● Professional judges and non-judge staff

Evolution of the number of professional judges since 2012 (Q46)

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Absolute 
number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

2 767

2 807

2 813

2 813

2 811

2 828

2 892

2 878

2 789

27,92

28,42

28,54

28,62

28,69

28,63

30,15

29,46

28,20

EU median

23,9

Professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants

27,92

28,42

28,54

28,62

28,69

28,63

30,15

29,46

28,20

23,9

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

According to 2020 data, the total number of professional judges sitting in courts (all instances) in Hungary is 2 789, which is -3,1% less than in previous cycle.

More precisely, in Hungary, there are 28,20 professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants (this figure is above the EU median of 23,92 judges per 100 000 inhabitants) The ratio of non-
judge staff per judge in Hungary is  3,07.

There has been a small increase compared with previous cycle when this ratio was at 2,97 non-judge staff per judge.

Since 2012 and the establishment of the National Office for the Judiciary, the data collection methodology is the same. Accordingly, the number of first instance professional judges 
includes judges of the District Courts and the Administrative and Labour Courts. As second instance judges are counted judges of the Regional Courts and the Regional Courts of Appeal. 
As concerns the Regional Courts, the distribution of first and second instance cases is based on the bylaws which are renewed every year by the president of each court after consultation 
with the judicial council and the professional department of the court. 

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and gender

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

1 420

1 283

86

2 789

Distribution by 
instance

50,9%

46,0%

3,1%

Male

Female

% Male

% Female

399

434

35

868

1 021

849

51

1 921

28,1%

33,8%

40,7%

31,1%

71,9%

66,2%

59,3%

68,9%

Distribution of professional judges by instance

Hungary

EU Median

50,9%

72,39%

EU Median

72,39%

23,98%

4,03%

46,0%

23,98%

3,1%

4,03%

Distribution of professional judges by gender and by instance

% Female

71,9%

28,1%

66,2%

33,8%

59,3%

40,7%

% Male

68,9%

31,1%

Total

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

In this cycle, the total number of female professional judges (all instances) is 1 921, which represents 68,9% of the total number of judges.

The total number of judges is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 1 420 are sitting in first instance courts (of which 1 021 are female); 1 283 are sitting 
in second instance courts (of which 849 are female)  and 86 are sitting in Supreme Court (of which 51 are female).  

In Hungary the distribution of judges between instances seems to be different than the EU median. While EU median is 72,39% of the jugjes are in first instance in Hungary this is 50,9%. 
The reason might be as stated above that  second instance judges are counted judges of the Regional Courts and the Regional Courts of Appeal. As concerns the Regional Courts, the 
distribution of first and second instance cases is based on the bylaws which are renewed every year by the president of each court. This influence the number of judges of second 
instance. 

As regards the distribution male/female, it has to be specified that women are majority at each instance which is highes 72%  at first instance and lowest (but still more then half) 59,3% 

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and matter

In Hungary, the distribution of judges per categories of cases as in the table above in not possible.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

691 / 1555

Non-judge staff

Year

2012

Number of non-judge staff

8 142

Per 100 000 inhabitants

82,17

2013

8 000

80,99

2014

8 022

81,40

2015

7 979

81,17

2016

8 003

81,68

2017

8 379

84,83

2018

8 528

88,91

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants

82,17

80,99

81,40

81,17

81,68

84,83

88,91

87,40

86,71

2020

Total

59,00

Rechtspfleger

Non-judge staff assisting the judge

Staff in charge of administrative tasks

Technical staff

2019

8 538

87,40

Absolute 
number

8 576

936

961

NA

NA

E
U 
m

2020

8 576

86,71

in %

10,9%

11,2%

NA

NA

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

Other

6 679

77,9%

In 2020, Hungary has 8 576 non-judge staff (of which 7 204 are females). The total number of non-judge staff in comparison with the previous cycle reveals an increase of 0,4%.

In this cycle, the non-judge staff is broken down as follows:

◦ 936 Rechtspfleger (or similar bodies) with judicial or quasi-judicial tasks having autonomous competence and whose decisions could be subject to appeal (among which 
◦ 961 non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges such as registrars (of which 842 are women);
◦ 6 679 other (of which 5 614 are women);

Court secretaries („bírósági titkár”) are employees of the court that are similar to Rechtspfleger. They are lawyers, who after acquiring a degree at a law faculty have made the bar exam 
(which requires at least 3 years professional practice). They are enabled to perform duties of judges in cases specifically defined by law.
According to the Constitution when a court secretary is dealing with a case he/she has the same independence as a judge. In criminal cases they can make out of trial decisions (e.g. order 
an expert to be included in the case), or they can hear witnesses on request of another court. This practically means they assist the judges in pre-trial phase of the case. In misdemeanour 
cases they adjudicate the case - this is an area of law in which mostly court secretaries deal with cases of first instance. In civil and labour cases they can make any decision that can be 
made without hearing the case. This practically means they assist the judges in pre-trial phase of the case. In administrative non-litigious cases they can make any decision that can be 
made without hearing the case. In company registry cases they can make every decision, as well in insolvency cases (with some exceptions).

From 2012, the category "non-judge staff assisting judges" includes only staff directly assisting judges.  Other non-judge staff includes staff in charge of different administrative tasks and 
of the management of the courts (3) and technical staff (4) that can not be separated by these categories.

In 2020, the number of non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants has slightly decreased (from 87,4 in 2019 to 86,7 in 2020) due to increase in population and not due to decrease of the 
absolute number of non-judge staff. In fact this number increased slightly. 

During the same period, the number of judges per 100 000 inhabitants also slightly decreased from 29,5 judges per 100 000 inhabitants in 2019 to 28,2 in 2020.

Professional judges, non-judge staff and their ratio (Q46, Q52)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Hungary

EU median

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

28,20

86,71

Non-judge staff per judge

3,07

23,92

59,00

3,30

Professional judges and non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

86,71

3,07

3,30

59,00

Non-judge staff per judge

28,20

23,92

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff  (Q46, Q52)

Hungary

EU median

Judges 
per 100 000 inh.

Non-judge staff per
100 000 inh.

Ratio between professional judges and 
non-judge staff

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff 
Non-judge staff per 100 000 inh.
(Q46, Q52)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

27,92

28,42

28,54

28,62

28,69

28,63

30,15

29,46

28,20

82,17

80,99

81,40

81,17

81,68

84,83

88,91

87,40

86,71

2,94

2,85

2,85

2,84

2,85

2,96

2,95

2,97

3,07

2,94

2,85

2,85

2012

2013

2014

2,94
2,85
2,85
2,84
2,85
2,96
2,95
2,97
3,07

2,84

2,85

2,96

2,95

2,97

3,07

EU median 2020

3,30

Between two cycles the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff increased slightly because the number of non-judge staff slightly increased while number of professional 
judges slightly decreased. But in total this ratio is very stable over years and it is slightly below EU median.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

692 / 1555

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

● Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff

Absolute number of public prosecutors by instance and gender (Q55)

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

1 207

558

111

1 876

Distribution by 
instance

Male

Female

64,3%

29,7%

5,9%

433

249

60

742

774

309

51

1 134

Male

35,9%

44,6%

54,1%

39,6%

Female

64,1%

55,4%

45,9%

60,4%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance

Hungary

EU Median

64,3%

73,30%
EU Median

73,30%

29,7%

21,28%

4,66%

21,28%

5,9%

4,66%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance and gender

Female

Male

64,1%

35,9%

55,4%

44,6%

45,9%

54,1%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

60,4%

39,6%

Total

The total number of prosecutors is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 1 207 in first instance (of which 774 are female); 558 are in second instance (of 
which 309 are female)  and 111 in final instance (of which 51 are female).  

In this cycle, the total number of female prosecutors (all instances) is 1 134, which represents 60,4% of the total number of prosecutors.

In respect of the number of prosecutors by instances Hungary has slightly less prosecutors dedicated on first instance of 64,3% then EU median of 73,96%.

As regards the distribution male/female, it has to be specified that the nuber of female prosecutors in Hungary is slightly lower than the percentace of female judges but still significantly 
more than man prosecutors.

Non-prosecutor staff by gender (Q60)

Non-prosecutor staff

2020

Total

2 425

Male

470

Female

1 955

Non-prosecutor staff by gender

19%

Male

Female

81%

Public prosecutors, non-prosecutor staff and their ratio (Q55, Q60)

Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Hungary

EU median

Public prosecutors

18,97

Non-prosecutor staff

24,52

Non-prosecutor staff per 
prosecutor

1,29

9,91

15,22

1,11

Public prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per prosecutor

24,52

18,97

1,29

1,11

15,22

9,91

The number of prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff in Hungary is more than double above EU median. The ratio between the non-prosecutor staff and prosecutor is on the other side on 
the level of EU median. 

Hungary

EU median

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

693 / 1555

● Salaries of professional judges and prosecutors at beginning of a career and at the highest instance (Q132, Q4)

Salaries of professional judges and 
prosecutors (Q132, Q4)

Average gross annual 
salary 
in €

Average net annual 
salary 
in €

Ratio with national 
average annual 
gross salary

Judge at the beginning of a career 

21 856 €

15 534 €

Judge of the highest court 

57 542 €

38 266 €

Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

21 856 €

14 534 €

Public prosecutor at highest instance

45 961 €

30 564 €

1,69

4,46

1,69

3,56

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual salary in the 
country
Salaries of 
judges and 
prosecutors in 
Judge

3,56

4,09

4,46

2,02

1,69

at the beginning 
of a career
1,71
at the highest 
instance

EU Median

2,02

1,69

4,09

1,71

Judge at the beginning of
career

3,61

Judge on highest instance

Prosecutor

at the beginning 
of a career

Prosecutor at the
beginning of career

Prosecutor at highest
instance

Hungary

EU Median

at the highest 
instance

45961

3,61

21856

57542

21856

According to 2020 data, the absolute gross salary of a judge at the begining of a career in Hungary of 21 856€ is quite below when compared to the EU median of 51 946€. As a ratio 
with the annual average salary of the country, the salary for a judge at the begining of career is: 1,69 compared with EU median of : 2,02 which is below the EU median.

At its December 2019 session, the National Assembly passed a law increasing the salaries of judges by 32 percent and that of prosecutors by 21 percent. Nevertheless, Hungary is a 
country with smallest absolute gross salary for judge at the begining of career within European Union.

● Lawyers

Lawyers

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

Number of lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

13 000

13 000

13 000

13 000

11 191

11 191

12 715

12 719

12 965

131,20

131,61

131,91

132,24

114,22

113,30

132,57

130,20

131,08

131,20

131,61

131,91

132,24

132,57

130,20

131,08

114,22

113,30

122,09

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median
2020

EU median 2020

122,09

In 2020, there are 12 965 lawyers, which is 1,9% more than in 2019. Nevertheless this number is quite stable in Hungary.

Hungary has 131,1 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants, which is around the EU median of 122,1 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants.

A latest act on the attorneys (Act LXXXVIII of 2017) entered into force on 1 January 2018. https://njt.hu/translated/doc/J2017T0078P_20180101_FIN.pdf

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

694 / 1555

● Judicial professionals (summary)

Judicial professionals in absolute number and per 100 000 inhabitants (Q46, Q52, Q55, Q60, Q146)

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

EU Median

Professional judges

2 878

29,46

Non-judge staff

8 576

86,71

Prosecutors

1 876

18,97

23,92

59,00

9,91

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Hungary

EU Median

131,08

122,09

86,71

59,00

Non-prosecutor staff

2 425

24,52

15,22

29,46

23,92

18,97

9,91

24,52

15,22

Lawyers

12 965

131,08

122,09

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

% Male

% Female

Professional judges

31,1%

68,9%

Professional judges

Professional judges

Hungary % Male Hungary % Femalelabels

Judicial professionals: Gender balance
68,9%

-31,1%
Hungary % Male

Hungary % Female

31,1%

EU Median  % Male

EU Median  % Female

61,0%

39,0%

-39,0%

31,1%

39,0%

Non judge staff

16,0%

84,0%

Prosecutors

39,6%

60,4%

Non-prosecutor staff

19,4%

80,6%

Lawyers

55,2%

44,8%

Non judge staff

Non judge staff

-16,0%

84,0%

16,0%

-24,0%

24,0%

76,0%

Prosecutors

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

39,6%

40,5%
-39,6%
-40,5%

19,4%

-19,4%
-28,1%

28,1%

Lawyers
Lawyers

-55,2%
-52,3%

55,2%

52,3%

60,4%
59,5%

80,6%
71,9%

44,8%
47,7%

0,0%

16,0%

24,0%

0,0%

39,6%
40,5%
0,0%
19,4%
28,1%
0,0%
55,2%
52,3%

68,9%

61,0%

84,0%

76,0%

60,4%

59,5%

80,6%

71,9%

44,8%

47,7%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

695 / 1555

3. Legal aid and court fees in Hungary

1

1

In Hungary, legal aid includes:

◦ Coverage of court fees: 

◦ Exemption from court fees: 

In Hungary, legal aid is available for :

> Representation in court:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

> Legal advice, ADR and other legal services:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

>

Fees related to enforcement of judicial decisions as fees for enforcement agents (Q18) 

>

 Other costs than above (Q19) 

1

1

1

1

1

NAP

According to the Legal Aid Act LXXX of 2003, the Legal Aid Service may grant legal aid in judicial and extrajudicial cases. The county justice services, as offices of first instance 
and in charge of receiving the applications for legal aid, do not merely assess the eligibility for aid but, in simple cases, provide legal assistance directly as well – without prior 
screening of the clients’ financial capabilities. However, legal aid (legal advice, drafting a document) is primarily provided by legal aid providers (attorneys, notaries public, non-
governmental organizations etc.) who are recorded into the Register of legal aid providers who have contractual relation with the Legal Aid Service. The latter provides 
professional legal assistance for socially disadvantaged people. The law defines the situations in which legal aid can be granted and those in which no legal aid may be provided. 

If legal aid is authorized, it extends to all stages of the proceedings, including the enforcement phase. However, it concerns only the fee of the legal aid provider. Besides, legal 
representation cannot be granted in such cases, but only extrajudicial assistance (legal advice, drafting of documents). 

 Number of cases for which legal aid has been granted

Absolute number 
(in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

Total

Cases brought to court

Cases not brought to 
court

5 748

NA

NA

2 006

NA

NA

3 742

NA

NA

Ratio of the total number of cases for which legal aid has 
been granted

Cases brought to court

34,9%

65,1%

35%

NA
Cases not brought to
court

NA

65%

NA

NA

For Hungary the comparison between the number of criminal and other than criminal cases for which legal aid has been provided  and comparison in the chart above right is 
between cases brougth to court and cases not brought to court. Higher percentage of cases brought to court were assisted with legal aid in Hungary.

Per 100 000 inhabitants
 (in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

Hungary

EU Median

58,1

NA

NA

734,2

330,9

402,7

Number of cases for which legal has been granted per 100 000 
inhabitants

Hungary

EU Median

734,2

58,1

Total

Compared with the EU median the number of cases for which legal aid has been granted per 100 000 inhabitants in Hungary is very low. Only 58 compared to 734 cases per 100 
000 inhabitants.

Timeframes of the procedure for granting legal aid (in relation to the duration from the initial legal aid request to the final approval of the legal aid request)

◦ Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulations: 

◦ Actual average duration: 

NAP

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

696 / 1555

4. Performance of courts in Hungary

● Efficiency indicators

◦ Clearance Rate (CR) and Disposition Time (DT)

The Clearance Rate shows the capacity of a judicial system to deal with the incoming cases. A Clearance Rate of 100% and higher does not generate backlog. 

The Disposition Time determines the estimated number of days necessary for a pending case to be solved in a court. 

First instance Total of other than criminal cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Evolution of number of all other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants
Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Incoming

,

7
8
1
1

,

0
4
1
1

,

9
7
1
1

,

0
5
1
1

1
6
8

,

5
8
8

,

8
1
9

,

0
3
9

,

8
8
8

,

7
0
9

,

8
5
8

,

1
5
8

,

5
9
7

,

0
5
7

,

9
7
6

,

2
5
1

,

9
4
1

,

1
4
1

,

7
4
1

,

7
3
1

,

11,40

11,79

8,61

9,18

8,88

4
8
6

,

8,58

7,50

0
3
1

,

6,79

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

6,41

2019

6,82

2020

6,30

6,60

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Hungary (6,41 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below EU median (6,82 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Hungary (6,30 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below EU median (6,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Hungary (1,39 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below EU median (2,66 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Other than criminal cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Other than criminal 
cases

11,87

11,50

8,85

9,30

9,07

8,51

7,95

1
4
6

,

0
3
6

,

2
8
6

,

9
3
1

,

6,84

NA

NA

1,52

1,49

1,41

1,47

0
6
6

,

1,37

6
6
2

,

1,30

1,39
EU median
2,66

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

104%

98%

103%

101%

102%

99%

106%

101%

98%

NA

NA

63

59

57

63

63

69

80

104%

98%

103%

101%

102%

99%

106%

101%

98%

99%

DT (days)

CR (%)

63

59

57

63

63

69

80

109

EU median

99%

109

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 98,3% in 2020 Hungary seems to deal with its other than criminal cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -2,4 points.

In 2020, other than criminal cases are solved in approximately 80 days, which is somewhat faster then EU median of 109 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 16,2% increase of the Disposition Time. The analysis per categories is more relevant here since this group of cases 
included in itself both litigious and non litigious cases.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

697 / 1555

First instance Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

9
5
4

,

6
3
4

,

Evolution of number of civil and commercial litigious cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

1
2
1

,

3
8
1

,

9
7
1

,

3
8
1

,

1
9
1

,

9
7
1

,

8
7
1

,

9
8
1

,

6
8
1

,

1
8
1

,

4
7
1

,

3
8
0

,

5
7
0

,

7
7
0

,

1
8
0

,

6
8
0

,

1
6
1

,

8
3
1

,

7
6
0

,

7
3
1

,

3
4
1

,

4,36
1,83
1,83
1,79
1,89
1,81
1,38
1,37
1,29
1,56

9
5
0

,

4,59
1,79
1,91
1,78
1,86
1,74
1,61
1,43
1,29
1,50

1,21
0,83
0,75
0,77
0,81
0,86
0,67
0,59
0,58
1,05

9
2
1

,

9
2
1

,

8
5
0

,

6
5
1

,

0
5
1

,

5
0
1

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Hungary (1,29 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below EU median (1,56 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Hungary (1,29 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below EU median (1,50 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Hungary (0,58 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below EU median (1,05 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of civil and commercial litigious cases decreased in 2020 from 1.37 per 100 inhabiatnt to 1.29 which is around 4%.

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

105,1%

97,9%

104,3%

99,0%

98,4%

96,4%

116,3%

104,4%

100,2%

97

169

144

159

159

181

151

152

165

EU Median

98%

221

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

DT (days)

CR (%)

116,3%

105,1%

97,9%

104,3%

99,0%

98,4%

96,4%

104,4%

100,2%

98%

97

2012

169

2013

144

2014

159

2015

159

2016

181

2017

151

2018

152

2019

165

221

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 100,2% in 2020, Hungary seems that have dealt effitiently with its civil and commercial litigious cases.

Nevertheless this is less efficient than in the previous year since between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -4,2 points.

In 2020, the civil and commercial litigious cases are solved in approximately 165 days, which is below EU median of 221 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 8,6% increase of the Disposition Time.

The number of civil and commercial litigious cases older than 2 years is not available.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

698 / 1555

First instance Administrative cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of administrative cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

7
1
0

,

6
1
0

,

8
1
0

,

7
1
0

,

9
1
0

,

8
1
0

,

0
2
0

,

0
2
0

,

7
1
0

,

7
1
0

,

8
1
0

,

8
1
0

,

7
1
0

,

4
1
0

,

3
1
0

,

0,13
0,16
0,18
0,18
0,20
0,17
0,18
0,17
0,30
0,30

7
1
0

,

6
0
0

,

5
0
0

,

7
0
0

,

6
0
0

,

6
0
0

,

6
0
0

,

5
0
0

,

5
0
0

,

0
3
0

,

0
3
0

,

6
2
0

,

0,14
0,17
0,17
0,19
0,20
0,17
0,18
0,17
0,26
0,26

8
0
0

,

0,06
0,05
0,07
0,06
0,06
0,06
0,05
0,05
0,08
0,21

1
2
0

,

6
2
0

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Hungary (0,30 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below EU median (0,30 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Hungary (0,26 per 100 inhabitants) is  below EU median (0,26 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Hungary (0,08 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (0,21 per 100 inhabitants).

Regarding administrative cases the re-organization of administrative jurisdiction caused change in the case-flow and the number of cases reported as administrative this 
year doubled.

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Administrative cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

108,0%

104,3%

92,1%

105,3%

99,7%

102,1%

101,7%

102,5%

89,3%

147

115

148

110

109

116

109

103

110

EU Median

100%

388

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Administrative cases

108,0%

104,3%

105,3%

92,1%

99,7%

102,1%

101,7%

102,5%

100%

89,3%

DT (days)

CR (%)

147

2012

115

2013

148

2014

110

2015

109

2016

116

2017

109

2018

103

2019

110

388

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 89,3% in 2020, Hungary seems to experianced problem this year with its administrative cases. As mentioned before this is probably 
due to resons of re-organisation of administrative jurisdiction when the number of incomming cases doubled and the courts were not able to absorb fully this increase. 

Consequently, the Clearance Rate has decreased for -13,2 points compared with previous cycle.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 6,6% increase of the Disposition Time and in 2020, the administrative cases are solved in approximately 110 days, 
which is still significantly below EU median of 388 days and does not seem to create an efficiency problem yet. The situation in the next cycle will reveal if the situation is 
stabilised. 

The number of administrative law cases older than 2 years is not available.

Based on the comments on this question the pandemic situation had a huge effect on the case flow of the courts on every level of the court system. However this is not 
visible in the data considering that the decrease in the number of incomming and resolved cases is not that big. Only administrative cases increase is significant but that 
is for re-organisational reasons.  

As declared by Hungary, special regulations were adopted by the legislator to promote videoconferencing and the courts were "closed between the 16th of March and the 
31th of March (during this period no procedural events could be performed at the courts). Although the courts carried out their main activities, many cases were 
prolonged e.g. because the parties were not able to attend the hearings. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

699 / 1555

Insolvency cases

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Insolvency cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Insolvency cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

108,9%

77,9%

148,0%

101,3%

108,3%

124,8%

98,4%

84,6%

147,6%

138

259

91

168

124

32

75

112

8

EU Median

105%

281

DT (days)

CR (%)

148,0%

147,6%

108,9%

101,3%

108,3%

124,8%

77,9%

98,4%

84,6%

105%

138

2012

259

2013

91

2014

168

2015

124

2016

32

2017

75

2018

112

2019

8

281

2020

EU Median

The Clearance Rate was calculated at 147,6% in 2020 for insolvency cases, Hungary seems ... to deal with its insolvency cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased by 63,1 points.

In 2020, insolvency cases are solved in a approximately 8 days, which is significantly below the EU median of 281 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a -93,0% decrease of the Disposition Time.

The situation with insolvency cases in Hungary shows a big drop in disposition time. This is mostly because iof low aboslute number of these cases. Only 63 new cases 
were filed and somewhat more were resolved and there are only 2 cases pending at the end of 2020. This is why these variations are in reality not very significant. The 
reason for this could be the re-organisation of admnistrative jurisdiction that might have released some resources.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

700 / 1555

● First instance Criminal Law Cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases Resolved casesPending 
Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

Incoming cases

3,65

3,55

0,53

5
6
3

,

Hungary

5
5
3

,

Total

42 484

360 839

350 933

52 390

EU Median

Severe criminal cases 

20 753

125 130

122 476

23 407

Misdemeanour and/or 
minor cases

21 731

235 709

228 457

28 983

Other cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

Per 100 inhabitants

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 
Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

0,43

0,21

0,22

NAP

3,65

1,27

2,38

NAP

3,55

1,24

2,31

NAP

0,53

0,24

0,29

NAP

1,48

0,46

1,60

0
6
1

,

8
4
1

,

3
5
0

,

6
4
0

,

Hungary

EU Median

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, and other 
criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases

Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

3,65
3,55

Total

0,53

Severe criminal
cases

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

0,24

0,29

1,27
1,24

2,38
2,31

The number of total incoming criminal cases in 2020 in Hungary (3,65 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (1,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total resolved criminal cases in 2020 in Hungary (3,55 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (1,48 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total pending criminal cases at the end of 2020 in Hungary (0,53 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly above EU median (0,46 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT)

Total criminal law cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

DT (days)

CR (%)

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 

Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

97,3%

97,9%

96,9%

NAP

54

70

46

NAP

Total Criminal law cases

97,3%

95,2%

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, 
and other criminal law cases 

97,9%

96,9%

EU Median

95,2%

139

EU Median

54

Total

139

EU Median

70

Severe criminal
cases

46

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

With the Clearance Rate calculated at 97,3% in 2020 Hungary did not solve all incomming total criminal cases.

Anyway, still in 2020, criminal law cases were solved in approximately 54 days, which is significantly below EU median of 139 days.

Criminal offences in Hugare are divided between severe or minor crimes. Severe crimes (bűntett) are committed intentionally and are punishable with at least two years 
of imprisonment. All other criminal offences are minor crimes (vétség). Crimes that are not committed intentionally are always considered as minor crimes, despite the 
possible punishment.
Misdemeanours (szabálysértés) are not considered as criminal offences, but are unlawful acts that are endangering the society. The authorities intervening in their 
respect are the police, the district office, or the National Tax and Customs Office. Their decisions can be reviewed by the relevant section of the respective district court 
upon request of the accused person. Generally, the court rules without oral hearings, based upon the available documents. However, it can set a hearing if it finds it 
necessary or if the person charged by a misdemeanor requests it. The judgment is a final and enforceable decision.

It is noteworthy that the Hungarian law identifies also the category of civil offences encompassing offences mainly against public administration. However some criminal 
offenses, such as property crimes involving objects of small value (under 50000 HUF), are classified in this category as well. Civil offences fall under the jurisdiction of 
various administrative agencies, local governments or traffic police, but not the courts.
Concerning the methodology of presentation of data, as according to the Hungarian Criminal Code not only severe crimes (bűntett), but also almost every minor crime 
(vétség) are punishable with imprisonment, both categories were included into the category “severe criminal cases”. Thus misdemeanors (szabálysértés) were included 
into the category “minor criminal cases”.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

701 / 1555

Overall efficiency by instance and by case matter

CR (%)

DT (days)

CR (%)

DT (days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases

100,2%

107,1%

131,8%

Administrative cases

89,3%

145,5%

108,6%

Total criminal law cases

97,3%

102,4%

104,2%

165

110

54

116

4

48

155

58

66

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

1st instance

1st instance

Supreme Court

Supreme Court

Civil and commercial 
%
2
litigious cases
0
Administrative cases
0
1

,

100%

,

%
8
1
3
1

,

%
1
7
0
1

100,2%
%
89,3%
3
9
8

,

2nd instance
2nd instance
%
5
5
4
1

,

,

%
6
107,1%
8
0
145,5%
1

%
3
7
9

,

,

%
4
2
0
1

,

%
2
4
0
1

131,8%
108,6%

Total criminal law cases

Civil and commercial
litigious cases

Administrative cases Total criminal law cases
102,4%

104,2%

97,3%

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

155

116

165

58
4
110

66
48
54

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

1

1
1

1
1

In 2020 Hungarian courts are performing fastest  for administrative cases which is oposite to the EU median where the administrative cases are the longest on each of 
the three instances. Looking by instance in Hugary first instance is longest as it is also EU tendency.  On the other hand second instance is fastest doe civil and 
commercial litigios and for administrative cases. 
Disposition time for all categories of cases and for all instances in Hungary are well below EU median.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

702 / 1555

5. Public prosecution services in Hungary

● Role and powers of the public prosecutor

In the criminal procedure, the public prosecutor in Hungary has the following 11 out of 11 possible roles and powers:

To conduct or supervise police investigation

To appeal

To conduct investigations

To supervise the enforcement procedure

When necessary, to request investigation measures from the judge

To discontinue a case without needing a decision by a judge

To charge

To present the case in the court

To propose a sentence to the judge

To end the case by imposing or negotiating a penalty or measure 
without requiring a judicial decision

Other significant powers

The Prosecution Service conducts investigation of cases specified in the Code of Criminal Procedure; supervises investigative authorities; exercises other rights in connection with 
investigations; exercises the public authority of formal accusation; represents the prosecution in court proceedings and exercises the rights to redress; monitors compliance with 
the law governing penalties, ancillary penalties, measures, coercive procedural measures depriving and restricting personal freedom, follow-up care and the implementation of 
criminal records, records of administrative offences and searches and participates in proceedings instituted by judges responsible for enforcement; ensures the correct application 
of laws in court proceedings; promotes legal compliance by entities exercising public powers and handling out-of-court settlement; gives special attention to combating crimes 
committed by and against minors, to compliance with the special rules of procedure of administrative and criminal proceedings instituted against juveniles; participates in enforcing 
the rights of minors and launches proceedings to have the necessary child protection measures taken in the cases provided for by law; performs its duties relating to international 
treaties, particularly seeking and providing legal assistance; performs the duties relating to Hungary’s participation in Eurojust; acts as defence in lawsuits filed against the 
Prosecution Service with reference to legal violations or for damages relating to its activities. 

The public prosecutor also has a role in civil, administrative and insolvency cases.

In administrative matters, the Hungarian prosecution services can take court-actions against decisions of different administrative authorities. Such actions – irrespective of the 
procedural rules governing them (rules of civil proceedings or special administrative law rules) – are bound to court proceedings: prosecutors act as parties. Prosecution services 
did not report any special powers or authorities when prosecutors take part in civil court proceedings as petitioners. They have the same powers as other parties and can appeal 
against unlawful legal acts of administrative authorities.
The most important aims prosecutors may take legal actions for are (with some examples):
- nullity of marriage
- paternity denial or dissolution of adoption
- protection of children’s rights - representation of state authorities in proceedings for compensation of damages caused by the judiciary
- dissolution of civil associations - declaration of violation of labor or social law regulations
- nature management.
Special competencies were given to Hungarian prosecution services against administrative decisions as (with some examples):
- providing legal opinions on draft proposals of legislation
- monitoring and observing the application of legislation, warning, protest or contestation (with or without) power of suspension of execution against a decision of a certain 
administrative authority.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

703 / 1555

● Public prosecutors: Number of first instance criminal cases

Type of cases

Absolute 
number

Per 100 
inhabitants

1. Pending cases on 1 Jan. ref. year 

NA

NA

2. Incoming/received cases

243 700

2,46

Public prosecutors: Total number of first instance criminal 
Incoming/rec
cases per 100 inhabitants
eived cases

Processed 
cases

Pendin
g cases 
on 31 
Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. Year

Processed cases

Incoming/received cases

3. Processed cases (3.1 + 3.2 + 3.3 + 3.4)

141 432

1,43

Hungary

2,93
2,46 1,43

2,89

NA

2,46

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year (3.1.1 + 3.1.2 + 3.1.3 
+ 3.1.4)

20 129

0,20

EU Median

2,93 2,89

0,86

1,43

3.1.1 Discontinued by the public prosecutor because the 
offender could not be identified 

3 052

0,03

0,86

3.1.2 Discontinued by the public prosecutor due to the lack 
of an established offence or a specific legal situation 

8 048

0,08

Hungary

EU Median

3.1.3 Discontinued by the public prosecutor for reasons of 
opportunity

3 126

0,03

Processed cases per 100 inhabitants
EU Median

Hungary

3.1.4 Discontinued for other reasons 

5 903

0,06

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated 
by the public prosecutor

4 354

0,04

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

Processed cases

Hungary

0,20

EU Median

1,08

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed
or negotiated by the public prosecutor

-0,20

0,04

1,08
0,12

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons

4 808

0,05

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other
reasons

-0,04

0,05

0,12

0,30

3.4. Cases brought to court

112 141

1,13

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons
0,30

-0,05

3.4. Cases brought to court

1,13

0,62

4. Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. year

NA

NA

3.4. Cases brought to court

-1,13

0,62

In Hungary the the comparisson between incomming or received cases in 2020 and those processed is in high favour of the incomming cases. EU median is more balanced 
where siminar number of incomming and processed cases is observed as shown in the first prosecution chart above right. Most of the cases of those processed are brought to 
court, almost 80%, 14% are discontinued and the rest of 6% is closed by penalty or another reason. 

In Hungary the category 3.1.4 Discontinued for other reasons are in case the Special Part of the Penal Code regulates the conduct of the accused after the commencement of the 
proceedings as a ground for termination of criminal liability.
On the other side the 3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons are if at the stage of preparation of the prosecution, Section 221 / A (7) of the Criminal 
Procedure Act provides that if the mediation proceedings are successful and the application of Section 29 (1) of the Criminal Code is appropriate, the prosecutor shall terminate 
the proceedings.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

704 / 1555

6. Existence and use of alternative dispute resolution in Hungary

Number of mediators

Mediators

Total

Per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

12

20

120

160

174

174

153

203

141

0,1

0,2

1,2

1,6

1,8

1,8

1,6

2,1

1,4

EU Median 2020

EU median in 2019

14,4

Number of mediators per 100 000 inhabitants

EU Median
2020

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

0,2

2012

0,1

1,4

2,1

1,6

1,8

1,8

1,6

1,2

14,4

In 2020, there are 141 accredited or registered mediators who practise court related mediation which represents 1,4 accredited or registered mediators per 100 000 

The number of mediators is quite low compared with the EU median of 14.4 per 100 000 inhabitants.

Number of court related mediations

Type of cases

Total of all cases

Civil and commercial

Family cases

Administrative

Employment dismissal

Criminal cases

Consumer cases

Number of cases 
for which the parties
agreed to start 
mediation

Number of finished 
court-related
mediations

Number of cases 
in which there is a 
settlement agreement

899

141

725

4

29

NAP

NA

873

123

718

3

29

NAP

NA

248

16

223

1

8

NAP

NA

Consumer cases are included in category 1 "civil and commercial cases".

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

705 / 1555

7. ICT tools of courts in Hungary

●The ICT tools of courts and for court users

The use of ICT in courts in 2020 has been evaluated as  :

EU Median

Total 
(0 to 10)

Assistance tools (0 to 3)

Case management system (0 to 7)
Financial management tools (0 to 3)

Measurement tools to assess the workload (0 to 5)
Electronic communication (0 to 10)

8,9
3,0

6,7

2,0
3,3

10,0

6,6
2,0

5,2

1,3
2,5

6,9

The calculation of this values for each field is based on the answers for that question/s and weighted according the avaiability 
or deployment rate. The total value is normalised to max 10 points for readability and comparison.

The details of the calculation are given in Annex 5 - IT calculations

The result by area may be summarized in these graphics, where each field has been evaluated from 0 to 4 points.

Note: index is modified based on the available questions. This cycle the recalculation was made for the last three cycles to be 
able to follow the development.

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

2018

2019

2020

EU Median 2020

Case 
management 
system

Financial 
management 
tools

Measurement 
tools to assess 
the workload

Electronic 
communication

6,17

6,17

6,67

6,17

6,17

2,00

2,00

2,00

6,67

3,33

5,17

3,33

3,33

9,44

9,44

10,00

10,00

9,44

9,44

6,94

Assistance 
tools

Year
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
EU Median 20202,00

3,00

2,25

2,50

3,00

2,50

2,25

2,00

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

3,33

3,33

3,33

2,50

2,00

2,00

2,00

1,25

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

Since 2018 evolution is observed for Assistance tools, Case management system and for Electronic communication while the other two 
categories are stable. All categories for Hungary are quite above EU median for 2020.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

706 / 1555

8. Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and public prosecution services in Hungary

In Hungary, quality standards are determined for the judicial system at national level (e.g. quality systems for the judiciary and/or judicial quality policies). However, there is no 
specialised personnel within the courts or the public prosecution services entrusted with implementation of these national level quality standards.

Second instance courts have to prepare a note on the decision and the trial procedure of the first instance court, based on professional criteria in every case. In this note, the 
court of appeal has to examine: the application of substantive, procedural and administrative regulations; the preparation of the hearings; the quality of the judges trial leading 
practice; if the coercive measures were well founded; if the hearings were set timely; if the ruling was transcribed in time; if the decision was edited correctly. The conclusions 
are summarized and judges of first instance courts are informed about them at least once a year.
Furthermore, the departments of the Supreme Court (Kúria) responsible for examining the judicial practice evaluates the practice of the courts and regularly inform judges 
about their experience.

● Systems for measuring and evaluating courts' performance

A regular monitoring system of court activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

In category other among others there are:
- individual judge’s statistics, - statistics on the reasons of the postpone of the trials,
- number of trial days in cases, - number of tried cases per day,
- pending cases of an individual judge / court,
- the time frame of pending cases
- number of appealed cases,
- the subject of incoming / finished / pending cases,
- the ratio of litigious and non-litigious cases,
- cases that are pending over 2 or 5 years have a separated statistical report every month
- cases in which there were no actions taken in the last 30 days by the court have a separated statistical report every month

In Hungary, there is a system to regularly evaluate the court performance based primarily on defined indicators and the reporting is more frequent than annual.

The statistics of the court system are composed quarterly, semi-annualy and annually. It is published on the central internet website of the courts in every half year.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each court.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

Measuring the satisfaction of court users has been introduced in 2014.
Similarly as for the regular monitoring system, the other include: 
- individual judge’s statistics; 
- statistics on the reasons of the postpone of the trials; 
- number of trial days in cases;
- number of cases heard per day; 
- pending cases of an individual judge / court; 
- the time frame of pending cases; 
- number of appealed cases;
- the subject of incoming / finished / pending cases; 
- the ratio of litigious and non-litigious cases; cases that are pending over 2 or 5 years have a separated statistical report every month; 
- cases in which there were no actions taken in the last 30 days by the court have a separated statistical report every month;

The evaluation of the courts' activities is used for the later allocation of means in the courts.

The statistical output of a court (mainly the number of incoming and pending cases) is taken into consideration during the distribution of human resources.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

707 / 1555

● Systems for measuring and evaluating public prosecution services' performance

A regular monitoring system of public prosecution services activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases 

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs 

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecution) 

Costs of the judicial procedures 

Clearance rate 

Disposition time 

Percentage of convictions and aquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

In Hungary, there is no system to evaluate regularly the activity of each public prosection service and consequently no indicators exist. See below table. 

Performance and quality indicators are not defined for the activity of each public prosecution service.

None of the following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecutors)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Percentage of convictions and acquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff

The evaluation of the public prosecution services' activities is not used for the later allocation of means in the public prosecution services.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

708 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table General Data: Economic and demographic data, in absolute values (Q1, Q3, Q5)

Q1 Number of inhabitants

9 908 798

9 877 365

9 855 571

9 830 485

9 797 561

9 877 365

9 591 495

9 769 000

9 890 640

-0,2%

-0,3%

-0,2%

-0,3%

-0,3%

0,8%

-2,9%

1,9%

1,2%

Q.3 GDP Per capita (in €) in current prices

9 800

9 900

10 500

10 900

11 200

11 800

12 500

13 180

13 940

42,2%

1,0%

6,1%

3,8%

2,8%

5,4%

5,9%

5,4%

5,8%

Q5. Exchange rate of Nat currency to € on 1 Jan

293

297

315

316

309

309

322

330

361

23,2%

1,3%

6,1%

0,2%

-2,0%

0,0%

4,1%

2,4%

9,4%

Indicator 1: Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and prosecution services  (Indicator 4 in 2019)

Table 1.1 to Table 1.10 (Q66, Q67, Q77, Q78, Q77-1, Q78-1, Q73, Q73-0, Q73-1, Q73-2, Q73-3, Q73-4, Q73-5, Q73-6, Q70, Q70-1, Q71, Q72, Q83-2, Q83-3, Q120 
and Q120-1)

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

66 Qlty standards formulated_jud system

67 Specialised court staff entrusted_qlty standards

77 Performance and quality indicators of court activities

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

078.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078.1.5 Backlogs 

078.1.6 Productivity of judges and court staff

078.1.7 Satisfaction of court staff 

078.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts) 

078.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078.1.10 Number of appeals

078.1.11 Appeal ratio

078.1.12 Clearance rate 

078.1.13 Disposition time 

078.1.14 Other

077-1.1.1 Defined performance and quality indicators

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

709 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

078-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078-1.1.5 Backlogs 

078-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

078-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

078-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

078-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

078-1.1.11 Disposition time 

078-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

078-1.1.13 Other

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

73 Regular system_evaluation_performance_each court

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

073-0.1.1 Annual

073-0.1.2 Less frequent

073-0.1.3 More frequent

073-1.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
court

073-2.1.1 Courses of action taken in the evaluation is used for the 
allocation of resources

073-2.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-2.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-2.1.4 Other

073-3.1.1 Regular evaluation of the public prosecution services 
performance

Yes

Yes

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

710 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

073-4.1.1 Annual

073-4.1.2 Less frequent

073-4.1.3 More frequent

073-5.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
public prosecution services

073-6.1.1 Identifying the causes of improved or deteriorated 
performance

073-6.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-6.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-6.1.4 Other

070.1.1 number of incoming cases

070.1.2 length of proceedings (timeframes)

070.1.3 number of resolved cases

070.1.4 number of pending cases

070.1.5 backlogs

070.1.6 productivity of judges and court staff

070.1.7 satisfaction of court staff

070.1.8 satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts)

070.1.9 costs of the judicial procedures

070.1.10 number of appeals

070.1.11 appeal ratio

070.1.12 clearance rate

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

-

-

-

False

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

711 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

070-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases 

070-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

070-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

070-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

070-1.1.5 Backlogs 

070-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

070-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

070-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

070-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

070-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

070-1.1.11 Disposition time 

070-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

070-1.1.13 Other

071.1.1 Monitoring backlogs in Civil law cases

071.1.2 Monitoring backlogs in Criminal law cases

071.1.3 Monitoring backlogs in Administrative law cases

072.1.1 Monitoring timeframes Within the courts

072.1.2 Monitoring timeframes Within the public prosecution services

083-2.1.1 Quantitative performance tagets defined for each 
prosecutors

083-3.1.1 Body responsible - Executive power (for example the 
Ministry of Justice)

083-3.1.2 Body responsible - Prosecutor General /State public 
prosecutor

083-3.1.3 Body responsible - Public Prosecutorial Council

083-3.1.4 Body responsible - Head of the organisational unit or 
hierarchically superior public prosecutor

083-3.1.5 Body responsible - Other

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

False

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

712 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

120.1.1 Qualitative individual assessment of the public prosecutors' 
work

120-1.1.1 Feequency - Annual

120-1.1.2 Feequency - Less frequent

120-1.1.3 Feequency - More frequent

True

False

True

False

Indicator 2: The judicial organisation

Tables 2.1a; 2.1b; 2.2a; 2.2b; 2.3a; 2.3b; 2.4 and 2.5(EC) (Q42, Q43 and Q44)

Q42.1.1Total number of all courts - legal entities 

Q42.1.2 Total number of courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

139

139

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Q42.1.3 First instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

131

131

111

111

111

112

113

113

113

-13,7%

0,0%

-15,3%

0,0%

0,0%

0,9%

0,9%

0,0%

0,0%

Q42.1.4 Second instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.5 Highest instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.6 Total number of specialised courts - legal entities

43.1.1 Total number of specialised courts of first instance

43.1.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.1.3 Insolvency courts

43.1.4 Labour courts

43.1.5 Family courts

43.1.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.1.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.1.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.1.9 Internet related disputes

43.1.10 Administrative courts

43.1.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.1.12 Military courts

43.1.13 Juvenile courts

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

20

NAP

NAP

20

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

20

NAP

NAP

20

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

20

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

20

NAP

NAP

20

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

20

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

20

NAP

NAP

20

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

20

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

20

NAP

NAP

20

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

20

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

20

NAP

NAP

20

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

20

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

20

NAP

NAP

20

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

20

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

20

NAP

NAP

20

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

20

NAP

NAP

-

25

1

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

713 / 1555

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

43.1.14 Other specialised courts

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

43.2.1 Total number of specialised courts of higher instances

43.2.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.2.3 Insolvency courts

43.2.4 Labour courts

43.2.5 Family courts

43.2.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.2.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.2.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.2.9 Internet related disputes

43.2.10 Administrative courts

43.2.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.2.12 Military courts

43.2.13 Juvenile courts

43.2.14 Other specialised courts

44.1.1 First instance courts geographic locations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

113

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

44.1.2 All courts geographic locations

157

157

157

157

157

158

159

159

139

-11,5%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,6%

0,6%

0,0%

-12,6%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

714 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 3: The performance of courts at all stages of the proceedings

Tables 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.4 (all years) Number of other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 Variation of first instance other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants (Q1, Q91)

Table 3.13.7 (EC) to 3.13.12 (EC) First instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

91.1.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.1.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.1.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.1.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.1.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.1.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.1.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.1.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

91.1.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.1.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

91.1.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

91.2.1 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.2.2 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.2.3 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.2.4 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.2.5 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.2.6 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.2.7 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.2.8 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

91.2.9 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

NA

NA

162 126

150 305

148 425

138 168

174 020

131 158

126 602

-

-

-

-7,3%

-1,3%

-6,9%

25,9%

-24,6%

-3,5%

142 113

78 381

82 107

74 290

76 124

79 099

85 430

63 848

57 987

-59,2%

-44,8%

4,8%

-9,5%

2,5%

3,9%

8,0%

-25,3%

-9,2%

-

-

28 503

26 626

31 335

25 806

58 332

43 355

48 405

-

-

-

-6,6%

17,7%

-17,6%

126,0%

-25,7%

11,6%

51 785

27 684

27 373

25 154

30 442

25 130

20 389

17 886

17 714

-65,8%

-46,5%

-1,1%

-8,1%

21,0%

-17,4%

-18,9%

-12,3%

-1,0%

-

NAP

NA

-

-

-

NAP

NA

-

-

962

NAP

NA

962

168

1 076

NAP

NA

1 076

396

893

NAP

NA

893

391

704

37 436

25 208

30 336

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

704

492

35 986

23 606

28 523

1 450

1 602

1 813

507

261

355

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

11,9%

-17,0%

-21,2% 5217,6%

-32,7%

20,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-34,4%

20,8%

11,9%

-17,0%

-21,2%

106,0%

10,5%

13,2%

135,7%

-1,3%

25,8%

3,0%

-48,5%

36,0%

6 483

6 019

5 320

6 734

5 776

5 827

5 467

5 180

4 768

-26,5%

-7,2%

-11,6%

26,6%

-14,2%

0,9%

-6,2%

-5,2%

-8,0%

56 882

57 094

46 196

42 655

35 190

27 436

24 791

18 775

15 442

-72,9%

0,4%

-19,1%

-7,7%

-17,5%

-22,0%

-9,6%

-24,3%

-17,8%

1 129 126

1 164 682

848 998

902 411

870 257

847 148

719 282

663 594

634 257

-43,8%

3,1%

-27,1%

6,3%

-3,6%

-2,7%

-15,1%

-7,7%

-4,4%

432 443

180 813

180 382

176 407

184 824

178 330

132 557

133 406

127 410

-70,5%

-58,2%

-0,2%

-2,2%

4,8%

-3,5%

-25,7%

0,6%

-4,5%

-

-

613 158

678 103

637 091

623 259

550 507

497 329

458 787

-

-

-

10,6%

-6,0%

-2,2%

-11,7%

-9,7%

-7,7%

246 856

201 578

180 459

212 034

191 575

201 591

203 997

178 014

165 017

-33,2%

-18,3%

-10,5%

17,5%

-9,6%

5,2%

1,2%

-12,7%

-7,3%

-

-

430 096

463 007

441 767

418 418

344 358

317 207

291 916

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

7,7%

-4,6%

-5,3%

-17,7%

-7,9%

-8,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

385 241

726 545

427 114

459 210

437 387

414 067

339 852

311 808

286 917

-25,5%

88,6%

-41,2%

7,5%

-4,8%

-5,3%

-17,9%

-8,3%

-8,0%

-

-

-

-

2 982

2 603

3 797

3 062

4 380

3 749

4 351

4 506

5 399

4 999

3 250

2 152

2 108

1 854

-

-

-

-

-

-

27,3%

15,4%

-0,7%

3,6%

19,8%

-7,4%

17,6%

22,4%

-13,3%

-33,8%

-2,0%

-12,0%

91.2.10 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

12 595

16 189

18 008

18 149

19 590

16 908

17 120

16 432

29 254

132,3%

28,5%

11,2%

0,8%

7,9%

-13,7%

1,3%

-4,0%

78,0%

91.2.11 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

51 991

39 557

37 450

29 752

28 752

28 651

19 098

16 427

18 806

-63,8%

-23,9%

-5,3%

-20,6%

-3,4%

-0,4%

-33,3%

-14,0%

14,5%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

715 / 1555

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

91.3.1 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.3.2 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.3.3 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.3.4 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.3.5 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.3.6 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.3.7 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.3.8 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

91.3.9 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

1 176 429

1 135 973

872 260

914 672

888 592

840 592

762 142

668 015

623 392

-47,0%

-3,4%

-23,2%

4,9%

-2,9%

-5,4%

-9,3%

-12,4%

-6,7%

454 369

177 087

188 199

174 573

181 849

171 999

154 139

139 267

127 656

-71,9%

-61,0%

6,3%

-7,2%

4,2%

-5,4%

-10,4%

-9,6%

-8,3%

-

-

626 526

681 609

650 977

620 029

565 484

492 145

448 443

-

-

-

8,8%

-4,5%

-4,8%

-8,8%

-13,0%

-8,9%

262 314

200 004

182 894

206 746

196 915

206 332

206 500

178 186

163 630

-37,6%

-23,8%

-8,6%

13,0%

-4,8%

4,8%

0,1%

-13,7%

-8,2%

-

-

441 257

471 796

450 414

410 463

356 586

311 945

282 953

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

6,9%

-4,5%

-8,9%

-13,1%

-12,5%

-9,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

394 348

691 613

438 389

467 816

445 845

406 858

352 232

306 757

277 984

-29,5%

75,4%

-36,6%

6,7%

-4,7%

-8,7%

-13,4%

-12,9%

-9,4%

-

-

-

-

2 868

2 375

3 980

3 067

4 569

3 648

3 605

4 354

5 188

4 969

3 235

2 398

2 014

1 860

-

-

-

-

-

-

38,8%

14,8%

-21,1%

20,8%

19,2%

-4,2%

29,1%

18,9%

-11,3%

-25,9%

-16,0%

-7,6%

91.3.10 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

13 599

16 888

16 594

19 107

19 539

17 268

17 407

16 844

26 133

92,2%

24,2%

-1,7%

15,1%

2,3%

-11,6%

0,8%

-3,2%

55,1%

91.3.11 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

91.4.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.4.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.4.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.4.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.4.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.4.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.4.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.4.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

91.4.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.4.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

91.4.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

51 799

50 381

40 941

39 383

36 227

31 296

25 112

19 759

21 160

-59,1%

-2,7%

-18,7%

-3,8%

-8,0%

-13,6%

-19,8%

-21,3%

7,1%

NA

NA

150 089

146 650

138 177

144 724

131 158

126 736

137 467

-

-

-

-2,3%

-5,8%

4,7%

-9,4%

-3,4%

8,5%

120 187

82 107

74 290

76 124

79 099

85 430

63 848

57 987

57 741

-52,0%

-31,7%

-9,5%

2,5%

3,9%

8,0%

-25,3%

-9,2%

-0,4%

-

-

26 410

31 726

25 806

29 036

43 355

48 539

58 749

-

-

-

20,1%

-18,7%

12,5%

49,3%

12,0%

21,0%

36 327

29 258

24 938

30 442

25 102

20 389

17 886

17 714

19 101

-47,4%

-19,5%

-14,8%

22,1%

-17,5%

-18,8%

-12,3%

-1,0%

7,8%

-

NAP

NA

-

-

-

1 076

NAP

NA

-

-

NAP

NA

1 076

396

893

NAP

NA

893

391

704

NAP

NA

704

492

8 659

25 208

30 470

39 299

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

23 606

28 657

37 456

1 450

1 602

1 813

1 843

507

261

355

349

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-17,0%

-21,2% 1130,0%

191,1%

20,9%

29,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

21,4%

30,7%

-17,0%

-21,2%

106,0%

10,5%

13,2%

1,7%

-1,3%

25,8%

3,0%

-48,5%

36,0%

-1,7%

5 479

5 320

6 734

5 776

5 827

5 467

5 180

4 768

7 889

44,0%

-2,9%

26,6%

-14,2%

0,9%

-6,2%

-5,2%

-8,0%

65,5%

57 074

46 270

42 655

33 024

27 445

24 791

18 775

15 442

13 088

-77,1%

-18,9%

-7,8%

-22,6%

-16,9%

-9,7%

-24,3%

-17,8%

-15,2%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

716 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.2 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.4 to 3.3.7 Variation of Clearence Rate and Disposition Time of first instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

Table 3.13.1 (EC) to 3.13.6 (EC) First instance courts: Disposition time and clearance rate for other than criminal cases  (Q91)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

104,2%

97,5%

102,7%

101,4%

102,1%

99,2%

106,0%

100,7%

98,3%

(5,67)

(6,39)

5,34

(1,34)

0,74

(2,82)

6,79

(4,99)

(2,36)

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

105,1%

97,9%

104,3%

99,0%

98,4%

96,4%

116,3%

104,4%

100,2%

(4,64)

(6,79)

6,53

(5,15)

(0,58)

(1,97)

20,56

(10,22)

(4,02)

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

-

-

102,2%

100,5%

102,2%

99,5%

102,7%

99,0%

97,7%

-

-

-

(1,63)

1,65

(2,64)

3,26

(3,66)

(1,23)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

106,3%

99,2%

101,3%

97,5%

102,8%

102,4%

101,2%

100,1%

99,2%

(6,68)

(6,63)

2,15

(3,79)

5,42

(0,42)

(1,10)

(1,12)

(0,94)

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

-

-

102,6%

101,9%

102,0%

98,1%

103,6%

98,3%

96,9%

CR Non litigious land registry cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

(0,68)

0,06

(3,78)

5,56

(5,03)

(1,44)

-

-

-

-

-

-

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

102,4%

95,2%

102,6%

101,9%

101,9%

98,3%

103,6%

98,4%

96,9%

(5,35)

(7,01)

7,82

(0,75)

0,06

(3,61)

5,48

(5,08)

(1,52)

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

-

-

-

-

96,2%

104,8%

104,3%

82,9%

96,6%

96,1%

99,4%

91,2%

100,2%

97,3%

99,5%

111,4%

95,5%

100,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

8,99

(0,48)

(20,57)

16,62

(0,55)

3,44

9,78

(2,85)

2,29

11,95

(14,26)

5,01

CR Administrative law cases

108,0%

104,3%

92,1%

105,3%

99,7%

102,1%

101,7%

102,5%

89,3%

(17,26)

(3,38)

(11,67)

14,25

(5,26)

2,40

(0,44)

0,82

(12,85)

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

99,6%

127,4%

109,3%

132,4%

126,0%

109,2%

131,5%

120,3%

112,5%

12,93

27,84

(14,17)

21,08

(4,81)

(13,31)

20,38

(8,52)

(6,46)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

97

-

51

-

NAP

NA

-

-

147

402

NA

169

-

53

-

NAP

NA

-

-

115

335

63

144

15

50

1

59

159

17

54

1

57

159

14

47

1

63

181

17

36

8

63

151

28

32

26

69

152

36

36

36

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

137

61

148

380

NA

82

47

110

306

NA

56

49

109

277

NA

147

57

116

289

24

134

40

109

273

34

128

64

103

285

80

-

-

-

-6,8%

-3,0%

10,7%

0,0%

10,2%

16,2%

165

71,0%

75,3%

-14,9%

10,5%

-0,2%

14,2%

-16,6%

0,5%

8,6%

48

-

-

-

10,4%

-14,8%

18,1%

63,7%

28,6%

32,8%

43

-15,7%

5,6%

-6,8%

8,0%

-13,4%

-22,5%

-12,3%

14,8%

17,4%

51

49

135

68

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-22,4%

-17,4% 1249,7%

235,1%

38,2%

42,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

39,4%

44,2%

-40,2%

-31,3%

161,0%

-8,5%

-5,0%

6,1%

-23,5%

5,8%

16,2%

-30,6%

61,9%

6,4%

110

-25,1%

-21,8%

28,8%

-25,5%

-1,3%

6,2%

-6,0%

-4,9%

6,6%

226

-43,9%

-16,6%

13,4%

-19,5%

-9,7%

4,6%

-5,6%

4,5%

-20,9%

717 / 1555

        
        
         
        
         
        
         
        
        
        
        
         
        
        
        
       
      
        
        
         
        
         
        
        
        
        
         
        
         
        
        
        
        
        
         
        
         
        
        
        
        
         
        
         
        
         
        
        
         
        
      
       
        
         
         
        
         
       
      
         
      
        
      
       
        
         
        
         
      
       
       
      
       
        
      
       
        
        
Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.4.1 (all years) First instance courts, number of cases for specific case categories (Q101)

101.1.1 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Litigious divorce case

16 416

13 134

12 878

NA

10 682

11 371

13 123

11 425

10 579

-35,6%

-20,0%

-1,9%

-

-

6,5%

15,4%

-12,9%

-7,4%

101.1.2 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Employment dismissal case

3 389

3 144

2 492

2 198

1 762

1 332

1 306

101.1.3 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Insolvency

62

51

85

37

54

39

12

909

13

842

-75,2%

-7,2%

-20,7%

-11,8%

-19,8%

-24,4%

-2,0%

-30,4%

-7,4%

32

-48,4%

-17,7%

66,7%

-56,5%

45,9%

-27,8%

-69,2%

8,3%

146,2%

101.2.1 Incoming cases_Litigious divorce case

27 394

28 392

28 512

27 446

27 677

28 326

24 452

26 735

25 579

-6,6%

3,6%

0,4%

-3,7%

0,8%

2,3%

-13,7%

9,3%

-4,3%

101.2.2 Incoming cases_Employment dismissal case

5 119

4 170

3 872

3 231

2 452

2 258

1 552

1 630

2 896

-43,4%

-18,5%

-7,1%

-16,6%

-24,1%

-7,9%

-31,3%

5,0%

77,7%

101.2.3 Incoming cases_Insolvency

124

154

100

77

120

109

64

123

63

-49,2%

24,2%

-35,1%

-23,0%

55,8%

-9,2%

-41,3%

92,2%

-48,8%

101.3.1 Resolved cases_Litigious divorce case

30 676

28 648

28 641

16 764

26 988

26 574

26 150

27 581

25 663

-16,3%

-6,6%

0,0%

-41,5%

61,0%

-1,5%

-1,6%

5,5%

-7,0%

101.3.2 Resolved cases_Employment dismissal case

5 364

4 822

4 166

3 667

2 882

2 265

1 949

1 697

2 793

-47,9%

-10,1%

-13,6%

-12,0%

-21,4%

-21,4%

-14,0%

-12,9%

64,6%

101.3.3 Resolved cases_Insolvency

135

120

148

78

130

136

63

104

93

-31,1%

-11,1%

23,3%

-47,3%

66,7%

4,6%

-53,7%

65,1%

-10,6%

101.4.1 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Litigious divorce case

13 134

12 878

12 749

10 682

11 371

13 123

11 425

10 579

10 495

-20,1%

-1,9%

-1,0%

-16,2%

6,5%

15,4%

-12,9%

-7,4%

-0,8%

101.4.2 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Employment dismissal case

3 144

2 492

2 198

1 762

1 332

1 325

101.4.3 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Insolvency

51

85

37

36

44

12

909

13

842

32

949

-69,8%

-20,7%

-11,8%

-19,8%

-24,4%

-0,5%

-31,4%

-7,4%

12,7%

2

-96,1%

66,7%

-56,5%

-2,7%

22,2%

-72,7%

8,3%

146,2%

-93,8%

Table 3.5.1 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for specific case categories (Q101)

Table 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 Variations of CR and DT for specific case categories of first instance cases (Q101)

CR Litigious divorce cases

112,0%

100,9%

100,5%

61,1%

97,5%

93,8%

106,9%

103,2%

100,3%

(10,41)

(9,89)

(0,45)

(39,20)

59,64

(3,79)

13,99

(3,53)

(2,75)

CR Employment dismissal cases

104,8%

115,6%

107,6%

113,5%

117,5%

100,3%

125,6%

104,1%

96,4%

(7,96)

10,35

(6,96)

5,48

3,56

(14,66)

25,19

(17,10)

(7,36)

CR Insolvency cases

108,9%

77,9%

148,0%

101,3%

108,3%

124,8%

98,4%

84,6%

147,6%

35,59

(28,43)

89,93

(31,55)

6,94

15,17

(21,11)

(14,11)

74,59

DT Litigious divorce cases

DT Employment dismissal cases

DT Insolvency cases

156

214

138

164

189

259

162

193

91

233

175

168

154

169

124

180

214

32

159

170

75

140

181

112

149

-4,5%

5,0%

-1,0%

43,1%

-33,9%

17,2%

-11,5%

-12,2%

6,6%

124

-42,0%

-11,8%

2,1%

-8,9%

-3,8%

26,6%

-20,3%

6,4%

-31,5%

8

-94,3%

87,5%

-64,7%

84,6%

-26,7%

-73,9%

133,9%

49,1%

-93,0%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

718 / 1555

      
        
        
      
       
        
       
        
        
        
       
        
         
         
      
       
      
        
       
      
       
      
         
       
      
      
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.1.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.1.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.1.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.1.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.1.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.1.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.1.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.1.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

97.1.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.1.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

Table 3.7.1 to 3.7.5 (2019 and 2020) Second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Table 3.9.1 to 3.9.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

14 768

12 415

11 410

11 724

12 508

10 738

8 643

7 898

4 628

4 510

84

NAP

38

46

34

421

5 947

4 334

3 803

435

NAP

163

272

96

447

5 607

3 889

3 443

317

NAP

217

100

129

406

5 575

5 721

4 883

3 741

3 921

4 337

4 445

3 925

3 559

4 057

4 197

3 782

304

NAP

239

65

58

216

NAP

197

19

64

472

497

190

NAP

174

16

58

561

849

110

NAP

94

16

33

418

559

97.1.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases 

1 821

1 687

1 508

1 756

1 953

97.2.1 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.2.2 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.2.3 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.2.4 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.2.5 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.2.6 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.2.7 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.2.8 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

97.2.9 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.2.10 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

97.2.11 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases 

52 315

47 429

51 351

49 176

47 084

40 152

33 297

17 137

16 439

16 729

15 890

15 009

11 857

9 084

28 788

24 769

27 741

25 732

26 048

23 619

21 130

26 806

22 072

25 565

24 206

24 698

22 469

20 164

1 257

2 067

1 619

NAP

171

NAP

783

1 086

1 284

725

1 761

4 629

630

1 654

4 567

NAP

929

690

557

2 151

4 730

992

NAP

824

168

534

921

NAP

802

119

429

809

NAP

693

116

341

2 017

2 302

2 246

643

NAP

551

92

323

887

5 537

3 725

2 430

2 196

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-15,9%

-8,1%

2,8%

6,7%

-14,2%

-19,5%

-24,7%

-5,7%

-0,6%

2,6%

-14,6%

-23,4%

-6,4%

-10,3%

0,8%

10,6%

2,5%

-11,7%

-15,7%

-9,5%

3,4%

14,0%

3,5%

-9,9%

417,9%

-27,1%

-4,1%

-28,9%

-12,0%

-42,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

328,9%

33,1%

10,1%

-17,6%

-11,7%

-46,0%

491,3%

-63,2%

-35,0%

-70,8%

-15,8%

0,0%

182,4%

34,4%

-55,0%

10,3%

-9,4%

-43,1%

6,2%

-9,2%

16,3%

5,3%

12,9%

-25,5%

-7,4%

-10,6%

16,4%

11,2%

-56,5%

-34,2%

-9,3%

8,3%

-4,2%

-4,3%

-14,7%

-17,1%

-4,1%

1,8%

-5,0%

-5,5%

-21,0%

-23,4%

-14,0%

12,0%

-7,2%

1,2%

-9,3%

-10,5%

-17,7%

15,8%

-5,3%

2,0%

-9,0%

-10,3%

64,4%

-21,7%

-38,7%

-7,2%

-12,2%

-20,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

357,9%

18,6%

-11,3%

-2,7%

-13,6%

-20,5%

18,2%

-46,3%

-75,7%

-29,2%

-2,5%

-20,7%

-13,1%

-11,6%

-4,1%

-19,7%

-20,5%

-5,3%

-6,1%

30,0%

-6,2%

14,1%

-2,4%

-60,5%

-1,3%

3,6%

17,1%

-32,7%

-34,8%

-9,6%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

719 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.3.1 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.3.2 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.3.3 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.3.4 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.3.5 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.3.6 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.3.7 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.3.8 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

97.3.9 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.3.10 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

97.3.11 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases 

97.4.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.4.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.4.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.4.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.4.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.4.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.4.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.4.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

97.4.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.4.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

13 390

11 410

11 724

12 508

10 738

8 643

6 823

53 693

48 434

51 037

48 392

48 854

42 247

35 117

19 082

16 759

16 761

15 744

15 847

12 999

9 726

28 113

25 214

27 709

25 316

25 940

24 139

21 784

26 429

22 432

25 449

23 708

24 558

22 884

20 770

1 021

2 185

1 632

1 080

NAP

NAP

NAP

161

860

663

1 735

4 763

NAP

729

1 456

597

1 695

4 766

907

725

628

2 085

4 482

5 953

5 303

4 887

320

NAP

48

272

96

447

5 633

3 889

3 443

317

NAP

217

100

129

406

5 575

3 921

3 559

304

NAP

239

65

58

472

866

214

528

216

NAP

197

19

64

497

947

NAP

825

122

435

889

NAP

773

116

366

684

NAP

594

90

330

1 992

2 238

2 389

1 291

5 340

4 829

2 720

2 316

5 721

4 883

3 741

3 099

4 337

4 445

3 925

3 271

4 057

4 197

3 782

3 176

190

NAP

174

16

58

561

849

NA

NA

NA

110

NAP

94

16

33

418

559

NA

NA

NA

69

NAP

51

18

26

14

439

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-9,8%

5,4%

-5,2%

1,0%

-13,5%

-16,9%

-12,2%

0,0%

-6,1%

0,7%

-18,0%

-25,2%

-10,3%

9,9%

-8,6%

2,5%

-6,9%

-9,8%

-15,1%

13,4%

-6,8%

3,6%

-6,8%

-9,2%

114,0%

-25,3%

-33,8%

-12,3%

-6,1%

-23,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

352,8%

24,4%

-4,5%

-4,7%

-6,3%

-23,2%

69,3%

-50,2%

-70,5%

-43,0%

-4,9%

-22,4%

-10,0%

5,2%

-15,9%

-17,6%

-15,9%

-9,8%

-2,3%

23,0%

-4,5%

12,3%

6,7%

-46,0%

0,1%

-6,0%

19,1%

-9,6%

-43,7%

-14,9%

-14,8%

2,8%

6,7%

-14,2%

-19,5%

-21,1%

-5,4%

-1,0%

2,6%

-14,6%

-23,4%

-17,2%

-26,7%

0,8%

10,6%

2,5%

-11,7%

-16,7%

-29,5%

3,4%

14,0%

3,5%

-9,9%

-16,0%

-0,9%

-4,1%

-28,9%

-12,0%

-42,1%

-37,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

352,1%

10,1%

-17,6%

-11,7%

-46,0%

-45,7%

-63,2%

-35,0%

-70,8%

-15,8%

0,0%

12,5%

34,4%

-55,0%

10,3%

-9,4%

-43,1%

-21,2%

-9,2%

16,3%

5,3%

12,9%

-25,5%

-96,7%

-12,2%

18,5%

11,2%

-56,5%

-34,2%

-21,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

97.4.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases

1 687

1 482

1 756

1 953

97.5.1 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.5.2 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.5.10 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

720 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 (2019 and 2020): Second instance clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.9.4 and 3.9.5 (2019 and 2020): Variation of second clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

102,6%

102,1%

99,4%

98,4%

103,8%

105,2%

105,5%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

111,3%

101,9%

100,2%

99,1%

105,6%

109,6%

107,1%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

97,7%

101,8%

99,9%

98,4%

99,6%

102,2%

103,1%

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

98,6%

101,6%

99,5%

97,9%

99,4%

101,8%

103,0%

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

81,2%

105,7%

100,8%

108,9%

102,8%

109,9%

106,4%

CR Non litigious land registry cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

94,2%

93,1%

97,6%

105,1%

102,9%

111,5%

107,8%

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

79,2%

113,4%

105,1%

127,4%

102,5%

100,0%

97,8%

91,4%

94,8%

112,7%

98,9%

101,4%

107,3%

102,2%

98,5%

102,5%

96,9%

98,8%

97,2%

106,4%

145,5%

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

102,9%

104,4%

94,8%

96,4%

129,6%

111,9%

105,5%

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

91

114

69

67

114

NAP

109

115

53

94

129

86

123

56

56

53

NAP

109

25

79

87

84

121

52

51

68

94

133

63

62

73

80

112

63

62

73

75

105

59

60

45

71

116

55

56

37

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

96

33

34

83

83

32

44

91

77

48

49

91

64

44

50

33

64

75

31

73

29

4

69

113

143

133

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(0,50)

(2,67)

(0,99)

5,44

1,41

0,24

(8,44)

(1,72)

(1,11)

6,56

3,83

(2,34)

4,24

(1,88)

(1,50)

1,22

2,63

0,87

3,08

(2,05)

(1,61)

1,52

2,43

1,14

30,14

(4,64)

8,00

(5,56)

6,87

(3,20)

-

-

-

-

-

-

(1,11)

4,86

7,65

(2,12)

8,43

(3,35)

43,19

(7,34)

21,23

(19,52)

(2,46)

(2,17)

3,62

18,98

(12,30)

2,55

5,85

(4,81)

4,01

(5,41)

1,89

(1,56)

9,41

36,83

1,42

(9,20)

1,78

34,42

(13,66)

(5,78)

-5,5%

-2,5%

12,5%

-15,0%

-6,9%

-5,0%

7,7%

-1,0%

9,2%

-15,2%

-6,6%

10,7%

-18,2%

-8,3%

21,1%

0,0%

-5,1%

-7,7%

-17,0%

-8,9%

22,4%

-0,1%

-3,3%

-7,5%

-53,7%

28,4%

7,4%

0,3%

-38,3%

-18,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-0,2%

-11,5%

-13,7%

-7,3%

-42,3%

-29,4%

-78,3%

30,5%

-1,0%

47,7%

5,2%

45,0%

49,2%

-57,3%

31,2%

10,0%

-32,4%

-12,6%

-7,0%

-5,5%

10,2%

0,5%

-30,2%

-93,8%

-12,2%

26,0%

-6,7%

-51,9%

16,9%

-7,8%

721 / 1555

        
        
        
         
         
         
        
        
        
         
         
        
         
        
        
         
         
         
         
        
        
         
         
         
       
        
         
        
         
        
        
         
         
        
         
        
       
        
       
      
        
        
         
       
      
         
         
        
         
        
         
        
         
       
         
        
         
       
      
        
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.10.1 to 3.10.5 (2019 and 2020) Supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Table 3.12.1 to 3.12.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of the supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.1.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.1.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.1.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.1.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.1.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.1.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.1.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.1.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

99.1.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.1.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

99.1.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.2.1 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.2.2 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.2.3 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.2.4 High inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.2.5 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.2.6 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.2.7 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.2.8 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

99.2.9 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.2.10 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

99.2.11 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

2 604

1 073

43

32

9

2 308

1 030

83

73

10

2 428

1 121

47

38

8

3 186

3 663

3 448

2 620

1 579

1 993

1 744

1 508

104

68

34

120

104

8

139

104

32

87

63

19

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4

3

-

980

508

5 883

2 338

608

549

45

9

1

-

817

378

5 799

2 354

557

508

26

7

1

1

903

357

7 069

3 301

707

626

47

28

6

2

924

579

8

-

8

30

2

3

1 000

1 218

550

347

18

1

5

824

201

6 748

5 928

5 161

5 553

3 376

2 531

2 139

1 718

640

594

12

608

548

35

426

374

31

413

372

27

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

28

3

14

21

5

23

2 143

2 038

794

850

39

8

34

2 030

1 031

12

-

34

33

2

25

29

2

21

24

3

14

1 889

2 167

2 188

3 177

843

622

408

245

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-11,4%

5,2%

31,2%

15,0%

-5,9%

-24,0%

-4,0%

8,8%

40,9%

26,2%

-12,5%

-13,5%

93,0%

-43,4%

121,3%

15,4%

15,8%

-37,4%

128,1%

-47,9%

78,9%

52,9%

0,0%

-39,4%

11,1%

-20,0%

325,0%

-76,5%

300,0%

-40,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

125,0%

-22,2%

300,0%

-71,4%

275,0%

-40,0%

-66,7%

0,0%

500,0%

-

-

-50,0%

-

-

100,0%

300,0%

-62,5%

66,7%

-16,6%

10,5%

2,3%

8,2%

21,8%

-32,3%

-25,6%

-5,6%

62,2%

-5,0%

-36,9%

-42,1%

-1,4%

21,9%

-4,5%

-12,2%

-12,9%

7,6%

0,7%

40,2%

2,3%

-25,0%

-15,5%

-19,7%

-8,4%

26,9%

-9,5%

-5,0%

-29,9%

-3,1%

-7,5%

23,2%

-5,1%

-7,7%

-31,8%

-0,5%

-42,2%

80,8%

-74,5%

191,7%

-11,4%

-12,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-25,0%

85,7%

-69,2%

175,0%

-12,1%

-17,2%

66,7%

60,0%

-

-

0,0%

50,0%

64,3%

47,8%

0,0%

-26,5%

-16,0%

-33,3%

-4,9%

-0,4%

-6,9%

14,7%

1,0%

45,2%

7,1%

21,3%

-18,2%

-26,2%

-34,4%

-40,0%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

722 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.3.1 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.3.2 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.3.3 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.3.4 High inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.3.5 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.3.6 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.3.7 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.3.8 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

99.3.9 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

6 179

2 381

568

508

44

5 679

2 263

593

543

28

6 311

2 843

650

596

21

6 271

6 143

5 989

6 533

2 962

2 780

2 375

2 265

624

558

38

589

548

11

478

415

44

446

391

36

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

23

5

16

23

5

22

18

3

33

32

6

28

11

-

30

41

3

19

32

4

19

99.3.10 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

2 306

1 952

2 009

1 813

1 949

2 582

3 450

99.3.11 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.4.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.4.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.4.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.4.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.4.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.4.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.4.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.4.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry 
cases

99.4.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.4.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative 
law cases

99.4.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.5.1 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.5.2 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.5.10 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

924

2 308

1 030

83

73

10

871

2 428

1 121

47

38

8

809

3 186

1 579

104

68

34

872

825

554

371

3 663

3 448

2 620

1 640

1 993

1 744

1 508

961

120

104

8

139

104

32

87

63

19

54

44

10

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

9

1

-

817

378

-

-

-

7

1

1

903

357

-

-

-

28

6

2

924

579

-

-

-

8

-

8

30

2

3

1 000

1 218

550

347

-

-

-

-

-

-

18

1

5

824

201

-

-

-

10

-

-

551

75

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-8,1%

11,1%

-0,6%

-2,0%

-2,5%

9,1%

-5,0%

25,6%

4,2%

-6,1%

-14,6%

-4,6%

4,4%

9,6%

-4,0%

-5,6%

-18,8%

-6,7%

6,9%

9,8%

-6,4%

-1,8%

-24,3%

-5,8%

-36,4%

-25,0%

81,0%

-71,1%

300,0%

-18,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

-21,7%

77,8%

-65,6%

272,7%

-22,0%

0,0%

-40,0%

100,0%

-

-

33,3%

37,5%

50,0%

-15,2%

7,1%

-36,7%

0,0%

-15,4%

2,9%

-9,8%

7,5%

32,5%

33,6%

-5,7%

-7,1%

7,8%

-5,4%

-32,8%

-33,0%

5,2%

31,2%

15,0%

-5,9%

-24,0%

-37,4%

8,8%

40,9%

26,2%

-12,5%

-13,5%

-36,3%

-43,4%

121,3%

15,4%

15,8%

-37,4%

-37,9%

-47,9%

78,9%

52,9%

0,0%

-39,4%

-30,2%

-20,0%

325,0%

-76,5%

300,0%

-40,6%

-47,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-22,2%

300,0%

-71,4%

275,0%

-40,0%

-44,4%

0,0%

500,0%

-

-

-50,0%

-

100,0%

300,0%

-62,5%

66,7%

-

-

10,5%

2,3%

8,2%

21,8%

-32,3%

-33,1%

-5,6%

62,2%

-5,0%

-36,9%

-42,1%

-62,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

723 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 Supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.12.4 and 3.12.5 Variation of the supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

105,0%

97,9%

89,3%

92,9%

103,6%

116,0%

117,6%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

101,8%

96,1%

86,1%

87,7%

109,8%

111,0%

131,8%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

93,4%

106,5%

91,9%

97,5%

96,9%

112,2%

108,0%

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

92,5%

106,9%

95,2%

93,9%

100,0%

111,0%

105,1%

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97,8%

107,7%

44,7%

316,7%

31,4%

141,9%

133,3%

CR Non litigious land registry cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

82,1%

109,5%

46,2%

266,7%

33,3%

141,4%

133,3%

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

166,7%

100,0%

37,5%

-

-

150,0%

133,3%

114,3%

95,7%

97,1%

82,4%

120,0%

90,5%

135,7%

107,6%

95,8%

99,0%

96,0%

89,9%

118,0%

108,6%

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

116,4%

102,5%

78,5%

103,4%

132,6%

135,8%

151,4%

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

136

158

53

52

83

NAP

143

73

-

129

149

156

181

29

26

104

NAP

111

73

17

169

150

184

203

58

42

591

NAP

568

730

22

168

261

213

246

70

68

77

NAP

91

-

104

201

230

205

229

86

69

1062

NAP

995

-

37

228

154

160

232

66

55

158

NAP

160

122

96

116

132

92

155

44

41

101

NAP

114

-

-

58

74

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(6,76)

(8,84)

4,09

11,51

11,98

1,38

(5,60)

(10,41)

1,87

25,19

1,09

18,74

13,96

(13,64)

6,05

(0,64)

15,83

(3,76)

15,52

(10,93)

(1,33)

6,45

10,96

(5,28)

10,14

(58,51)

608,73

(90,08)

351,61

(6,06)

-

-

-

-

-

-

33,33

(57,86)

477,78

(87,50)

324,14

(5,69)

(40,00)

(62,50)

-

-

-

(11,11)

(16,30)

1,47

(15,15)

45,71

(24,60)

50,00

(10,99)

3,33

(3,02)

(6,29)

31,21

(7,98)

(11,95)

(23,42)

31,83

28,23

2,37

11,52

14,5%

18,1%

15,7%

-3,9%

-22,1%

-42,6%

14,5%

12,1%

21,1%

-6,8%

1,2%

-33,2%

-45,8%

101,9%

20,2%

22,7%

-22,9%

-33,5%

-51,3%

63,0%

63,4%

1,8%

-20,0%

-25,9%

25,7%

466,7%

-87,0% 1281,8%

-85,2%

-35,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-22,2%

411,1%

-83,9%

990,9%

-83,9%

-28,8%

0,0%

900,0%

-

-

-

-

33,3%

371,4%

-65,0%

163,2%

-

-

30,6%

-0,6%

19,9%

13,3%

-48,9%

-50,0%

0,2%

74,6%

-11,9%

-33,3%

-13,7%

-44,3%

724 / 1555

        
        
         
       
       
         
        
      
         
       
         
       
       
      
         
        
       
        
       
      
        
         
       
        
       
      
     
      
     
        
       
      
     
      
     
        
      
      
      
      
         
      
       
      
       
      
         
        
        
       
        
      
      
       
       
         
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.14.1 to 3.14.5 First instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

094.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

094.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

094.2.1 Total -incoming

094.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

094.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

094.2.4 Other - incoming

094.3.1 Total - resolved

094.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

094.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

094.3.4 Other - resolved

094.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

094.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

094.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

094.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

42 484

20 753

21 731

NAP

360 839

125 130

235 709

NAP

350 933

122 476

228 457

NAP

52 390

23 407

28 983

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

725 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.15.1 to 3.10.2 CR and DT for first instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

098.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

098.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

098.2.1 Total -incoming

098.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

098.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

098.2.4 Other - incoming

098.3.1 Total - resolved

098.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

098.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

098.3.4 Other - resolved

Table 3.16.1 to 3.16.5 Second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

97,3%

97,9%

96,9%

NAP

54

70

46

NAP

5 360

5 342

18

NAP

33 696

33 348

348

NAP

34 507

34 163

344

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

726 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

098.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

098.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

098.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

098.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

4 549

4 527

22

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

Table 3.17.1 to 3.17.2 CR and DT for second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

102,4%

102,4%

98,9%

NAP

48

48

23

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

727 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.18.1 to 3.18.5 Supreme court criminal law cases (Q100)

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

100.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

100.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

100.2.1 Total -incoming

100.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

100.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

100.2.4 Other - incoming

100.3.1 Total - resolved

100.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

100.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

100.3.4 Other - resolved

100.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

100.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

100.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

100.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

325

325

NAP

NAP

1 414

1 414

NAP

NAP

1 474

1 474

NAP

NAP

265

265

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

728 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.19.1 to 3.19.2 CR and DT for supreme court  criminal law cases (Q100)

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

104,2%

104,2%

NAP

NAP

66

66

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

729 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 5: Access to justice

Legal aid

Table 5.1 to Table 5.6 (Q12-2, Q16, Q18, Q19, Q20, Q20-1)

12-2.1.1 Coverage of court fees

12-2.1.2 Exemption from court fees

16.1.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (criminal cases)

16.1.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (criminal cases)

16.2.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (other than criminal 
cases)

16.2.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (other than criminal cases)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

-

-

-

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

18.1.1 Legal aid for the enforcement of judicial decisions

19.1.1  Legal aid granted for other costs - criminal cases

19.1.2  Legal aid granted for other costs - other than criminal cases

020.1.1 Total

020.1.2 Total - criminal cases

020.1.3 Total - other than criminal cases

020.2.1 Total brought to court

020.2.2 Broight to court - criminal cases

020.2.3 Brought to court - other then criminal

020.3.1 Total not brought to court

020.3.2 Not broight to court - criminal cases

020.3.3 Not brought to court - other then criminal

020-1.1.1 Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulation

020-1.1.2 Average duration

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

NAP

NAP

5 748

NA

NA

2 006

NA

NA

3 742

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

730 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

System for compensating users

Table 5.7.1 and Table 5.7.2 (Q37)

037.1.1 Requests for compensation - Total

037.1.2 Requests for compensation - Excessive length of 
proceedings

037.1.3 Requests for compensation - Non-execution of court 
decisions

037.1.4 Requests for compensation - Wrongful arrest

037.1.5 Requests for compensation - Wrongful conviction

037.1.6 Requests for compensation - Other

037.2.1 Condemnations - Total

037.2.2 Condemnations - Excessive length of proceedings

037.2.3 Condemnations - Non-execution of court decisions

037.2.4 Condemnations - Wrongful arrest

037.2.5 Condemnations - Wrongful conviction

037.2.6 Condemnations - Other

037.3.1 Amount - Total

037.3.2 Amount - Excessive length of proceedings

037.3.3 Amount - Non-execution of court decisions

037.3.4 Amount - Wrongful arrest

037.3.5 Amount - Wrongful conviction

037.3.6 Amount - Other

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

731 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 6.1 to Table 6.11 (Q62-7, Q62-7-1, Q62-8,  Q62-8-1, Q63-1, Q63-1-1, Q63-2 Q63-6, Q63-7, Q63-7-1, Q64-2,  Q64-4, Q64-6, Q64-3, Q64-3-1, Q64-7, Q64-7-1, 
Q64-9)

Indicator 6: The ICT tools of courts and for court users

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

62-7 Writing assistance tools coordinated at national level

62-7-1.1 Deployment rate in civil matter

62-7-1.2 Deployment rate in criminal matter

62-7-1.3 Deployment rate in administrative matter

62-8 Voice recording tools

62-8-1.1.1 Availability of simple dictation tools in civil matter

62-8-1.1.2 Availability of simple dictation tools in criminal matter

62-8-1.1.3 Availability of simple dictation tools in administrative 
matter

62-8-1.2.1 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in civil 
matter

62-8-1.2.2 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in criminal 
matter

62-8-1.2.3 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in 
administrative matter

62-8-1.3.1 Availability of voice recognition in civil matter

62-8-1.3.2 Availability of voice recognition in criminal matter

62-8-1.3.3 Availability of voice recognition in administrative matter

062-9 Availability of intranet site within the judicial system for 
distribution of news/novelties

63.1 Is there a case management system? 

63.1-1.1 CMS for civil matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for criminal matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for administrative matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.2 CMS for civil matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for criminal matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for administrative matter (status of case onlinee)

True

True

True

50-99%

100%

100%

50-99%

100%

100%

50-99%

100%

100%

True

True

True

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

not available 
for this matter
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases
not available 
for this matter

in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

-

-

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

732 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63.1-1.3 CMS for civil matter (Centralised or interoperable database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for criminal matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for administrative matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.4 CMS for civil matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for criminal matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for administrative matter (Early warning signals)

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS civil matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS criminal matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS administrative matter

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - land registry

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - business registry

63-2.2 Data consolidated at national level for land registry

63-2.2  Data consolidated at national level for business registry

63-2.3 Service available online for land registry

63-2.3  Service available online for business registry

63-2.4 Statistical module integrated or connected for land registry

63-2.4  Statistical module integrated or connected for business 
registry

063-6.1.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (deployment 
rate)

063-6.1.2 Justice expenses management (deployment rate)

063-6.1.3 Other financial management tools (deployment rate)

063-6.2.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (Data 
consolidated at national level)

063-6.2.2 Justice expenses management (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.2.3 Other financial management tools (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.3.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (System 
communicating with other ministries)

063-6.3.2 Justice expenses management (System communicating 
with other ministries)

063-6.3.3 Other financial management tools (System communicating 
with other ministries)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

100%

100%

100%

False

True

False

True

False

True

NAP

True

NAP

True

NAP

True

NAP

True

NAP

True

NAP

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

733 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63-7.1 Measurement tools to assess the workload

63-7-1.1.1 Deployment rate - workload of judges

63-7-1.1.2 Deployment rate - workload of prosecutors

63-7-1.1.3 Deployment rate - workload of non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.2.1 Monitoring on national level - judges

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - prosecutors

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.3.1 Monitoring on court level - judges

63-7-1.3.2 Monitoring on court level - prosecutors

63-7-1.3.3 Monitoring on court level - non-judge and non-prosecutor 
staff

064-2 - Possibility to submit a case to courts by electronic means

064-2 - Civil and/or commercial

064-2 - Criminal

064-2 - Administrative

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - civil

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - criminal

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory  - administrative

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - civil

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - criminal

064-2 - Specific legislative framework  - administrative

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - civil

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - criminal

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - administrative

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

734 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-3 - Is it possible to request for granting legal aid by electronic 
means? 

064-3-1.1 - Equipment rate

064-3-1.2 - Request in paper mandatory

064-3-1.3 - Specific legislative framework

064-3-1.4 - Granting LA is also electronic

064-3-1.5 - Information available in CMS

064-4 - Possibility to transmit summons to a judicial meeting or a 
hearing by electronic means

064-4-1.1.1 - Summons produced by CMS- civil

064-4-1.1.2 - Summons produced by CMS- criminal

064-4-1.1.3 - Summons produced by CMS- administrative

064-4-1.2.1 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- civil

064-4-1.2.2 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- criminal

064-4-1.2.3 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- administrative

064-4-1.3.1 - Consent of the user - civil

064-4-1.3.2 - Consent of the user - criminal

064-4-1.3.3 - Consent of the user - administrative

064-6.1.1 - Civil and/or commercial (deployment rate)

064-6.1.2 - Criminal (deployment rate)

064-6.1.3 - Administrative (deployment rate)

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

735 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-6.2.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.2 - Criminal (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.3 - Administrative (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.3.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Modalities)

064-6.3.2 - Criminal (Modalities)

064-6.3.3 - Administrative (Modalities)

064-6.4.1 - Civil and/or commercial (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.2 - Criminal (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.3 - Administrative (specific legal framework)

064-6.5.1 - Civil and/or commercial (availability for)

064-6.5.2 - Criminal (availability for)

064-6.5.3 - Administrative (availability for)

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer
Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer
Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

736 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-7.1.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (deployment rate)

064-7.1.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.2.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (Modalities)

064-7.2.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.3.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (specific legal framework)

064-7.32.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-7.3.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts (specific 
legal framework)

064-7.3.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-9 - Existance of online processing devices of specialised 
litigation

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

100%

100%

100%

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

737 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

46.1.1 Total Number of professional judges

46.1.2 Number of 1st inst professional judges

46.1.3 Number of 2nd inst professional judges

46.1.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges

46.2.1 Number of professional judges_males

46.2.2 Number of 1st instance professional judges_males

46.2.3 Number of 2nd instance professional judges_males

46.2.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges_males

46.3.1  Number of professional judges_females

46.3.2  Number of 1st inst professional judges_females

46.3.3  Number of 2nd inst professional judges_females

46.3.4  Number of Supreme court professional judges_females

046-2.1.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Total

046-2.2.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Civil and commercial

046-2.2.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.3.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Criminal

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

Indicator 7: Professionals of justice  (Indicator 9 in 2019)

Table 7.1.1 to 7.5.6 for judges, non judge staff, prosecutors, non prosecutor staff and salaries

2 767

1 672

1 021

74

856

496

326

34

1 911

1 176

695

40

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 807

1 687

1 036

84

894

502

350

42

1 913

1 185

686

42

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 813

1 684

1 047

82

873

500

332

41

1 940

1 184

715

41

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 813

1 662

1 066

85

868

484

341

43

1 945

1 178

725

42

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 811

1 678

1 051

82

871

472

358

41

1 940

1 206

693

41

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 828

2 892

2 878

2 789

0,8%

1,4%

0,2%

0,0%

-0,1%

0,6%

2,3%

-0,5%

-3,1%

1 669

1 682

1 670

1 420

-15,1%

0,9%

-0,2%

-1,3%

1,0%

-0,5%

0,8%

-0,7%

-15,0%

1 075

1 126

1 127

1 283

25,7%

1,5%

1,1%

1,8%

-1,4%

2,3%

4,7%

0,1%

13,8%

84

879

476

365

38

84

902

475

389

38

81

887

464

387

36

86

16,2%

13,5%

-2,4%

3,7%

-3,5%

2,4%

0,0%

-3,6%

6,2%

868

1,4%

4,4%

-2,3%

-0,6%

0,3%

0,9%

2,6%

-1,7%

-2,1%

399

-19,6%

1,2%

-0,4%

-3,2%

-2,5%

0,8%

-0,2%

-2,3%

-14,0%

434

33,1%

7,4%

-5,1%

2,7%

5,0%

2,0%

6,6%

-0,5%

12,1%

35

2,9%

23,5%

-2,4%

4,9%

-4,7%

-7,3%

0,0%

-5,3%

-2,8%

1 949

1 990

1 991

1 921

0,5%

0,1%

1,4%

0,3%

-0,3%

0,5%

2,1%

0,1%

-3,5%

1 193

1 207

1 206

1 021

-13,2%

0,8%

-0,1%

-0,5%

2,4%

-1,1%

1,2%

-0,1%

-15,3%

710

46

737

46

740

45

849

22,2%

-1,3%

4,2%

1,4%

-4,4%

2,5%

3,8%

0,4%

14,7%

51

27,5%

5,0%

-2,4%

2,4%

-2,4%

12,2%

0,0%

-2,2%

13,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

738 / 1555

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

046-2.4.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - 
Administrative

046-2.4.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.5.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Other

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 52.1.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in courts 

8 142

8 000

8 022

7 979

8 003

8 379

8 528

8 538

8 576

5,3%

-1,7%

0,3%

-0,5%

0,3%

4,7%

1,8%

0,1%

0,4%

852

930

NA

NA

888

935

NA

NA

909

947

NA

NA

936

22,0%

1,3%

0,1%

3,9%

1,5%

3,9%

4,2%

2,4%

3,0%

961

-60,1%

-6,3%

-59,8%

-0,9%

-0,2%

3,7%

0,5%

1,3%

1,5%

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6 597

6 705

6 682

6 679

34,4%

0,0%

27,5%

-1,0%

0,2%

4,9%

1,6%

-0,3%

0,0%

52.1.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)

767

777

52.1.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges

2 406

2 254

52.1.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks

52.1.5 Number of Technical staff

NA

NA

NA

NA

52.1.6 Number of Other non judge staff

4 969

4 969

52.2.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(men)

52.2.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(men)

52.2.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(men)

52.2.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(men)

52.2.5 Number of Technical staff(men)

52.2.6 Number of Other non judge staff(men)

52.3.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(women)

52.3.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(women)

52.3.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(women)

52.3.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(women)

52.3.5 Number of Technical staff(women)

52.3.6 Number of Other non judge staff(women)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

778

907

NA

NA

6 337

1 312

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

808

899

NA

NA

6 272

1 248

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

820

897

NA

NA

6 286

1 256

162

120

NA

NA

974

1 267

1 316

1 343

1 372

176

100

NA

NA

991

184

106

NA

NA

188

108

NA

NA

188

119

NA

NA

1 026

1 047

1 065

6 710

6 731

6 747

7 112

7 212

7 195

7 204

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

658

777

NA

NA

676

830

NA

NA

704

829

NA

NA

721

839

NA

NA

748

842

NA

NA

5 312

5 606

5 679

5 635

5 614

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-4,9%

0,6%

0,9%

3,9%

2,1%

2,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

8,6%

4,5%

2,2%

0,0%

-16,7%

6,0%

1,9%

10,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,7%

3,5%

2,0%

1,7%

0,3%

0,2%

5,4%

1,4%

-0,2%

0,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,7%

4,1%

2,4%

3,7%

6,8%

-0,1%

1,2%

0,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5,5%

1,3%

-0,8%

-0,4%

739 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

052-1.1.1 Non-judge staff (Total)

052-1.1.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (total)

052-1.1.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (total)

052-1.1.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (total)

052-1.2.1 Non-judge staff  (Males)

052-1.2.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (males)

052-1.2.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (males)

052-1.2.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (males)

052-1.3.1 Non-judge staff  (females)

052-1.3.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (females)

052-1.3.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (females)

052-1.3.4 Non-judge staff  at supreme court (females)

055.1.1 Prosecutors (total)

055.1.2 Prosecutors (1st inst.)

055.1.3 Prosecutors (2nd inst.)

055.1.4 Prosecutors (Highest instance)

055.2.1 Prosecutors - Males -total

055.2.2 Prosecutors - Males, 1st inst.

055.2.3 Prosecutors - Males, 2nd inst.

055.2.4 Prosecutors - Males, Supreme courts

055.3.1 Prosecutors - Females, Total

055.3.2 Prosecutors - Females, 1st inst.

055.3.3 Prosecutors - Females, 2nd inst.

055.3.4 Prosecutors - Females, Supreme courts

8 576

4 237

4 104

235

1 372

476

830

66

7 204

3 761

3 274

169

1 876

1 207

558

111

742

433

249

60

1 134

774

309

51

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

740 / 1555

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

060.1.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Total

060.2.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Males

060.3.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Females

004 Annual average salary in the country

132.1.1 Gross annual salary, in €  - Professional judge at the 
beginning of career

132.1.2 Gross annual salary, in €  - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.1.3 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor at the beginning 
of career

132.1.4 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

132.2.1 Net annual salary, in € - Professional judge at the beginning 
of career

132.2.2 Net annual salary, in € - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.2.3 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor at the beginning of 
career

132.2.4 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

133.1.1.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Reduced taxation

133.1.2.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Special pension

133.1.3.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Housing

133.1.4.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Other financial benefit

133.2.1.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Reduced taxation

133.2.2.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Special pension

133.2.3.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Housing

133.2.4.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Other financial benefit

2 425

470

1 955

12 901 €

21 856 €

57 542 €

21 856 €

45 961 €

15 534 €

38 266 €

14 534 €

30 564 €

False

False

False

True

False

False

False

True

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

741 / 1555

         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

144.1.1 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - Total number (1+2+3+4)

144.1.2 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 1. Breach of professional 
ethics 

144.1.3 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.1.4 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 3. Criminal offence 

144.1.5 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 4. Other

144.2.1 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - Total number 
(1+2+3+4)

144.2.2 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 1. Breach of 
professional ethics 

144.2.3 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.2.4 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 3. Criminal offence

144.2.5 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 4. Other 

145.1.1 Sanctions against Judges - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.1.2 Sanctions against Judges - 1. Reprimand

145.1.3 Sanctions against Judges - 2. Suspension

145.1.4 Sanctions against Judges - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.1.5 Sanctions against Judges - 4. Fine

145.1.6 Sanctions against Judges - 5. Temporary reduction of salary

145.1.7 Sanctions against Judges - 6. Position downgrade

145.1.8 Sanctions against Judges - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.1.9 Sanctions against Judges - 8. Resignation

145.1.10 Sanctions against  Judges - 9. Other

145.1.11 Sanctions against  Judges - 10. Dismissal

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

21

2

13

5

1

9

4

2

3

0

13

5

0

NAP

NAP

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

4

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

742 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

145.2.1 Sanctions against Prosecutors - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.2.2 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 1. Reprimand

145.2.3 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 2. Suspension

145.2.4 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.2.5 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 4. Fine

145.2.6 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 5. Temporary reduction of 
salary

145.2.7 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 6. Position downgrade

145.2.8 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.2.9 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 8. Resignation

145.2.10 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 9. Other

145.2.11 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 10. Dismissal

4

2

0

0

0

0

0

NAP

NAP

0

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lawyers

Tables 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.7 and 7.8

146.1.1 Total number of lawyers practising

13 000

13 000

13 000

13 000

11 191

11 191

12 715

12 719

12 965

-0,3%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-13,9%

0,0%

13,6%

0,0%

1,9%

146.2.1 Practicing lawyers - man

146.3.1 Practicing lawyers - woman

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7 035

7 038

7 160

5 680

5 681

5 805

147 Does this figure include “legal advisors” who cannot represent 
their clients in court (for example, some solicitors or in-house 
counsellors)? 

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

1,7%

0,0%

2,2%

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

743 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Hungary (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 8: The existence and use of alternative dispute resolution methods

Table 8.1 8.2 and 8.3

166 Number of accredited or registered mediators who practice 
judicial mediation: 

12

20

120

160

167.1.1 Total number started

167. 1.2 Civil and commercial cases(cid:9) - started

167. 1.2 Family cases - started

167.1.4 Administrative cases - started

167.1.5 Labour cases including employment dismissal cases - started

167.1.6. Criminal cases - started

167.1.7 Consumer cases - started

174

919

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

-

174

975

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

-

153

1 299

257

977

9

56

NAP

NA

203

746

75

644

NA

27

NAP

NA

141

1075,0%

66,7%

500,0%

33,3%

8,8%

0,0%

-12,1%

32,7%

-30,5%

899

141

725

4

29

NAP

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6,1%

33,2%

-42,6%

20,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-70,8%

88,0%

-34,1%

12,6%

-

-

-51,8%

7,4%

-

-

-

-

Key: Variation of more than (+ -) 20% 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

744 / 1555

Judiciary at a glance in Ireland

General data

Population:

4 977 400

GDP per capita: 74 912 €

Average annual 

salary:

40 283 €

Professionals

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Ireland

Ireland

EU Median

EU Median

Professional judges

Professional judges

3,39

23,92

3,39

23,92

Non-judge staff

21,88

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

2,57

9,91

1,81

59,00

21,88

59,00

2,57

9,91

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual 
salary in the country
EU Median

Ireland

Ireland

EU Median

Judge at the beginning of a career 

5,18
3,22

2,02

4,09

3,22

Judge of the highest court 5,18

4,09

2,02

1,71
Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

0,83

1,71

0,83

15,22

1,81

15,22

Public prosecutor at highest instance

NA

3,61

Lawyers

Lawyers

282,36

122,09

122,09

282,36

Judge at the beginning of a
career

Judge of the highest court

Prosecutor at the beginning of
a career

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

Efficiency

1st instance

2nd instance

1st instance 2nd instance

,

%
8
3
1
1

,

%
6
4
0
1

Supreme Court

Supreme 
Court

,

%
0
3
0
1

,

%
8
8
0
1

100%

Civil and
commercial
Administrativ
e
cases
Total 
criminal law 
cases

NA

%
3
0
6

,

60,3%

104,6%

113,8%

NA

%
1
2
6

,

NA

62,1%

108,8%

103,0%

1
1

1

1
1

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance 2nd instance Supreme Court

Civil and commercial litigious cases
Administrative cases

NA
NA

NA
NA

NA
NA

Total criminal law cases

NA

NA

118

118

Total criminal law cases

Civil and
commercial…

Total criminal law cases

Information and communication technology

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

Assistance toolsCase management system
2018

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the workload
2019

Electronic communication

EU Median 2020

2020

2018
2019
2020

1,33
1,33
2,00

2,67
2,67
0,00

5,17

0,00
0,00
0,00

0,00
0,00
0,00

1,85
1,85
3,04

6,94

EU Median 2020

2,00

2,00

1,33

1,33

2,00

2,67

2,67

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

2,50

3,04

1,85

1,85

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

1,25

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

*ICT calculations are described in more details in Annex 5 - IT Calculation methodology

745

2020

Synthesis table for the main indicators for:

Ireland

Economic and demographic data

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Variations

Population

GDP per capita

Exchange rate (local currency needed to 
obtain 1€)

4 591 087

4 602 029

4 625 885

4 664 156

4 673 700

4 792 500

4 857 000

4 921 500

4 977 400

8,4%

1,0%

3,9%

37 675

38 055

41 011

55 187

58 961

61 369

66 716

72 346

74 912

98,8%

43,8%

13,2%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1,3%

8,7%

1,3%

8,4%

1,1%

3,5%

NAP NAP

NAP

3,6%

0,0%

NAP

3,2%

NAP

5,3%

Average annual salary

33 358

35 768

36 919

38 871

40 283

40 283

20,8%

Resources

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Professional judges per 100 000 inhab.

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhab.

3,1

20,6

3,2

20,1

3,5

20,0

3,4

20,2

3,5

20,9

3,3

21,3

3,3

21,6

3,4

21,9

3,3

21,9

4,4%

6,3%

Lawyers per 100 000 inh.

240,8

243,7

250,5

255,3

261,8

262,7

270,6

301,0

282,4

17,3%

Mediators

0,8

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

2,1

NA

2,1

NA

1,8

NA

0,2%

4,1%

4,5%

NA

-5,0%

-1,3%

3,5%

3,3%

NA

1,2%

3,0%

NA

3,0%

1,6%

11,3%

-3,5%

-0,3%

-6,2%

NA

NA

0,0%

-13,9%

ICT overall assesment

First instance incoming cases per 100 
inhab.

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Civil and commercial litigious cases

3,927

4,244

3,113

2,970

2,726

2,688

2,700

2,747

3,256

-17,1%

-12,4%

-0,9%

0,5%

1,7%

18,5%

Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

Total criminal law cases

7,244

First instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

NA

NA

CR administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

56%

NAP

63%

NAP

59%

NAP

73%

NAP

63%

NAP

63%

NAP

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

NA

NAP

3,66

NAP

3,85

NAP

-9,67

NAP

-0,08

NAP

-2,73

NA

60%

NA

62%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

DT administrative law cases (days)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

75%

NAP

84%

NAP

82%

NAP

66%

NAP

75%

NAP

93%

NAP

105%

NA

109%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

7,27

NAP

-7,46

NAP

9,30

NAP

18,08

11,60

NAP

NA

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

DT administrative law cases (days)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

152%

481%

190%

123%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

90%

NAP

106%

114%

37,69

-99,34

-32,33

15,89

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

7,57

NA

103%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

219

NAP

226

NAP

256

NAP

171

NAP

NA

NA

118

NA

NAP

16,8%

13,7%

-33,2%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

CR total criminal law cases

First instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

First instance pending cases per 100 
inhab. on 31 dec.

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

 Supreme court 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Supreme court
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

746 / 1555

1. Judicial organisation in Ireland

In Ireland, there are only three first instance courts (as legal entities) exercising general jurisdiction for the entire State (the High Court, the Circuit Court and the District 
Court). Each of those three courts has a single court president only, who exercises a nationwide remit for his/her court. The number of geographic locations reflects the 
physical location serving as seats or venues for the three jurisdictions. 

On 4th October, 2013 the Irish electorate approved by Referendum an amendment to the Constitution to enable the establishment of a Court of Appeal.  The necessary 
legislation, the Court of Appeal Act, was enacted in July, 2014. The Court of Appeal is placed immediately below the Supreme Court in the jurisdictional hierarchy, 
effectively assuming the existing appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the Court of Criminal Appeal and the Courts-Martial Appeals Court. The Supreme Court 
has appellate jurisdiction for decisions of the Court of Appeal where the Supreme Court determines that the decision involves a matter of general public importance or it is 
necessary in the interests of justice that there be an appeal to the Supreme Court and for decisions of the High Court in exceptional circumstances involving a matter of 
general public importance and /or the interests of justice. The establishment of the Court of Appeal enabled the Supreme Court to concentrate on cases which are 
appropriate for consideration by it as the court of Final Appeal under the constitution. The Court of Appeal was established by order of the Government and started 
functioning in October 2014.

Distribution of general courts in Ireland

Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Ireland - 1st instance
Ireland - Higher instances

EU Median - 1st instance

EU Median - Higher instances

IrelandDistribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

According to 2020 data, the distribution between 1st instance and higher instances courts of 
general jurisdiction in Ireland is somewhat different from the EU median of 87% - 13%.

Ireland - 1st instanceIreland - Higher instances

General courts - Ireland

60%

40%

General courts - Ireland
EU Median

60%
87%

40%
13%

EU Median

87%

13%

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Ireland

Geographic 
locations

Legal entities

General jurisdiction

Specialised 
jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

105

100

94

94

95

95

95

95

95

Ireland

Ireland

40%

Ratio general jurisdiction vs specialised
General jurisdiction Specialised courts
60%
75%

40%
25%

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

60%

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Ireland

Geographic locations

Legal entities General jurisdiction

Legal entities Specialised jurisdiction

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

1

1

1

1

2

2

2

2

2

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Distribution of first instance general jurisdiction and specialised courts

EU Median

25%

75%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

The distribution between number of general jurisdiction courts and specialised courts of 60,0% - 40,0% is somewhat different from the EU median 
(distribution tendency in EU: 75,5% - 24,5%).

Specialised courts
Total

Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

Insolvency courts

Labour courts

Family courts

Rent and tenancies courts

Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

Internet related disputes

Administrative courts

Insurance and / or social welfare courts

Military courts

Juvenile courts

Other specialised 1st instance courts

First instance

Higher instance

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

747 / 1555

The two specialised first instance courts listed above are Special Criminal Court No. 1 and Special Criminal Court No. 2. The latter was established in October 2015 and 
came into operation, sitting for the first time, in 2016. 
Other than distinctions between jurisdictional levels there is no specialisation - all judges within a court jurisdiction may be allocated to any category of case falling within 
the jurisdictional remit of the court concerned. Starting in 2013 a new cadre of specialist judges was created in the Circuit Court with specific jurisdiction in relation to certain 
types of personal insolvency remedy and certain pre-trial order making powers.
Ireland has a specialist regime for the trial of commercial proceedings in the form of the Commercial List of the High Court (known as the 'Commercial Court') but, as it is 
not a separate legal entity, being a list within and formally a part of the High Court, it is not included as a specialist court as such.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

748 / 1555

2. Professionals of justice in Ireland

● Professional judges and non-judge staff

Evolution of the number of professional judges since 2012 (Q46)

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Absolute 
number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

144

148

160

159

162

160

160

167

163

3,14

3,22

3,46

3,41

3,47

3,34

3,29

3,39

3,27

EU median

23,9

Professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants

23,9

3,14

3,22

3,46

3,41

3,47

3,34

3,29

3,39

3,27

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

According to 2020 data, the total number of professional judges sitting in courts (all instances) in Ireland is 163, which is -2,4% less than in previous cycle.

More precisely, in Ireland, there are 3,27 professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants (this figure is below the EU median of 23,92 judges per 100 000 inhabitants) and about 6,68 non-
judge staff per judge .

There has been a small increase compared with previous cycle when this ratio was at 6,47 non-judge staff per judge.

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and gender

2020

Total

Distribution by 
instance

Male

Female

% Male

% Female

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

138

16

9

163

84,7%

9,8%

5,5%

85

8

6

99

53

8

3

64

61,6%

50,0%

66,7%

60,7%

38,4%

50,0%

33,3%

39,3%

Distribution of professional judges by instance

Ireland

EU Median

84,7%

72,39%

EU Median

72,39%

23,98%

4,03%

23,98%

9,8%

5,5%

4,03%

Distribution of professional judges by gender and by instance

% Female

38,4%

61,6%

50,0%

50,0%

33,3%

66,7%

% Male

39,3%

60,7%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female professional judges (all instances) is 64, which represents 39,3% of the total number of judges.

The total number of judges is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 138 are sitting in first instance courts (of which 53 are female); 16 are sitting in second 
instance courts (of which 8 are female)  and 9 are sitting in Supreme Court (of which 3 are female).  

Compared with the EU distribution of professional judges per instance, Ireland shows a larger percentage of judges in the first instance courts (84.7% compared with 72.39%), and 
significantly lower number of second instance judges (9.8% compared to 23.9%). The percentage of judges at the Supreme court level is slightly higher than EU median (5.5% compared 
to 4.03%). An amendment was made in 2019 to the number of judges in the court of appeal due to workload of the court.

As regards the methodology of presentation of data in respect of the number of judges, it should be noticed that the number of first instance professional judges refers to ordinary judges 
of the District Court, ordinary and specialist judges of the circuit court and ordinary judges of the High Court - including Court Presidents.

As regards the distribution male/female, it has to be specified that female judges represent a minority in the first and third instance courts, and hold 50% of judgeship positions only in the 
second instance courts. 

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Total

Civil and commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

138

16

9

163

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

In Ireland, the distribution of judges per categories of cases is not possible.

It should be noted that judges deal with both criminal and civil and commercial proceedings. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

749 / 1555

Non-judge staff

Year

2012

Number of non-judge staff

945

Per 100 000 inhabitants

20,58

2013

927

20,14

2014

927

20,04

2015

942

2016

975

20,20

20,86

2017

1 023

21,35

2018

1 049

21,60

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants

59,00

2020

Total

Rechtspfleger

20,58

20,14

20,04

20,20

20,86

21,35

21,60

21,94

21,88

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

Non-judge staff assisting the judge

Staff in charge of administrative tasks

Technical staff

Other

2019

1 080

21,94

Absolute 
number

1 089

25

816

247

1

NAP

E
U 
m

2020

1 089

21,88

in %

2,3%

74,9%

22,7%

0,1%

NAP

In 2020, Ireland has 1 089 non-judge staff (of which 651 are females). The total number of non-judge staff in comparison with the previous cycle reveals an increase of 0,8%.

In this cycle, the non-judge staff is broken down as follows:

◦ 25 Rechtspfleger (or similar bodies) with judicial or quasi-judicial tasks having autonomous competence and whose decisions could be subject to appeal (among which 11 
◦ 816 non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges such as registrars (of which 514 are women);
◦ 247 staff in charge of different administrative tasks and of the court management (of which 126 are women);
◦ 1 technical staff (of which 0 are women);

In 2020, the number of non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants has decreased (from 21,9 in 2019 to 21,9 in 2020).

During the same period, the number of judges per 100 000 inhabitants evolves from 3,4 judges per 100 000 inhabitants in 2019 to 3,3 in 2020.

Professional judges, non-judge staff and their ratio (Q46, Q52)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Ireland

EU median

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

3,27

21,88

Non-judge staff per judge

6,68

23,92

59,00

3,30

Professional judges and non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Professional judges

6,68

59,00

Non-judge staff

Non-judge staff per judge

21,88

23,92

3,30

3,27

Ireland

EU median

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff  (Q46, Q52)

Judges 
per 100 000 inh.

Non-judge staff per
100 000 inh.

Ratio between professional judges and 
non-judge staff

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff 
Non-judge staff per 100 000 inh.
(Q46, Q52)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

3,14

3,22

3,46

3,41

3,47

3,34

3,29

3,39

3,27

20,58

20,14

20,04

20,20

20,86

21,35

21,60

21,94

21,88

EU median 2020

3,30

6,56

6,26

5,79

5,92

6,02

6,39

6,56

6,47

6,68

6,56

6,26

5,79

2012

2013

2014

6,56
6,26
5,79
5,92
6,02
6,39
6,56
6,47
6,68

6,39

6,56

6,47

6,68

5,92

6,02

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

750 / 1555

● Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff

Absolute number of public prosecutors by instance and gender (Q55)

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

NAP

NAP

NAP

128

Distribution by 
instance

NAP

NAP

NAP

Male

NAP

NAP

NAP

50

Female

NAP

NAP

NAP

78

Male

NAP

NAP

NAP

Female

NAP

NAP

NAP

39,1%

60,9%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance and gender

Male

Female

EU Median

73,96%

Total

39,1%

60,9%

21,28%

4,52%

In this cycle, the total number of female prosecutors (all instances) is 78, which represents 60,9% of the total number of prosecutors.

The total number of prosecutors is not distributed among the different judicial instances in the way presented above. 

As regards the methodology of presentation of data in respect of the number of prosecutors, it should be noticed that only total number of public prosecutors is provided. In Ireland, the 
court going staff number at the 31st December 2020 is 128 - (50 male / 78 female). This figure includes the Prosecutors and Technical staff - Legal Executive. It also includes one 
Trainee Solicitor. In the Office, the Technical Staff and Trainee Solicitors are court going staff and manage the running of a prosecution at trial in the same manner as some of the 
Prosecutors. 

As regards the distribution of the number of prosecutors among the different judicial instances, Ireland presents some peculiarities which should be mentioned. Allocation of prosecutors 
work is not in all instances divided as per the table above. The sub-categories 1st, 2nd and 3rd instance do not apply in the Irish system.

As regards the distribution male/female, it has to be specified that females represent the majority of public prosecutors. 

Non-prosecutor staff by gender (Q60)

Non-prosecutor staff

Total

2020

90

Male

32

Female

58

Non-prosecutor staff by gender

36%

Male

Female

64%

Public prosecutors, non-prosecutor staff and their ratio (Q55, Q60)

Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Ireland

EU median

Public prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per 
prosecutor

2,57

1,81

0,70

9,91

15,22

1,11

Public prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per prosecutor

0,70

2,57

1,81

15,22

9,91

1,11

Ireland

EU median

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

751 / 1555

● Salaries of professional judges and prosecutors at beginning of a career and at the highest instance (Q132, Q4)

Salaries of professional judges and 
prosecutors (Q132, Q4)

Average gross annual 
salary 
in €

Average net annual 
salary 
in €

Ratio with national 
average annual 
gross salary

Judge at the beginning of a career 

129 704 €

Judge of the highest court 

208 854 €

Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

33 370 €

NA

NA

NA

Public prosecutor at highest instance

NAP

NAP

3,22

5,18

0,83

NA

EU Median

2,02

3,22

4,09

1,71

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual salary in the 
country

Salaries of 
judges and 
prosecutors in 
Judge

5,18

4,09

at the beginning 
of a career

129704

2,02

at the highest 
instance

0,83

Prosecutor

at the beginning 
of a career

208854

1,71

33370

Judge at the beginning of career

Judge on highest instance

3,61

Ireland

EU Median

Prosecutor at the beginning of
career

NAP

at the highest 
instance

According to 2020 data, the absolute gross salary of a judge at the beginning of a career in Ireland of 129 704€ is quite above when compared to the EU median of 51 946€. As a ratio 
with the annual average salary of the country, the salary for a judge at the beginning of career is: 3,22 compared with EU median of : 2,02.

It should be noted that the highest absolute gross salary for judge at the beginning of career is reported in Ireland (129 704€).

Regarding salary levels, it should be specified that the judicial salary reflects that of a judge of the District Court and a judge of the Supreme Court as at 31 December 2020.
Statutory deductions such as PAYE, USC, pension contributions will vary according to personal circumstances. In every case these will
be charged in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions.

Regarding salaries of public prosecutors, it is worth bearing in mind that prosecuting in the Superior Courts is not necessarily linked to grade.

● Lawyers

Lawyers

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

Number of lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

11 055

11 215

11 588

11 907

12 237

12 588

13 142

14 816

14 054

240,79

243,70

250,50

255,29

261,83

262,66

270,58

301,05

282,36

EU median 2020

122,09

In 2020, there are 14 054 lawyers, which is -5,1% less than in 2019.

240,79

243,70

250,50

255,29

261,83

262,66

270,58

301,05

282,36

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

122,09

EU median
2020

Ireland has 282,4 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants, which is above the EU median of 122,1 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants.

The above figure is the sum membership of the Bar of Ireland and the Law Society. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

752 / 1555

● Judicial professionals (summary)

Judicial professionals in absolute number and per 100 000 inhabitants (Q46, Q52, Q55, Q60, Q146)

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

EU Median

Professional judges

167

3,39

Non-judge staff

1 089

21,88

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

128

90

2,57

1,81

23,92

59,00

9,91

15,22

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Ireland

EU Median

282,36

122,09

59,00

23,92

21,88

3,39

2,57

9,91

15,22

1,81

Lawyers

14 054

282,36

122,09

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

% Male

% Female

Professional judges

60,7%

39,3%

Non judge staff

40,2%

59,8%

Prosecutors

39,1%

60,9%

Professional judges

Ireland % Male Ireland % Femalelabels

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

Ireland % Male
-60,7%
EU Median  % Male

39,3%

Ireland % Female
60,7%

EU Median  % Female

Professional judges

60,7%

-39,0%

61,0%

39,0%

39,3%

39,0%

0,0%

Non judge staff

Non judge staff

-40,2%
40,2%

59,8%

40,2%

24,0%

-24,0%

76,0%

24,0%

Non-prosecutor staff

35,6%

64,4%

Prosecutors

Lawyers

50,7%

49,2%

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

39,1%

40,5%

-39,1%
-40,5%
35,6%

-35,6%
-28,1%

28,1%

Lawyers
Lawyers

-50,7%
-52,3%

50,7%

52,3%

0,0%

39,1%
40,5%
0,0%
35,6%
28,1%
0,0%
50,7%
52,3%

60,9%
59,5%

64,4%
71,9%

49,2%
47,7%

49,2%

47,7%

Regarding number of lawyers, it should be specified that total figure includes 24 lawyers with a gender reported as "Unknown". 

61,0%

59,8%

60,9%

59,5%

76,0%

64,4%

71,9%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

753 / 1555

3. Legal aid and court fees in Ireland

1

1

In Ireland, legal aid includes:

◦ Coverage of court fees: 

◦ Exemption from court fees: 

In Ireland, legal aid is available for :

> Representation in court:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

> Legal advice, ADR and other legal services:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

>

Fees related to enforcement of judicial decisions as fees for enforcement agents (Q18) 

>

 Other costs than above (Q19) 

1

1

1

1

0

1

In relation to enforcement fees, it should be noted that civil legal aid does not generally include fees in respect of enforcement by an enforcement agent (this is distinct from 
enforcement of proceedings in a court which may be covered).

Concerning other costs, it should be specified that in criminal cases legal aid can cover the cost of expert witnesses (medical and technical), interpreters, translation service 
providers, travel costs, disbursements i.e. photocopying costs, prison visits. In civil cases, fees of other professionals may be covered where it is necessary having regard to the 
circumstances of the case.

 Number of cases for which legal aid has been granted

Total

Cases brought to court

Cases not brought to 
court

Ratio of number of cases brought to court for which legal aid 
has been granted

85 963

73 611

12 352

NA

NA

18 522

In criminal cases

######### NA

In other than criminal
cases

######### NA

40,0%

60,0%

Absolute number 
(in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

30 874

NA

NA

NA

NA

Ireland

EU Median

Per 100 000 inhabitants
 (in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

620,3

734,2

330,9

402,7

Number of cases for which legal has been granted per 100 000 
inhabitants

Ireland

620,3

EU Median

402,7

In other than criminal cases

[Comment ALL 020] In Criminal Cases - this represents the number of criminal legal aid certificates which originated from the criminal prosecutions in the District Court.
In "other than criminal cases" the 'number of cases brought before the court' is the number of legal aid certificates granted. The number of 'cases not brought to court/non-litigious 
cases' is the number of applications for civil legal aid and advice. However, please note that any advice case may progress to being an aid case and the Legal Aid Board does not 
keep a record of what specific cases never progressed beyond advice stage (i.e. this figure includes all of the cases which eventually became aid cases). 

Ireland has data for the total criminal legal aid certificates issue, but the required breakdown is not available.

Timeframes of the procedure for granting legal aid (in relation to the duration from the initial legal aid request to the final approval of the legal aid request)

◦ Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulations: 

◦ Actual average duration: 

NAP

14

Legal Aid Certificates for Emergency / Priority applications (including Child Abduction applications and applications under Sex Offenders Acts) are addressed within 24 hours. 
Legal Aid Certificates for Standard applications (including foreign applications and non urgent Central Authority cases) are addressed within 2 weeks i.e. granted, refused or 
further information requested).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

754 / 1555

4. Performance of courts in Ireland

● Efficiency indicators

◦ Clearance Rate (CR) and Disposition Time (DT)

The Clearance Rate shows the capacity of a judicial system to deal with the incoming cases. A Clearance Rate of 100% and higher does not generate backlog. 

The Disposition Time determines the estimated number of days necessary for a pending case to be solved in a court. 

Regarding data for Ireland, historically the number of pending civil cases has not been recorded in caseload data, as many cases initiated before the Irish courts either 
settle out of court or are not proceeded with by the plaintiff/applicant without there being any procedural requirement that the parties inform the court of either a 
settlement or an intention not to proceed with the case. Consequently, number of resolved cases appears lower and number of pending cases is not available (NA). 
For this reason, CR shows lower values and DT cannot be calculated which imposes certain limitations on the caseload analysis. The mentioned characteristics of the 
system have to be taken into account whenever analysing available data for Ireland.    

Concerning efficiency of first instance courts in 2020, several points should be taken into account. The reduction in non-litigious cases has been identified and 
reportedly, it is related to the consequences of COVID-19 pandemic. Furthermore, it should be noted that during the most restrictive lockdowns, only essential 
proceedings could be dealt with, but as guidance allowed, case volume increased. Urgent and essential cases continued to be heard throughout. This included 
domestic violence and criminal proceedings. All written judgments were delivered electronically and published on the Courts Service website, courts.ie.
Attendance at Court offices was by appointment only to ensure that footfall could be safely managed.

Both the Supreme Court and Court of Appeal quickly adopted the use of video technology and made greater use of electronic documentation to facilitate their 
continued work. Procedures were introduced to ensure that justice was administered in public. Both jurisdictions delivered their judgments electronically. Waiting times 
for a hearing in both Courts were improved, to a certain extent, by a net reduction in the numbers of new cases coming into their lists from other jurisdictions. By year 
end in both Courts, there was a net improvement in the numbers of cases waiting to be dealt with compared to 2019

First instance Total of other than criminal cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Evolution of number of all other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants
Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Incoming

1
4
5

,

4
9
3

,

6
2
5

,

3
0
4

,

9
9
4

,

9
7
3

,

0
7
4

,

4
8
3

,

1
6
4

,

2
6
3

,

8
6
4

,

3
5
3

,

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

NA

NA

5,41

5,26

4,99

9
1
4

,

4,70

4,61

4,68

4,19

6,82

0
6
2

,

2020

NA

NA

3,94

4,03

3,79

3,84

3,62

3,53

2,60

6,60

2
8
6

,

0
6
6

,

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

6
6
2

NA

,

NA

NA

EU median

NA

2,66

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Ireland (4,19 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below EU median (6,82 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Ireland (2,60 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (6,60 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Other than criminal cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Other than criminal 
cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NA

NA

73%

77%

76%

82%

79%

75%

62%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

DT (days)

CR (%)

73%

77%

76%

82%

79%

75%

62%

99%

109

EU median

99%

109

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The Clearance Rate is calculated at 62,0% in 2020.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -13,4 points.

The Disposition Time of other than criminal cases cannot be calculated.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

755 / 1555

First instance Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

3
9
3

,

4
2
4

,

Evolution of number of civil and commercial litigious cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

1
1
3

,

3
7
1

,

7
9
2

,

8
8
1

,

3
7
2

,

1
6
1

,

9
6
2

,

6
9
1

,

0
7
2

,

0
7
1

,

5
7
2

,

3
7
1

,

3,93
4,24
3,11
2,97
2,73
2,69
2,70
2,75
3,26
1,56

6
2
3

,

6
9
1

,

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
1,05

NA
NA
1,73
1,88
1,61
1,96
1,70
1,73
1,96
1,50

6
5
1

,

0
5
1

,

5
0
1

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Ireland (3,26 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (1,56 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Ireland (1,96 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat above EU median (1,50 per 100 inhabitants).

It should be noted that Civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases include proceedings not resolved inter partes, such as undefended pecuniary claims, deed 
poll applications, probate (grants of representation), wardship proceedings, registrations of enduring powers of attorney, appointment of care 
representatives, unopposed personal and corporate insolvency proceedings, liquor licencing applications and marriage notice exemption applications.

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NA

NA

55,6%

63,2%

59,2%

72,8%

63,1%

63,0%

60,3%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

DT (days)

CR (%)

55,6%

63,2%

59,2%

63,1%

63,0%

60,3%

72,8%

98%

221

EU Median

98%

221

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU Median

The Clearance Rate is calculated at 60,3% in 2020.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -2,7 points.

The Disposition Time of the civil and commercial litigious cases cannot be calculated.

The number of civil and commercial litigious cases older than 2 years is not available.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

756 / 1555

First instance Administrative cases

The data for the first instance Administrative cases are not available as these cases are included in the number of Civil (and commercial) litigious cases.

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

The Clearance Rate of the administrative cases cannot be calculated due to unavailability of data. 

The Disposition Time of the administrative cases cannot be calculated due to unavailability of data.

Insolvency cases

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Insolvency cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Insolvency cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

72,4%

75,2%

65,3%

76,2%

68,4%

56,7%

101,5%

84,1%

105,0%

695

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

EU Median

105%

281

DT (days)

CR (%)

72,4%

75,2%

65,3%

76,2%

68,4%

56,7%

101,5%

105,0%

105%

84,1%

695

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU Median

281

The Clearance Rate was calculated at 105,0% in 2020 for insolvency cases, Ireland seems to deal efficiently with its insolvency cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased by 20,9 points.

The Disposition Time for insolvency cases cannot be calculated.

Under the Insolvency category above the figures reflect both corporate and personal insolvency cases. Insolvency figures include both litigious and non-litigious cases.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

757 / 1555

● First instance Criminal Law Cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

4
2
7

,

Total

Severe criminal cases 

Misdemeanour and/or 
minor cases

NA

NA

NA

360 576

224 048

21 322

17 535

382 455

194 796

NA

NA

NA

Other cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

Total criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases Resolved casesPending 
Resolved cases

7,24

4,50

NA

Incoming cases
Ireland

EU Median

0
5
4

,

1,60

1,48

0,46

0
6
1

,

8
4
1

,

Per 100 inhabitants

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 
Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

NA

NA

NA

Other cases

NAP

7,24

0,43

7,68

NAP

4,50

0,35

3,91

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

Ireland

EU Median

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, and other 
criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases

Resolved cases

Total

4,50

7,24

Severe criminal
cases

0,43
0,35

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

3,91

7,68

The number of total incoming criminal cases in 2020 in Ireland (7,24 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (1,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total resolved criminal cases in 2020 in Ireland (4,50 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (1,48 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT)

Total criminal law cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

DT (days)

CR (%)

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 

Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

62,1%

82,2%

50,9%

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

Total Criminal law cases

62,1%

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, 
and other criminal law cases 

82,2%

50,9%

EU Median

95,2%

139

EU Median

Total

Severe criminal
cases

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

 The Clearance Rate is calculated at 62,1% in 2020 for total criminal cases.

The Disposition Time for criminal law cases cannot be calculated.

Except for the Supreme Court, criminal cases are generally counted by offence rather than case due to the various ICT systems used. This is due to data collection/ ICT 
systems that are in use by the Court Service.
The number of pending criminal law cases cannot be provided.
Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases include all cases triable summarily (e.g. common assault, public order offences, burglary or theft in other that aggravated 
circumstances).

Misdemeanour and minor criminal cases are cases heard in the District Court. There were fewer such cases incoming and resolved because of Covid-19 pandemic.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

758 / 1555

Overall efficiency by instance and by case matter

CR (%)

DT (days)

CR (%)

DT (days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases

60,3%

104,6%

113,8%

Administrative cases

NA

NA

NA

Total criminal law cases

62,1%

108,8%

103,0%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

118

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

1st instance

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases

100%

%
3
0
6

,

2nd instance

2nd instance

%
1st instance
8
3
1
1

,

,

%
6
4
0
1

Supreme Court
%
8
3
1
1

Supreme Court
%
0
3
0
1

,

,

60,3%

104,6%

113,8%

%
1
2
6

,

Total criminal law cases

Civil and commercial
litigious cases

62,1%

113,8%

Total criminal law cases

103,0%

1

1
1

1
1

Due to the above-explained reasons, number of resolved cases appears lower and number of pending cases is not available (NA). Consequently, CR shows lower 
values and DT cannot be calculated. Therefore, no comprehensive analysis of overall efficiency could be provided. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

759 / 1555

5. Public prosecution services in Ireland

● Role and powers of the public prosecutor

In the criminal procedure, the public prosecutor in Ireland has the following 4 out of 11 possible roles and powers:

To conduct or supervise police investigation

To appeal

To conduct investigations

To supervise the enforcement procedure

When necessary, to request investigation measures from the judge

To discontinue a case without needing a decision by a judge

To charge

To present the case in the court

To propose a sentence to the judge

To end the case by imposing or negotiating a penalty or measure 
without requiring a judicial decision

Other significant powers

The Director of Public Prosecutions has no investigative function. The Director determines the appropriate charge and prosecutes the case in court. The Director may appeal a 
decision of the court on a point of law or where a sentence imposed is considered unduly lenient. The Director may end proceedings in a case without a judicial decision. In 
addition to ending a case without judicial decision, the Office of the DPP can recommend a number of non-judicial disposals, including Garda cautioning and juvenile diversion. 
Whilst the DPP cannot propose a sentence to the judge, there are two areas in relation to sentencing that the Office of the DPP can appropriately comment on: the practice of 
drawing to the attention of the sentencing court all relevant guideline sentences from the superior courts (pre-sentence) and the Director’s responsibility in relation to appealing 
sentences considered to be ‘unduly lenient’. Prosecutors also have a role in applying for and defending judicial review and habeas corpus. It should be noted that these processes 
arise from the criminal process. 

Prosecutors also make the decision whether or not a case should be prosecuted. 

The public prosecutor does not have any role in civil, administrative or insolvency cases.

● Public prosecutors: Number of first instance criminal cases

Type of cases

Absolute 
number

Per 100 
inhabitants

1. Pending cases on 1 Jan. ref. year 

NA

NA

2. Incoming/received cases

12 602

0,25

Incoming/received cases

Public prosecutors: Total number of first instance criminal 
cases per 100 inhabitants
Incoming/rec
eived cases
2,85

Processed 
cases
2,84

Processed cases

Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. Year

Pendin
g cases 
on 31 

3. Processed cases (3.1 + 3.2 + 3.3 + 3.4)

NA

NA

Ireland

0,25 NA

NA

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year (3.1.1 + 3.1.2 + 3.1.3 
+ 3.1.4)

4 178

0,08

EU Median

2,85 2,84

0,84

3.1.1 Discontinued by the public prosecutor because the 
offender could not be identified 

131

0,00

0,25

NA

NA

Ireland

0,84

EU Median

3.1.2 Discontinued by the public prosecutor due to the lack 
of an established offence or a specific legal situation 

3.1.3 Discontinued by the public prosecutor for reasons of 
opportunity

NA

NA

NA

NA

3.1.4 Discontinued for other reasons 

4 047

0,08

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated 
by the public prosecutor

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons

3.4. Cases brought to court

4. Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. year

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Processed cases per 100 inhabitants

Processed cases

Ireland

Ireland

EU Median

EU Median

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

0,08

1,05

-0,08

1,05

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure
imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor

NA

0,12

0,00

0,12

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for
other reasons

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons
0,30

0,00

0,30

NA

3.4. Cases brought to court

3.4. Cases brought to court

NA

0,00

0,53

0,53

As many of the cases are prosecuted by State Solicitors, there is no data on the status of a case between the time the direction is issued and when the final outcome is received; 
this is for matters on indictment. For summary cases outside of Dublin, there is rarely information collected on the outcome as these directions are passed on to the police by the 
State Solicitor and the police execute the direction to prosecute without reference to the State Solicitor. This may change in the future if outcome data is exchange using the 
Criminal Justice Operational Hub. Summary cases outside of Dublin would make up a significant proportion of the files given in the figures.
As per the instructions provided, cases are counted per prosecution file which could include more than one suspect and multiple charges preferred. Therefore, the figure give for 
'Discontinued' in 3.1 is the number of distinct files where a suspect was directed for 'no prosecution'; in some of these files, other suspects on the file may have been prosecuted in 
the courts.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

760 / 1555

6. Existence and use of alternative dispute resolution in Ireland

Number of mediators

The data on the number of mediators is not provided (NA).

Number of court related mediations

The data on the number of court related mediations has not been provided (NA). It should be noted that in Ireland there is no court ordered mediation. Courts 
may invite parties to attend mediation but it is not mandated or ordered. For this reason, and in the absence of the establishment of the mediation council, 
there is currently no central area for recording data on mediation. When the mediation council is established, it might be possible to provide this data.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

761 / 1555

7. ICT tools of courts in Ireland

●The ICT tools of courts and for court users

The use of ICT in courts in 2020 has been evaluated as  :

EU Median

Total 
(0 to 10)

Assistance tools (0 to 3)

Case management system (0 to 7)
Financial management tools (0 to 3)

Measurement tools to assess the workload (0 to 5)
Electronic communication (0 to 10)

1,8
2,0

0,0

0,0
0,0

3,0

6,6
2,0

5,2

1,3
2,5

6,9

The calculation of this values for each field is based on the answers for that question/s and weighted according the availability 
or deployment rate. The total value is normalised to max 10 points for readability and comparison.

The details of the calculation are given in Annex 5 - IT calculations

The result by area may be summarized in these graphics, where each field has been evaluated from 0 to 4 points.

Note: index is modified based on the available questions. This cycle the recalculation was made for the last three cycles to be 
able to follow the development.

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

2018

2019

2020

EU Median 2020

Case 
management 
system

Financial 
management 
tools

Measurement 
tools to assess 
the workload

Electronic 
communication

5,17

6,94

2,67

2,67

0,00

2,00

2,67

0,00

0,00
2,67
0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

1,85

1,85

3,04

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

1,25

2,50

3,04

1,85

1,85

Assistance 
tools

Year
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
EU Median 20202,00
1,33

2,00

1,33

1,33

1,33

2,00

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

The systems and tools used for administrative cases are the same as for civil cases since Ireland does not operate administrative courts.

Regarding possibility to submit a case to courts by electronic means, there are different systems in place: Civil matters (Courts Service Online 
(www.csol.ie) using JBOSS/MySQL; Courts Service On-line (CSOL) for small claims and personal insolvency) and Criminal matters (Criminal 
Case Tracking System (CCTS) Oracle and Criminal Justice Integration Project (CJIP))

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

762 / 1555

8. Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and public prosecution services in Ireland

In Ireland, quality standards are not determined for the judicial system at the national level.

● Systems for measuring and evaluating courts' performance

A regular monitoring system of court activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

In Ireland, there is no system to regularly evaluate the court performance based on defined indicators.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each court.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

The evaluation of the courts' activities is not used for the later allocation of means in the courts.

● Systems for measuring and evaluating public prosecution services' performance

A regular monitoring system of public prosecution services activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases 

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs 

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecution) 

Costs of the judicial procedures 

Clearance rate 

Disposition time 

Percentage of convictions and acquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

Information is published in Annual Report available at: https://www.dppireland.ie/app/uploads/2020/10/AR-2019-eng.pdf

In Ireland, there is no system to evaluate regularly the activity of each public prosecution service.

Performance and quality indicators are not defined for the activity of each public prosecution service.

None of the following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecutors)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Percentage of convictions and acquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff

The evaluation of the public prosecution services' activities is not used for the later allocation of means in the public prosecution services.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

763 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table General Data: Economic and demographic data, in absolute values (Q1, Q3, Q5)

Q1 Number of inhabitants

4 591 087

4 602 029

4 625 885

4 664 156

4 673 700

4 792 500

4 857 000

4 921 500

4 977 400

8,4%

0,2%

0,5%

0,8%

0,2%

2,5%

1,3%

1,3%

1,1%

Q.3 GDP Per capita (in €) in current prices

37 675

38 055

41 011

55 187

58 961

61 369

66 716

72 346

74 912

98,8%

1,0%

7,8%

34,6%

6,8%

4,1%

8,7%

8,4%

3,5%

Q5. Exchange rate of Nat currency to € on 1 Jan

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Indicator 1: Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and prosecution services  (Indicator 4 in 2019)

Table 1.1 to Table 1.10 (Q66, Q67, Q77, Q78, Q77-1, Q78-1, Q73, Q73-0, Q73-1, Q73-2, Q73-3, Q73-4, Q73-5, Q73-6, Q70, Q70-1, Q71, Q72, Q83-2, Q83-3, Q120 
and Q120-1)

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

66 Qlty standards formulated_jud system

67 Specialised court staff entrusted_qlty standards

77 Performance and quality indicators of court activities

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

False

False

True

078.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078.1.5 Backlogs 

078.1.6 Productivity of judges and court staff

078.1.7 Satisfaction of court staff 

078.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts) 

078.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078.1.10 Number of appeals

078.1.11 Appeal ratio

078.1.12 Clearance rate 

078.1.13 Disposition time 

078.1.14 Other

077-1.1.1 Defined performance and quality indicators

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

764 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

078-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078-1.1.5 Backlogs 

078-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

078-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

078-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

078-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

078-1.1.11 Disposition time 

078-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

078-1.1.13 Other

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

73 Regular system_evaluation_performance_each court

No

No

No

No

073-0.1.1 Annual

073-0.1.2 Less frequent

073-0.1.3 More frequent

073-1.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
court

073-2.1.1 Courses of action taken in the evaluation is used for the 
allocation of resources

073-2.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-2.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-2.1.4 Other

073-3.1.1 Regular evaluation of the public prosecution services 
performance

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

765 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

073-4.1.1 Annual

073-4.1.2 Less frequent

073-4.1.3 More frequent

073-5.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
public prosecution services

073-6.1.1 Identifying the causes of improved or deteriorated 
performance

073-6.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-6.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-6.1.4 Other

070.1.1 number of incoming cases

070.1.2 length of proceedings (timeframes)

070.1.3 number of resolved cases

070.1.4 number of pending cases

070.1.5 backlogs

070.1.6 productivity of judges and court staff

070.1.7 satisfaction of court staff

070.1.8 satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts)

070.1.9 costs of the judicial procedures

070.1.10 number of appeals

070.1.11 appeal ratio

070.1.12 clearance rate

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

-

-

-

False

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

766 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

070-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases 

070-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

070-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

070-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

070-1.1.5 Backlogs 

070-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

070-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

070-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

070-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

070-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

070-1.1.11 Disposition time 

070-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

070-1.1.13 Other

071.1.1 Monitoring backlogs in Civil law cases

071.1.2 Monitoring backlogs in Criminal law cases

071.1.3 Monitoring backlogs in Administrative law cases

072.1.1 Monitoring timeframes Within the courts

072.1.2 Monitoring timeframes Within the public prosecution services

083-2.1.1 Quantitative performance tagets defined for each 
prosecutors

083-3.1.1 Body responsible - Executive power (for example the 
Ministry of Justice)

083-3.1.2 Body responsible - Prosecutor General /State public 
prosecutor

083-3.1.3 Body responsible - Public Prosecutorial Council

083-3.1.4 Body responsible - Head of the organisational unit or 
hierarchically superior public prosecutor

083-3.1.5 Body responsible - Other

True

True

True

True

False

True

False

False

True

False

False

True

False

-

-

-

False

False

False

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

767 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

120.1.1 Qualitative individual assessment of the public prosecutors' 
work

120-1.1.1 Feequency - Annual

120-1.1.2 Feequency - Less frequent

120-1.1.3 Feequency - More frequent

Q42.1.1Total number of all courts - legal entities 

Q42.1.2 Total number of courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.3 First instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.4 Second instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.5 Highest instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.6 Total number of specialised courts - legal entities

43.1.1 Total number of specialised courts of first instance

43.1.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.1.3 Insolvency courts

43.1.4 Labour courts

43.1.5 Family courts

43.1.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.1.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.1.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.1.9 Internet related disputes

43.1.10 Administrative courts

43.1.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.1.12 Military courts

43.1.13 Juvenile courts

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

Indicator 2: The judicial organisation

Tables 2.1a; 2.1b; 2.2a; 2.2b; 2.3a; 2.3b; 2.4 and 2.5(EC) (Q42, Q43 and Q44)

-

-

3

-

-

-

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

3

-

-

-

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

3

-

-

-

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

3

-

-

-

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

3

-

-

-

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

3

-

-

-

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

3

-

-

-

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

3

-

-

-

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

True

True

False

False

7

5

3

2

NAP

2

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

100,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

100,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

768 / 1555

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

43.1.14 Other specialised courts

1

1

1

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

43.2.1 Total number of specialised courts of higher instances

43.2.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.2.3 Insolvency courts

43.2.4 Labour courts

43.2.5 Family courts

43.2.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.2.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.2.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.2.9 Internet related disputes

43.2.10 Administrative courts

43.2.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.2.12 Military courts

43.2.13 Juvenile courts

43.2.14 Other specialised courts

44.1.1 First instance courts geographic locations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

44.1.2 All courts geographic locations

105

100

94

94

95

95

95

95

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

93

95

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-9,5%

-4,8%

-6,0%

0,0%

1,1%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

769 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

91.1.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.1.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.1.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.1.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.1.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.1.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.1.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.1.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

91.1.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.1.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

91.1.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

91.2.1 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.2.2 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.2.3 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.2.4 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.2.5 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.2.6 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.2.7 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.2.8 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

91.2.9 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

91.2.10 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

91.2.11 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

Indicator 3: The performance of courts at all stages of the proceedings

Tables 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.4 (all years) Number of other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 Variation of first instance other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants (Q1, Q91)

Table 3.13.7 (EC) to 3.13.12 (EC) First instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

NA

NA

-

NA

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NA

NA

-

NA

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

250 402

245 462

233 058

225 215

223 906

230 240

208 579

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,0%

-5,1%

-3,4%

-0,6%

2,8%

-9,4%

180 287

195 299

143 993

138 540

127 395

128 820

131 159

135 208

162 065

-10,1%

8,3%

-26,3%

-3,8%

-8,0%

1,1%

1,8%

3,1%

19,9%

-

NA

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NA

-

NA

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NA

105 215

105 623

104 848

95 363

91 655

93 740

46 514

105 215

105 623

104 848

95 363

91 655

93 740

46 514

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 194

1 299

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

815

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 032

1 092

1 292

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,4%

-0,7%

-9,0%

-3,9%

2,3%

-50,4%

0,4%

-0,7%

-9,0%

-3,9%

2,3%

-50,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

8,8%

-37,3%

26,6%

5,8%

18,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

770 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

91.3.1 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.3.2 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.3.3 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.3.4 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.3.5 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.3.6 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.3.7 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.3.8 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

91.3.9 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

NA

NA

-

NA

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

91.3.10 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

91.3.11 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

91.4.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.4.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.4.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.4.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.4.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.4.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.4.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.4.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

91.4.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.4.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

91.4.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

NA

NA

NA

-

NA

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NA

35

NA

NA

-

NA

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NA

NA

NA

-

182 409

187 987

177 247

183 793

175 913

173 602

129 390

80 027

87 505

75 463

93 729

82 744

85 193

97 689

101 188

99 183

100 969

89 032

92 077

87 117

31 701

120 010

101 188

99 183

100 969

89 032

92 077

87 117

31 701

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 194

1 299

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

815

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 032

1 092

1 292

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,1%

-5,7%

3,7%

-4,3%

-1,3%

-25,5%

9,3%

-13,8%

24,2%

-11,7%

3,0%

14,7%

-2,0%

1,8%

-11,8%

3,4%

-5,4%

-63,6%

-15,7%

-2,0%

1,8%

-11,8%

3,4%

-5,4%

-63,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3311,4%

8,8%

-37,3%

26,6%

5,8%

18,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

771 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.2 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.4 to 3.3.7 Variation of Clearence Rate and Disposition Time of first instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

Table 3.13.1 (EC) to 3.13.6 (EC) First instance courts: Disposition time and clearance rate for other than criminal cases  (Q91)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

NA

NA

-

NA

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NA

NA

-

NA

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

CR Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

NA

NA

-

NA

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

NA

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NA

72,8%

76,6%

76,1%

81,6%

78,6%

75,4%

62,0%

55,6%

63,2%

59,2%

72,8%

63,1%

63,0%

60,3%

96,2%

93,9%

96,3%

93,4%

100,5%

92,9%

68,2%

96,2%

93,9%

96,3%

93,4%

100,5%

92,9%

68,2%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5,13

(0,69)

7,30

(3,73)

(4,03)

(17,73)

13,65

(6,22)

22,83

(13,29)

(0,12)

(4,33)

(2,36)

2,55

(3,05)

7,60

(7,49)

(26,66)

(2,36)

2,55

(3,05)

7,60

(7,49)

(26,66)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

772 / 1555

         
        
         
        
        
      
       
        
       
      
        
        
        
         
        
         
        
      
        
         
        
         
        
      
           
           
           
           
           
Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.4.1 (all years) First instance courts, number of cases for specific case categories (Q101)

101.1.1 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Litigious divorce case

101.1.2 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Employment dismissal case

101.1.3 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Insolvency

NA

NA

486

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

101.2.1 Incoming cases_Litigious divorce case

3 482

3 609

3 831

4 314

4 179

3 995

3 888

4 073

5 266

51,2%

3,6%

6,2%

12,6%

-3,1%

-4,4%

-2,7%

4,8%

29,3%

101.2.2 Incoming cases_Employment dismissal case

101.2.3 Incoming cases_Insolvency

NA

380

358

314

101.3.1 Resolved cases_Litigious divorce case

2 892

2 949

101.3.2 Resolved cases_Employment dismissal case

101.3.3 Resolved cases_Insolvency

101.4.1 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Litigious divorce case

101.4.2 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Employment dismissal case

101.4.3 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Insolvency

NA

275

NA

NA

524

120

236

NA

NA

NA

69

1 615

2 638

89

135

2 368

3 291

102

121

2 909

3 277

105

48

18

13

5

-

-

-80,7%

95,7%

-10,4%

-60,3%

-62,5%

-27,8%

-61,5%

3 060

1 526

1 496

3 002

690,0%

-17,4%

414,3%

46,6%

22,8%

5,2%

-50,1%

-2,0%

100,7%

3 434

3 252

3 573

3 183

10,1%

2,0%

-10,5%

24,8%

-0,4%

4,8%

-5,3%

9,9%

-10,9%

73

31

22

9

-

-

-25,8%

14,6%

2,9%

-30,5%

-57,5%

-29,0%

-59,1%

1 055

1 805

1 989

1 736

1 549

1 258

3 153

1046,5%

-14,2%

347,0%

71,1%

10,2%

-12,7%

-10,8%

-18,8%

150,6%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Table 3.5.1 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for specific case categories (Q101)

Table 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 Variations of CR and DT for specific case categories of first instance cases (Q101)

CR Litigious divorce cases

83,1%

81,7%

68,9%

76,3%

78,4%

86,0%

83,6%

87,7%

60,4%

(27,22)

(1,62)

(15,73)

10,79

2,79

9,62

(2,69)

4,88

(31,10)

CR Employment dismissal cases

NA

33,5%

129,0%

75,6%

86,8%

152,1%

172,2%

169,2%

180,0%

-

-

284,81

(41,42)

14,85

75,26

13,24

(1,74)

6,36

CR Insolvency cases

72,4%

75,2%

65,3%

76,2%

68,4%

56,7%

101,5%

84,1%

105,0%

45,13

3,86

(13,08)

16,69

(10,30)

(17,03)

78,92

(17,16)

24,90

DT Litigious divorce cases

DT Employment dismissal cases

DT Insolvency cases

NA

NA

695

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

773 / 1555

      
        
      
       
         
         
        
         
      
     
      
       
       
       
        
         
       
         
      
       
      
      
       
      
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.7.1 to 3.7.5 (2019 and 2020) Second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Table 3.9.1 to 3.9.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.1.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.1.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.1.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.1.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.1.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.1.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.1.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.1.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

97.1.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.1.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

97.1.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases 

97.2.1 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.2.2 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.2.3 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.2.4 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.2.5 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.2.6 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.2.7 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.2.8 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

97.2.9 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.2.10 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

97.2.11 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases 

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2 334

2 334

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2 637

2 637

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2 679

2 679

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

2 673

2 827

2 685

1 403

2 673

2 827

2 685

1 403

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

13,0%

1,6%

-0,2%

5,8%

-5,0%

-47,7%

13,0%

1,6%

-0,2%

5,8%

-5,0%

-47,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

774 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.3.1 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.3.2 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.3.3 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.3.4 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.3.5 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.3.6 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.3.7 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.3.8 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

97.3.9 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.3.10 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

97.3.11 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases 

97.4.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.4.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.4.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.4.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.4.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.4.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.4.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.4.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

97.4.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.4.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

97.4.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases

97.5.1 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.5.2 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.5.10 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1 754

1 754

2 227

2 227

2 208

2 208

1 755

2 119

2 498

1 468

1 755

2 119

2 498

1 468

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

27,0%

-0,9%

-20,5%

20,7%

17,9%

-41,2%

27,0%

-0,9%

-20,5%

20,7%

17,9%

-41,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

775 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 (2019 and 2020): Second instance clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.9.4 and 3.9.5 (2019 and 2020): Variation of second clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

75,1%

84,5%

82,4%

65,7%

75,0%

93,0%

104,6%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

75,1%

84,5%

82,4%

65,7%

75,0%

93,0%

104,6%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

12,38

(2,41)

(20,34)

14,16

24,12

12,47

12,38

(2,41)

(20,34)

14,16

24,12

12,47

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

776 / 1555

       
        
      
       
       
       
       
        
      
       
       
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.10.1 to 3.10.5 (2019 and 2020) Supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Table 3.12.1 to 3.12.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of the supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.1.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.1.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.1.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.1.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.1.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.1.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.1.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.1.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

99.1.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.1.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

99.1.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.2.1 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.2.2 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.2.3 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.2.4 High inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.2.5 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.2.6 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.2.7 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.2.8 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

99.2.9 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.2.10 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

99.2.11 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

462

462

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

109

109

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

334

334

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

164

164

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

187

187

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

190

190

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

144

144

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

268

268

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

181

181

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

323

323

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

109

109

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-44,0%

-23,0%

25,7%

-44,0%

-23,0%

25,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-76,4%

50,5%

15,9%

41,1%

20,5%

-66,3%

-76,4%

50,5%

15,9%

41,1%

20,5%

-66,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

777 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.3.1 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.3.2 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.3.3 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.3.4 High inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.3.5 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.3.6 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.3.7 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.3.8 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

99.3.9 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.3.10 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

99.3.11 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.4.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.4.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.4.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.4.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.4.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.4.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.4.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.4.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry 
cases

99.4.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.4.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative 
law cases

99.4.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.5.1 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.5.2 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.5.10 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

702

702

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

524

524

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

311

311

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

187

187

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

233

233

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

144

144

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

242

242

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

182

170

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

343

343

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

161

161

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

124

124

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-25,4%

-40,6%

-25,1%

3,9%

41,7%

-63,8%

-25,4%

-40,6%

-25,1%

3,9%

41,7%

-63,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-23,0%

26,4%

-11,5%

-23,0%

18,1%

-5,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

778 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 Supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.12.4 and 3.12.5 Variation of the supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

151,9%

480,7%

189,6%

122,6%

90,3%

106,2%

113,8%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

151,9%

480,7%

189,6%

122,6%

90,3%

106,2%

113,8%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

219

219

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

226

226

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

275

256

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

171

171

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

216,38

(60,55)

(35,33)

(26,37)

17,60

7,13

216,38

(60,55)

(35,33)

(26,37)

17,60

7,13

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,8%

21,7%

-37,6%

2,8%

13,7%

-33,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

779 / 1555

     
      
      
      
       
         
     
      
      
      
       
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.14.1 to 3.14.5 First instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

094.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

094.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

094.2.1 Total -incoming

094.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

094.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

094.2.4 Other - incoming

094.3.1 Total - resolved

094.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

094.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

094.3.4 Other - resolved

094.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

094.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

094.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

094.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

NA

NA

NA

NAP

360 576

21 322

382 455

NAP

224 048

17 535

194 796

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

780 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.15.1 to 3.10.2 CR and DT for first instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

098.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

098.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

098.2.1 Total -incoming

098.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

098.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

098.2.4 Other - incoming

098.3.1 Total - resolved

098.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

098.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

098.3.4 Other - resolved

Table 3.16.1 to 3.16.5 Second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

62,1%

82,2%

50,9%

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

12 215

1 405

10 810

NAP

13 293

1 719

11 574

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

781 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

098.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

098.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

098.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

098.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

Table 3.17.1 to 3.17.2 CR and DT for second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

108,8%

122,3%

107,1%

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

782 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.18.1 to 3.18.5 Supreme court criminal law cases (Q100)

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

100.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

100.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

100.2.1 Total -incoming

100.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

100.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

100.2.4 Other - incoming

100.3.1 Total - resolved

100.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

100.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

100.3.4 Other - resolved

100.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

100.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

100.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

100.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

12

12

NAP

NAP

33

33

NAP

NAP

34

34

NAP

NAP

11

11

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

783 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.19.1 to 3.19.2 CR and DT for supreme court  criminal law cases (Q100)

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

103,0%

103,0%

NAP

NAP

118

118

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

784 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 5: Access to justice

Legal aid

Table 5.1 to Table 5.6 (Q12-2, Q16, Q18, Q19, Q20, Q20-1)

12-2.1.1 Coverage of court fees

12-2.1.2 Exemption from court fees

16.1.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (criminal cases)

16.1.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (criminal cases)

16.2.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (other than criminal 
cases)

16.2.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (other than criminal cases)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

-

-

-

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

18.1.1 Legal aid for the enforcement of judicial decisions

False

False

False

False

False

19.1.1  Legal aid granted for other costs - criminal cases

19.1.2  Legal aid granted for other costs - other than criminal cases

020.1.1 Total

020.1.2 Total - criminal cases

020.1.3 Total - other than criminal cases

020.2.1 Total brought to court

020.2.2 Broight to court - criminal cases

020.2.3 Brought to court - other then criminal

020.3.1 Total not brought to court

020.3.2 Not broight to court - criminal cases

020.3.3 Not brought to court - other then criminal

020-1.1.1 Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulation

020-1.1.2 Average duration

True

True

NA

NA

30 874

85 963

73 611

12 352

NA

NA

18 522

NAP

14

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

785 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

System for compensating users

Table 5.7.1 and Table 5.7.2 (Q37)

037.1.1 Requests for compensation - Total

037.1.2 Requests for compensation - Excessive length of 
proceedings

037.1.3 Requests for compensation - Non-execution of court 
decisions

037.1.4 Requests for compensation - Wrongful arrest

037.1.5 Requests for compensation - Wrongful conviction

037.1.6 Requests for compensation - Other

037.2.1 Condemnations - Total

037.2.2 Condemnations - Excessive length of proceedings

037.2.3 Condemnations - Non-execution of court decisions

037.2.4 Condemnations - Wrongful arrest

037.2.5 Condemnations - Wrongful conviction

037.2.6 Condemnations - Other

037.3.1 Amount - Total

037.3.2 Amount - Excessive length of proceedings

037.3.3 Amount - Non-execution of court decisions

037.3.4 Amount - Wrongful arrest

037.3.5 Amount - Wrongful conviction

037.3.6 Amount - Other

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

786 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 6.1 to Table 6.11 (Q62-7, Q62-7-1, Q62-8,  Q62-8-1, Q63-1, Q63-1-1, Q63-2 Q63-6, Q63-7, Q63-7-1, Q64-2,  Q64-4, Q64-6, Q64-3, Q64-3-1, Q64-7, Q64-7-1, 
Q64-9)

Indicator 6: The ICT tools of courts and for court users

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

62-7 Writing assistance tools coordinated at national level

62-7-1.1 Deployment rate in civil matter

62-7-1.2 Deployment rate in criminal matter

62-7-1.3 Deployment rate in administrative matter

62-8 Voice recording tools

62-8-1.1.1 Availability of simple dictation tools in civil matter

62-8-1.1.2 Availability of simple dictation tools in criminal matter

62-8-1.1.3 Availability of simple dictation tools in administrative 
matter

62-8-1.2.1 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in civil 
matter

62-8-1.2.2 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in criminal 
matter

62-8-1.2.3 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in 
administrative matter

62-8-1.3.1 Availability of voice recognition in civil matter

62-8-1.3.2 Availability of voice recognition in criminal matter

62-8-1.3.3 Availability of voice recognition in administrative matter

062-9 Availability of intranet site within the judicial system for 
distribution of news/novelties

63.1 Is there a case management system? 

63.1-1.1 CMS for civil matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for criminal matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for administrative matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.2 CMS for civil matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for criminal matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for administrative matter (status of case onlinee)

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

NA

NA

100%

True

True

True

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

NA

NA

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

NA

No

No

No

NA

in all courts

No

No

No

No

No

No

-

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

NA

Both

NA

Both

NA

NA

NA

Both

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Both

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

787 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63.1-1.3 CMS for civil matter (Centralised or interoperable database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for criminal matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for administrative matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.4 CMS for civil matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for criminal matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for administrative matter (Early warning signals)

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS civil matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS criminal matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS administrative matter

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - land registry

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - business registry

63-2.2 Data consolidated at national level for land registry

63-2.2  Data consolidated at national level for business registry

63-2.3 Service available online for land registry

63-2.3  Service available online for business registry

63-2.4 Statistical module integrated or connected for land registry

63-2.4  Statistical module integrated or connected for business 
registry

063-6.1.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (deployment 
rate)

063-6.1.2 Justice expenses management (deployment rate)

063-6.1.3 Other financial management tools (deployment rate)

063-6.2.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (Data 
consolidated at national level)

063-6.2.2 Justice expenses management (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.2.3 Other financial management tools (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.3.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (System 
communicating with other ministries)

063-6.3.2 Justice expenses management (System communicating 
with other ministries)

063-6.3.3 Other financial management tools (System communicating 
with other ministries)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Not connected 
at all

Not connected 
at all

NA

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

NA

NA

NA

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

788 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63-7.1 Measurement tools to assess the workload

63-7-1.1.1 Deployment rate - workload of judges

63-7-1.1.2 Deployment rate - workload of prosecutors

63-7-1.1.3 Deployment rate - workload of non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.2.1 Monitoring on national level - judges

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - prosecutors

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.3.1 Monitoring on court level - judges

63-7-1.3.2 Monitoring on court level - prosecutors

63-7-1.3.3 Monitoring on court level - non-judge and non-prosecutor 
staff

064-2 - Possibility to submit a case to courts by electronic means

064-2 - Civil and/or commercial

064-2 - Criminal

064-2 - Administrative

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - civil

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - criminal

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory  - administrative

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - civil

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - criminal

064-2 - Specific legislative framework  - administrative

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - civil

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - criminal

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - administrative

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

100%

100%

100%

NA

NA

50-99%

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

789 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-3 - Is it possible to request for granting legal aid by electronic 
means? 

064-3-1.1 - Equipment rate

064-3-1.2 - Request in paper mandatory

064-3-1.3 - Specific legislative framework

064-3-1.4 - Granting LA is also electronic

064-3-1.5 - Information available in CMS

064-4 - Possibility to transmit summons to a judicial meeting or a 
hearing by electronic means

064-4-1.1.1 - Summons produced by CMS- civil

064-4-1.1.2 - Summons produced by CMS- criminal

064-4-1.1.3 - Summons produced by CMS- administrative

064-4-1.2.1 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- civil

064-4-1.2.2 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- criminal

064-4-1.2.3 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- administrative

064-4-1.3.1 - Consent of the user - civil

064-4-1.3.2 - Consent of the user - criminal

064-4-1.3.3 - Consent of the user - administrative

064-6.1.1 - Civil and/or commercial (deployment rate)

064-6.1.2 - Criminal (deployment rate)

064-6.1.3 - Administrative (deployment rate)

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

10-49%

10-49%

10-49%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

10-49%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

790 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-6.2.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.2 - Criminal (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.3 - Administrative (Trial phases concerned)

  Hearing 
preparatory 

  Hearing 
preparatory 

  Hearing 
preparatory 

phases     

phases     

phases     

Decision 
transmission

Decision 
transmission

Decision 
transmission

  Hearing 
preparatory 

phases     

Decision 
transmission

064-6.3.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Modalities)

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

064-6.3.2 - Criminal (Modalities)

064-6.3.3 - Administrative (Modalities)

064-6.4.1 - Civil and/or commercial (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.2 - Criminal (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.3 - Administrative (specific legal framework)

064-6.5.1 - Civil and/or commercial (availability for)

064-6.5.2 - Criminal (availability for)

064-6.5.3 - Administrative (availability for)

E-mail    

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

Lawyers

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

791 / 1555

      
      
      
      
      
    
    
    
    
    
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-7.1.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (deployment rate)

064-7.1.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.2.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (Modalities)

064-7.2.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.3.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (specific legal framework)

064-7.32.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-7.3.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts (specific 
legal framework)

064-7.3.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-9 - Existance of online processing devices of specialised 
litigation

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

-

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

792 / 1555

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Indicator 7: Professionals of justice  (Indicator 9 in 2019)

Table 7.1.1 to 7.5.6 for judges, non judge staff, prosecutors, non prosecutor staff and salaries

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

46.1.1 Total Number of professional judges

46.1.2 Number of 1st inst professional judges

144

136

148

138

46.1.3 Number of 2nd inst professional judges

NAP

NAP

46.1.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges

46.2.1 Number of professional judges_males

46.2.2 Number of 1st instance professional judges_males

8

106

99

10

106

99

46.2.3 Number of 2nd instance professional judges_males

NAP

NAP

46.2.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges_males

46.3.1  Number of professional judges_females

46.3.2  Number of 1st inst professional judges_females

7

38

37

7

42

39

46.3.3  Number of 2nd inst professional judges_females

NAP

NAP

46.3.4  Number of Supreme court professional judges_females

1

3

046-2.1.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Total

046-2.2.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Civil and commercial

046-2.2.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.3.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Criminal

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

160

140

10

10

108

93

8

7

52

47

2

3

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

159

140

9

10

105

92

7

6

54

48

2

4

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

162

143

10

9

105

92

8

5

57

51

2

4

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

160

142

10

8

101

88

8

5

59

54

2

3

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

160

142

10

8

98

88

5

5

62

54

5

3

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

167

143

16

9

104

90

8

6

63

51

8

3

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

163

13,2%

2,8%

8,1%

-0,6%

1,9%

-1,2%

0,0%

4,4%

-2,4%

138

1,5%

1,5%

1,4%

0,0%

2,1%

-0,7%

0,0%

0,7%

-3,5%

16

-

-

-

-10,0%

11,1%

0,0%

0,0%

60,0%

0,0%

9

12,5%

25,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-10,0%

-11,1%

0,0%

12,5%

0,0%

99

-6,6%

0,0%

1,9%

-2,8%

0,0%

-3,8%

-3,0%

6,1%

-4,8%

85

-14,1%

0,0%

-6,1%

-1,1%

0,0%

-4,3%

0,0%

2,3%

-5,6%

8

6

64

53

8

3

163

138

16

9

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-12,5%

14,3%

0,0%

-37,5%

60,0%

0,0%

-14,3%

0,0%

0,0%

-14,3%

-16,7%

0,0%

0,0%

20,0%

0,0%

68,4%

10,5%

23,8%

3,8%

5,6%

3,5%

5,1%

1,6%

1,6%

43,2%

5,4%

20,5%

2,1%

6,3%

5,9%

0,0%

-5,6%

3,9%

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

150,0%

60,0%

0,0%

200,0%

200,0%

0,0%

33,3%

0,0%

-25,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

793 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

046-2.4.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - 
Administrative

046-2.4.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.5.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Other

 52.1.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in courts 

52.1.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)

52.1.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges

52.1.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks

52.1.5 Number of Technical staff

52.1.6 Number of Other non judge staff

52.2.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(men)

52.2.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(men)

52.2.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(men)

52.2.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(men)

52.2.5 Number of Technical staff(men)

52.2.6 Number of Other non judge staff(men)

52.3.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(women)

52.3.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(women)

52.3.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(women)

52.3.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(women)

52.3.5 Number of Technical staff(women)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

945

31

787

125

2

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

52.3.6 Number of Other non judge staff(women)

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

927

21

778

128

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

623

10

521

92

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

927

24

771

131

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

942

25

775

141

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

975

23

790

161

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 023

1 049

1 080

1 089

15,2%

-1,9%

0,0%

1,6%

3,5%

4,9%

2,5%

3,0%

0,8%

25

830

167

1

25

849

173

1

25

865

189

1

1

-50,0%

25

-19,4%

-32,3%

14,3%

4,2%

-8,0%

8,7%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

816

3,7%

-1,1%

-0,9%

0,5%

1,9%

5,1%

2,3%

1,9%

-5,7%

247

97,6%

2,4%

2,3%

7,6%

14,2%

3,7%

3,6%

9,2%

30,7%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

361

12

282

66

1

362

12

272

77

1

374

12

268

93

1

409

14

313

81

1

420

14

318

88

1

395

13

291

90

1

438

14

302

121

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

566

12

489

65

-

580

13

503

64

-

601

11

522

68

-

614

11

517

86

-

629

11

531

85

-

685

12

574

99

-

651

11

514

126

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,3%

3,3%

9,4%

2,7%

-6,0%

10,9%

0,0%

0,0%

16,7%

0,0%

-7,1%

7,7%

-3,5%

-1,5%

16,8%

1,6%

-8,5%

3,8%

16,7%

20,8%

-12,9%

8,6%

2,3%

34,4%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-9,1%

2,5%

3,6%

2,2%

2,4%

8,9%

-5,0%

20,0%

8,3%

-15,4%

0,0%

0,0%

9,1%

-8,3%

-6,1%

2,9%

3,8%

-1,0%

2,7%

8,1%

-10,5%

-29,3%

-1,5%

6,3%

26,5%

-1,2%

16,5%

27,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

794 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

052-1.1.1 Non-judge staff (Total)

052-1.1.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (total)

052-1.1.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (total)

052-1.1.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (total)

052-1.2.1 Non-judge staff  (Males)

052-1.2.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (males)

052-1.2.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (males)

052-1.2.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (males)

052-1.3.1 Non-judge staff  (females)

052-1.3.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (females)

052-1.3.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (females)

052-1.3.4 Non-judge staff  at supreme court (females)

055.1.1 Prosecutors (total)

055.1.2 Prosecutors (1st inst.)

055.1.3 Prosecutors (2nd inst.)

055.1.4 Prosecutors (Highest instance)

055.2.1 Prosecutors - Males -total

055.2.2 Prosecutors - Males, 1st inst.

055.2.3 Prosecutors - Males, 2nd inst.

055.2.4 Prosecutors - Males, Supreme courts

055.3.1 Prosecutors - Females, Total

055.3.2 Prosecutors - Females, 1st inst.

055.3.3 Prosecutors - Females, 2nd inst.

055.3.4 Prosecutors - Females, Supreme courts

1 089

756

31

29

438

268

17

17

651

488

14

12

128

NAP

NAP

NAP

50

NAP

NAP

NAP

78

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

795 / 1555

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

060.1.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Total

060.2.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Males

060.3.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Females

004 Annual average salary in the country

132.1.1 Gross annual salary, in €  - Professional judge at the 
beginning of career

132.1.2 Gross annual salary, in €  - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.1.3 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor at the beginning 
of career

132.1.4 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

132.2.1 Net annual salary, in € - Professional judge at the beginning 
of career

132.2.2 Net annual salary, in € - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.2.3 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor at the beginning of 
career

132.2.4 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

133.1.1.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Reduced taxation

133.1.2.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Special pension

133.1.3.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Housing

133.1.4.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Other financial benefit

133.2.1.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Reduced taxation

133.2.2.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Special pension

133.2.3.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Housing

133.2.4.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Other financial benefit

90

32

58

40 283 €

129 704 €

208 854 €

33 370 €

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

796 / 1555

         
       
       
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

144.1.1 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - Total number (1+2+3+4)

144.1.2 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 1. Breach of professional 
ethics 

144.1.3 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.1.4 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 3. Criminal offence 

144.1.5 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 4. Other

144.2.1 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - Total number 
(1+2+3+4)

144.2.2 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 1. Breach of 
professional ethics 

144.2.3 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.2.4 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 3. Criminal offence

144.2.5 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 4. Other 

145.1.1 Sanctions against Judges - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.1.2 Sanctions against Judges - 1. Reprimand

145.1.3 Sanctions against Judges - 2. Suspension

145.1.4 Sanctions against Judges - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.1.5 Sanctions against Judges - 4. Fine

145.1.6 Sanctions against Judges - 5. Temporary reduction of salary

145.1.7 Sanctions against Judges - 6. Position downgrade

145.1.8 Sanctions against Judges - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.1.9 Sanctions against Judges - 8. Resignation

145.1.10 Sanctions against  Judges - 9. Other

145.1.11 Sanctions against  Judges - 10. Dismissal

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

797 / 1555

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

145.2.1 Sanctions against Prosecutors - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.2.2 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 1. Reprimand

145.2.3 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 2. Suspension

145.2.4 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.2.5 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 4. Fine

145.2.6 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 5. Temporary reduction of 
salary

145.2.7 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 6. Position downgrade

145.2.8 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.2.9 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 8. Resignation

145.2.10 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 9. Other

145.2.11 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 10. Dismissal

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lawyers

Tables 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.7 and 7.8

146.1.1 Total number of lawyers practising

11 055

11 215

11 588

11 907

12 237

12 588

13 142

14 816

14 054

27,1%

1,4%

3,3%

2,8%

2,8%

2,9%

4,4%

12,7%

-5,1%

146.2.1 Practicing lawyers - man

146.3.1 Practicing lawyers - woman

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6 654

7 558

7 119

6 488

7 258

6 911

147 Does this figure include “legal advisors” who cannot represent 
their clients in court (for example, some solicitors or in-house 
counsellors)? 

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

13,6%

-5,8%

11,9%

-4,8%

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

798 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Ireland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 8: The existence and use of alternative dispute resolution methods

Table 8.1 8.2 and 8.3

166 Number of accredited or registered mediators who practice 
judicial mediation: 

35

NA

NA

NA

167.1.1 Total number started

167. 1.2 Civil and commercial cases(cid:9) - started

167. 1.2 Family cases - started

167.1.4 Administrative cases - started

167.1.5 Labour cases including employment dismissal cases - started

167.1.6. Criminal cases - started

167.1.7 Consumer cases - started

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Key: Variation of more than (+ -) 20% 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

799 / 1555

Judiciary at a glance in Italy

General data

Population:

59 257 566

GDP per capita: 27 815 €

Average annual 

salary:

31 233 €

Professionals

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Professional judges

Professional judges

Italy

Italy

11,83

EU Median

EU Median

23,92

11,83

23,92

Non-judge staff

35,76

59,00

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

3,83

9,91

13,26

15,22

35,76

59,00

3,83

9,91

13,26

15,22

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual 
salary in the country

Italy

Italy

EU Median

EU Median

Judge at the beginning of a career 

1,80

6,00

2,02

6,00

4,09

Judge of the highest court 6,00

4,09

3,61

1,80

2,02
Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 
1,71
1,71

1,80

1,80

Public prosecutor at highest instance

6,00

3,61

Lawyers

Lawyers

398,20

122,09

122,09

398,20

Judge at the
beginning of a career

Judge of the highest
court

Prosecutor at the
beginning of a career

Public prosecutor at
highest instance

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

Efficiency

1st instance

2nd instance

1st instance 2nd instance

Supreme Court
Supreme 
Court

100%

,

,

%
Civil and
6
%
4
0
commercial
1
Administrativ
1
4
0
e
1
cases
Total 
criminal law 
cases

,

%
4
6
3
1

104,0%

,

%
2
7
1
1

%
2
9
8

,

136,4% NAP

114,6%

89,2%
%
7
7
9

117,2%

,

%
7
0
9

,

%
8
3
9

,

90,7%

93,8%

97,7%

P
A
N

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

Administrative
cases

Total criminal law
cases

1
1

1

1
1

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance 2nd instance Supreme Court

Civil and commercial litigious cases
Administrative cases 862 NAP

674

1526

1026

Total criminal law cases498

1167

1026

674

667

862

1526
667

237
237

1167

498

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

Information and communication technology

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

Assistance toolsCase management system
2018

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the workload
2019

Electronic communication

EU Median 2020

2020

2018
2019
2020

1,47
1,25
1,47

6,14

6,14
6,14
6,14
6,14

6,14

1,50
1,50
1,75

5,17

3,33
3,33
3,33

6,10
7,21
8,43

8,43

7,21

6,94

6,10

EU Median 2020

2,00

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

1,47

1,25

1,47

2,00

1,50

1,50

1,75

1,25

3,33

3,33

3,33

2,50

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

*ICT calculations are described in more details in Annex 5 - IT Calculation methodology

800

2020

Synthesis table for the main indicators for:

Italy

Economic and demographic data

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Variations

Population

GDP per capita

Exchange rate (local currency needed to 
obtain 1€)

25 729

25 553

26 585

26 947

27 587

28 359

29 071

29 609

27 815

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

59 685 227

59 685 227

60 795 612

60 665 551

60 589 445

60 483 973

60 359 546

60 244 639

59 257 566

-0,7%

-0,3%

-0,4%

-0,2%

-0,2%

8,1%

NAP

9,1%

3,8%

NAP

0,2%

5,4%

NAP

-0,2%

-1,6%

-6,1%

2,5%

1,9%

NAP NAP

NAP

Average annual salary

28 619

29 327

29 389

29 343

30 641

31 233

4,4%

1,9%

Resources

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Professional judges per 100 000 inhab.

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhab.

10,6

39,7

11,0

38,5

11,4

36,0

10,9

35,2

10,6

35,0

10,8

34,2

11,6

37,1

11,8

36,2

11,9

35,8

11,5%

-7,5%

10,1%

-9,8%

-3,0%

Lawyers per 100 000 inh.

379,0

379,0

368,2

390,9

378,4

382,9

388,3

392,6

398,2

5,1%

2,8%

Mediators

NA

NA

31,7

35,5

39,0

39,6

39,8

6,6

39,6

6,9

40,2

7,5

NA

23,0%

6,2%

2,6%

2,1%

8,0%

8,6%

1,4%

0,5%

1,8%

0,2%

-2,5%

-1,2%

1,1%

-0,4%

4,8%

1,4%

1,4%

8,7%

ICT overall assesment

First instance incoming cases per 100 
inhab.

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Civil and commercial litigious cases

2,613

2,690

2,608

2,547

2,566

2,468

2,550

2,439

1,922

-26,4%

-1,6%

-0,6%

3,3%

-4,4%

-21,2%

Administrative law cases

0,086

0,1

0,1

0,102

0,090

0,080

0,083

0,084

0,071

-17,5%

-14,1%

-8,1%

3,1%

2,0%

-16,0%

Total criminal law cases

1,760

First instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

131%

118%

119%

120%

113%

106%

103%

104%

104%

-27,24

CR administrative law cases

280%

190%

156%

142%

153%

156%

136%

131%

136%

-143,39

-6,05

-2,16

-10,35

-3,51

-17,13

-19,90

1,59

-5,25

-0,47

5,31

CR total criminal law cases

91%

First instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
cases (days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

First instance pending cases per 100 
inhab. on 31 dec.

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

590

886

608

1 043

532

984

527

1 008

514

925

548

887

527

889

532

821

14,2%

-3,3%

2,5%

-3,7%

1,0%

26,6%

-2,7%

-6,0%

-3,9%

0,2%

-7,7%

5,0%

674

862

498

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

5,54

0,58

5,29

0,50

4,54

0,44

4,41

0,40

4,10

0,35

3,94

0,30

3,79

0,27

3,72

0,25

-33,4%

-9,7%

-7,5%

-60,9%

-20,4%

-21,5%

-3,8%

-9,9%

-1,9%

-9,4%

-0,7%

-8,2%

3,69

0,23

2,18

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

119%

122%

111%

117%

120%

131%

115%

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

94%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

-8,50

NAP

9,08

NAP

2,92

NAP

10,66

-15,88

NAP

NAP

Second instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

 Supreme court 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Supreme court
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

959

1 005

NAP

NAP

993

NAP

893

NAP

863

NAP

791

1 026

3,6%

-13,1%

-3,3%

-8,4%

29,8%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 167

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

93%

96%

87%

89%

92%

96%

100%

88%

85%

89%

107%

108%

113%

117%

-1,06

0,50

-4,28

-12,26

12,18

1,56

-2,48

4,03

3,93

4,68

98%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

1 316

1 469

1 442

1 299

1 266

1 302

1 526

9,6%

-12,2%

-2,6%

2,9%

17,2%

DT administrative law cases (days)

886

1 003

971

950

792

694

DT total criminal law cases

667

237

9,6%

-18,5%

-16,7%

-12,3%

-3,9%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

801 / 1555

In 2020, in Italy there are 525 first instance courts of general jurisdicion, 26 second instance courts of general jurisdiction, 1 Supreme Court (highest instance) of general 
jurisdiction and 259 specialised courts (235 in first instance and 23 in second instance). Geographic locations were 844. 

1. Judicial organisation in Italy

Distribution of general courts in Italy

Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Italy - 1st instance

EU Median - 1st instance

Italy Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)
EU Median - Higher instances

Italy - Higher instances

Italy - 1st instance

Italy - Higher instances

According to 2020 data, the distribution between 1st instance and higher instances courts of 
general jurisdiction in Italy is 95% - 5%, somewhat different from the EU median of 87% - 
13%. 

General courts - Italy

General courts - Italy
EU Median

95%
87%

5%
13%

95%

5%

EU Median

87%

13%

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Italy

Geographic 
locations

Legal entities

General jurisdiction

Specialised 
jurisdiction

1 378

1 231

790

836

836

836

831

828

828

844

643

510

510

510

534

531

527

525

116

116

245

245

245

245

237

237

236

1 600
1 400
1 200
1 000
800
600
400
200
0

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Italy

Geographic locations

Legal entities General jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

In 2012-2013 Italy went through a major reform of the judicial map. In particular, a great number of justice of peace offices (initially 846) were shut down. However, each 
Italian municipality had (and still has) the opportunity to preserve the office at their own expenses. For this reason, each year a series of Justice of Peace offices 
administered by the municipality might be re-opened or closed.

Distribution of first instance general jurisdiction and specialised courts

Italy

Ratio general jurisdiction vs specialised

Italy

General jurisdiction Specialised courts

31%

69%

75%

31%

25%

69%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

EU Median

25%

75%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

The distribution between number of general jurisdiction courts and specialised courts of 69,0% - 31,0% is around the EU median (distribution 
tendency in EU: 75,5% - 24,5%).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

802 / 1555

Specialised courts
Total

Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

Insolvency courts

Labour courts

Family courts

Rent and tenancies courts

Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

Internet related disputes

Administrative courts

Insurance and / or social welfare courts

Military courts

Juvenile courts

Other specialised 1st instance courts

First instance

Higher instance

236

22

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

58

NAP

NAP

20

NAP

4

29

103

23

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

1

NAP

21

Since 2014, in Italy there are 22 Brand Commercial courts (Tribunali delle imprese) that are legal entities of their own and not just internal court divisions for organizational 
purpose (such as labour, family etc.).
It is noteworthy that in Italy, some of the specialized first instance courts are not administered and financed by the Ministry of Justice. This is the case for the regional 
administrative courts, the regional audit commissions, the local tax commissions and military courts. These courts are not taken into consideration for the replies to 
questions 6, 46 and 52 for none of the exercises.
In respect of the 20 first instance administrative courts (legal entities) and their supreme court, it should be stressed that they have been encompassed within the total 
under question 43 for the last four exercises, but only since 2014 this approach is reflected in questions 91 and 99 (number of administrative law cases).
Moreover, in Italy specific matters (such as labour, family etc.) are dealt by specific divisions within the same Court. There are also 26 divisions called DDA (Direzioni 
Distrettuali Antimafia) which deal specifically with mafia and organized crime.

Tax courts fall into the “Other” category.
The appeal of some specialized courts (e.g. commercial courts, juvenile courts) are dealt by the general jurisdiction appeal courts.
Specific subject matters (e.g labour, insolvency, family, fight against terrorism and organised crime) are dealt by specific divisions within general jurisdiction courts.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

803 / 1555

2. Professionals of justice in Italy

● Professional judges and non-judge staff

Evolution of the number of professional judges since 2012 (Q46)

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Absolute 
number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

6 347

6 579

6 939

6 590

6 395

6 508

7 015

7 127

7 027

10,63

11,02

11,41

10,86

10,55

10,76

11,62

11,83

11,86

EU median

23,9

Professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants

23,9

10,63

11,02

11,41

10,86

10,55

10,76

11,62

11,83

11,86

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

According to 2020 data, the total number of professional judges sitting in courts (all instances) in Italy is 7 027, which is -1,4% less than in previous cycle.

More precisely, in Italy, there are 11,86 professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants (this figure is below the EU median of 23,92 judges per 100 000 inhabitants) and about 3,02 non-
judge staff per judge.

There is no significant difference compared with previous cycle when this ratio was at 3,06 non-judge staff per judge.

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and gender

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

5 356

1 174

497

7 027

Distribution by 
instance

76,2%

16,7%

7,1%

Male

2 267

519

336

3 122

Female

% Male

% Female

3 089

655

161

3 905

42,3%

44,2%

67,6%

44,4%

57,7%

55,8%

32,4%

55,6%

Distribution of professional judges by instance

Italy

EU Median

Distribution of professional judges by gender and by instance

% Female % Male

76,2%

73,30%

EU Median

73,30%

23,98%

4,66%

23,98%

16,7%

7,1%

4,66%

42,3%

44,2%

57,7%

55,8%

32,4%

67,6%

55,6%

44,4%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female professional judges (all instances) is 3 905, which represents 55,6% of the total number of judges.

The total number of judges is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 5 356 are sitting in first instance courts (of which 3 089 are female); 1 174 are sitting 
in second instance courts (of which 655 are female) and 497 are sitting in Supreme Court (of which 161 are female).  

Compared with the EU distribution of professional judges per instance, Italy has relatively less judges in the second instance (16,7% vs 23,98%). This is probalby also due to the fact that 
there are no administrative courts and judges of second instance.
As regards the methodology of presentation of data in respect of the number of judges, it should be noticed that the judges belonging to the specialized first instance courts that are not 
administered and financed by the Ministry of Justice (regional audit commissions, local tax commissions and military courts) are not counted under this question.

As regards the distribution of the number of judges among the different judicial instances, as already mentionned, in Italy there is not a second instance for administrative cases, 
therefore, there are no second instance administrative judges.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

804 / 1555

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Total

Civil and commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

5 356

1 174

497

7 027

2 617

630

217

3 464

2 368

523

167

3 058

308

NAP

112

420

63

21

1

85

In Italy, the distribution of judges per categories of cases is possible as presented in the graph below. 

Distribution of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Civil and 
commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

48,9%

53,7%

43,7%

49,3%

44,2%

44,5%

33,6%

43,5%

5,8%

NAP

22,5%

6,0%

1,2%

1,8%

0,2%

1,2%

Distribution of the total number of professional judges by matter

49,3% Civil and commercial

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

0

1,2% Other
49%

6,0% Administrative

44%

6%

1%

0%

43,5% Criminal

Non-judge staff

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Number of non-judge staff

23 672

22 991

21 903

21 360

21 182

20 664

22 401

21 808

21 193

Per 100 000 inhabitants

39,66

38,52

36,03

35,21

34,96

34,16

37,11

36,20

35,76

E
U 
m

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants

59,00

39,66

38,52

36,03

35,21

34,96

34,16

37,11

36,20

35,76

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

2020

Total

Rechtspfleger

Absolute 
number

21 193

NAP

Non-judge staff assisting the judge

13 885

Staff in charge of administrative tasks

Technical staff

Other

4 281

356

2 671

in %

NAP

65,5%

20,2%

1,7%

12,6%

In 2020, Italy has 21 193 non-judge staff (of which 14 206 are females). The total number of non-judge staff in comparison with the previous cycle reveals a decrease of -2,8%.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

805 / 1555

In this cycle, the non-judge staff is broken down as follows:

◦ 13 885 non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges such as registrars (of which 9 942 are women);
◦ 4 281 staff in charge of different administrative tasks and of the court management (of which 3 066 are women);
◦ 356 technical staff (of which 146 are women);
◦ 2 671 other (of which 1 052 are women);

In 2020, the number of non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants has decreased (from 36,2 in 2019 to 35,8 in 2020).

During the same period, the number of judges per 100 000 inhabitants evolves from 11,8 judges per 100 000 inhabitants in 2019 to 11,9 in 2020.

The category “other non-judge staff” encompasses assistants, receptionists, porters and other judicial staff. As a general remark, it should be stressed that the high percentage of “other 
non-judge staff” in Italy is due to a very strict interpretation of the definition of the main categories. 
The specialized first instance courts that are not administered and financed by the Ministry of Justice (regional audit commissions, local tax commissions and military courts) are not taken 
into consideration at question 52.

Professional judges, non-judge staff and their ratio (Q46, Q52)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Italy

EU median

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

11,86

35,76

Non-judge staff per judge

3,02

23,92

59,00

3,30

Professional judges and non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

3,02

35,76

Non-judge staff per judge

11,86

59,00

3,30

23,92

Italy

EU median

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff  (Q46, Q52)

Judges 
per 100 000 inh.

Non-judge staff per
100 000 inh.

Ratio between professional judges and 
non-judge staff

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff 
Non-judge staff per 100 000 inh.
(Q46, Q52)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

10,63

11,02

11,41

10,86

10,55

10,76

11,62

11,83

11,86

39,66

38,52

36,03

35,21

34,96

34,16

37,11

36,20

35,76

EU median 2020

3,30

3,73

3,49

3,16

3,24

3,31

3,18

3,19

3,06

3,02

3,73

3,49

3,16

2012

2013

2014

3,73
3,49
3,16
3,24
3,31
3,18
3,19
3,06
3,02

3,24

3,31

3,18

3,19

3,06

3,02

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

806 / 1555

● Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff

Absolute number of public prosecutors by instance and gender (Q55)

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

1 939

261

69

2 269

Distribution by 
instance

85,5%

11,5%

3,0%

Male

992

165

44

1 201

Female

947

96

25

1 068

Male

51,2%

63,2%

63,8%

52,9%

Female

48,8%

36,8%

36,2%

47,1%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance

Italy

EU Median

85,5%

73,96%
EU Median

73,96%

21,28%

11,5%

4,52%

21,28%

3,0%

4,52%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance and gender

Female

Male

48,8%

51,2%

36,8%

36,2%

63,2%

63,8%

47,1%

52,9%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female prosecutors (all instances) is 1 068, which represents 47,1% of the total number of prosecutors.

The total number of prosecutors is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 1 939 in first instance (of which 947 are female); 261 are in 
second instance (of which 96 are female) and 69 in final instance (of which 25 are female).  

Non-prosecutor staff by gender (Q60)

Non-prosecutor staff

2020

Total

7 858

Male

2 735

Female

5 123

Non-prosecutor staff by gender

35%

Male

Female

65%

Public prosecutors, non-prosecutor staff and their ratio (Q55, Q60)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Italy

EU median

Public prosecutors

3,83

Non-prosecutor staff

13,26

Non-prosecutor staff per 
prosecutor

3,46

9,91

15,22

1,11

Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Public prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

13,26

3,46

Non-prosecutor staff per prosecutor

3,83

15,22

9,91

1,11

Italy

EU median

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

807 / 1555

● Salaries of professional judges and prosecutors at beginning of a career and at the highest instance (Q132, Q4)

Salaries of professional judges and 
prosecutors (Q132, Q4)

Average gross annual 
salary 
in €

Average net annual 
salary 
in €

Ratio with national 
average annual 
gross salary

Judge at the beginning of a career 

56 263 €

34 758 €

1,80

Judge of the highest court 

187 296 €

101 161 €

6,00

Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

56 263 €

34 758 €

1,80

EU Median

6,00

2,02

1,80
4,09

1,71

2,02

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual salary in the 
country

Salaries of 
judges and 
prosecutors in 
Judge

4,09

6,00

at the beginning 
of a career

at the highest 
instance
1,71

1,80

Prosecutor

at the beginning 
of a career

at the highest 
instance

56263

3,61

187296

56263

187296

Public prosecutor at highest instance

187 296 €

101 161 €

6,00

3,61

Italy

EU Median

Judge at the beginning of
career

Judge on highest instance

Prosecutor at the
beginning of career

Prosecutor at highest
instance

According to 2020 data, the absolute gross salary of a judge at the beginning of a career in Italy of 56 263 € is somewhat above when compared to the EU median of 51 946 €. As a ratio 
with the annual average salary of the country, the salary for a judge at the beginning of career is: 1,80 compared with EU median of 2,02.

It is noteworthy that in Italy the salaries of judges and public prosecutors do not depend on the position held but rather on the experience (i.e. years of service). That means that the salary 
of a judge working in the lowest courts can be the same as the salary of a judge working in the Highest Appellate Court.

● Lawyers

Lawyers

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

Number of lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

226 202

226 202

223 842

237 132

229 292

231 565

234 386

236 494

235 964

378,99

378,99

368,19

390,88

378,44

382,85

388,32

392,56

398,20

EU median 2020

122,09

In 2020, there are 235 964 lawyers, which is -0,2% less than in 2019.

378,99

378,99

368,19

390,88

378,44

382,85

388,32

392,56

398,20

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

122,09

EU median
2020

Italy has 398,2 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants, which is well above the EU median of 122,1 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants.

● Judicial professionals (summary)

Judicial professionals in absolute number and per 100 000 inhabitants (Q46, Q52, Q55, Q60, Q146)

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

EU Median

Professional judges

7 127

11,83

Non-judge staff

21 193

35,76

Prosecutors

2 269

3,83

23,92

59,00

9,91

Non-prosecutor staff

7 858

13,26

15,22

Lawyers

235 964

398,20

122,09

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Italy

EU Median

398,20

122,09

11,83

23,92

59,00

35,76

3,83

9,91

13,26

15,22

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

808 / 1555

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

% Male

% Female

Professional judges

44,4%

55,6%

Non judge staff

33,0%

67,0%

Prosecutors

52,9%

47,1%

Non-prosecutor staff

34,8%

65,2%

Lawyers

52,2%

47,8%

Italy % Male

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

Italy % Female labels

Professional judges

Italy % Male

-44,4%

55,6%

Italy % Female

44,4%

EU Median  % Male

EU Median  % Female

-39,0%

61,0%

39,0%

Professional judges

44,4%

39,0%

55,6%

0,0%

61,0%

Non judge staff

Non judge staff

33,0%

-33,0%

67,0%

33,0%

24,0%

-24,0%

76,0%

24,0%

Prosecutors

52,9%

Prosecutors

40,5%

Non-prosecutor staff

34,8%
Non-prosecutor staff

28,1%

Lawyers

Lawyers

52,2%

52,3%

-52,9%
-40,5%

-34,8%
-28,1%

-52,2%
-52,3%

47,1%
59,5%

65,2%
71,9%

47,8%
47,7%

0,0%

47,1%

52,9%
40,5%
0,0%
34,8%
28,1%
0,0%
52,2%
52,3%

47,8%

47,7%

67,0%

76,0%

59,5%

65,2%

71,9%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

809 / 1555

3. Legal aid and court fees in Italy

In Italy, legal aid includes:

◦ Coverage of court fees: 

◦ Exemption from court fees: 

1

0

The parties do not pay any court fees. These are amounts that are “paid” in advance by the public administration. Since the public administration is paying itself, it does not 
represent an actual payment and from a strictly technical financial point of view this is called “prenotazione a debito” literally a debit note booking.

In Italy, legal aid is avaiable for :

> Representation in court:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

> Legal advice, ADR and other legal services:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

>

Fees related to enforcement of judicial decisions as fees for enforcement agents (Q18) 

>

 Other costs than above (Q19) 

Legal advice does not exist as such in Italy, but lawyers play a role in ADR procedures.

Legal aid also covers expenses related to the enforcement of judicial decisions.

Legal aid can also be granted for costs related to private detectives, interpreters and expert witnesses.

 Number of cases for which legal aid has been granted

1

1

1

1

1

1

Total

Cases brought to court

Cases not brought to 
court

Ratio of number of cases brought to courts for which legal 
aid has been granted

Absolute number 
(in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

305 268

154 234

In other than criminal cases

151 034

Per 100 000 inhabitants
 (in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

Italy

515,2

260,3

254,9

305 268

154 234

151 034

EU Median

734,2

330,9

402,7

NA

NA

NA

In criminal cases

100,0% NA

49%

In other than criminal
cases

100,0% NA

51%

100,0% NA

Number of cases for which legal has been granted per 100 000 
inhabitants

Italy

EU Median

734,2

515,2

330,9

260,3

402,7

254,9

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

The number of cases not brought to court is not available because this figure is not registered anywhere. Since these cases are not brought to court, these events are outside the 
sphere of competence/vision of the Ministry of Justice.
However, the vast majority of legal aid cases is ascribed to cases brought to court. For this reason, even though the total is composed of both components, when calculating the 
total we can omit cases not brought to court.
Covid19 has deeply affected the flow of the incoming cases. Not only the courts were temporary closed but other than that we went through a long period of lockdown and 
therefore most existing proceedings were delayed and incoming cases drastically fell. The fall of LA cases is the obvious consequence of the above-described scenario.

On the occasion of the 2012 evaluation cycle, it has been explained that the higher number of cases for which legal aid had been granted compared to 2010 was due to the fact 
that the threshold concerning the income and assets evaluation had been slightly increased. Owing to that, since 2012, Italy is experiencing a positive trend in this respect. 
Additionally, more and more people are living under the threshold under which legal aid can be granted.

Timeframes of the procedure for granting legal aid (in relation to the duration from the initial legal aid request to the final approval of the legal aid request)

◦ Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulations: 

◦ Actual average duration: 

10

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

810 / 1555

4. Performance of courts in Italy

● Efficiency indicators

◦ Clearance Rate (CR) and Disposition Time (DT)

The Clearance Rate shows the capacity of a judicial system to deal with the incoming cases. A Clearance Rate of 100% and higher does not generate backlog. 

The Disposition Time determines the estimated number of days necessary for a pending case to be solved in a court. 

First instance Total of other than criminal cases

In 2020, the case flow of Italian courts was highly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and the consequent temporary shutdown of courts. This had an impact on both 
incoming and resolved cases, which fell quite considerably compared to 2019. However, the fall in the number of resolved cases was less drastic than that of incoming 
cases, resulting in a clearance rate (CR) higher than 100% and, hence, in a reduction in the number of the unresolved cases (i.e. the pending cases at the end of the 
period). The COVID-19 pandemic also had a strong impact on the disposition time (DT).

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Evolution of number of all other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants
Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Incoming

9
7
7

,

8
2
7

,

2
7
6

,

6
4
7

,

5
5
7

,

9
9
6

,

9
1
7

,

2
4
7

,

8
5
6

,

0
9
6

,

1
4
6

,

4
7
5

,

9
6
6

,

1
3
6

,

4
0
6

,

2
4
6

,

1
7
5

,

8
8
5

,

0
0
6

,

3
1
6

,

3
8
5

,

2
7
5

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

5,71

5,83

5,72

4,51

2019

6,82

6,72

6,99

6,58

5,74

7,28

7,46

7,19

6,41

0
9
5

,

4
9
5

,

6,04

1
5
4

,

3
6
4

,

2020

8
9
5

,

6,31

5,88

6,00

5,90

4,63

6,60

7,79

7,55

7,42

0
6
6

,

6,90

6,69

6,42

2
8
6

,

6
6
2

,

6,13

5,94

5,98

EU median

2,66

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Italy (4,51 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below EU median (6,82 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Italy (4,63 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below EU median (6,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending cases at the end of 2020 in Italy (5,98 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (2,66 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Other than criminal cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

108%

107%

109%

112%

105%

103%

103%

103%

103%

391

369

377

393

387

399

373

367

471

EU median

99%

109

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Other than criminal 
cases

108%

107%

109%

112%

105%

103%

103%

103%

103%

DT (days)

CR (%)

391

2012

369

2013

377

2014

393

2015

387

2016

399

2017

373

2018

367

2019

471

2020

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 102,6% in 2020 Italy seems to be able to deal with its other than criminal cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -0,7 points.

In 2020, other than criminal cases are solved in approximately 471 days, which is well above EU median of 109 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 28,4% increase of the Disposition Time.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

811 / 1555

First instance Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

4
5
5

,

9
2
5

,

Evolution of number of civil and commercial litigious cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

4
5
4

,

1
4
4

,

3
4
3

,

1
6
2

,

8
1
3

,

9
6
2

,

1
1
3

,

1
6
2

,

6
0
3

,

5
5
2

,

1
9
2

,

7
5
2

,

0
1
4

,

4
9
3

,

9
7
3

,

3
6
2

,

7
4
2

,

5
5
2

,

2
6
2

,

5
5
2

,

4
4
2

,

2,61
2,69
2,61
2,55
2,57
2,47
2,55
2,44
1,92
1,56

2
7
3

,

5,54
5,29
4,54
4,41
4,10
3,94
3,79
3,72
3,69
1,05

3,43
3,18
3,11
3,06
2,91
2,63
2,62
2,55
2,00
1,50

6
5
1

,

0
5
1

,

5
0
1

,

9
6
3

,

2
9
1

,

0
0
2

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Italy (1,92 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat above EU median (1,56 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Italy (2,00 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat above EU median (1,50 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Italy (3,69 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (1,05 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

131,3%

118,1%

119,3%

120,1%

113,2%

106,4%

102,9%

104,5%

104,0%

590

608

532

527

514

548

527

532

674

EU Median

98%

221

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

DT (days)

CR (%)

131,3%

118,1%

119,3%

120,1%

113,2%

106,4%

102,9%

104,5%

104,0%

98%

590

2012

608

2013

532

2014

527

2015

514

2016

548

2017

527

2018

532

2019

674

221

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 104,0% in 2020, Italy seems to be able to deal with its civil and commercial litigious cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -0,5 points.

In 2020, the civil and commercial litigious cases are solved in approximately 674 days, which is well above EU median of 221 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 26,6% increase of the Disposition Time.

The number of civil and commercial litigious cases older than 2 years is not available because figures include the activity of both tribunals and justice of peace offices 
and for the latter this information is not available.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

812 / 1555

First instance Administrative cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of administrative cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

8
5
0

,

0
5
0

,

4
4
0

,

0
4
0

,

4
2
0

,

9
0
0

,

7
1
0

,

9
0
0

,

6
1
0

,

0
1
0

,

5
3
0

,

0
3
0

,

7
2
0

,

4
1
0

,

0
1
0

,

4
1
0

,

9
0
0

,

3
1
0

,

8
0
0

,

1
1
0

,

8
0
0

,

1
1
0

,

8
0
0

,

0
1
0

,

7
0
0

,

0,09
0,09
0,10
0,10
0,09
0,08
0,08
0,08
0,07
0,30

5
2
0

,

0,24
0,17
0,16
0,14
0,14
0,13
0,11
0,11
0,10
0,26

3
2
0

,

0
3
0

,

0,58
0,50
0,44
0,40
0,35
0,30
0,27
0,25
0,23
0,21

1
2
0

,

6
2
0

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Italy (0,07 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (0,30 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Italy (0,10 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (0,26 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Italy (0,23 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly above EU median (0,21 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Administrative cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

279,8%

190,2%

155,6%

141,9%

153,5%

156,2%

136,3%

131,1%

136,4%

886

1043

984

1008

925

887

889

821

862

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Administrative cases

DT (days)

CR (%)

279,8%

190,2%

155,6%

141,9%

153,5%

156,2%

136,3%

131,1%

136,4%

100%

EU Median
With a Clearance Rate calculated at 136,4% in 2020, Italy seems to be able to deal with its administrative cases.

100%

388

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

886

1043

984

1008

925

887

2017

889

2018

821

2019

862

388

2020

EU Median

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased for 5,3 points.

In 2020, the administrative cases are solved in approximately 862 days, which is well above EU median of 388 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 5,0% increase of the Disposition Time.

In Italy, there are 79 771 administrative law cases older than 2 years. This is 58,9% of the total number of pending cases at the end of the year.
A different methodology of classification of civil cases is used since 2012. The result is an improved classification and a better split between litigious and non-litigious 
cases. For 2010, 2012 and 2013, the category of civil and commercial non-litigious cases has an identical content, namely: separation and divorce by mutual consent, 
interdiction and incapacitation, protective measures for underage, guardianship and trusteeship etc. Since 2014, it subsumes uncontested payment orders, uncontested 
divorces, technical appraisals, judicial interdiction and incapacitation, hereditament, etc.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

813 / 1555

Insolvency cases

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Insolvency cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Insolvency cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

94,7%

89,6%

104,9%

120,0%

105,2%

103,2%

104,0%

101,4%

101,2%

2648

2423

164

108

120

117

113

111

143

EU Median

105%

281

DT (days)

CR (%)

120,0%

104,9%

105,2%

103,2%

104,0%

101,4%

101,2%

105%

164

2014

108

2015

120

2016

117

2017

113

2018

111

2019

143

2020

281

EU Median

The Clearance Rate was calculated at 101,2% in 2020 for insolvency cases, Italy seems to be able to deal with its insolvency cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -0,3 points.

In 2020, insolvency cases are solved in a approximately 143 days, which is somewhat below the EU median of 281 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 29,6% increase of the Disposition Time.

With regard to the insolvency cases, the peculiarity of the Italian system consists in distinguishing between “insolvency applications” and “insolvency cases”. The former 
category concerns the litigious part of the proceeding where creditors and debtors have different goals (dispute). The latter category concerns the part of the proceeding 
where the judge has already established the insolvency / bankruptcy of the debtor and the case is all about the management of the assets and proceeds of the debtor. 
Figures at questions 101 and 102 refer to “insolvency applications” rather than “insolvency cases”.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

814 / 1555

● First instance Criminal Law Cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Incoming cases

Italy

Total criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases Resolved casesPending 
Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

1,76

1,60

2,18

Total

1 193 323

1 042 721

945 778

1 290 266

6
7
1

,

Severe criminal cases 

1 094 651

922 368

834 920

1 182 099

Misdemeanour and/or 
minor cases

98 672

120 353

110 858

108 167

Other cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

8
1
2

,

EU Median

0
6
1

,

1,60

0
6
1

,

1,48

0,46

8
4
1

,

6
4
0

,

Per 100 inhabitants

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 
Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

2,01

1,85

0,17

NAP

1,76

1,56

0,20

NAP

1,60

1,41

0,19

NAP

2,18

1,99

0,18

NAP

Italy

EU Median

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, and other 
criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases

Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

Total

Severe criminal
cases

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

0,20
0,19
0,18

1,76

1,60

2,18

1,56

1,41

1,99

The number of total incoming criminal cases in 2020 in Italy (1,76 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly above EU median (1,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total resolved criminal cases in 2020 in Italy (1,60 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly above EU median (1,48 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total pending criminal cases at the end of 2020 in Italy (2,18 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (0,46 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT)

Total criminal law cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

DT (days)

CR (%)

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 

Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

90,7%

90,5%

92,1%

NAP

498

517

356

NAP

Total Criminal law cases

95,2%

90,7%

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, 
and other criminal law cases 

90,5%

92,1%

EU Median

95,2%

139

EU Median

498

Total

139

EU Median

517

Severe criminal
cases

356

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

With the Clearance Rate calculated at 90,7% in 2020 for total criminal cases, Italy seems to be able to deal with its total criminal cases.

In 2020, criminal law cases were solved in approximately 498 days, which is well above EU median of 139 days.

In Italy there is no formal definition of minor criminal cases. For the purposes of this exercise, are considered as minor criminal cases those proceedings dealt with by the 
Justice of Peace Offices.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

815 / 1555

Overall efficiency by instance and by case matter

CR (%)

DT (days)

CR (%)

DT (days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases

104,0%

114,6%

89,2%

Administrative cases

136,4%

NAP

117,2%

Total criminal law cases

90,7%

93,8%

97,7%

674

862

498

1026

NAP

1167

1526

667

237

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)
2nd instance

2nd instance

1st instance

Supreme Court
Supreme Court

1st instance

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and commercial 
%
litigious cases
0
Administrative cases
100%
4
0
1

,

,

%
6
4
1
1

%
2
9
8

,

Total criminal law cases

,

%
4
6
3
1

104,0%
136,4% NAP

,

%
2
7
1
1

114,6%

%
7
0
9

,

%
8
3
9

,

%
7
7
9

,

89,2%
117,2%

1

1
1

1526

1026

674

P
A
N

Civil and commercial
litigious cases

90,7%
Administrative cases Total criminal law

93,8%

cases

97,7%

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

1
1

667
NAP

862

237

1167

498

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

 In Italy, the average time to dispose of a civil and commercial litigious case is 674 days in first instance (European median is 221) and 1 026 days in second instance 
(European median is 177). As regards criminal cases, the average disposition time in first instance is 498 days (European median is 139) and 1 167 days in second 
instance (European median is 101). 
In 2020, due to the Pandemic situation and the consequent temporary closure of courts, the disposition time increased because the number of solved cases 
decreased. 
Generally speaking, Italian judges solve more civil and commercial cases than received (Clearance rate is above 100%), but less criminal cases than received 
(Clearance rate is below 100%).

As regards second instance cases, non-litigious enforcement cases are not in the competence of the Courts of Appeal.
With regard to the administrative cases (which number is provided only since 2014), the appeals are dealt with by the Council of State (Consiglio di Stato) which is a 
legal-administrative consultative body ensuring the legality of public administration in Italy. The Council has jurisdiction on acts of all administrative authorities, except 
when these authorities lack discretionary power, in which case the dispute is considered to be one of civil law. Figures referring to the activity of the Council of State 
are inserted in the frame of question 99 and not question 97.
In Italy there is no formal definition of “minor criminal cases”. For the purposes of this exercise are considered as minor criminal cases those proceedings dealt with by 
the Justice of Peace Offices which have been appealed (to Tribunal).
In Italy, non-litigious enforcement cases are not heard by the highest instance court. The latter only hears litigious enforcement cases. 

As regards highest instance cases, "minor criminal cases" represent cases against justice of peace's decisions and cases against first and second instance judges’ 
decisions, regarding minor offences that are punished with fines. “Other cases” can be related to procedures pending in first or second instances (jurisdiction or 
competence conflicts between other courts), or pending in other countries (rogatory or capture instances); “Other cases” can be also related to decisions regarding the 
execution of imposed punishments (for example regarding the end or a change (home detention) of the imprisonment), or can be related to the correction of material 
errors on Highest Court’s sentences.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

816 / 1555

5. Public prosecution services in Italy

● Role and powers of the public prosecutor

In the criminal procedure, the public prosecutor in Italy has the following 6 out of 11 possible roles and powers:

To conduct or supervise police investigation

To appeal

To conduct investigations

To supervise the enforcement procedure

When necessary, to request investigation measures from the judge

To discontinue a case without needing a decision by a judge

To charge

To present the case in the court

To propose a sentence to the judge

The public prosecutor also has a role in civil and insolvency cases.

To end the case by imposing or negotiating a penalty or measure 
without requiring a judicial decision

Other significant powers

● Public prosecutors: Number of first instance criminal cases

Type of cases

Absolute 
number

Per 100 
inhabitants

1. Pending cases on 1 Jan. ref. year 

1 587 721

2,68

2. Incoming/received cases

2 503 277

4,22

Public prosecutors: Total number of first instance criminal 
cases per 100 inhabitants
Incoming/rec
eived cases

Processed 
cases

Pendin
g cases 
Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. Year
on 31 

Processed cases

4,20

4,22

Incoming/received cases

3. Processed cases (3.1 + 3.2 + 3.3 + 3.4)

2 487 994

4,20

Italy

2,71

4,22 4,20
2,85
2,84

2,71

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year (3.1.1 + 3.1.2 + 3.1.3 
+ 3.1.4)

1 657 870

2,80

EU Median

2,85 2,84

0,84

3.1.1 Discontinued by the public prosecutor because the 
offender could not be identified 

971 314

1,64

3.1.2 Discontinued by the public prosecutor due to the lack 
of an established offence or a specific legal situation 

679 742

1,15

3.1.3 Discontinued by the public prosecutor for reasons of 
opportunity

6 814

0,01

3.1.4 Discontinued for other reasons 

0

0,00

0,84

Italy

EU Median

Processed cases per 100 inhabitants

Italy

EU Median

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated 
by the public prosecutor

Processed cases

Italy

EU Median

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

2,80

1,05

6 281

0,01

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons

388 574

0,66

3.4. Cases brought to court

435 269

0,73

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure
imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor

-2,80

1,05

0,01

0,12

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for
other reasons

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons
0,30

-0,66

-0,01

0,12

0,66

0,30

4. Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. year

1 603 004

2,71

3.4. Cases brought to court

3.4. Cases brought to court

0,73

0,53

-0,73

0,53

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

817 / 1555

 
6. Existence and use of alternative dispute resolution in Italy

Number of mediators

Mediators

Total

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Number of mediators per 100 000 inhabitants

EU Median
2020

14,4

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NA

NA

19266

21555

23612

23932

24010

23875

23804

NA

NA

31,7

35,5

39,0

39,6

39,8

39,6

40,2

EU Median 2020

EU median in 2019

14,4

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

NA

NA

40,2

39,6

39,8

39,6

39,0

35,5

31,7

In 2020, there are 23 804 accredited or registered mediators who practise court related mediation which represents 40,2 accredited or registered mediators per 100 

The variation between  2019 and  2020 is about -0,3%.

Number of court related mediations

Type of cases

Number of cases 
for which the parties
agreed to start 
mediation

Number of finished 
court-related
mediations

Number of cases 
in which there is a 
settlement agreement

Total of all cases

NA

NA

NA

Civil and commercial

60110

52311

15013

Family cases

Administrative

Employment dismissal

Criminal cases

Consumer cases

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

In Italy one party may initiate a mediation procedure and the other party may decide to take part to it or not. To clarify things, please consider that in 2020 in Italy 
237.773 mediation proceedings were initiated. Both parties showed up at the first mediation meeting in only 60.110 mediation proceedings. Please also note that 
these figures refer to private mediation. For some matter subjects the mediation is mandatory and it is managed by private mediation companies. Please note that 
the above figures refer to mediation procedures monitored by the Ministry of Justice. In Italy, there is a plethora of different forms of ADR procedures and some 
are not so widespread. Court-related mediations do exist for both family cases and labour cases but such mediation proceedings are not monitored by the Ministry 
of Justice. In 2020 the procedures subject to mediation were extended to the disputes related to COVID.

Mediation is not provided for administrative justice (NAP). The other forms of mediation are provided by bodies external to the judiciary (e.g. Corecom) and 
therefore they do not fall under the control/vision of the Ministry of Justice. In 2020 the numbers are deeply affected by the Pandemic. If we look at the first half of 
2021, we can already see a “recovery” in this respect.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

818 / 1555

7. ICT tools of courts in Italy

●The ICT tools of courts and for court users

The use of ICT in courts in 2020 has been evaluated as  :

EU Median

Total 
(0 to 10)

Assistance tools (0 to 3)

Case management system (0 to 7)
Financial management tools (0 to 3)

Measurement tools to assess the workload (0 to 5)
Electronic communication (0 to 10)

7,5
1,5

6,1

1,8
3,3

8,4

6,6
2,0

5,2

1,3
2,5

6,9

The calculation of this values for each field is based on the answers for that question/s and weighted according the avaiability 
or deployment rate. The total value is normalised to max 10 points for readability and comparison.

The details of the calculation are given in Annex 5 - IT calculations

The result by area may be summarized in these graphics, where each field has been evaluated from 0 to 4 points.

Note: index is modified based on the available questions. This cycle the recalculation was made for the last three cycles to be 
able to follow the development.

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

2018

2019

2020

EU Median 2020

Case 
management 
system

Financial 
management 
tools

Measurement 
tools to assess 
the workload

Electronic 
communication

6,14

6,14

6,14

5,17

3,33

3,33

3,33

1,50

1,50

1,75

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,14

6,14

6,14

2,00

6,10

7,21

8,43

6,94

1,75

1,25

1,50

1,50

3,33

3,33

3,33

2,50

Assistance 
tools

Year
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
EU Median 20202,00

1,47

1,25

1,47

1,47

1,25

1,47

8,43

7,21

6,94

6,10

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

Comments on communication tools 

As a matter of fact in Italy several different entities such as the police, the National Social Welfare Institution (INPS) and others can submit a case 
to the prosecution office (Procura) electronically. In addition to that, in recent years a new system called “Portale del Processo Penale Telematico” 
(literally Portal of the Telematic Criminal Process”) has been developed. This system allows the filing of complaints and lawsuit (denunce e 
querele) by the lawyer of the victim. The combination of these two systems makes the availability rate of criminal cases in the range 50-99%. 
Clearly both these systems are regulated by a specific legislative framework. Moreover, all proceedings (100%) can be transmitted from the 
prosecution office to the court electronically.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

819 / 1555

8. Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and public prosecution services in Italy

In Italy, quality standards are not detemined for the judicial system at the national level.

In Italy there is not a strict quality system as such. However, there is a regular monitoring system in place which tracks the performance of court activities.

● Systems for measuring and evaluating courts' performance

A regular monitoring system of court activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

In Italy, there is a system to regularly evaluate the court performance based primarily on defined indicators and the reporting is more frequent than annual.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each court.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

The performance of each court is given by different indicators such as the clearance rate, the variation of backlogs and the age of the proceeding.

The evaluation of the courts' activities is not used for the later allocation of means in the courts.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

820 / 1555

● Systems for measuring and evaluating public prosecution services' performance

A regular monitoring system of public prosecution services activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases 

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs 

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecution) 

Costs of the judicial procedures 

Clearance rate 

Disposition time 

Percentage of convictions and aquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

In Italy, there is a system to evaluate regularly the activity of each public prosecution service and the reporting is more frequent than annual.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each public prosecution service.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecutors)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Percentage of convictions and acquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff

The evaluation of the public prosecution services' activities is not used for the later allocation of means in the public prosecution services.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

821 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Q1 Number of inhabitants

59 685 227

59 685 227

60 795 612

60 665 551

60 589 445

60 483 973

60 359 546

60 244 639

59 257 566

-0,7%

0,0%

1,9%

-0,2%

-0,1%

-0,2%

-0,2%

-0,2%

-1,6%

Q.3 GDP Per capita (in €) in current prices

25 729

25 553

26 585

26 947

27 587

28 359

29 071

29 609

27 815

8,1%

-0,7%

4,0%

1,4%

2,4%

2,8%

2,5%

1,9%

-6,1%

Q5. Exchange rate of Nat currency to € on 1 Jan

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Table General Data: Economic and demographic data, in absolute values (Q1, Q3, Q5)

Indicator 1: Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and prosecution services  (Indicator 4 in 2019)

Table 1.1 to Table 1.10 (Q66, Q67, Q77, Q78, Q77-1, Q78-1, Q73, Q73-0, Q73-1, Q73-2, Q73-3, Q73-4, Q73-5, Q73-6, Q70, Q70-1, Q71, Q72, Q83-2, Q83-3, Q120 
and Q120-1)

66 Qlty standards formulated_jud system

67 Specialised court staff entrusted_qlty standards

77 Performance and quality indicators of court activities

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

False

False

True

078.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078.1.5 Backlogs 

078.1.6 Productivity of judges and court staff

078.1.7 Satisfaction of court staff 

078.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts) 

078.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078.1.10 Number of appeals

078.1.11 Appeal ratio

078.1.12 Clearance rate 

078.1.13 Disposition time 

078.1.14 Other

077-1.1.1 Defined performance and quality indicators

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

822 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

078-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078-1.1.5 Backlogs 

078-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

078-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

078-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

078-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

078-1.1.11 Disposition time 

078-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

078-1.1.13 Other

73 Regular system_evaluation_performance_each court

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

073-0.1.1 Annual

073-0.1.2 Less frequent

073-0.1.3 More frequent

073-1.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
court

073-2.1.1 Courses of action taken in the evaluation is used for the 
allocation of resources

073-2.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-2.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-2.1.4 Other

073-3.1.1 Regular evaluation of the public prosecution services 
performance

True

False

False

True

No

No

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

823 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

073-4.1.1 Annual

073-4.1.2 Less frequent

073-4.1.3 More frequent

073-5.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
public prosecution services

073-6.1.1 Identifying the causes of improved or deteriorated 
performance

073-6.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-6.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-6.1.4 Other

070.1.1 number of incoming cases

070.1.2 length of proceedings (timeframes)

070.1.3 number of resolved cases

070.1.4 number of pending cases

070.1.5 backlogs

070.1.6 productivity of judges and court staff

070.1.7 satisfaction of court staff

070.1.8 satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts)

070.1.9 costs of the judicial procedures

070.1.10 number of appeals

070.1.11 appeal ratio

070.1.12 clearance rate

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

True

True

False

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

824 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

070-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases 

070-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

070-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

070-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

070-1.1.5 Backlogs 

070-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

070-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

070-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

070-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

070-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

070-1.1.11 Disposition time 

070-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

070-1.1.13 Other

071.1.1 Monitoring backlogs in Civil law cases

071.1.2 Monitoring backlogs in Criminal law cases

071.1.3 Monitoring backlogs in Administrative law cases

072.1.1 Monitoring timeframes Within the courts

072.1.2 Monitoring timeframes Within the public prosecution services

083-2.1.1 Quantitative performance tagets defined for each 
prosecutors

083-3.1.1 Body responsible - Executive power (for example the 
Ministry of Justice)

083-3.1.2 Body responsible - Prosecutor General /State public 
prosecutor

083-3.1.3 Body responsible - Public Prosecutorial Council

083-3.1.4 Body responsible - Head of the organisational unit or 
hierarchically superior public prosecutor

083-3.1.5 Body responsible - Other

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

False

False

True

False

True

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

825 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

120.1.1 Qualitative individual assessment of the public prosecutors' 
work

120-1.1.1 Feequency - Annual

120-1.1.2 Feequency - Less frequent

120-1.1.3 Feequency - More frequent

True

False

True

False

Indicator 2: The judicial organisation

Tables 2.1a; 2.1b; 2.2a; 2.2b; 2.3a; 2.3b; 2.4 and 2.5(EC) (Q42, Q43 and Q44)

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Q42.1.1Total number of all courts - legal entities 

Q42.1.2 Total number of courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

811

552

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Q42.1.3 First instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

1 231

643

510

510

510

534

531

527

525

-57,4%

-47,8%

-20,7%

0,0%

0,0%

4,7%

-0,6%

-0,8%

-0,4%

Q42.1.4 Second instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.5 Highest instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.6 Total number of specialised courts - legal entities

43.1.1 Total number of specialised courts of first instance

43.1.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.1.3 Insolvency courts

43.1.4 Labour courts

43.1.5 Family courts

43.1.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.1.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.1.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.1.9 Internet related disputes

43.1.10 Administrative courts

43.1.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.1.12 Military courts

43.1.13 Juvenile courts

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

116

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

58

NAP

NAP

29

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

116

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

58

NAP

NAP

29

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

245

22

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

58

NAP

NAP

29

NAP

NA

-

-

-

-

245

22

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

58

NAP

NAP

29

NAP

NA

-

-

-

-

245

22

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

58

NAP

NAP

29

NAP

4

-

-

-

-

245

22

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

58

NAP

NAP

29

-

-

-

237

22

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

58

NAP

NAP

21

-

-

-

237

22

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

58

NAP

NAP

21

26

1

259

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

236

103,4%

0,0%

111,2%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-3,3%

0,0%

-0,4%

22

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

58

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

20

-31,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-27,6%

0,0%

-4,8%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4

-

4

-

4

-

4

29

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

826 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

43.1.14 Other specialised courts

29

29

132

132

132

132

132

132

103

255,2%

0,0%

355,2%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-22,0%

43.2.1 Total number of specialised courts of higher instances

43.2.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.2.3 Insolvency courts

43.2.4 Labour courts

43.2.5 Family courts

43.2.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.2.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.2.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.2.9 Internet related disputes

43.2.10 Administrative courts

43.2.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.2.12 Military courts

43.2.13 Juvenile courts

43.2.14 Other specialised courts

44.1.1 First instance courts geographic locations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

23

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

1

NAP

21

773

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

44.1.2 All courts geographic locations

1 378

790

836

836

836

831

828

828

844

-38,8%

-42,7%

5,8%

0,0%

0,0%

-0,6%

-0,4%

0,0%

1,9%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

827 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Indicator 3: The performance of courts at all stages of the proceedings

Tables 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.4 (all years) Number of other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 Variation of first instance other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants (Q1, Q91)

Table 3.13.7 (EC) to 3.13.12 (EC) First instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

91.1.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.1.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.1.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.1.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.1.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.1.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.1.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.1.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

91.1.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.1.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

91.1.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

91.2.1 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.2.2 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.2.3 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.2.4 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.2.5 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.2.6 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.2.7 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.2.8 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

91.2.9 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

4 986 193

4 781 009

4 885 347

4 618 528

4 215 937

3 982 989

3 797 952

3 691 867

3 610 366

-27,6%

-4,1%

2,2%

-5,5%

-8,7%

-5,5%

-4,6%

-2,8%

-2,2%

3 796 202

3 445 954

3 063 946

2 987 907

2 687 388

2 478 381

2 331 797

2 304 755

2 233 438

-41,2%

-9,2%

-11,1%

-2,5%

-10,1%

-7,8%

-5,9%

-1,2%

-3,1%

-

-

1 518 708

1 362 885

1 287 283

1 292 897

1 282 107

1 221 344

1 226 175

-

-

-

-10,3%

-5,5%

0,4%

-0,8%

-4,7%

0,4%

1 189 991

1 335 055

1 518 708

1 362 885

1 287 283

1 292 897

1 282 107

1 221 344

1 226 175

3,0%

12,2%

13,8%

-10,3%

-5,5%

0,4%

-0,8%

-4,7%

0,4%

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

441 243

347 728

302 693

267 736

241 266

211 711

184 048

165 768

150 753

-65,8%

-21,2%

-13,0%

-11,5%

-9,9%

-12,2%

-13,1%

-9,9%

-9,1%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4 010 588

4 173 702

3 999 586

3 483 179

3 657 690

3 454 018

3 518 409

3 443 248

2 671 545

-33,4%

4,1%

-4,2%

-12,9%

5,0%

-5,6%

1,9%

-2,1%

-22,4%

1 559 779

1 605 399

1 585 740

1 545 092

1 554 837

1 492 837

1 539 174

1 469 215

1 139 154

-27,0%

2,9%

-1,2%

-2,6%

0,6%

-4,0%

3,1%

-4,5%

-22,5%

-

-

2 350 123

1 938 087

2 048 288

1 912 626

1 929 267

1 923 159

1 490 342

-

-

-

-17,5%

5,7%

-6,6%

0,9%

-0,3%

-22,5%

2 450 809

2 568 303

2 350 123

1 938 087

2 048 288

1 912 626

1 929 267

1 923 159

1 490 342

-39,2%

4,8%

-8,5%

-17,5%

5,7%

-6,6%

0,9%

-0,3%

-22,5%

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

91.2.10 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

51 366

54 902

63 723

61 723

54 565

48 555

49 968

50 874

42 049

-18,1%

6,9%

16,1%

-3,1%

-11,6%

-11,0%

2,9%

1,8%

-17,3%

91.2.11 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

828 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

91.3.1 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.3.2 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.3.3 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.3.4 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.3.5 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.3.6 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.3.7 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.3.8 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

91.3.9 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

4 346 215

4 450 604

4 373 441

3 890 953

3 822 644

3 554 193

3 618 916

3 556 819

2 741 198

-36,9%

2,4%

-1,7%

-11,0%

-1,8%

-7,0%

1,8%

-1,7%

-22,9%

2 047 289

1 895 576

1 891 595

1 855 663

1 760 695

1 588 435

1 583 707

1 535 123

1 184 941

-42,1%

-7,4%

-0,2%

-1,9%

-5,1%

-9,8%

-0,3%

-3,1%

-22,8%

-

-

2 382 677

2 035 290

1 978 213

1 889 902

1 967 089

1 955 012

1 498 906

-

-

-

-14,6%

-2,8%

-4,5%

4,1%

-0,6%

-23,3%

2 298 926

2 555 028

2 382 677

2 035 290

1 978 213

1 889 902

1 967 089

1 955 012

1 498 906

-34,8%

11,1%

-6,7%

-14,6%

-2,8%

-4,5%

4,1%

-0,6%

-23,3%

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

91.3.10 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

143 713

104 409

99 169

87 594

83 736

75 856

68 120

66 684

57 351

-60,1%

-27,3%

-5,0%

-11,7%

-4,4%

-9,4%

-10,2%

-2,1%

-14,0%

91.3.11 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

91.4.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.4.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.4.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.4.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.4.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.4.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.4.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.4.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

91.4.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.4.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

91.4.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4 650 566

4 504 107

4 511 492

4 184 883

4 050 983

3 882 814

3 697 445

3 578 296

3 540 713

-23,9%

-3,1%

0,2%

-7,2%

-3,2%

-4,2%

-4,8%

-3,2%

-1,1%

3 308 692

3 155 777

2 758 091

2 677 336

2 481 530

2 382 783

2 287 264

2 238 847

2 187 651

-33,9%

-4,6%

-12,6%

-2,9%

-7,3%

-4,0%

-4,0%

-2,1%

-2,3%

-

-

1 486 154

1 265 682

1 357 358

1 315 621

1 244 285

1 189 491

1 217 611

-

-

-

-14,8%

7,2%

-3,1%

-5,4%

-4,4%

2,4%

1 341 874

1 348 330

1 486 154

1 265 682

1 357 358

1 315 621

1 244 285

1 189 491

1 217 611

-9,3%

0,5%

10,2%

-14,8%

7,2%

-3,1%

-5,4%

-4,4%

2,4%

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

348 896

298 221

267 247

241 865

212 095

184 410

165 896

149 958

135 451

-61,2%

-14,5%

-10,4%

-9,5%

-12,3%

-13,1%

-10,0%

-9,6%

-9,7%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

829 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.2 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.4 to 3.3.7 Variation of Clearence Rate and Disposition Time of first instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

Table 3.13.1 (EC) to 3.13.6 (EC) First instance courts: Disposition time and clearance rate for other than criminal cases  (Q91)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

108,4%

106,6%

109,3%

111,7%

104,5%

102,9%

102,9%

103,3%

102,6%

(5,32)

(1,60)

2,54

2,16

(6,44)

(1,54)

(0,04)

0,43

(0,67)

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

131,3%

118,1%

119,3%

120,1%

113,2%

106,4%

102,9%

104,5%

104,0%

(20,75)

(10,04)

1,03

0,68

(5,71)

(6,04)

(3,30)

1,55

(0,45)

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

-

-

101,4%

105,0%

96,6%

98,8%

102,0%

101,7%

100,6%

-

-

-

3,58

(8,03)

2,31

3,19

(0,30)

(1,06)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

93,8%

99,5%

101,4%

105,0%

96,6%

98,8%

102,0%

101,7%

100,6%

7,22

6,06

1,91

3,58

(8,03)

2,31

3,19

(0,30)

(1,06)

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CR Administrative law cases

279,8%

190,2%

155,6%

141,9%

153,5%

156,2%

136,3%

131,1%

136,4%

(51,25)

(32,03)

(18,17)

(8,81)

8,14

1,80

(12,74)

(3,85)

4,05

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

391

590

-

213

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

886

NAP

369

608

-

193

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

1043

NAP

377

532

228

228

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

984

NAP

393

527

227

227

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1008

NAP

387

514

250

250

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

925

NAP

399

548

254

254

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

887

NAP

373

527

231

231

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

889

NAP

367

532

222

222

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

821

NAP

471

20,7%

-5,4%

1,9%

4,3%

-1,5%

3,1%

-6,5%

-1,5%

28,4%

674

14,2%

3,0%

-12,4%

-1,0%

-2,3%

6,4%

-3,7%

1,0%

26,6%

297

-

-

-

-0,3%

10,3%

1,5%

-9,1%

-3,8%

33,5%

297

39,2%

-9,6%

18,2%

-0,3%

10,3%

1,5%

-9,1%

-3,8%

33,5%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

862

-2,7%

17,7%

-5,7%

2,5%

-8,3%

-4,0%

0,2%

-7,7%

5,0%

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

830 / 1555

        
        
         
         
        
        
        
         
        
      
      
         
         
        
        
        
         
        
         
        
         
         
        
        
         
         
         
         
        
         
         
        
        
      
      
      
        
         
         
      
        
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.4.1 (all years) First instance courts, number of cases for specific case categories (Q101)

101.1.1 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Litigious divorce case

34 114

34 738

36 304

37 027

40 593

46 446

47 638

46 872

44 792

31,3%

1,8%

4,5%

2,0%

9,6%

14,4%

2,6%

-1,6%

-4,4%

101.1.2 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Employment dismissal case

NA

NA

29 014

28 981

26 665

23 281

18 661

17 414

15 207

-

-

-

-0,1%

-8,0%

-12,7%

-19,8%

-6,7%

-12,7%

101.1.3 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Insolvency

85 736

86 501

22 427

22 772

14 653

12 461

11 140

9 754

9 401

-89,0%

0,9%

-74,1%

1,5%

-35,7%

-15,0%

-10,6%

-12,4%

-3,6%

101.2.1 Incoming cases_Litigious divorce case

19 287

20 580

26 639

31 420

39 304

37 702

34 968

32 847

25 607

32,8%

6,7%

29,4%

17,9%

25,1%

-4,1%

-7,3%

-6,1%

-22,0%

101.2.2 Incoming cases_Employment dismissal case

NA

NA

22 216

27 440

25 411

23 416

19 323

16 583

14 380

-

-

-

23,5%

-7,4%

-7,9%

-17,5%

-14,2%

-13,3%

101.2.3 Incoming cases_Insolvency

12 577

14 792

42 967

41 036

36 968

34 324

30 772

30 332

22 985

82,8%

17,6%

190,5%

-4,5%

-9,9%

-7,2%

-10,3%

-1,4%

-24,2%

101.3.1 Resolved cases_Litigious divorce case

18 174

18 936

26 037

27 959

33 283

35 369

35 701

34 929

25 212

38,7%

4,2%

37,5%

7,4%

19,0%

6,3%

0,9%

-2,2%

-27,8%

101.3.2 Resolved cases_Employment dismissal case

NA

NA

22 512

29 933

29 012

25 812

20 716

18 971

14 038

-

-

-

33,0%

-3,1%

-11,0%

-19,7%

-8,4%

-26,0%

101.3.3 Resolved cases_Insolvency

11 909

13 261

45 092

49 233

38 884

35 407

31 996

30 767

23 256

95,3%

11,4%

240,0%

9,2%

-21,0%

-8,9%

-9,6%

-3,8%

-24,4%

101.4.1 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Litigious divorce case

35 227

36 382

36 906

40 488

46 614

48 779

46 905

44 790

45 187

28,3%

3,3%

1,4%

9,7%

15,1%

4,6%

-3,8%

-4,5%

0,9%

101.4.2 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Employment dismissal case

NA

NA

28 718

26 488

23 064

20 885

17 268

15 026

15 549

-

-

-

-7,8%

-12,9%

-9,4%

-17,3%

-13,0%

3,5%

101.4.3 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Insolvency

86 404

88 032

20 302

14 575

12 737

11 378

9 916

9 319

9 130

-89,4%

1,9%

-76,9%

-28,2%

-12,6%

-10,7%

-12,8%

-6,0%

-2,0%

Table 3.5.1 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for specific case categories (Q101)

Table 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 Variations of CR and DT for specific case categories of first instance cases (Q101)

CR Litigious divorce cases

94,2%

92,0%

97,7%

89,0%

84,7%

93,8%

102,1%

106,3%

98,5%

4,49

(2,35)

6,23

(8,96)

(4,84)

10,78

8,83

4,16

(7,41)

CR Employment dismissal cases

NA

NA

101,3%

109,1%

114,2%

110,2%

107,2%

114,4%

97,6%

-

-

-

7,65

4,66

(3,45)

(2,74)

6,71

(14,67)

CR Insolvency cases

94,7%

89,6%

104,9%

120,0%

105,2%

103,2%

104,0%

101,4%

101,2%

6,85

(5,32)

17,06

14,32

(12,33)

(1,93)

0,80

(2,45)

(0,25)

DT Litigious divorce cases

DT Employment dismissal cases

DT Insolvency cases

707

NA

701

NA

2 648

2 423

517

466

164

529

323

108

511

290

120

503

295

117

480

304

113

468

289

111

654

-7,5%

-0,9%

-26,2%

2,2%

-3,3%

-1,5%

-4,7%

-2,4%

39,8%

404

-

-

-

-30,6%

-10,2%

1,8%

3,0%

-5,0%

39,8%

143

-94,6%

-8,5%

-93,2%

-34,2%

10,6%

-1,9%

-3,6%

-2,3%

29,6%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

831 / 1555

         
        
         
        
        
       
         
         
        
         
         
        
        
         
      
         
        
       
       
      
        
         
        
        
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.7.1 to 3.7.5 (2019 and 2020) Second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Table 3.9.1 to 3.9.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

97.1.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.1.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.1.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.1.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.1.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.1.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.1.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.1.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

97.1.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.1.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

97.1.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases 

97.2.1 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.2.2 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.2.3 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.2.4 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.2.5 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.2.6 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.2.7 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.2.8 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

97.2.9 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.2.10 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

97.2.11 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases 

439 933

424 709

399 051

385 136

363 503

340 257

308 057

437 579

419 257

393 213

379 494

358 157

334 910

302 701

2 354

2 354

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

5 452

5 452

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

5 838

5 838

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

5 642

5 346

5 347

5 356

5 642

5 346

5 347

5 356

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

135 270

126 652

135 081

133 838

126 600

115 428

96 914

131 558

117 158

125 912

125 189

118 052

106 921

89 839

3 712

3 712

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

9 494

9 494

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

9 169

9 169

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

8 649

8 548

8 507

7 075

8 649

8 548

8 507

7 075

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-3,5%

-6,0%

-3,5%

-5,6%

-6,4%

-9,5%

-4,2%

-6,2%

-3,5%

-5,6%

-6,5%

-9,6%

131,6%

7,1%

-3,4%

-5,2%

0,0%

0,2%

131,6%

7,1%

-3,4%

-5,2%

0,0%

0,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-6,4%

6,7%

-0,9%

-5,4%

-8,8%

-16,0%

-10,9%

7,5%

-0,6%

-5,7%

-9,4%

-16,0%

155,8%

-3,4%

-5,7%

-1,2%

-0,5%

-16,8%

155,8%

-3,4%

-5,7%

-1,2%

-0,5%

-16,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

832 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

97.3.1 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.3.2 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.3.3 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.3.4 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.3.5 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.3.6 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.3.7 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.3.8 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

97.3.9 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.3.10 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

97.3.11 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases 

97.4.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.4.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.4.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.4.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.4.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.4.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.4.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.4.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

97.4.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.4.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

97.4.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases

97.5.1 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.5.2 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.5.10 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

160 768

151 988

148 821

155 302

150 011

148 023

109 828

156 913

142 886

139 482

146 395

141 492

139 548

102 989

3 855

3 855

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

9 102

9 102

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

9 339

9 339

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

8 907

8 519

8 475

6 839

8 907

8 519

8 475

6 839

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

414 435

399 373

385 311

363 672

340 092

307 662

295 143

412 224

393 529

379 643

358 288

334 717

302 283

289 551

2 211

2 211

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

5 844

5 844

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

5 668

5 668

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

5 384

5 375

5 379

5 592

5 384

5 375

5 379

5 592

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

185 908

164 856

150 260

134 739

134 526

185 645

164 683

150 061

134 551

134 251

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-5,5%

-2,1%

4,4%

-3,4%

-1,3%

-25,8%

-8,9%

-2,4%

5,0%

-3,3%

-1,4%

-26,2%

136,1%

2,6%

-4,6%

-4,4%

-0,5%

-19,3%

136,1%

2,6%

-4,6%

-4,4%

-0,5%

-19,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-3,6%

-3,5%

-5,6%

-6,5%

-9,5%

-4,1%

-4,5%

-3,5%

-5,6%

-6,6%

-9,7%

-4,2%

164,3%

-3,0%

-5,0%

-0,2%

0,1%

4,0%

164,3%

-3,0%

-5,0%

-0,2%

0,1%

4,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-11,3%

-8,9%

-10,3%

-0,2%

-11,3%

-8,9%

-10,3%

-0,2%

-

-

-

-

833 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 (2019 and 2020): Second instance clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.9.4 and 3.9.5 (2019 and 2020): Variation of second clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

118,8%

120,0%

110,2%

116,0%

118,5%

128,2%

113,3%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

119,3%

122,0%

110,8%

116,9%

119,9%

130,5%

114,6%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

103,9%

95,9%

101,9%

103,0%

99,7%

99,6%

96,7%

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

103,9%

95,9%

101,9%

103,0%

99,7%

99,6%

96,7%

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

941

959

209

209

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

959

1005

234

234

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

945

993

222

222

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

855

893

221

221

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

827

863

230

230

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

759

791

232

232

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

981

1026

298

298

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,97

(8,19)

5,32

2,12

8,23

(11,63)

2,25

(9,17)

5,56

2,49

8,89

(12,17)

(7,69)

6,24

1,11

(3,23)

(0,04)

(2,97)

(7,69)

6,24

1,11

(3,23)

(0,04)

(2,97)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,9%

-1,5%

-9,6%

-3,2%

-8,3%

29,3%

4,8%

-1,2%

-10,1%

-3,3%

-8,4%

29,8%

11,9%

-5,5%

-0,4%

4,4%

0,6%

28,8%

11,9%

-5,5%

-0,4%

4,4%

0,6%

28,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

834 / 1555

         
        
         
         
         
      
         
        
         
         
         
      
        
         
         
        
        
        
        
         
         
        
        
        
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.10.1 to 3.10.5 (2019 and 2020) Supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Table 3.12.1 to 3.12.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of the supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

99.1.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.1.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.1.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.1.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.1.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.1.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.1.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.1.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

99.1.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.1.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

99.1.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.2.1 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.2.2 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.2.3 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.2.4 High inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.2.5 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.2.6 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.2.7 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.2.8 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

99.2.9 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

123 247

125 956

133 356

133 524

135 331

138 641

143 134

98 285

100 367

104 094

106 426

106 511

110 979

116 635

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

24 574

25 162

28 795

26 662

28 418

27 288

26 101

388

427

467

436

402

374

398

41 064

40 789

41 100

39 637

48 538

50 769

43 829

29 908

29 587

29 270

29 895

36 470

38 330

32 208

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

99.2.10 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

10 761

10 823

11 407

9 343

11 657

12 044

11 281

99.2.11 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

395

379

423

399

411

395

340

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,2%

5,9%

0,1%

1,4%

2,4%

3,2%

2,1%

3,7%

2,2%

0,1%

4,2%

5,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,4%

14,4%

-7,4%

6,6%

-4,0%

-4,3%

10,1%

9,4%

-6,6%

-7,8%

-7,0%

6,4%

-0,7%

0,8%

-3,6%

22,5%

4,6%

-13,7%

-1,1%

-1,1%

2,1%

22,0%

5,1%

-16,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,6%

5,4%

-18,1%

24,8%

3,3%

-6,3%

-4,1%

11,6%

-5,7%

3,0%

-3,9%

-13,9%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

835 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

99.3.1 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.3.2 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.3.3 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.3.4 High inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.3.5 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.3.6 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.3.7 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.3.8 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

99.3.9 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

38 507

35 803

38 377

40 226

45 087

46 596

42 329

27 842

25 860

26 938

29 897

32 002

32 685

28 730

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

99.3.10 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

10 309

9 604

10 985

9 990

12 646

13 551

13 221

99.3.11 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.4.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.4.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.4.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.4.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.4.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.4.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.4.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.4.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry 
cases

99.4.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.4.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative 
law cases

99.4.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.5.1 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.5.2 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.5.10 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

356

339

454

339

439

360

378

125 804

130 942

136 079

132 935

138 782

142 814

144 634

100 351

104 094

106 426

106 424

110 979

116 624

120 113

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

25 026

26 381

29 217

26 015

27 429

25 781

24 161

427

467

-

-

-

-

-

-

436

NA

496

NA

374

409

360

67 085

64 029

70 305

52 947

54 704

53 490

52 408

57 631

NA

NA

13 552

11 567

12 610

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-7,0%

7,2%

4,8%

12,1%

3,3%

-9,2%

-7,1%

4,2%

11,0%

7,0%

2,1%

-12,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-6,8%

14,4%

-9,1%

26,6%

7,2%

-2,4%

-4,8%

33,9%

-25,3%

29,5%

-18,0%

5,0%

4,1%

3,9%

-2,3%

4,4%

2,9%

1,3%

3,7%

2,2%

0,0%

4,3%

5,1%

3,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5,4%

10,8%

-11,0%

5,4%

-6,0%

-6,3%

9,4%

-6,6%

13,8%

-24,6%

9,4%

-12,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-4,6%

9,8%

3,3%

-2,2%

-2,0%

10,0%

-

-

-14,6%

9,0%

836 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 Supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.12.4 and 3.12.5 Variation of the supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

93,8%

87,8%

93,4%

101,5%

92,9%

91,8%

96,6%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

93,1%

87,4%

92,0%

100,0%

87,7%

85,3%

89,2%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

95,8%

88,7%

96,3%

106,9%

108,5%

112,5%

117,2%

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

90,1%

89,4%

107,3%

85,0%

106,8%

91,1%

111,2%

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1192

1316

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

886

438

1335

1469

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1003

503

1294

1442

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

971

351

1206

1299

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

950

534

1124

1266

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

792

311

1119

1302

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

694

415

1247

1526

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

667

348

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(6,40)

6,38

8,69

(8,47)

(1,19)

5,23

(6,11)

5,30

8,66

(12,26)

(2,82)

4,61

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(7,37)

8,52

11,03

1,46

3,71

4,16

(0,76)

19,99

(20,84)

25,72

(14,67)

21,99

11,9%

-3,0%

-6,8%

-6,9%

-0,4%

11,5%

11,7%

-1,9%

-9,9%

-2,6%

2,9%

17,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

13,2%

-3,2%

-2,1%

-16,7%

-12,3%

-3,9%

14,9%

-30,3%

52,4%

-41,8%

33,4%

-16,2%

837 / 1555

        
         
         
        
        
         
        
         
         
      
        
         
        
         
       
         
         
         
        
       
      
       
      
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Table 3.14.1 to 3.14.5 First instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

094.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

094.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

094.2.1 Total -incoming

094.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

094.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

094.2.4 Other - incoming

094.3.1 Total - resolved

094.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

094.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

094.3.4 Other - resolved

094.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

094.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

094.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

094.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

1 193 323

1 094 651

98 672

NAP

1 042 721

922 368

120 353

NAP

945 778

834 920

110 858

NAP

1 290 266

1 182 099

108 167

NAP

NA

408 895

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

838 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Table 3.15.1 to 3.10.2 CR and DT for first instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

098.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

098.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

098.2.1 Total -incoming

098.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

098.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

098.2.4 Other - incoming

098.3.1 Total - resolved

098.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

098.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

098.3.4 Other - resolved

Table 3.16.1 to 3.16.5 Second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

90,7%

90,5%

92,1%

NAP

498

517

356

NAP

267 997

263 401

4 596

NAP

91 318

88 819

2 499

NAP

85 612

82 375

3 237

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

839 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

098.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

098.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

098.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

098.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

273 703

269 845

3 858

NAP

131 118

130 282

836

NAP

Table 3.17.1 to 3.17.2 CR and DT for second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

93,8%

92,7%

129,5%

NAP

1167

1196

435

NAP

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

840 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Table 3.18.1 to 3.18.5 Supreme court criminal law cases (Q100)

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

100.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

100.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

100.2.1 Total -incoming

100.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

100.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

100.2.4 Other - incoming

100.3.1 Total - resolved

100.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

100.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

100.3.4 Other - resolved

100.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

100.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

100.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

100.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

23 583

21 261

510

1 812

38 508

31 695

598

6 215

37 618

31 558

558

5 502

24 473

21 398

550

2 525

48

43

5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

841 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Table 3.19.1 to 3.19.2 CR and DT for supreme court  criminal law cases (Q100)

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

97,7%

99,6%

93,3%

88,5%

237

247

360

168

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

842 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Indicator 5: Access to justice

Legal aid

Table 5.1 to Table 5.6 (Q12-2, Q16, Q18, Q19, Q20, Q20-1)

12-2.1.1 Coverage of court fees

12-2.1.2 Exemption from court fees

16.1.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (criminal cases)

16.1.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (criminal cases)

16.2.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (other than criminal 
cases)

16.2.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (other than criminal cases)

Yes

No

Yes

No

-

-

-

-

Yes

NAP

Yes

NAP

Yes

NAP

Yes

NAP

18.1.1 Legal aid for the enforcement of judicial decisions

19.1.1  Legal aid granted for other costs - criminal cases

19.1.2  Legal aid granted for other costs - other than criminal cases

020.1.1 Total

020.1.2 Total - criminal cases

020.1.3 Total - other than criminal cases

020.2.1 Total brought to court

020.2.2 Broight to court - criminal cases

020.2.3 Brought to court - other then criminal

020.3.1 Total not brought to court

020.3.2 Not broight to court - criminal cases

020.3.3 Not brought to court - other then criminal

020-1.1.1 Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulation

020-1.1.2 Average duration

True

NAP

True

NAP

True

True

NAP

True

NAP

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

305 268

154 234

151 034

305 268

154 234

151 034

NA

NA

NA

10

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

843 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

System for compensating users

Table 5.7.1 and Table 5.7.2 (Q37)

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

037.1.1 Requests for compensation - Total

037.1.2 Requests for compensation - Excessive length of 
proceedings

037.1.3 Requests for compensation - Non-execution of court 
decisions

037.1.4 Requests for compensation - Wrongful arrest

037.1.5 Requests for compensation - Wrongful conviction

037.1.6 Requests for compensation - Other

037.2.1 Condemnations - Total

037.2.2 Condemnations - Excessive length of proceedings

037.2.3 Condemnations - Non-execution of court decisions

037.2.4 Condemnations - Wrongful arrest

037.2.5 Condemnations - Wrongful conviction

037.2.6 Condemnations - Other

037.3.1 Amount - Total

037.3.2 Amount - Excessive length of proceedings

037.3.3 Amount - Non-execution of court decisions

037.3.4 Amount - Wrongful arrest

037.3.5 Amount - Wrongful conviction

037.3.6 Amount - Other

NAP

15 855

6 914

1 107

12

NAP

NAP

12 778

4 966

408

8

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

844 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Table 6.1 to Table 6.11 (Q62-7, Q62-7-1, Q62-8,  Q62-8-1, Q63-1, Q63-1-1, Q63-2 Q63-6, Q63-7, Q63-7-1, Q64-2,  Q64-4, Q64-6, Q64-3, Q64-3-1, Q64-7, Q64-7-1, 
Q64-9)

Indicator 6: The ICT tools of courts and for court users

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

62-7 Writing assistance tools coordinated at national level

62-7-1.1 Deployment rate in civil matter

62-7-1.2 Deployment rate in criminal matter

62-7-1.3 Deployment rate in administrative matter

62-8 Voice recording tools

62-8-1.1.1 Availability of simple dictation tools in civil matter

62-8-1.1.2 Availability of simple dictation tools in criminal matter

62-8-1.1.3 Availability of simple dictation tools in administrative 
matter

62-8-1.2.1 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in civil 
matter

62-8-1.2.2 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in criminal 
matter

62-8-1.2.3 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in 
administrative matter

62-8-1.3.1 Availability of voice recognition in civil matter

62-8-1.3.2 Availability of voice recognition in criminal matter

62-8-1.3.3 Availability of voice recognition in administrative matter

062-9 Availability of intranet site within the judicial system for 
distribution of news/novelties

63.1 Is there a case management system? 

63.1-1.1 CMS for civil matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for criminal matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for administrative matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.2 CMS for civil matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for criminal matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for administrative matter (status of case onlinee)

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

in most of the 
courts

in most of the 
courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

NA

not available 
for this matter

in all courts

in most of the 
courts

in most of the 
courts

in most of the 
courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

NA

No

No

No

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

No

No

No

No

No

No

-

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Both

Both

Both

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

845 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

63.1-1.3 CMS for civil matter (Centralised or interoperable database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for criminal matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for administrative matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.4 CMS for civil matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for criminal matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for administrative matter (Early warning signals)

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS civil matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS criminal matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS administrative matter

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - land registry

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - business registry

63-2.2 Data consolidated at national level for land registry

63-2.2  Data consolidated at national level for business registry

63-2.3 Service available online for land registry

63-2.3  Service available online for business registry

63-2.4 Statistical module integrated or connected for land registry

63-2.4  Statistical module integrated or connected for business 
registry

063-6.1.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (deployment 
rate)

063-6.1.2 Justice expenses management (deployment rate)

063-6.1.3 Other financial management tools (deployment rate)

063-6.2.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (Data 
consolidated at national level)

063-6.2.2 Justice expenses management (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.2.3 Other financial management tools (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.3.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (System 
communicating with other ministries)

063-6.3.2 Justice expenses management (System communicating 
with other ministries)

063-6.3.3 Other financial management tools (System communicating 
with other ministries)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

False

False

False

False

False

False

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

10-49%

10-49%

50-99%

100%

100%

100%

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

True

True

False

True

True

False

True

True

NAP

True

True

NAP

True

True

NAP

True

True

NAP

846 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

63-7.1 Measurement tools to assess the workload

63-7-1.1.1 Deployment rate - workload of judges

63-7-1.1.2 Deployment rate - workload of prosecutors

63-7-1.1.3 Deployment rate - workload of non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.2.1 Monitoring on national level - judges

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - prosecutors

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.3.1 Monitoring on court level - judges

63-7-1.3.2 Monitoring on court level - prosecutors

63-7-1.3.3 Monitoring on court level - non-judge and non-prosecutor 
staff

064-2 - Possibility to submit a case to courts by electronic means

064-2 - Civil and/or commercial

064-2 - Criminal

064-2 - Administrative

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - civil

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - criminal

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory  - administrative

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - civil

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - criminal

064-2 - Specific legislative framework  - administrative

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - civil

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - criminal

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - administrative

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

50-99%

100%

100%

100%

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

847 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

064-3 - Is it possible to request for granting legal aid by electronic 
means? 

064-3-1.1 - Equipment rate

064-3-1.2 - Request in paper mandatory

064-3-1.3 - Specific legislative framework

064-3-1.4 - Granting LA is also electronic

064-3-1.5 - Information available in CMS

064-4 - Possibility to transmit summons to a judicial meeting or a 
hearing by electronic means

064-4-1.1.1 - Summons produced by CMS- civil

064-4-1.1.2 - Summons produced by CMS- criminal

064-4-1.1.3 - Summons produced by CMS- administrative

064-4-1.2.1 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- civil

064-4-1.2.2 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- criminal

064-4-1.2.3 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- administrative

064-4-1.3.1 - Consent of the user - civil

064-4-1.3.2 - Consent of the user - criminal

064-4-1.3.3 - Consent of the user - administrative

064-6.1.1 - Civil and/or commercial (deployment rate)

064-6.1.2 - Criminal (deployment rate)

064-6.1.3 - Administrative (deployment rate)

False

True

True

100%

100%

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

-

-

-

-

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

100%

100%

100%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

848 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

064-6.2.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.2 - Criminal (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.3 - Administrative (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.3.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Modalities)

064-6.3.2 - Criminal (Modalities)

064-6.3.3 - Administrative (Modalities)

064-6.4.1 - Civil and/or commercial (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.2 - Criminal (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.3 - Administrative (specific legal framework)

064-6.5.1 - Civil and/or commercial (availability for)

064-6.5.2 - Criminal (availability for)

064-6.5.3 - Administrative (availability for)

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

  Hearing 
preparatory 

  Hearing 
preparatory 

  Hearing 
preparatory 

phases    

phases    

phases    

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
E-mail  
Specific 
application  

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
E-mail  
Specific 
application  

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer

Lawyers

Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

849 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

064-7.1.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (deployment rate)

064-7.1.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.2.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (Modalities)

064-7.2.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.3.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (specific legal framework)

064-7.32.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-7.3.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts (specific 
legal framework)

064-7.3.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-9 - Existance of online processing devices of specialised 
litigation

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

10-49%

50-99%

10-49%

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

850 / 1555

    
    
    
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

46.1.1 Total Number of professional judges

46.1.2 Number of 1st inst professional judges

46.1.3 Number of 2nd inst professional judges

46.1.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges

46.2.1 Number of professional judges_males

46.2.2 Number of 1st instance professional judges_males

46.2.3 Number of 2nd instance professional judges_males

46.2.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges_males

46.3.1  Number of professional judges_females

46.3.2  Number of 1st inst professional judges_females

46.3.3  Number of 2nd inst professional judges_females

46.3.4  Number of Supreme court professional judges_females

046-2.1.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Total

046-2.2.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Civil and commercial

046-2.2.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.3.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Criminal

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

Indicator 7: Professionals of justice  (Indicator 9 in 2019)

Table 7.1.1 to 7.5.6 for judges, non judge staff, prosecutors, non prosecutor staff and salaries

6 347

4 929

1 118

300

3 100

2 259

609

232

3 247

2 670

509

68

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6 579

5 101

1 164

314

3 129

2 284

606

239

3 450

2 817

558

75

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6 939

5 404

1 195

340

3 303

2 429

618

256

3 636

2 975

577

84

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6 590

5 072

1 152

366

3 074

2 243

568

263

3 516

2 829

584

103

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6 395

4 878

1 155

362

2 918

2 108

558

252

3 477

2 770

597

110

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6 508

7 015

7 127

7 027

10,7%

3,7%

5,5%

-5,0%

-3,0%

1,8%

7,8%

1,6%

-1,4%

4 897

5 259

5 407

5 356

8,7%

3,5%

5,9%

-6,1%

-3,8%

0,4%

7,4%

2,8%

-0,9%

1 214

1 230

1 208

1 174

5,0%

4,1%

2,7%

-3,6%

0,3%

5,1%

1,3%

-1,8%

-2,8%

397

526

512

497

65,7%

4,7%

8,3%

7,6%

-1,1%

9,7%

32,5%

-2,7%

-2,9%

2 932

3 192

3 185

3 122

0,7%

0,9%

5,6%

-6,9%

-5,1%

0,5%

8,9%

-0,2%

-2,0%

2 106

2 278

2 297

2 267

0,4%

1,1%

6,3%

-7,7%

-6,0%

-0,1%

8,2%

0,8%

-1,3%

567

259

560

354

537

351

519

-14,8%

-0,5%

2,0%

-8,1%

-1,8%

1,6%

-1,2%

-4,1%

-3,4%

336

44,8%

3,0%

7,1%

2,7%

-4,2%

2,8%

36,7%

-0,8%

-4,3%

3 576

3 823

3 942

3 905

20,3%

6,3%

5,4%

-3,3%

-1,1%

2,8%

6,9%

3,1%

-0,9%

2 791

2 981

3 110

3 089

15,7%

5,5%

5,6%

-4,9%

-2,1%

0,8%

6,8%

4,3%

-0,7%

647

138

670

172

671

161

655

28,7%

9,6%

3,4%

1,2%

2,2%

8,4%

3,6%

0,1%

-2,4%

161

136,8%

10,3%

12,0%

22,6%

6,8%

25,5%

24,6%

-6,4%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7 027

5 356

1 174

497

3 464

2 617

630

217

3 058

2 368

523

167

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

851 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

046-2.4.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - 
Administrative

046-2.4.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.5.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Other

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

420

308

NAP

112

85

63

21

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 52.1.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in courts 

23 672

22 991

21 903

21 360

21 182

20 664

22 401

21 808

21 193

-10,5%

-2,9%

-4,7%

-2,5%

-0,8%

-2,4%

8,4%

-2,6%

-2,8%

52.1.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

52.1.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges

14 811

14 349

13 760

13 392

13 297

12 949

14 279

14 032

13 885

-6,3%

-3,1%

-4,1%

-2,7%

-0,7%

-2,6%

10,3%

-1,7%

-1,0%

52.1.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks

4 542

4 395

4 116

4 068

4 071

4 046

4 631

4 471

4 281

-5,7%

-3,2%

-6,3%

-1,2%

0,1%

-0,6%

14,5%

-3,5%

-4,2%

52.1.5 Number of Technical staff

497

494

52.1.6 Number of Other non judge staff

3 822

3 753

343

376

376

356

-28,4%

-0,6%

-1,2%

-2,9%

-25,9%

-2,3%

9,6%

0,0%

-5,3%

3 326

3 115

2 929

2 671

-30,1%

-1,8%

-5,7%

-3,2%

1,1%

-4,0%

-6,3%

-6,0%

-8,8%

52.2.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(men)

52.2.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(men)

52.2.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(men)

52.2.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(men)

52.2.5 Number of Technical staff(men)

52.2.6 Number of Other non judge staff(men)

52.3.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(women)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

52.3.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(women)

NAP

NAP

NAP

52.3.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(women)

52.3.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(women)

52.3.5 Number of Technical staff(women)

52.3.6 Number of Other non judge staff(women)

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

488

3 539

7 367

NAP

3 708

1 076

276

474

3 426

7 221

NAP

3 683

1 064

265

351

3 463

7 253

NAP

3 759

1 081

208

7 068

7 472

7 174

6 987

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

3 717

4 011

3 903

3 943

1 058

1 297

1 238

1 215

203

223

227

210

2 307

2 209

2 205

2 090

1 941

1 806

1 619

15 240

14 536

14 139

13 929

13 596

14 929

14 634

14 206

10 475

10 052

3 232

3 040

213

212

NAP

9 709

3 004

209

NAP

9 538

2 990

143

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

9 232

10 268

10 129

9 942

2 988

3 334

3 233

3 066

140

153

149

146

1 320

1 232

1 217

1 258

1 236

1 174

1 123

1 052

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,0%

0,4%

-2,6%

5,7%

-4,0%

-2,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-0,7%

2,1%

-1,1%

7,9%

-2,7%

1,0%

-1,1%

1,6%

-2,1%

22,6%

-4,5%

-1,9%

-4,0%

-21,5%

-2,4%

9,9%

1,8%

-7,5%

-4,2%

-0,2%

-5,2%

-7,1%

-7,0%

-10,4%

-4,6%

-2,7%

-1,5%

-2,4%

9,8%

-2,0%

-2,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-4,0%

-3,4%

-1,8%

-3,2%

11,2%

-1,4%

-1,8%

-5,9%

-1,2%

-0,5%

-0,1%

11,6%

-3,0%

-5,2%

-0,5%

-1,4%

-31,6%

-2,1%

9,3%

-2,6%

-2,0%

-6,7%

-1,2%

3,4%

-1,7%

-5,0%

-4,3%

-6,3%

852 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

052-1.1.1 Non-judge staff (Total)

052-1.1.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (total)

052-1.1.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (total)

052-1.1.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (total)

052-1.2.1 Non-judge staff  (Males)

052-1.2.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (males)

052-1.2.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (males)

052-1.2.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (males)

052-1.3.1 Non-judge staff  (females)

052-1.3.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (females)

052-1.3.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (females)

052-1.3.4 Non-judge staff  at supreme court (females)

055.1.1 Prosecutors (total)

055.1.2 Prosecutors (1st inst.)

055.1.3 Prosecutors (2nd inst.)

055.1.4 Prosecutors (Highest instance)

055.2.1 Prosecutors - Males -total

055.2.2 Prosecutors - Males, 1st inst.

055.2.3 Prosecutors - Males, 2nd inst.

055.2.4 Prosecutors - Males, Supreme courts

055.3.1 Prosecutors - Females, Total

055.3.2 Prosecutors - Females, 1st inst.

055.3.3 Prosecutors - Females, 2nd inst.

055.3.4 Prosecutors - Females, Supreme courts

21 193

17 336

3 012

845

6 987

5 755

951

281

14 206

11 581

2 061

564

2 269

1 939

261

69

1 201

992

165

44

1 068

947

96

25

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

853 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

060.1.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Total

060.2.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Males

060.3.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Females

004 Annual average salary in the country

132.1.1 Gross annual salary, in €  - Professional judge at the 
beginning of career

132.1.2 Gross annual salary, in €  - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.1.3 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor at the beginning 
of career

132.1.4 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

132.2.1 Net annual salary, in € - Professional judge at the beginning 
of career

132.2.2 Net annual salary, in € - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.2.3 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor at the beginning of 
career

132.2.4 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

133.1.1.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Reduced taxation

133.1.2.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Special pension

133.1.3.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Housing

133.1.4.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Other financial benefit

133.2.1.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Reduced taxation

133.2.2.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Special pension

133.2.3.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Housing

133.2.4.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Other financial benefit

7 858

2 735

5 123

31 233 €

56 263 €

187 296 €

56 263 €

187 296 €

34 758 €

101 161 €

34 758 €

101 161 €

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

854 / 1555

         
         
       
         
       
         
       
         
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

144.1.1 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - Total number (1+2+3+4)

144.1.2 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 1. Breach of professional 
ethics 

144.1.3 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.1.4 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 3. Criminal offence 

144.1.5 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 4. Other

144.2.1 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - Total number 
(1+2+3+4)

144.2.2 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 1. Breach of 
professional ethics 

144.2.3 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.2.4 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 3. Criminal offence

144.2.5 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 4. Other 

145.1.1 Sanctions against Judges - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.1.2 Sanctions against Judges - 1. Reprimand

145.1.3 Sanctions against Judges - 2. Suspension

145.1.4 Sanctions against Judges - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.1.5 Sanctions against Judges - 4. Fine

145.1.6 Sanctions against Judges - 5. Temporary reduction of salary

145.1.7 Sanctions against Judges - 6. Position downgrade

145.1.8 Sanctions against Judges - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.1.9 Sanctions against Judges - 8. Resignation

145.1.10 Sanctions against  Judges - 9. Other

145.1.11 Sanctions against  Judges - 10. Dismissal

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

80

1

67

4

8

38

2

26

6

4

53

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

855 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

145.2.1 Sanctions against Prosecutors - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.2.2 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 1. Reprimand

145.2.3 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 2. Suspension

145.2.4 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.2.5 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 4. Fine

145.2.6 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 5. Temporary reduction of 
salary

145.2.7 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 6. Position downgrade

145.2.8 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.2.9 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 8. Resignation

145.2.10 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 9. Other

145.2.11 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 10. Dismissal

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

26

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lawyers

Tables 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.7 and 7.8

146.1.1 Total number of lawyers practising

226 202

226 202

223 842

237 132

229 292

231 565

234 386

236 494

235 964

4,3%

0,0%

-1,0%

5,9%

-3,3%

1,0%

1,2%

0,9%

-0,2%

146.2.1 Practicing lawyers - man

146.3.1 Practicing lawyers - woman

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

122 556

123 294

123 117

111 830

113 200

112 847

147 Does this figure include “legal advisors” who cannot represent 
their clients in court (for example, some solicitors or in-house 
counsellors)? 

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,6%

-0,1%

1,2%

-0,3%

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

856 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

166 Number of accredited or registered mediators who practice 
judicial mediation: 

NA

NA

19 266

21 555

23 612

23 932

24 010

23 875

23 804

167.1.1 Total number started

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

167. 1.2 Civil and commercial cases(cid:9) - started

269 988

263 263

76 569

72 664

60 110

Indicator 8: The existence and use of alternative dispute resolution methods

Table 8.1 8.2 and 8.3

167. 1.2 Family cases - started

167.1.4 Administrative cases - started

167.1.5 Labour cases including employment dismissal cases - started

167.1.6. Criminal cases - started

167.1.7 Consumer cases - started

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

-

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

Italy (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

11,9%

9,5%

1,4%

0,3%

-0,6%

-0,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,5%

-70,9%

-5,1%

-17,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Key: Variation of more than (+ -) 20% 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

857 / 1555

Judiciary at a glance in Latvia

General data

Population:

1 893 223

GDP per capita: 15 431 €

Average annual 

salary:

13 716 €

Professionals

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Latvia

Latvia

EU Median

EU Median

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual 
salary in the country

Latvia

Latvia

EU Median

EU Median

Professional judges

Professional judges

27,31

23,92

27,31

Non-judge staff

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

24,35

88,00

59,00

9,91

24,35

20,97

15,22

20,97

9,91

15,22

72,36
122,09

Lawyers

Lawyers

72,36

23,92

88,00

59,00

Judge at the beginning of a career 

2,49

4,09

4,09

2,02

3,61

3,02

2,49

Judge of the highest court 4,09
2,02

2,43

4,09

1,71
Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 
1,71

2,43

Public prosecutor at highest instance

3,02

3,61

122,09

Judge at the
beginning of a career

Judge of the highest
court

Prosecutor at the
beginning of a career

Public prosecutor at
highest instance

Efficiency

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

1st instance 2nd instance

Supreme Court
Supreme 
Court

100%

,

%
7
0
2
1

,

,

%
8
9
Civil and
0
%
1
1
commercial
Administrativ
6
9
e
cases
Total 
criminal law 
cases

,

%
5
9
1
1

,

%
0
7
0
1

96,1%

107,0%

,

%
8
3
1
1

109,8%
%
2
1
9

119,5%

,

,

%
4
1
0
1

120,7%
%
8
4
9

,

113,8%

91,2%

101,4%

94,8%

1
1

1

1
1

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance 2nd instance Supreme Court

Civil and commercial litigious cases
239
Administrative cases 220

286

97
138

Total criminal law cases192

115

81

97

239

138

220

115
286

99

99

81

192

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

Administrative
cases

Total criminal law
cases

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

Information and communication technology

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

Assistance toolsCase management system
2018

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the workload
2019

Electronic communication

EU Median 2020

2020

2018
2019
2020

2,50
2,50
2,50

6,67
6,67
6,67

2,00
2,00
2,00

5,00
5,00
5,00

9,44
9,44
9,58

6,67

6,67

6,67

9,44

9,44

9,58

6,94

EU Median 2020

2,00

5,17

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

5,00

5,00

5,00

2,50

2,50

2,50

2,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

1,25

2,50

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

*ICT calculations are described in more details in Annex 5 - IT Calculation methodology

858

2020

Synthesis table for the main indicators for:

Latvia

Economic and demographic data

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Variations

Population

GDP per capita

Exchange rate (local currency needed to 
obtain 1€)

2 044 813

2 023 825

2 001 468

1 969 000

1 968 957

1 950 116

1 919 968

1 907 675

1 893 223

-7,4%

-1,6%

-2,5%

-1,5%

-0,6%

10 858

11 575

12 065

12 329

12 762

13 855

15 136

15 928

15 431

42,1%

1

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

18,6%

9,2%

5,2%

NAP

NAP NAP

NAP

-0,8%

-3,1%

Average annual salary

8 981

9 816

10 308

12 384

12 912

13 716

52,7%

20,1%

4,3%

6,2%

5,8%

NAP

5,0%

Resources

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Professional judges per 100 000 inhab.

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhab.

Lawyers per 100 000 inh.

Mediators

ICT overall assesment

First instance incoming cases per 100 
inhab.

21,5

78,6

65,7

NAP

23,8

78,8

66,0

NAP

24,4

78,8

68,1

1,2

25,0

77,1

69,2

1,9

25,5

80,3

62,5

2,2

25,1

78,8

70,3

2,4

29,1

89,3

63,4

2,7

9,1

27,3

88,0

71,1

2,5

9,1

29,1

88,0

72,4

2,6

9,2

35,3%

11,9%

4,8%

1,9%

14,0%

15,9%

11,2%

13,4%

-6,2%

-1,5%

10,2%

-8,2%

1,5%

-9,7%

12,1%

NAP

82,1%

24,0%

14,8%

-7,1%

0,0%

6,4%

0,0%

1,7%

5,0%

0,5%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Civil and commercial litigious cases

2,157

2,013

2,255

2,006

1,994

1,469

1,447

1,583

1,527

-29,2%

-11,6%

-27,4%

-1,5%

9,4%

-3,5%

Administrative law cases

0,195

0,1

0,1

0,113

0,120

0,106

0,096

0,098

0,090

-54,1%

0,5%

-19,9%

-9,7%

2,2%

-8,7%

Total criminal law cases

0,793

First instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

118%

109%

98%

109%

107%

119%

103%

102%

96%

-21,69

8,97

-4,08

-15,99

CR administrative law cases

130%

163%

144%

106%

95%

100%

105%

105%

107%

-23,53

-48,69

9,90

5,49

-1,24

0,13

-6,07

1,66

CR total criminal law cases

91%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

241

300

247

203

255

155

238

200

217

228

208

249

236

248

213

225

-0,8%

-15,0%

-26,6%

47,0%

8,9%

8,7%

13,3%

-10,0%

12,2%

-0,5%

-9,4%

-2,0%

239

220

192

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

1,67

0,21

1,49

0,13

1,55

0,07

1,42

0,07

1,27

0,07

1,00

0,07

0,97

0,07

0,94

0,06

-42,7%

-18,0%

-24,0%

-72,4%

-2,2%

-3,9%

-3,3%

-5,3%

-2,7%

-7,3%

1,8%

-9,0%

0,96

0,06

0,38

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

101%

107%

96%

103%

104%

101%

136%

137%

129%

107%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

-4,98

8,12

1,06

-5,06

35,78

-30,06

-21,65

-15,41

10,43

28,01

99%

91%

110%

119%

101%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

160

371

102

277

124

210

100

152

104

169

119

215

97

138

81

-22,7%

-15,6%

4,1%

14,1%

-18,1%

-43,4%

-19,6%

11,2%

27,4%

-35,9%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

85%

84%

129%

146%

86%

92%

95%

89%

108%

104%

121%

60,15

-37,40

12,82

90%

113%

114%

8,10

-2,50

0,51

-4,19

23,15

16,71

1,12

95%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

559

189

329

231

153

270

206

359

204

459

187

327

115

286

99

-72,6%

33,1%

-1,0%

-8,2%

-38,6%

43,0%

70,1%

28,1%

-28,9%

-12,4%

First instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
cases (days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

First instance pending cases per 100 
inhab. on 31 dec.

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

 Supreme court 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Supreme court
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

859 / 1555

1. Judicial organisation in Latvia

In Latvia in 2020, the number of courts considered as legal entities is 17. Namely, there are 15 courts of general jurisdiction and 2 specialised courts.

It is noteworthy recalling that since the reform of March 2018, the number of first instance courts has been reduced to 10 legal entities at first instance (9 of general jurisdiction and one 
administrative court). There are also 6 Appellate courts (5 of general jurisdiction and one administrative court of appeal) and the Supreme court. Besides, in 2019, was completed the reform of 
Land Register Units, which are included in the composition of District (city) courts. Accordingly, the number of geographic locations increased.

More precisely, among the 15 legal entities of general jurisdiction, 9 District city courts act at first instance, 5 Appellate courts have second instance competence, while the Supreme Court is the 
highest instance court of general jurisdiction. 

The 2 specialised courts are the Administrative court and the Administrative Regional (appeal) court.  It is interesting noting that on the 1st of July 2020, amendments to the Law on Judicial 
Power came into force, providing for the establishment of the Economic Court, which is competent for certain types of civil and criminal cases. Accordingly, the Court is competent for specific 
commercial disputes and criminal cases, which cause significant damage to the business environment and economic development. The Economic Court is not counted yet in the total number of 
specialised courts, because it will be operational as of 31st March 2021.

In terms of geographic locations, in 2020 there are 55 courts among which 47 are of first instance.

Distribution of general courts in Latvia

Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Latvia - 1st instance
Latvia - Higher instances

LatviaDistribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

EU Median - Higher instances

EU Median - 1st instance

According to 2020 data, the distribution between 1st instance and higher instances courts of general 
jurisdiction in Latvia is somewhat different from the EU median of 87% - 13%.

Latvia - 1st instance

Latvia - Higher instances

General courts - Latvia

General courts - Latvia
EU Median

60%
87%

60%

40%

40%
13%

EU Median

87%

13%

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Latvia

Geographic 
locations

Legal entities

General jurisdiction

Specialised 
jurisdiction

48

48

48

49

42

47

52

56

55

34

34

34

28

28

25

9

9

9

1

1

1

5

1

1

1

1

1

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Latvia

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Latvia

Geographic locations

Legal entities General jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Ratio general jurisdiction vs specialised

10%

Latvia

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

90%

75%

10%

25%

90%

Distribution of first instance general jurisdiction and specialised courts

EU Median

25%

75%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

The distribution between number of general jurisdiction courts and specialised courts of 90,0% - 10,0% is somewhat different from the EU median (distribution tendency 
in EU: 75,5% - 24,5%).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

860 / 1555

Specialised courts
Total

Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

Insolvency courts

Labour courts

Family courts

Rent and tenancies courts

Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

Internet related disputes

Administrative courts

Insurance and / or social welfare courts

Military courts

Juvenile courts

Other specialised 1st instance courts

First instance

Higher instance

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

Only Administrative courts can be considered as specialised courts in terms of legal entities. The 1st instance administrative court is divided into 5 court houses. Appeals can be lodged before 
the administrative regional court. 

As to the category “military courts”, the reply NA is justified by the fact that according to the Law on Judicial Power, judicial power in the Republic of Latvia is vested in District (city) courts, 
regional courts, the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court, but in state of emergencies or during war – also military courts. Put differently, a military court can be established in state of 
emergency or during a war. 

Is should be pointed out that Latvia has also one court, which is specialised in respect of commercial cases. However, this court works also with other civil cases and is actually a first instance 
court where few judges are specialised in commercial matters. 

As already mentioned above, following the amendments to the Law on Judicial Power in July 2020, the Economic Court has been established and will start functioning in 2021. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

861 / 1555

2. Professionals of justice in Latvia

● Professional judges and non-judge staff

Evolution of the number of professional judges since 2012 (Q46)

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Absolute 
number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

439

481

488

493

503

490

559

521

550

21,47

23,77

24,38

25,04

25,55

25,13

29,12

27,31

29,05

Professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants

23,77

24,38

25,04

25,55

25,13

21,47

29,12

27,31

29,05

23,9

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

EU median
According to 2020 data, the total number of professional judges sitting in courts (all instances) in Latvia is 550, which is 5,6% more than in previous cycle.

23,9

More precisely, in Latvia, there are 29,05 professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants (this figure is above the EU median of 23,92 judges per 100 000 inhabitants) and about 3,03 non-
judge staff per judge .

There is no significant difference compared with previous cycle when this ratio was at 3,22 non-judge staff per judge.

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and gender

2020

Total

Distribution by 
instance

Male

Female

% Male

% Female

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

380

135

35

550

69,1%

24,5%

6,4%

63

31

11

105

317

104

24

445

16,6%

23,0%

31,4%

19,1%

83,4%

77,0%

68,6%

80,9%

Distribution of professional judges by instance

Latvia

EU Median

Distribution of professional judges by gender and by instance

% Female

% Male

69,1%

EU Median

72,39%

72,39%
23,98%

4,03%

24,5%

23,98%

6,4%

4,03%

83,4%

16,6%

77,0%

23,0%

68,6%

31,4%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

80,9%

19,1%

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female professional judges (all instances) is 445, which represents 80,9% of the total number of judges.

The total number of judges is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 380 are sitting in first instance courts (of which 317 are female); 135 are sitting in 
second instance courts (of which 104 are female)  and 35 are sitting in Supreme Court (of which 24 are female).  

Compared with the EU distribution of professional judges per instance, a similar trend is observed in Latvia. However, the predominance of first instance judges is les pronounced, while 
the number of second and third instance judges is above the respective EU medians.  

As regards the distribution male/female, it has to be highlighted that female judges have the majority at all instances. 

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Total

Civil and commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

380

135

35

550

NA

65

15

NA

NA

48

9

NA

39

22

11

72

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

In Latvia, the distribution of judges per categories of cases is possible only for some categories.

Distribution of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Civil and 
commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

NA

48,1%

42,9%

NA

NA

35,6%

25,7%

NA

10,3%

16,3%

31,4%

13,1%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

TRUE

TRUE

FALSE

FALSE

NA

2

NA

NA

NA

NA

First instance courts of general jurisdiction do not explicitly distinguish between judges based on the type of cases within their competence. Therefore it is not possible to categorise judges 
depending on the nature of cases theay are dealing with. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

862 / 1555

Non-judge staff

Year

2012

Number of non-judge staff

1 608

Per 100 000 inhabitants

78,64

2013

1 594

78,76

2014

1 578

78,84

2015

1 519

77,15

2016

1 582

80,35

2017

1 536

78,76

2018

1 715

89,32

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants

78,64

78,76

78,84

77,15

80,35

78,76

89,32

87,96

88,00

2020

Total

59,00

Rechtspfleger

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

Non-judge staff assisting the judge

Staff in charge of administrative tasks

Technical staff

Other

2019

1 678

87,96

Absolute 
number

1 666

NAP

1 040

498

113

15

E
U 
m

2020

1 666

88,00

in %

NAP

62,4%

29,9%

6,8%

0,9%

In 2020, Latvia has 1 666 non-judge staff (of which 1 536 are females). The total number of non-judge staff in comparison with the previous cycle reveals a decrease of -0,7%.

In this cycle, the non-judge staff is broken down as follows:

◦ 1 040 non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges such as registrars (of which 952 are women);
◦ 498 staff in charge of different administrative tasks and of the court management (of which 480 are women);
◦ 113 technical staff (of which 92 are women);
◦ 15 other (of which 12 are women);

In 2020, the number of non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants has increased (from 88,0 in 2019 to 88,0 in 2020).

During the same period, the number of judges per 100 000 inhabitants evolves from 27,3 judges per 100 000 inhabitants in 2019 to 29,1 in 2020.

The observed variations in the different categories are due to changes in court staff. The category "other" refers to the Supreme Court Division of case-law and research and its Division of 
provision of regime of secrecy, as well as to staff of the Secretariat of the Council for the Judiciary. Trainees are not included in the number provided.

Professional judges, non-judge staff and their ratio (Q46, Q52)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Latvia

EU median

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

29,05

88,00

Non-judge staff per judge

3,03

23,92

59,00

3,30

Professional judges and non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Non-judge staff per judge

29,05

88,00

3,03

3,30

59,00

23,92

Latvia

EU median

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff  (Q46, Q52)

Judges 
per 100 000 inh.

Non-judge staff per
100 000 inh.

Ratio between professional judges and 
non-judge staff

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff 
Non-judge staff per 100 000 inh.
(Q46, Q52)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

21,47

23,77

24,38

25,04

25,55

25,13

29,12

27,31

29,05

78,64

78,76

78,84

77,15

80,35

78,76

89,32

87,96

88,00

EU median 2020

3,30

3,66

3,31

3,23

3,08

3,15

3,13

3,07

3,22

3,03

3,66

3,31

3,23

2012

2013

2014

3,66
3,31
3,23
3,08
3,15
3,13
3,07
3,22
3,03

3,08

3,15

3,13

3,07

3,22

3,03

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

863 / 1555

● Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff

Absolute number of public prosecutors by instance and gender (Q55)

2020

Total

Distribution by 
instance

Male

Female

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

302

93

66

461

65,5%

20,2%

14,3%

105

41

35

181

197

52

31

280

Male

34,8%

44,1%

53,0%

39,3%

Female

65,2%

55,9%

47,0%

60,7%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance

Latvia

EU Median

73,30%

EU Median

65,5%

73,30%

21,28%

20,2%

4,66%

21,28%

14,3%

4,66%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance and gender

Female

Male

65,2%

34,8%

55,9%

44,1%

47,0%

53,0%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

60,7%

39,3%

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female prosecutors (all instances) is 280, which represents 60,7% of the total number of prosecutors.

The total number of prosecutors is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 302 in first instance (of which 197 are female); 93 are in second instance (of 
which 52 are female)  and 66 in final instance (of which 31 are female).  

As regards the distribution male/female, it has to be specified that female prosecutors do not have the majority only at third instance. Regarding the decrease in the number of women 
working in the Prosecutor General's Office, it must be concluded that in total the number of women working has decreased by 8 persons. One of the reasons could be reaching the 
maximum age for performing the duties prescribed by law or the death of a person.

The increase in the number of prosecutors at the District courts level prosecutor's offices is related to the imposition of an obligation on the prosecutor and not on the chief prosecutor to 
perform the duties of a higher prosecutor.

Non-prosecutor staff by gender (Q60)

Non-prosecutor staff

Total

2020

397

Male

111

Female

286

Non-prosecutor staff by gender

28%

Male

Female

72%

Public prosecutors, non-prosecutor staff and their ratio (Q55, Q60)

Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Latvia

EU median

Public prosecutors

24,35

Non-prosecutor staff

20,97

Non-prosecutor staff per 
prosecutor

0,86

9,91

15,22

1,11

Public prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per prosecutor

24,35

20,97

0,86

Latvia

1,11

15,22

9,91

EU median

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

864 / 1555

● Salaries of professional judges and prosecutors at beginning of a career and at the highest instance (Q132, Q4)

Salaries of professional judges and 
prosecutors (Q132, Q4)

Average gross annual 
salary 
in €

Average net annual 
salary 
in €

Ratio with national 
average annual 
gross salary

Judge at the beginning of a career 

34 104 €

23 859 €

Judge of the highest court 

56 093 €

39 690 €

Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

33 396 €

23 376 €

Public prosecutor at highest instance

41 411 €

28 842 €

2,49

4,09

2,43

3,02

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual salary in the 
country

Salaries of 
judges and 
prosecutors in 
Judge

4,09

EU Median

4,09

2,02

2,02
2,49

4,09

1,71

at the beginning 
of a career

3,02

3,61

34104

2,43

at the highest 
1,71
instance

56093

33396

Prosecutor

at the beginning 
of a career

Judge at the beginning of
career

Judge on highest instance

3,61

Latvia

Prosecutor at the
beginning of career

EU Median

at the highest 
instance

Prosecutor at highest
instance

41411

According to 2020 data, the absolute gross salary of a judge at the begining of a career in Latvia of 34 104€ is somewhat below when compared to the EU median of 51 946€. As a ratio 
with the annual average salary of the country, the salary for a judge at the begining of career is: 2,49 compared with EU median of : 2,02.

It is to be noticed that the data provided indicates the minimum gross and net public remuneration.

Prosecutors shall be entitled to a supplement for the ranking of the public prosecutor, depending on the degree of office assigned. The ranking of a public prosecutor shall be assigned 
according to the position, professional knowledge, qualifications and experience of work.

Discrepancies with data from the previous cycle are connected with changes in the Law On Remuneration of Officials and Employees of State and Local Government Authorities. Between 
2019 and 2020 a gradual increase in salary has been introduced, the gross salary has been increased per EUR 1764 and the net annual salary per EUR 1203. 

The salaries of judges are reviewed annually according to the law. 

● Lawyers

Lawyers

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

Number of lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

1 343

1 336

1 363

1 363

1 231

1 370

1 218

1 357

1 370

65,68

66,01

68,10

69,22

62,52

70,25

63,44

71,13

72,36

EU median 2020

122,09

In 2020, there are 1 370 lawyers, which is 1,0% more than in 2019.

65,68

66,01

68,10

69,22

62,52

70,25

63,44

71,13

72,36

122,09

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median
2020

Latvia has 72,4 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants, which is below the EU median of 122,1 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

865 / 1555

● Judicial professionals (summary)

Judicial professionals in absolute number and per 100 000 inhabitants (Q46, Q52, Q55, Q60, Q146)

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

EU Median

Professional judges

521

27,31

23,92

Non-judge staff

1 666

88,00

59,00

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Latvia

EU Median

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

461

397

24,35

9,91

88,00

59,00

20,97

15,22

27,31

23,92

24,35

9,91

20,97

15,22

122,09

72,36

Lawyers

1 370

72,36

122,09

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

% Male

% Female

Professional judges

19,1%

Non judge staff

7,8%

80,9%

92,2%

Prosecutors

39,3%

60,7%

Non-prosecutor staff

28,0%

72,0%

Lawyers

50,9%

49,1%

Professional judges

Latvia % Male
Latvia % Male
-19,1%
EU Median  % Male

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

Latvia % Female labels

80,9%

Latvia % Female
19,1%
EU Median  % Female

61,0%

39,0%

Professional judges

-39,0%

19,1%

39,0%

Non judge staff

Non judge staff

-7,8%

7,8%

92,2%

24,0%

-24,0%

76,0%

24,0%

0,0%

7,8%

80,9%

61,0%

92,2%

76,0%

Prosecutors

39,3%

40,5%

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

28,0%

Non-prosecutor staff

28,1%

Lawyers

Lawyers

50,9%

-39,3%
-40,5%

-28,0%
-28,1%

-50,9%
-52,3%

60,7%
59,5%

72,0%
71,9%

49,1%
47,7%

60,7%

59,5%

72,0%

71,9%

0,0%

39,3%
40,5%
0,0%
28,0%
28,1%
0,0%
50,9%
52,3%

49,1%

52,3%

47,7%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

866 / 1555

3. Legal aid and court fees in Latvia

0

1

In Latvia, legal aid includes:

◦ Coverage of court fees: 

◦ Exemption from court fees: 

In Latvia, legal aid is available for :

> Representation in court:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

> Legal advice, ADR and other legal services:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

>

Fees related to enforcement of judicial decisions as fees for enforcement agents (Q18) 

>

 Other costs than above (Q19) 

1

1

1

1

0

1

It is noteworthy that the state provides legal aid in respect of representation in court and legal advice, but also for preparation of procedural documents in all types of cases and in 
criminal cases for representation in the pre-trial criminal proceedings. 

The negative reply provided with regard to enforcement procedures should be put into perspective. In fact, in the Republic of Latvia there is another mechanism, allowing persons 
receiving support at the enforcement of judicial decisions stage. Namely a legal framework that provides for exemptions from payment of enforcement expenditures on the basis 
of the law (Section 567 of the Civil Procedure Law). Moreover, in accordance with Section 11 of the Cabinet of Ministers Regulations No 454 of 26 June 2012 “Regulations on the 
Remuneration Rates of Sworn Bailiffs”, a sworn bailiff has the right to reduce the remuneration fees.

With regard to "other costs", in the Republic of Latvia there is another mechanism - a legal framework that provides for exemptions from payment of court costs granted on the 
basis of the law by the judge in civil proceedings (Section 43 of the Civil Procedure Law). Besides, the Criminal Procedure Law stipulates which costs, for example, conducting of 
inspections, shall be assumed by the State. The mentioned regulation is applying to court proceedings and exemptions rules in their respect (for example concerning the expertise 
costs etc).
In addition, according to the State Ensured Legal Aid Law, in cross-borders cases, a person has the right to receive the following: 1) services of an interpreter; 2) translation of 
documents requested by the court or the competent authority and submitted by the recipient of legal aid, which are necessary for adjudication of the matter; 3) payment of 
expenses related to the attendance at court sittings, if the presence of the person in court is provided for by the law or if the court requests so, deciding that the relevant person 
cannot be heard in another way (the Legal Aid Administration makes a decision).

In accordance with the Cabinet of Ministers Regulation No 1493 of 22 December 2009 “Regulations Regarding the Amount of State-ensured Legal Aid, the Amount of Payment, 
Reimbursable Expenses and the Procedures for Payment Thereof”, if legal aid is provided outside the place of practice of the provider of legal aid, his or her travelling (transport) 
expenses and hotel (accommodation) expenses shall be covered from the State budget. It is relevant for all cases – civil, administrative and criminal. In asylum cases and cases 
related to foreigners who are obligated to be returned, the responsible institution – the Office of Citizenship and Migration Affairs or the Legal Aid Administration – shall ensure the 
communication of the applicant for legal aid with the provider of legal aid, which covers costs of the interpretation services.

An individual can be exempted, for example, from expertise, interpreters and travel expenses (in cross border disputes). If the legal aid is provided outside the place of practice of 
the provider of legal aid, his or her travelling (transport) expenses and hotel (accommodation) expenses also shall be covered from the State budget.  

 Number of cases for which legal aid has been granted

The Legal Aid Administration is the competent authority of providing the State ensured legal aid in a Constitutional Court process, in civil matters and certain types of 
administrative cases. It cannot identify data on legal aid granted specifically to cases referred to court. It is noteworthy that one case can last for several years. Consequently, in a 
given year the Legal Aid Administration shall provide legal aid both in cases undertaken in the previous years and new cases. In criminal proceedings, the advocate shall provide 
the State ensured legal aid upon a request from the person directing the criminal proceedings to the elder of the sworn advocates or if urgent in conformity with the schedule of 
the advocates on duty compiled by the elder of the sworn advocates. In these cases, the Legal Aid Administration shall perform payments to an advocate regarding the legal 
assistance provided. The Legal Aid Administration cannot identify data on legal aid granted specifically to cases referred to court.

In 2020, the Legal Aid Administration received 1146 applications requesting State ensured legal aid in a Constitutional Court process, in civil matters and certain types of 
administrative cases. Decisions on ensuring legal aid were adopted in 847 cases, legal aid was ensured in 54 asylum and return cases. According to the data available to the 
Legal Aid Administration, legal aid was provided in approximately 7286 criminal proceedings. 

Timeframes of the procedure for granting legal aid (in relation to the duration from the initial legal aid request to the final approval of the legal aid request)

◦ Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulations: 

◦ Actual average duration: 

21

NA

Applications for legal aid in a Constitutional Court process, in civil matters and certain types of administrative cases shall be reviewed and decision on granting or refusal to grant 
legal aid shall be adopted by the Legal Aid Administration within 21 days, but in matters affecting children's rights - within 14 days from the date of receipt of the application for 
legal aid. Besides, in partial legal aid cases, the Legal Aid Administration takes a decision within one month.

The advocate shall provide the state ensured legal aid in criminal proceedings upon a request from the person directing the criminal proceedings to the senior of the sworn 
advocates (process takes maximum 3 days, the estimated term in criminal cases is fixed in the Criminal Procedure Law) or in urgent cases in conformity with the schedule of the 
advocates on duty compiled by the elder of the sworn advocates.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

867 / 1555

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

868 / 1555

4. Performance of courts in Latvia

● Efficiency indicators

◦ Clearance Rate (CR) and Disposition Time (DT)

The Clearance Rate shows the capacity of a judicial system to deal with the incoming cases. A Clearance Rate of 100% and higher does not generate backlog. 

The Disposition Time determines the estimated number of days necessary for a pending case to be solved in a court. 

First instance Total of other than criminal cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Evolution of number of all other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants
Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Incoming

3,55

3,80

3,59

3,99

4,01

3,61

,

9
6
5
1

,

5
8
5
1

,

9
1
6
1

,

5
3
6
1

,

9
3
6
1

,

7
5
6
1

,

2
5
6
1

,

6
5
6
1

,

2
7
8
1

5
5
3

,

9
9
3

,

3
0
2

,

0
8
3

,

1
0
4

,

3
8
1

,

9
5
3

,

1
6
3

,

7
7
1

,

4
6
1

,

9
4
1

,

0
3
1

,

9
2
1

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2,03

1,83

1,77

1,64

1,49

1,30

0
6
6

,

1,29

6
6
2

,

1,30

1
7
8
1

,

15,69

,

8
2
9
1

,

9
0
9
1

15,85

16,19

16,39

16,52

16,35

16,57

16,56

2
8
6

,

18,72

0
3
1

,

5
4
1

18,71

,

19,28
2019

6,82

19,09

2020

6,60

1,45
EU median
2,66

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Latvia (19,28 per 100 inhabitants) is well above the EU median (6,82 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Latvia (19,09 per 100 inhabitants) is well above the EU median (6,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Latvia (1,45 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below the EU median (2,66 per 100 inhabitants).

It should be mentioned that the number of incoming and resolved cases of general civil (commercial) non litigious cases are higher in 2020 because there was a 
significant increase in applications concerning undisputed enforcements. Usually, cases pertaining to undisputed enforcement are submitted electronically and solved 
through a written procedure. The increment of such cases is probably closely connected with activities of creditors` intensity.

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Other than criminal cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

112%

106%

100%

101%

101%

101%

100%

100%

99%

186

167

179

38

33

29

28

25

28

EU median

99%

109

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Other than criminal 
cases

112%

106%

100%

101%

101%

101%

100%

100%

99%

99%

DT (days)

CR (%)

186

2012

167

2013

179

2014

38

33

29

28

25

28

109

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 99,0% in 2020 Latvia seems to be able to deal with its other than criminal cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -1,0 points.

In 2020, other than criminal cases are solved in approximately 28 days, which is significantly below the EU median of 109 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 9,5% increase of the Disposition Time.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

869 / 1555

First instance Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of civil and commercial litigious cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

4
5
2

,

6
1
2

,

7
6
1

,

0
2
2

,

1
0
2

,

5
2
2

,

2
2
2

,

8
1
2

,

1
0
2

,

4
1
2

,

9
9
1

,

9
4
1

,

5
5
1

,

2
4
1

,

5
7
1

,

7
4
1

,

7
2
1

,

5
4
1

,

0
5
1

,

8
5
1

,

2
6
1

,

0
0
1

,

7
9
0

,

2,16
2,01
2,25
2,01
1,99
1,47
1,45
1,58
1,53
1,56

4
9
0

,

3
5
1

,

7
4
1

,

6
9
0

,

2,54
2,20
2,22
2,18
2,14
1,75
1,50
1,62
1,47
1,50

6
5
1

,

1,67
1,49
1,55
1,42
1,27
1,00
0,97
0,94
0,96
1,05

0
5
1

,

5
0
1

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Latvia (1,53 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below the EU median (1,56 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Latvia (1,47 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below the EU median (1,50 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Latvia (0,96 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below the EU median (1,05 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

117,7%

109,2%

98,5%

108,6%

107,4%

119,4%

103,4%

102,1%

96,1%

241

247

255

238

217

208

236

213

239

EU Median

98%

221

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

117,7%

109,2%

DT (days)

CR (%)

119,4%

108,6%

107,4%

98,5%

103,4%

102,1%

96,1%

98%

241

2012

247

2013

255

2014

238

2015

217

2016

208

2017

236

2018

213

2019

239

221

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 96,1% in 2020, Latvia seems to face some difficulties in dealing with its civil and commercial litigious cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -6,1 points.

In 2020, the civil and commercial litigious cases are solved in approximately 239 days, which is slightly above the EU median of 221 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 12,2% increase of the Disposition Time.

In Latvia, there are 1 918 civil and commercial litigious cases older than 2 years. This is 10,6% of the total number of pending cases at the end of the year.  The 
decrease in the number of such cases is probably due to the Covid19 restrictions because many old cases were re-classified - when possible and if parties to the 
proceedings agreed to that - from oral to written procedure.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

870 / 1555

First instance Administrative cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of administrative cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

5
2
0

,

1
2
0

,

0
2
0

,

3
2
0

,

4
1
0

,

3
1
0

,

7
1
0

,

2
1
0

,

7
0
0

,

1
1
0

,

2
1
0

,

2
1
0

,

1
1
0

,

7
0
0

,

1
1
0

,

1
1
0

,

7
0
0

,

7
0
0

,

0
1
0

,

0
1
0

,

7
0
0

,

0
1
0

,

0,20
0,14
0,12
0,11
0,12
0,11
0,10
0,10
0,09
0,30

0
1
0

,

6
0
0

,

0,21
0,13
0,07
0,07
0,07
0,07
0,07
0,06
0,06
0,21

1
2
0

,

6
2
0

,

0
3
0

,

0,25
0,23
0,17
0,12
0,11
0,11
0,10
0,10
0,10
0,26

6
0
0

,

9
0
0

,

0
1
0

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Latvia (0,09 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below the EU median (0,30 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Latvia (0,10 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below the EU median (0,26 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Latvia (0,06 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below the EU median (0,21 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Administrative cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

130,5%

163,3%

143,9%

106,0%

95,3%

99,7%

105,2%

105,3%

107,0%

300

203

155

200

228

249

248

225

220

EU Median

100%

388

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Administrative cases

163,3%

143,9%

130,5%

DT (days)

CR (%)

106,0%

95,3%

99,7%

105,2%

105,3%

107,0%

100%

300

2012

203

2013

155

2014

200

2015

228

2016

249

2017

248

2018

225

2019

220

388

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 107,0% in 2020, Latvia seems to be able to deal with its administrative cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased for 1,7 points.

In 2020, the administrative cases are solved in approximately 220 days, which is somewhat below the EU median of 388 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a -2,0% decrease of the Disposition Time.

In Latvia, there are 53 administrative law cases older than 2 years. This is 4,8% of the total number of pending cases at the end of the year.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

871 / 1555

Insolvency cases

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Insolvency cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Insolvency cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

78,0%

68,7%

83,5%

132,5%

124,3%

123,2%

134,0%

121,3%

141,5%

962

1135

1049

626

663

617

553

573

502

EU Median

105%

281

DT (days)

CR (%)

132,5%

124,3%

123,2%

134,0%

121,3%

141,5%

105%

78,0%

68,7%

83,5%

962

2012

1135

2013

1049

2014

626

2015

663

2016

617

2017

553

2018

573

2019

502

281

2020

EU Median

The Clearance Rate was calculated at 141,5% in 2020 for insolvency cases, Latvia seems to deal efficiently with its insolvency cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased by 20,2 points.

In 2020, insolvency cases are solved in a approximately 502 days, which is significantly above the EU median of 281 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a -12,4% decrease of the Disposition Time.

As already mentioned, the pandemic affected the hearings of cases and the procedure, because there were several case groups that were solved through a written 
procedure, affecting the average length of hearings.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

872 / 1555

● First instance Criminal Law Cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

5 895

15 022

13 696

Severe criminal cases 

4 052

Misdemeanour and/or 
minor cases

Other cases

1 843

NAP

8 391

6 631

NAP

7 941

5 755

NAP

7 221

4 502

2 719

NAP

Incoming cases

Latvia

EU Median

9
7
0

,

2
7
0

,

8
3
0

,

Total criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases Resolved casesPending 
Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

0,79

0
6
1

,

8
4
1

,

0,72

0,38

1,60

1,48

0,46

6
4
0

,

Per 100 inhabitants

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 
Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

0,31

0,21

0,10

NAP

0,79

0,44

0,35

NAP

0,72

0,42

0,30

NAP

0,38

0,24

0,14

NAP

Latvia

EU Median

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, and other 
criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases

Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

0,79

0,72

Total

Severe criminal
cases

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

0,38

0,44

0,42

0,24

0,35

0,30

0,14

The number of total incoming criminal cases in 2020 in Latvia (0,79 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below the EU median (1,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total resolved criminal cases in 2020 in Latvia (0,72 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below the EU median (1,48 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total pending criminal cases at the end of 2020 in Latvia (0,38 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below the EU median (0,46 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT)

Total criminal law cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

DT (days)

CR (%)

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 

Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

91,2%

94,6%

86,8%

NAP

192

207

172

NAP

Total Criminal law cases

95,2%

91,2%

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, 
and other criminal law cases 

94,6%

86,8%

EU Median

95,2%

139

EU Median

192

Total

139

EU Median

207

Severe criminal
cases

172

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

With the Clearance Rate calculated at 91,2% in 2020 for total criminal cases, Latvia seems to encounter difficulties in dealing with its total criminal cases.

In 2020, criminal law cases were solved in approximately 192 days, which is somewhat above the EU median of 139 days.

Pursuant to the Criminal Law, criminal offences are divided into criminal violations and crimes distinguished by their nature, degree of the harm and the threat to the 
interests of a person or the society. A criminal violation is an offence for which the law provides for a deprivation of liberty for a term exceeding fifteen days, but not 
exceeding three months (temporary deprivation of liberty), or a type of lesser punishment. Crimes are classified in the following way: less serious crimes (intentional 
offences for which the law provides for a deprivation of liberty for a term exceeding three months but not exceeding three years, as well as offences committed by 
negligence and for which the law provides for a deprivation of liberty for a term up to eight years); serious crimes (intentional offences for which the law provides for a 
deprivation of liberty for a term exceeding three years but not exceeding eight years, as well as offences committed by negligence and for which the law provides for a 
deprivation of liberty for a term exceeding eight years); especially serious crimes (intentional offences for which the law provides for a deprivation of liberty for a term 
exceeding eight years or a life imprisonment.(cid:9)

The number of resolved severe criminal cases decreased because of Covid-19 restrictions, namely the limitations of court work: written procedure, prohibition of face-to-
face meetings, cancellation of court hearings etc. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

873 / 1555

Overall efficiency by instance and by case matter

CR (%)

DT (days)

CR (%)

DT (days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases

96,1%

109,8%

120,7%

Administrative cases

107,0%

119,5%

113,8%

Total criminal law cases

91,2%

101,4%

94,8%

239

220

192

97

138

81

115

286

99

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)
2nd instance

2nd instance

1st instance

Supreme Court

Supreme Court

1st instance

Civil and
commercial
100%
Administrative cases

%
1
6
9

,

,

%
8
9
0
1

,

%
7
0
2
1

,

%
0
7
0
1

96,1%
107,0%

,

%
5
9
1
1

,

%
8
3
1
1

109,8%
119,5%

,

%
4
1
0
1

%
120,7%
8
4
113,8%
9

,

%
2
1
9

,

Total criminal law cases

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

Administrative cases

91,2%

101,4%

Total criminal law
cases

94,8%

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

115

97

239

286

138

220

99

81

192

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

1

1
1

1
1

In 2020, in Latvia, administrative courts prove to be the most efficient. On the one hand, the Clearance Rate indicator is above the 100% threshold at all instances. On 
the other hand, the Disposition Time indicator is below or very close to the respective EU medians (first instance - 388 days, second instance - 362 days and third 
instance - 281 days). It has been indicated that at the Supreme Court level, the number of resolved cases per judge of the Administrative chamber increased (+4) and 
that there was additional judge from the Civil chamber allocated to deal with administrative cases (February-September 2019) and substitute judge working at the 
Supreme Court (September-December 2020). As a result, the Clearance Rate of the Supreme Court for administrative cases in 2019 was 113% and in 2020 it was 
114%.  

In civil matters, only first instance courts indicators were negatively affected in 2020, the Clearance rate being below the 100% threshold and the Disposition Time above 
the EU median of 221 days. At second instance, the number of incoming and resolved civil litigious cases decreased due to the Covid19 pandemic. On March 14, 2020, 
there was the state of emergency that affected the work of appellate courts. In order to mitigate potential risks of virus, oral proceedings that did not involve serious 
violations of rights were cancelled. This restriction directly affected the number of resolved cases. Also, there were restrictions on appearance of persons in the court, 
that affected the number of new claims or requests - incoming cases. The first state of emergency lasted till June 2020. The second state of emergency started in 
November 2020. 

In criminal matters the Clearance Rate remained below the 100% at first and last instances, while the Disposition Time went beyond the respective EU medians (139 
days at first instance and 120 days at third instance). As explained above, the number of resolved first instance severe criminal cases decreased because of Covid-19 
restrictions, namely the limitations of court work: written procedure, prohibition of face-to-face meetings, cancellation of court hearings etc.  As to the Supreme Court, 
during last two years 3 out of 8 judges (after increase of number of judges – 9 judges) have retired. Some additional time was needed to replace them (competition and 
appointment). Accordingly, there was a significant decrease of resolved cases in 2020 (clearance rate was 102% in 2019 and 95% in 2020).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

874 / 1555

5. Public prosecution services in Latvia

● Role and powers of the public prosecutor

In the criminal procedure, the public prosecutor in Latvia has the following 11 out of 11 possible roles and powers:

To conduct or supervise police investigation

To appeal

To conduct investigations

To supervise the enforcement procedure

When necessary, to request investigation measures from the judge

To discontinue a case without needing a decision by a judge

To charge

To present the case in the court

To propose a sentence to the judge

To end the case by imposing or negotiating a penalty or measure 
without requiring a judicial decision

Other significant powers

Public prosecutors are endowed with the responsibility of protecting the interests of minors, incapable and prisoners, participating in proceedings in cases prescribed by the Civil 
Procedure Law.

The public prosecutor also has a role in civil and administrative cases.

A public prosecutor must take part in a civil proceeding if s/he has filed an application, or his or her participation is compulsory. The participation of a public prosecutor in the 
adjudication of a case shall be mandatory if it has been recognised by the court or it has been specified in the norms of the Civil Procedure Law, for example in cases regarding 
approval and revocation of adoption, in cases regarding the determination of limitations on the capacity of a person and the establishment of guardianship due to mental nature or 
other health disorders, etc. A public prosecutor may bring an action or submit an application to a court, if: 1) it is necessary for the protection of the rights and interests of the State 
or local government specified in law; 2) violations of the rights or lawful interests of minors, persons under auspices, persons with disabilities, prisoners or other persons who have 
limited opportunities to defend their rights; 3) by carrying out a public prosecutor's examination;, a violation of the law has been determined.

The rights of a public prosecutor in administrative infringement proceedings from 01.07.2020. shall be governed by Section 56 of the Administrative Liability Act. A public 
prosecutor, in examining information regarding the violation of the Law, is entitled: to initiate an administrative infringement process; to familiarise himself with the materials of the 
case; to submit a protest regarding a decision in a case and a decision taken regarding a complaint in an administrative violation case; to perform other activities provided for in 
the Law of the Prosecutor's Office.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

875 / 1555

● Public prosecutors: Number of first instance criminal cases

Type of cases

Absolute 
number

Per 100 
inhabitants

1. Pending cases on 1 Jan. ref. year 

490

0,03

Public prosecutors: Total number of first instance criminal 
cases per 100 inhabitants

2. Incoming/received cases

12 734

0,67

Incoming/received cases

Processed cases

Incoming/rec
2,85
eived cases

Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. Year
Processed 
2,84
cases

Pendin
g cases 
on 31 

3. Processed cases (3.1 + 3.2 + 3.3 + 3.4)

12 255

0,65

Latvia

0,67 0,65

0,02

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year (3.1.1 + 3.1.2 + 3.1.3 
+ 3.1.4)

1 545

0,08

0,67

0,65

EU Median

2,85 2,84

0,84

0,84

3.1.1 Discontinued by the public prosecutor because the 
offender could not be identified 

16

0,00

0,02

3.1.2 Discontinued by the public prosecutor due to the lack 
of an established offence or a specific legal situation 

3.1.3 Discontinued by the public prosecutor for reasons of 
opportunity

3.1.4 Discontinued for other reasons 

330

0,02

242

957

0,01

0,05

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated 
by the public prosecutor

2 337

0,12

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons

285

0,02

3.4. Cases brought to court

8 088

0,43

Latvia

EU Median

Processed cases per 100 inhabitants

Latvia

EU Median

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

0,08

1,05

Processed cases

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed
or negotiated by the public prosecutor

Latvia

EU Median

0,12

0,12

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other
reasons

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor

-0,08

1,05

0,02

0,30

3.4. Cases brought to court

0,53
3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons
0,30

-0,02

0,43

-0,12

0,12

4. Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. year

362

0,02

3.4. Cases brought to court

-0,43

0,53

3.1.4 "Discontinued for other reasons": for example, cases in which the prosecutor took a decision to terminate criminal proceedings by conditionally releasing from criminal liability 
a person who has been accused of committing a serious crime and who has substantially assisted in the disclosure of a serious or especially serious crime that is more serious or 
dangerous than the criminal offence committed by the relevant person himself / herself. The information compiled in the information system of the Prosecution Office shows that in 
2020, prosecutors took 2 decisions to terminate criminal proceedings based on Paragraph prim of Section 415 of the Criminal Procedure Law. Besides, for 2020, in this category 
are included 955 cases in which criminal proceedings were suspended.

3.3. "Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons": for example, cases in which the Prosecutor General has made a decision to terminate criminal proceedings against 
a person who has substantially assisted in the disclosure of a serious or especially serious crime that is more serious or dangerous than a criminal offence committed by such 
person himself / herself. In 2020, Prosecutor General has not terminated any criminal proceedings based on Article 410 of the Criminal Procedure Law. For 2020, in this category 
are included 285 cases that were sent in accordance with the relevant jurisdiction (including – abroad). 

The number of discontinued cases during the reference year decreased compared to 2018 because 365 cases in which the prosecutor took a decision to terminate the criminal 
proceedings by conditionally releasing a person from criminal liability for the commission of a criminal offense or a less serious crime were included in the category “3.2. 
Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor". This also explains the increase in the latter category. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

876 / 1555

 
6. Existence and use of alternative dispute resolution in Latvia

Number of mediators

Mediators

Total

Per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NAP

NAP

24

38

43

46

52

48

50

NAP

NAP

1,2

1,9

2,2

2,4

2,7

2,5

2,6

EU Median 2020

EU median in 2019

14,4

EU Median
2020

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

Number of mediators per 100 000 inhabitants

14,4

2,6

2,5

2,7

2,4

2,2

1,9

1,2

In 2020, there are 50 accredited or registered mediators who practise court related mediation which represents 2,6 accredited or registered mediators per 100 000 
inhabitants.

The variation between  2019 and  2020 is about 4,2%.

It should be noticed that data is available only about certified mediators. According to the relevant legislation there can be practicing mediators and certified mediators. 
The former is a natural person selected freely by the parties who have agreed to conduct mediation while the latter, is a mediator who, in accordance with the 
procedures laid down in the laws and regulations, has acquired mediation and received a certificate which gives him/her the right to be included in the list of mediators. 
The source of the data is the Council of Certified Mediators (https://sertificetimediatori.lv/mediatori/ )

Number of court related mediations

This type of data is not available in Latvia.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

877 / 1555

7. ICT tools of courts in Latvia

●The ICT tools of courts and for court users

The use of ICT in courts in 2020 has been evaluated as  :

EU Median

Total 
(0 to 10)

Assistance tools (0 to 3)

Case management system (0 to 7)
Financial management tools (0 to 3)

Measurement tools to assess the workload (0 to 5)
Electronic communication (0 to 10)

9,2
2,5

6,7

2,0
5,0

9,6

6,6
2,0

5,2

1,3
2,5

6,9

The calculation of this values for each field is based on the answers for that question/s and weighted according the avaiability 
or deployment rate. The total value is normalised to max 10 points for readability and comparison.

The details of the calculation are given in Annex 5 - IT calculations

The result by area may be summarized in these graphics, where each field has been evaluated from 0 to 4 points.

Note: index is modified based on the available questions. This cycle the recalculation was made for the last three cycles to be 
able to follow the development.

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

2018

2019

2020

EU Median 2020

Case 
management 
system

Financial 
management 
tools

Measurement 
tools to assess 
the workload

Electronic 
communication

Assistance 
tools

Year
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
EU Median 20202,00

2,50

2,50

2,50

6,67

6,67

6,67

6,67

6,67

2,00

6,67

2,00

2,00

5,00

5,00

5,17

5,00

9,44

9,44

9,58

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

2,50

2,50

2,50

2,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

1,25

9,44

9,44

9,58

6,94

5,00

5,00

5,00

2,50

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

In terms of electronic communication:

“Experts”: the tool deployment rate for court experts is about 50%, because the communication is not more than 50% by electronic means, since 
the decisions on the identification of the expert-examination are mainly in paper form, as they come with the expert-examination sites. 

"Enforcement agents": according to the Civil Procedure Law, the enforcement agent electronically submits the application for the corroboration of 
the immovable property in the name of the acquirer to the district (city) court through the Judicial Informative System. Likewise, the enforcement 
agent submits to the district (city) court a request for corroboration regarding making of a recovery notation.

"Notaires": Section E1 of the Notariate Law and other norms govern the electronic communication. There is also a special regulation in the Land 
Register Law, which provides that a sworn notary shall submit documents to the Land Register electronically. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

878 / 1555

8. Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and public prosecution services in Latvia

In Latvia, quality standards are determined for the judicial system at national level (e.g. quality systems for the judiciary and/or judicial quality policies). However, there is no 
specialised personnel within the courts or the public prosecution services entrusted with implementation of these national level quality standards.

According to the Law on Judicial Power Section 27.1. the Court President before the beginning of each calendar year,shall plan and determine the objectives of the court work 
in relation to average time periods for the examination of cases in a court (the standard of time periods for the examination of cases) in cooperation with court judges. The 
standard of time periods for the examination of cases shall be determined by taking into account the court resources and the necessity to ensure the right of a person to the 
examination of a case in a reasonable time period and in conformity with other basic principles for the examination of cases. The Court President shall submit the standard 
case examination time limits for approval to the Judicial Council until 1 February of each year.

In January 15, 2020 the “Visitors service standards of the district (city) courts and regional courts” were approved. This document summarizes the general principles related to 
functions such as judicial reception and providing with information. The standards help court staff to raise their professionalism and understand the court visitors servicing 
values.

● Systems for measuring and evaluating courts' performance

A regular monitoring system of court activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

Implemented business intelligence solution allows to very closely monitor all the mentioned court activities. Satisfaction of court staff and users is being evaluated by regular 
questionnaires in courts.

In Latvia, there is a system to regularly evaluate the court performance based primarily on defined indicators and the frequency of the reporting is annual.

Evaluation of courts activities are done mainly in two ways: every month and on a basis of request. The evaluation can happen for a single court or instance at any time for a 
number of reasons. An annual evaluation of court staff is also carried out, which is essential for high-quality work of courts.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each court.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

The indicators “productivity of judges and court staff” and “number of appeals” are taken into account when assessing the professional activity of a judge, because the 
objective of the assessment of the professional activities of a judge is to promote the continuous professional growth of a judge throughout his or her career, thereby improving 
the quality of the work of the judge and the court. An annual evaluation of court staff is also carried out, which is essential for high-quality work of courts.

The evaluation of the courts' activities is not used for the later allocation of means in the courts.

It is noteworthy that there is a suggestion from the State Audit Office and a subsequent proposal from the Ministry of Justice and the Court administration to the Judiciary 
Council to start to take court work statistical indicators into account when planning annual budget. If necessary, based on workload data resources can be allocated later within 
a court.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

879 / 1555

● Systems for measuring and evaluating public prosecution services' performance

A regular monitoring system of public prosecution services activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases 

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs 

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecution) 

Costs of the judicial procedures 

Clearance rate 

Disposition time 

Percentage of convictions and aquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

In Latvia, there is a system to evaluate regularly the activity of each public prosecution service and the reporting is more frequent than annual.

In accordance with the order of the Prosecutor General, a monthly report is prepared on the results of the public prosecutor's work in pre-trial criminal proceedings and the 
results of the work, which are not related to the progress of pre-trial criminal proceedings.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each public prosecution service.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecutors)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Percentage of convictions and acquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff

The evaluation of the public prosecution services' activities is used for the later allocation of means in the public prosecution services.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

880 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table General Data: Economic and demographic data, in absolute values (Q1, Q3, Q5)

Q1 Number of inhabitants

2 044 813

2 023 825

2 001 468

1 969 000

1 968 957

1 950 116

1 919 968

1 907 675

1 893 223

-7,4%

-1,0%

-1,1%

-1,6%

0,0%

-1,0%

-1,5%

-0,6%

-0,8%

Q.3 GDP Per capita (in €) in current prices

10 858

11 575

12 065

12 329

12 762

13 855

15 136

15 928

15 431

42,1%

6,6%

4,2%

2,2%

3,5%

8,6%

9,2%

5,2%

-3,1%

Q5. Exchange rate of Nat currency to € on 1 Jan

1

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Indicator 1: Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and prosecution services  (Indicator 4 in 2019)

Table 1.1 to Table 1.10 (Q66, Q67, Q77, Q78, Q77-1, Q78-1, Q73, Q73-0, Q73-1, Q73-2, Q73-3, Q73-4, Q73-5, Q73-6, Q70, Q70-1, Q71, Q72, Q83-2, Q83-3, Q120 
and Q120-1)

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

66 Qlty standards formulated_jud system

67 Specialised court staff entrusted_qlty standards

77 Performance and quality indicators of court activities

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

078.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078.1.5 Backlogs 

078.1.6 Productivity of judges and court staff

078.1.7 Satisfaction of court staff 

078.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts) 

078.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078.1.10 Number of appeals

078.1.11 Appeal ratio

078.1.12 Clearance rate 

078.1.13 Disposition time 

078.1.14 Other

077-1.1.1 Defined performance and quality indicators

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

881 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

078-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078-1.1.5 Backlogs 

078-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

078-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

078-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

078-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

078-1.1.11 Disposition time 

078-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

078-1.1.13 Other

73 Regular system_evaluation_performance_each court

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

073-0.1.1 Annual

073-0.1.2 Less frequent

073-0.1.3 More frequent

073-1.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
court

073-2.1.1 Courses of action taken in the evaluation is used for the 
allocation of resources

073-2.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-2.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-2.1.4 Other

073-3.1.1 Regular evaluation of the public prosecution services 
performance

Yes

Yes

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

882 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

073-4.1.1 Annual

073-4.1.2 Less frequent

073-4.1.3 More frequent

073-5.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
public prosecution services

073-6.1.1 Identifying the causes of improved or deteriorated 
performance

073-6.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-6.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-6.1.4 Other

070.1.1 number of incoming cases

070.1.2 length of proceedings (timeframes)

070.1.3 number of resolved cases

070.1.4 number of pending cases

070.1.5 backlogs

070.1.6 productivity of judges and court staff

070.1.7 satisfaction of court staff

070.1.8 satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts)

070.1.9 costs of the judicial procedures

070.1.10 number of appeals

070.1.11 appeal ratio

070.1.12 clearance rate

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

883 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

070-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases 

070-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

070-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

070-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

070-1.1.5 Backlogs 

070-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

070-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

070-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

070-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

070-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

070-1.1.11 Disposition time 

070-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

070-1.1.13 Other

071.1.1 Monitoring backlogs in Civil law cases

071.1.2 Monitoring backlogs in Criminal law cases

071.1.3 Monitoring backlogs in Administrative law cases

072.1.1 Monitoring timeframes Within the courts

072.1.2 Monitoring timeframes Within the public prosecution services

083-2.1.1 Quantitative performance tagets defined for each 
prosecutors

083-3.1.1 Body responsible - Executive power (for example the 
Ministry of Justice)

083-3.1.2 Body responsible - Prosecutor General /State public 
prosecutor

083-3.1.3 Body responsible - Public Prosecutorial Council

083-3.1.4 Body responsible - Head of the organisational unit or 
hierarchically superior public prosecutor

083-3.1.5 Body responsible - Other

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

True

False

True

True

True

True

False

True

False

False

False

True

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

884 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

120.1.1 Qualitative individual assessment of the public prosecutors' 
work

120-1.1.1 Feequency - Annual

120-1.1.2 Feequency - Less frequent

120-1.1.3 Feequency - More frequent

Indicator 2: The judicial organisation

Tables 2.1a; 2.1b; 2.2a; 2.2b; 2.3a; 2.3b; 2.4 and 2.5(EC) (Q42, Q43 and Q44)

Q42.1.1Total number of all courts - legal entities 

Q42.1.2 Total number of courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.3 First instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.4 Second instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.5 Highest instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.6 Total number of specialised courts - legal entities

43.1.1 Total number of specialised courts of first instance

43.1.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.1.3 Insolvency courts

43.1.4 Labour courts

43.1.5 Family courts

43.1.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.1.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.1.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.1.9 Internet related disputes

43.1.10 Administrative courts

-

-

34

-

-

-

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

-

-

34

-

-

-

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

43.1.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

NAP

NAP

43.1.12 Military courts

43.1.13 Juvenile courts

NA

-

NA

-

-

-

34

-

-

-

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

28

-

-

-

5

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

5

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

28

-

-

-

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

25

-

-

-

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

9

-

-

-

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

9

-

-

-

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NA

-

True

False

True

False

17

15

9

5

1

2

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-73,5%

0,0%

0,0%

-17,6%

0,0%

-10,7%

-64,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

400,0%

-80,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

400,0%

-80,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

NAP

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

885 / 1555

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

43.1.14 Other specialised courts

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

43.2.1 Total number of specialised courts of higher instances

43.2.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.2.3 Insolvency courts

43.2.4 Labour courts

43.2.5 Family courts

43.2.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.2.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.2.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.2.9 Internet related disputes

43.2.10 Administrative courts

43.2.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.2.12 Military courts

43.2.13 Juvenile courts

43.2.14 Other specialised courts

44.1.1 First instance courts geographic locations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

44.1.2 All courts geographic locations

48

48

48

49

42

47

52

56

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

47

55

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

14,6%

0,0%

0,0%

2,1%

-14,3%

11,9%

10,6%

7,7%

-1,8%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

886 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 3: The performance of courts at all stages of the proceedings

Tables 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.4 (all years) Number of other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 Variation of first instance other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants (Q1, Q91)

Table 3.13.7 (EC) to 3.13.12 (EC) First instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

91.1.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.1.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.1.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.1.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.1.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.1.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.1.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.1.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

91.1.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.1.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

91.1.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

91.2.1 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.2.2 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.2.3 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.2.4 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.2.5 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.2.6 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.2.7 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.2.8 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

91.2.9 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

48 647

41 425

35 793

37 504

32 312

29 430

25 433

24 757

23 847

-51,0%

-14,8%

-13,6%

4,8%

-13,8%

-8,9%

-13,6%

-2,7%

-3,7%

42 051

33 818

30 395

31 407

28 001

25 078

19 522

18 609

17 006

-59,6%

-19,6%

-10,1%

3,3%

-10,8%

-10,4%

-22,2%

-4,7%

-8,6%

-

-

3 438

3 185

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

4 213

4 213

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4 671

4 671

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

3 018

3 018

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2 947

4 499

4 836

5 628

-

-

-

10,9%

-35,4%

-2,4%

52,7%

7,5%

16,4%

2 947

4 499

4 836

5 628

63,7%

-7,4%

32,3%

10,9%

-35,4%

-2,4%

52,7%

7,5%

16,4%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5 496

4 422

2 510

1 426

1 293

1 405

1 412

1 312

1 213

-77,9%

-19,5%

-43,2%

-43,2%

-9,3%

8,7%

0,5%

-7,1%

-7,5%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

72 547

76 869

71 939

308 909

318 677

319 637

317 227

357 072

365 086

403,2%

6,0%

-6,4%

329,4%

3,2%

0,3%

-0,8%

12,6%

2,2%

44 106

40 747

45 127

39 504

39 260

28 652

27 778

30 196

28 907

-34,5%

-7,6%

10,7%

-12,5%

-0,6%

-27,0%

-3,1%

8,7%

-4,3%

-

-

28 691

267 173

277 057

288 911

287 606

325 004

334 482

-

-

-

831,2%

3,7%

4,3%

-0,5%

13,0%

2,9%

29 068

33 257

28 691

29 066

29 479

43 123

42 345

44 727

59 368

104,2%

14,4%

-13,7%

1,3%

1,4%

46,3%

-1,8%

5,6%

32,7%

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

238 107

247 578

245 788

245 261

280 277

275 114

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

238 107

247 578

245 788

245 261

280 277

275 114

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4,0%

-0,7%

-0,2%

14,3%

-1,8%

4,0%

-0,7%

-0,2%

14,3%

-1,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

91.2.10 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

3 989

2 865

2 387

2 232

2 360

2 074

1 843

1 872

1 697

-57,5%

-28,2%

-16,7%

-6,5%

5,7%

-12,1%

-11,1%

1,6%

-9,3%

91.2.11 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

887 / 1555

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

91.3.1 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.3.2 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.3.3 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.3.4 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.3.5 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.3.6 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.3.7 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.3.8 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

91.3.9 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

81 520

81 225

72 254

312 004

321 955

323 093

317 970

357 017

361 417

343,3%

-0,4%

-11,0%

331,8%

3,2%

0,4%

-1,6%

12,3%

1,2%

51 930

44 500

44 438

42 910

42 183

34 197

28 712

30 836

27 766

-46,5%

-14,3%

-0,1%

-3,4%

-1,7%

-18,9%

-16,0%

7,4%

-10,0%

-

-

28 718

266 729

277 524

286 829

287 320

324 210

331 836

-

-

-

828,8%

4,0%

3,4%

0,2%

12,8%

2,4%

29 483

32 046

28 718

30 719

29 550

41 571

42 059

43 933

56 722

92,4%

8,7%

-10,4%

7,0%

-3,8%

40,7%

1,2%

4,5%

29,1%

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

236 010

247 974

245 258

245 261

280 277

275 114

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

236 010

247 974

245 258

245 261

280 277

275 114

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5,1%

-1,1%

0,0%

14,3%

-1,8%

5,1%

-1,1%

0,0%

14,3%

-1,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

91.3.10 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

5 205

4 679

3 436

2 365

2 248

2 067

1 938

1 971

1 815

-65,1%

-10,1%

-26,6%

-31,2%

-4,9%

-8,1%

-6,2%

1,7%

-7,9%

91.3.11 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

91.4.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.4.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.4.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.4.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.4.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.4.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.4.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.4.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

91.4.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.4.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

91.4.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

41 530

37 069

35 478

32 312

29 430

25 444

24 690

24 812

27 516

-33,7%

-10,7%

-4,3%

-8,9%

-8,9%

-13,5%

-3,0%

0,5%

10,9%

34 227

30 065

31 084

28 001

25 078

19 533

18 588

17 969

18 147

-47,0%

-12,2%

3,4%

-9,9%

-10,4%

-22,1%

-4,8%

-3,3%

1,0%

-

-

3 023

4 396

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

4 186

4 186

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

3 018

3 018

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2 947

2 947

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4 499

4 785

5 630

8 274

-

-

-

-27,9%

-2,4%

52,7%

6,4%

17,7%

47,0%

4 499

4 785

5 630

8 274

173,7%

45,4%

-4,8%

-27,9%

-2,4%

52,7%

6,4%

17,7%

47,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4 280

2 608

1 461

1 293

1 405

1 412

1 317

1 213

1 095

-74,4%

-39,1%

-44,0%

-11,5%

8,7%

0,5%

-6,7%

-7,9%

-9,7%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

888 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.2 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.4 to 3.3.7 Variation of Clearence Rate and Disposition Time of first instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

Table 3.13.1 (EC) to 3.13.6 (EC) First instance courts: Disposition time and clearance rate for other than criminal cases  (Q91)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

112,4%

105,7%

100,4%

101,0%

101,0%

101,1%

100,2%

100,0%

99,0%

(11,90)

(5,96)

(4,95)

0,56

0,03

0,05

(0,84)

(0,25)

(0,99)

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

117,7%

109,2%

98,5%

108,6%

107,4%

119,4%

103,4%

102,1%

96,1%

(18,42)

(7,24)

(9,83)

10,31

(1,08)

11,08

(13,40)

(1,20)

(5,94)

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

-

-

100,1%

99,8%

100,2%

99,3%

99,9%

99,8%

99,2%

-

-

-

(0,26)

0,34

(0,89)

0,63

(0,15)

(0,55)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

101,4%

96,4%

100,1%

105,7%

100,2%

96,4%

99,3%

98,2%

95,5%

(5,80)

(5,00)

3,88

5,59

(5,15)

(3,83)

3,03

(1,11)

(2,73)

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

99,1%

100,2%

99,8%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

99,1%

100,2%

99,8%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,05

(0,37)

0,22

1,05

(0,37)

0,22

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CR Administrative law cases

130,5%

163,3%

143,9%

106,0%

95,3%

99,7%

105,2%

105,3%

107,0%

(18,03)

25,16

(11,86)

(26,39)

(10,10)

4,63

5,51

0,13

1,58

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

186

241

-

37

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

300

NAP

167

247

-

50

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

203

NAP

179

255

53

53

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

155

NAP

38

238

4

36

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

200

NAP

33

217

4

36

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

228

NAP

29

208

6

40

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

249

NAP

28

236

6

42

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

248

NAP

25

213

6

47

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

225

NAP

28

-85,1%

-10,4%

7,6%

-78,9%

-11,7%

-13,8%

-1,4%

-10,5%

9,5%

239

-0,8%

2,5%

3,5%

-6,7%

-8,9%

-3,9%

13,3%

-10,0%

12,2%

9

-

-

-

-92,2%

-6,2%

47,7%

6,2%

4,3%

43,6%

53

42,3%

33,8%

6,3%

-32,6%

1,5%

8,5%

5,1%

12,6%

13,8%

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

220

-26,6%

-32,2%

-23,7%

28,6%

14,3%

9,3%

-0,5%

-9,4%

-2,0%

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

889 / 1555

      
        
        
         
         
         
        
        
        
      
        
        
       
        
       
      
        
        
        
         
        
         
        
        
        
        
         
         
        
        
         
        
        
         
        
         
           
           
         
        
         
           
           
      
       
      
      
      
         
         
         
         
Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.4.1 (all years) First instance courts, number of cases for specific case categories (Q101)

101.1.1 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Litigious divorce case

1 905

1 649

1 454

1 565

1 426

1 304

1 178

1 099

1 046

-45,1%

-13,4%

-11,8%

7,6%

-8,9%

-8,6%

-9,7%

-6,7%

-4,8%

101.1.2 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Employment dismissal case

101.1.3 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Insolvency

101.2.1 Incoming cases_Litigious divorce case

101.2.2 Incoming cases_Employment dismissal case

101.2.3 Incoming cases_Insolvency

101.3.1 Resolved cases_Litigious divorce case

101.3.2 Resolved cases_Employment dismissal case

101.3.3 Resolved cases_Insolvency

101.4.1 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Litigious divorce case

101.4.2 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Employment dismissal case

994

4 825

2 389

549

2 626

2 645

764

2 049

1 649

779

779

5 402

2 098

575

2 961

2 293

755

2 035

1 454

599

599

6 328

2 035

557

2 832

1 968

622

2 364

1 521

534

570

6 643

1 815

442

2 557

1 954

615

3 388

1 426

397

397

5 812

1 805

462

2 323

1 927

551

2 888

1 304

308

308

276

203

211

-78,8%

-21,6%

-23,1%

-4,8%

-30,4%

-22,4%

-10,4%

-26,4%

3,9%

5 247

4 718

4 041

3 643

-24,5%

12,0%

17,1%

5,0%

-12,5%

-9,7%

-10,1%

-14,3%

-9,8%

1 616

1 569

1 534

1 254

-47,5%

-12,2%

-3,0%

-10,8%

-0,6%

-10,5%

-2,9%

-2,2%

-18,3%

409

355

330

341

-37,9%

4,7%

-3,1%

-20,6%

4,5%

-11,5%

-13,2%

-7,0%

3,3%

2 266

1 990

1 908

1 542

-41,3%

12,8%

-4,4%

-9,7%

-9,2%

-2,5%

-12,2%

-4,1%

-19,2%

1 741

1 648

1 589

1 327

-49,8%

-13,3%

-14,2%

-0,7%

-1,4%

-9,7%

-5,3%

-3,6%

-16,5%

441

427

322

353

-53,8%

-1,2%

-17,6%

-1,1%

-10,4%

-20,0%

-3,2%

-24,6%

9,6%

2 792

2 666

2 314

2 182

6,5%

-0,7%

16,2%

43,3%

-14,8%

-3,3%

-4,5%

-13,2%

-5,7%

1 179

1 099

1 044

973

-41,0%

-11,8%

4,6%

-6,2%

-8,6%

-9,6%

-6,8%

-5,0%

-6,8%

276

204

211

199

-74,5%

-23,1%

-10,9%

-25,7%

-22,4%

-10,4%

-26,1%

3,4%

-5,7%

101.4.3 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Insolvency

5 402

6 328

6 796

5 812

5 247

4 721

4 042

3 635

3 003

-44,4%

17,1%

7,4%

-14,5%

-9,7%

-10,0%

-14,4%

-10,1%

-17,4%

Table 3.5.1 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for specific case categories (Q101)

Table 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 Variations of CR and DT for specific case categories of first instance cases (Q101)

CR Litigious divorce cases

110,7%

109,3%

96,7%

107,7%

106,8%

107,7%

105,0%

103,6%

105,8%

(4,42)

(1,28)

(11,52)

11,32

(0,84)

0,91

(2,51)

(1,38)

2,16

CR Employment dismissal cases

139,2%

131,3%

111,7%

139,1%

119,3%

107,8%

120,3%

97,6%

103,5%

(25,61)

(5,65)

(14,95)

24,60

(14,29)

(9,59)

11,55

(18,88)

6,09

CR Insolvency cases

78,0%

68,7%

83,5%

132,5%

124,3%

123,2%

134,0%

121,3%

141,5%

81,35

(11,92)

21,46

58,73

(6,17)

(0,89)

8,73

(9,47)

16,68

DT Litigious divorce cases

DT Employment dismissal cases

DT Insolvency cases

228

372

962

231

290

282

313

1 135

1 049

266

236

626

247

204

663

247

228

617

243

174

553

240

239

573

268

17,6%

1,7%

21,9%

-5,6%

-7,3%

0,1%

-1,5%

-1,5%

11,6%

206

-44,7%

-22,2%

8,2%

-24,8%

-13,4%

12,0%

-23,7%

37,2%

-14,0%

502

-47,8%

17,9%

-7,6%

-40,3%

5,9%

-6,9%

-10,3%

3,6%

-12,4%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

890 / 1555

        
        
      
       
        
         
        
        
         
      
        
      
       
      
        
       
      
         
       
      
       
       
        
        
         
        
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.7.1 to 3.7.5 (2019 and 2020) Second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Table 3.9.1 to 3.9.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.1.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.1.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.1.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.1.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.1.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.1.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.1.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.1.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

97.1.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.1.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

97.1.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases 

97.2.1 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.2.2 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.2.3 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.2.4 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.2.5 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.2.6 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.2.7 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.2.8 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

97.2.9 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

4 449

2 362

14

1

13

13

NAP

NAP

NAP

3 152

1 251

23

1

22

22

NAP

NAP

NAP

3 101

1 652

14

14

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 986

1 878

1 435

87

7 553

5 180

147

11

136

136

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

6 897

5 504

95

4

91

91

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

6 965

5 719

6

6

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2 684

2 175

1 823

1 945

1 691

1 528

1 323

1 323

16

16

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

977

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

647

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

500

NAP

28

28

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

594

NAP

6 532

5 619

5 272

4 495

5 331

4 464

4 170

3 384

9

9

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

6

6

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

192

192

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

919

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-29,2%

-1,6%

-13,4%

-19,0%

-16,2%

6,7%

-47,0%

32,1%

2,4%

-9,6%

-13,4%

0,0%

64,3%

-39,1%

14,3%

0,0% 1300,0%

14,3%

69,2%

69,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-5,4%

-23,6%

-31,9%

-33,8%

-22,7%

18,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-8,7%

1,0%

-6,2%

-14,0%

-6,2%

-14,7%

6,3%

3,9%

-6,8%

-16,3%

-6,6%

-18,8%

-35,4%

-93,7%

50,0%

-33,3%

-63,6%

50,0%

50,0%

-33,3%

-33,1%

-33,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-27,3%

-10,7%

-3,9%

-3,6%

-4,1%

-16,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

97.2.10 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

1 909

1 388

1 240

1 192

1 149

1 102

97.2.11 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases 

317

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

891 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.3.1 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.3.2 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.3.3 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.3.4 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.3.5 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.3.6 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.3.7 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.3.8 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

97.3.9 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

7 539

5 246

148

11

137

137

NAP

NAP

NAP

6 939

5 910

110

11

99

99

NAP

NAP

NAP

7 209

5 507

4

4

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

7 066

5 895

5 151

5 006

5 510

4 661

4 143

3 715

24

24

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

6

6

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

193

193

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

97.3.10 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

1 931

1 889

1 698

1 532

1 228

1 008

1 098

97.3.11 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases 

97.4.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.4.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.4.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.4.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.4.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.4.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.4.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.4.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

97.4.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.4.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

97.4.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases

97.5.1 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.5.2 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.5.10 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

214

4 463

2 296

13

1

12

12

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

3 101

1 652

14

-

14

14

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 964

1 435

190

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

NAP

2 857

1 864

16

16

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

977

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2 150

1 899

1 944

1 434

1 512

1 331

1 350

992

1

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

637

NAP

NA

NA

NA

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

568

NAP

156

97

59

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

594

NAP

NA

NA

NA

27

27

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

415

NAP

69

65

3

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-8,0%

3,9%

-2,0%

-16,6%

-12,6%

-2,8%

12,7%

-6,8%

0,1%

-15,4%

-11,1%

-10,3%

-25,7%

-96,4%

500,0%

-75,0%

0,0%

-63,6%

500,0%

-75,0%

-27,7%

-27,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,2%

-10,1%

-9,8%

-19,8%

-17,9%

8,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-30,5%

-7,9%

-24,7%

-11,7%

2,4%

-26,2%

-28,0%

12,8%

-18,9%

-12,0%

1,4%

-26,5%

7,7%

14,3%

-93,8%

-

16,7%

16,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-93,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-26,9%

-31,9%

-34,8%

-10,8%

4,6%

-30,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

892 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 (2019 and 2020): Second instance clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.9.4 and 3.9.5 (2019 and 2020): Variation of second clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

99,8%

100,6%

103,5%

108,2%

104,9%

97,7%

111,4%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

101,3%

107,4%

96,3%

103,4%

104,4%

99,4%

109,8%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

100,7%

115,8%

66,7%

266,7%

100,0%

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

100,0%

275,0%

66,7%

266,7%

100,0%

100,7%

108,8%

100,7%

108,8%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

100,5%

100,5%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

101,2%

136,1%

136,9%

128,5%

106,9%

91,5%

119,5%

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

67,5%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

216

160

32

33

32

32

NAP

NAP

NAP

371

324

163

102

46

-

52

52

NAP

NAP

NAP

277

NAP

145

124

1460

1460

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

210

NAP

111

100

15

15

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

152

NAP

118

104

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

169

NAP

138

119

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

215

NAP

NAP

105

97

51

51

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

138

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,80

2,88

4,51

(3,02)

(6,87)

13,98

6,03

(10,32)

7,34

1,02

(4,85)

10,50

15,01

(42,42)

300,00

(62,50)

175,00

(75,76)

300,00

(62,50)

8,00

8,00

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

34,54

0,62

(6,14)

(16,84)

(14,41)

30,62

-

-

-

-

-

-

-24,5%

-11,3%

-23,2%

5,9%

17,2%

-24,1%

-36,1%

21,1%

-18,9%

4,1%

14,1%

-18,1%

44,9% 3042,9%

-99,0%

-

61,4%

61,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-99,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-25,3%

-24,3%

-27,7%

11,2%

27,4%

-35,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

893 / 1555

         
         
         
        
        
       
         
      
         
         
        
       
       
      
     
      
     
      
     
      
         
         
       
         
        
      
      
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.10.1 to 3.10.5 (2019 and 2020) Supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Table 3.12.1 to 3.12.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of the supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.1.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.1.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.1.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.1.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.1.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.1.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.1.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.1.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

99.1.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.1.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

99.1.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.2.1 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.2.2 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.2.3 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.2.4 High inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.2.5 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.2.6 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.2.7 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.2.8 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

99.2.9 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

2 195

1 852

25

11

14

14

NAP

NAP

NAP

318

NA

2 801

1 594

44

4

40

40

NAP

NAP

NAP

2 590

2 085

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

NA

505

-

2 646

1 420

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

NA

99.2.10 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

1 163

1 226

1 116

99.2.11 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

NA

-

NAP

NA

1 698

1 614

1 651

1 500

1 644

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

671

NAP

NA

938

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

760

NA

741

-

653

1

647

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

-

NAP

869

4

1

1

NAP

NAP

-

958

39

1

1

NAP

NAP

1

851

-

2 379

2 186

2 008

1 953

1 568

1 386

1 082

1 142

1 104

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

993

NA

44

22

23

NAP

NAP

NAP

44

43

NAP

1

NAP

850

210

19

19

NAP

NAP

3

844

NA

22

22

NAP

NAP

1

826

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

18,0%

-

-

-4,9%

2,3%

-9,1%

12,6%

-21,2%

-42,9%

-21,0%

-11,9%

-0,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

100,0%

-

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

58,8%

32,9%

13,3%

14,3%

10,2%

-11,2%

-

-5,5%

-

-

-

-

-

875,0%

-

-8,1%

-8,1%

-2,7%

-10,9%

10,4%

-11,6%

-21,9%

5,5%

-3,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-50,0%

4,5%

-

-

-56,8%

15,8%

-55,8%

15,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-66,7%

5,4%

-9,0%

-11,0%

-14,4%

-0,7%

-2,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

894 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.3.1 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.3.2 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.3.3 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.3.4 High inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.3.5 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.3.6 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.3.7 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.3.8 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

99.3.9 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.3.10 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

99.3.11 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.4.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.4.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.4.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.4.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.4.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.4.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.4.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.4.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry 
cases

99.4.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.4.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative 
law cases

99.4.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.5.1 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.5.2 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.5.10 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

2 385

1 361

48

14

34

34

NAP

NAP

NAP

976

NA

2 609

2 085

19

1

18

18

NAP

NAP

NAP

505

NA

-

-

-

NA

2 463

2 149

2 159

2 295

2 282

1 321

1 170

1 187

1 332

2 957

1 825

72

36

26

26

-

-

10

71

64

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

7

1 060

1 027

-

2 315

1 644

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

NA

671

-

-

-

-

69

NA

957

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

760

NAP

NA

503

-

26

NA

NAP

21

NAP

NAP

5

884

232

43

21

23

NAP

NAP

NAP

43

42

NAP

1

NAP

761

175

19

19

NAP

NAP

2

951

NA

21

21

NAP

NAP

2

940

-

1 614

1 651

1 500

1 158

745

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

869

NA

NA

NA

NA

653

1

608

2

419

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

1

NAP

-

NAP

958

39

NA

NA

NA

1

1

NAP

NAP

1

851

NA

NA

NA

NA

2

2

NAP

NAP

-

737

-

137

13

124

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

24,0%

-

-

-12,7%

0,5%

6,3%

34,1%

25,0%

-42,1%

-11,4%

1,5%

12,2%

50,0%

-1,4%

-63,4%

65,4%

-51,2%

9,5%

157,1%

77,8%

-

-

-

-

-23,5%

-23,5%

-

-

-

-30,0%

-28,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-55,8%

10,5%

100,0%

-54,8%

10,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

8,6%

-3,1%

-13,9%

-13,9%

25,0%

-1,2%

-

-11,3%

-

-

236,2%

-24,6%

-

-

-

2,3%

-9,1%

-22,8%

-21,2%

-41,8%

-22,2%

-12,3%

-6,9%

-31,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

100,0%

0,0%

-

-

0,0%

100,0%

0,0%

100,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

32,9%

13,3%

14,3%

10,2%

-11,2%

-13,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

895 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 Supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.12.4 and 3.12.5 Variation of the supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

85,1%

111,8%

NA

103,5%

98,3%

107,5%

117,5%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

85,4%

128,5%

145,5%

95,3%

108,1%

103,9%

120,7%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

109,1%

350,0%

85,0%

85,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

97,7%

95,5%

100,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

97,7%

100,0%

95,5%

NA

97,7%

100,0%

95,5%

NAP

NAP

NAP

100,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

66,7%

200,0%

83,9%

86,5%

92,0%

89,0%

89,5%

112,7%

113,8%

NA

399

559

144

26

193

193

NAP

NAP

NAP

189

NA

-

286

329

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

NA

231

-

NAP

NA

153

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

270

NAP

NA

239

206

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

359

NA

83,3%

280

204

8

NA

254

187

35

-

184

115

32

NAP

NAP

NAP

8

9

NAP

-

NAP

459

81

19

19

NAP

NAP

183

327

NA

35

35

NAP

NAP

-

286

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

31,25

-

-

(5,05)

9,37

9,29

50,52

13,24

(34,51)

13,45

(3,88)

16,08

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(2,33)

4,76

-

-

2,33

(4,55)

2,38

(4,55)

-

-

-

-

-

200,00

3,03

6,44

(3,26)

0,57

25,86

1,00

-

-28,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

17,2%

-9,6%

-27,4%

-41,2%

-53,4%

34,5%

-1,0%

-8,2%

-38,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

309,5%

-8,7%

-

-

126,3%

81,0%

121,1%

81,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

22,3%

16,9%

32,8%

28,1%

-28,9%

-12,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

896 / 1555

       
        
         
         
       
       
      
       
        
       
        
         
         
        
         
        
     
         
         
        
         
       
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.14.1 to 3.14.5 First instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

094.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

094.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

094.2.1 Total -incoming

094.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

094.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

094.2.4 Other - incoming

094.3.1 Total - resolved

094.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

094.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

094.3.4 Other - resolved

094.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

094.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

094.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

094.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

5 895

4 052

1 843

NAP

15 022

8 391

6 631

NAP

13 696

7 941

5 755

NAP

7 221

4 502

2 719

NAP

913

898

15

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

897 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.15.1 to 3.10.2 CR and DT for first instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

098.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

098.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

098.2.1 Total -incoming

098.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

098.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

098.2.4 Other - incoming

098.3.1 Total - resolved

098.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

098.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

098.3.4 Other - resolved

Table 3.16.1 to 3.16.5 Second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

91,2%

94,6%

86,8%

NAP

192

207

172

NAP

650

450

200

NAP

2 736

1 344

1 392

NAP

2 774

1 352

1 422

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

898 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

098.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

098.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

098.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

098.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

612

442

170

NAP

20

20

-

NAP

Table 3.17.1 to 3.17.2 CR and DT for second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

101,4%

100,6%

102,2%

NAP

81

119

44

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

899 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.18.1 to 3.18.5 Supreme court criminal law cases (Q100)

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

100.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

100.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

100.2.1 Total -incoming

100.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

100.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

100.2.4 Other - incoming

100.3.1 Total - resolved

100.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

100.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

100.3.4 Other - resolved

100.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

100.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

100.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

100.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

141

NA

NA

NA

686

NA

NA

NA

650

NA

NA

NA

177

NA

NA

NA

-

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

900 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.19.1 to 3.19.2 CR and DT for supreme court  criminal law cases (Q100)

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

94,8%

NA

NA

NA

99

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

901 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 5: Access to justice

Legal aid

Table 5.1 to Table 5.6 (Q12-2, Q16, Q18, Q19, Q20, Q20-1)

12-2.1.1 Coverage of court fees

12-2.1.2 Exemption from court fees

16.1.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (criminal cases)

16.1.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (criminal cases)

16.2.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (other than criminal 
cases)

16.2.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (other than criminal cases)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

-

-

-

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

18.1.1 Legal aid for the enforcement of judicial decisions

False

False

False

False

False

19.1.1  Legal aid granted for other costs - criminal cases

19.1.2  Legal aid granted for other costs - other than criminal cases

020.1.1 Total

020.1.2 Total - criminal cases

020.1.3 Total - other than criminal cases

020.2.1 Total brought to court

020.2.2 Broight to court - criminal cases

020.2.3 Brought to court - other then criminal

020.3.1 Total not brought to court

020.3.2 Not broight to court - criminal cases

020.3.3 Not brought to court - other then criminal

020-1.1.1 Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulation

020-1.1.2 Average duration

True

True

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

21

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

902 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

System for compensating users

Table 5.7.1 and Table 5.7.2 (Q37)

037.1.1 Requests for compensation - Total

037.1.2 Requests for compensation - Excessive length of 
proceedings

037.1.3 Requests for compensation - Non-execution of court 
decisions

037.1.4 Requests for compensation - Wrongful arrest

037.1.5 Requests for compensation - Wrongful conviction

037.1.6 Requests for compensation - Other

037.2.1 Condemnations - Total

037.2.2 Condemnations - Excessive length of proceedings

037.2.3 Condemnations - Non-execution of court decisions

037.2.4 Condemnations - Wrongful arrest

037.2.5 Condemnations - Wrongful conviction

037.2.6 Condemnations - Other

037.3.1 Amount - Total

037.3.2 Amount - Excessive length of proceedings

037.3.3 Amount - Non-execution of court decisions

037.3.4 Amount - Wrongful arrest

037.3.5 Amount - Wrongful conviction

037.3.6 Amount - Other

45

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

103 420 €

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

903 / 1555

       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 6.1 to Table 6.11 (Q62-7, Q62-7-1, Q62-8,  Q62-8-1, Q63-1, Q63-1-1, Q63-2 Q63-6, Q63-7, Q63-7-1, Q64-2,  Q64-4, Q64-6, Q64-3, Q64-3-1, Q64-7, Q64-7-1, 
Q64-9)

Indicator 6: The ICT tools of courts and for court users

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

62-7 Writing assistance tools coordinated at national level

62-7-1.1 Deployment rate in civil matter

62-7-1.2 Deployment rate in criminal matter

62-7-1.3 Deployment rate in administrative matter

62-8 Voice recording tools

62-8-1.1.1 Availability of simple dictation tools in civil matter

62-8-1.1.2 Availability of simple dictation tools in criminal matter

62-8-1.1.3 Availability of simple dictation tools in administrative 
matter

62-8-1.2.1 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in civil 
matter

62-8-1.2.2 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in criminal 
matter

62-8-1.2.3 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in 
administrative matter

62-8-1.3.1 Availability of voice recognition in civil matter

62-8-1.3.2 Availability of voice recognition in criminal matter

62-8-1.3.3 Availability of voice recognition in administrative matter

062-9 Availability of intranet site within the judicial system for 
distribution of news/novelties

63.1 Is there a case management system? 

63.1-1.1 CMS for civil matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for criminal matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for administrative matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.2 CMS for civil matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for criminal matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for administrative matter (status of case onlinee)

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

Pilot testing

Pilot testing

Pilot testing

Pilot testing

Pilot testing

Pilot testing

Pilot testing

Pilot testing

Pilot testing

-

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

-

-

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

904 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63.1-1.3 CMS for civil matter (Centralised or interoperable database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for criminal matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for administrative matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.4 CMS for civil matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for criminal matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for administrative matter (Early warning signals)

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS civil matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS criminal matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS administrative matter

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - land registry

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - business registry

63-2.2 Data consolidated at national level for land registry

63-2.2  Data consolidated at national level for business registry

63-2.3 Service available online for land registry

63-2.3  Service available online for business registry

63-2.4 Statistical module integrated or connected for land registry

63-2.4  Statistical module integrated or connected for business 
registry

063-6.1.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (deployment 
rate)

063-6.1.2 Justice expenses management (deployment rate)

063-6.1.3 Other financial management tools (deployment rate)

063-6.2.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (Data 
consolidated at national level)

063-6.2.2 Justice expenses management (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.2.3 Other financial management tools (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.3.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (System 
communicating with other ministries)

063-6.3.2 Justice expenses management (System communicating 
with other ministries)

063-6.3.3 Other financial management tools (System communicating 
with other ministries)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

NA

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

905 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63-7.1 Measurement tools to assess the workload

63-7-1.1.1 Deployment rate - workload of judges

63-7-1.1.2 Deployment rate - workload of prosecutors

63-7-1.1.3 Deployment rate - workload of non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.2.1 Monitoring on national level - judges

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - prosecutors

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.3.1 Monitoring on court level - judges

63-7-1.3.2 Monitoring on court level - prosecutors

63-7-1.3.3 Monitoring on court level - non-judge and non-prosecutor 
staff

064-2 - Possibility to submit a case to courts by electronic means

064-2 - Civil and/or commercial

064-2 - Criminal

064-2 - Administrative

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - civil

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - criminal

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory  - administrative

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - civil

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - criminal

064-2 - Specific legislative framework  - administrative

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - civil

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - criminal

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - administrative

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

906 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-3 - Is it possible to request for granting legal aid by electronic 
means? 

064-3-1.1 - Equipment rate

064-3-1.2 - Request in paper mandatory

064-3-1.3 - Specific legislative framework

064-3-1.4 - Granting LA is also electronic

064-3-1.5 - Information available in CMS

064-4 - Possibility to transmit summons to a judicial meeting or a 
hearing by electronic means

064-4-1.1.1 - Summons produced by CMS- civil

064-4-1.1.2 - Summons produced by CMS- criminal

064-4-1.1.3 - Summons produced by CMS- administrative

064-4-1.2.1 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- civil

064-4-1.2.2 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- criminal

064-4-1.2.3 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- administrative

064-4-1.3.1 - Consent of the user - civil

064-4-1.3.2 - Consent of the user - criminal

064-4-1.3.3 - Consent of the user - administrative

064-6.1.1 - Civil and/or commercial (deployment rate)

064-6.1.2 - Criminal (deployment rate)

064-6.1.3 - Administrative (deployment rate)

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

907 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-6.2.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.2 - Criminal (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.3 - Administrative (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.3.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Modalities)

064-6.3.2 - Criminal (Modalities)

064-6.3.3 - Administrative (Modalities)

064-6.4.1 - Civil and/or commercial (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.2 - Criminal (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.3 - Administrative (specific legal framework)

064-6.5.1 - Civil and/or commercial (availability for)

064-6.5.2 - Criminal (availability for)

064-6.5.3 - Administrative (availability for)

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
E-mail  
Specific 
application  

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
E-mail  
Specific 
application  

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer
Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer
Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

908 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-7.1.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (deployment rate)

064-7.1.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.2.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (Modalities)

064-7.2.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.3.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (specific legal framework)

064-7.32.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-7.3.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts (specific 
legal framework)

064-7.3.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-9 - Existance of online processing devices of specialised 
litigation

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

50-99%

100%

100%

10-49%

-

100%

100%

100%

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

False

False

False

False

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

909 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

46.1.1 Total Number of professional judges

46.1.2 Number of 1st inst professional judges

46.1.3 Number of 2nd inst professional judges

46.1.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges

46.2.1 Number of professional judges_males

46.2.2 Number of 1st instance professional judges_males

46.2.3 Number of 2nd instance professional judges_males

46.2.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges_males

46.3.1  Number of professional judges_females

46.3.2  Number of 1st inst professional judges_females

46.3.3  Number of 2nd inst professional judges_females

46.3.4  Number of Supreme court professional judges_females

046-2.1.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Total

046-2.2.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Civil and commercial

046-2.2.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.3.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Criminal

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

Indicator 7: Professionals of justice  (Indicator 9 in 2019)

Table 7.1.1 to 7.5.6 for judges, non judge staff, prosecutors, non prosecutor staff and salaries

439

263

126

50

101

47

31

23

338

216

95

27

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

481

298

133

50

113

59

31

23

368

239

102

27

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

488

307

134

47

111

62

31

18

377

245

103

29

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

493

310

136

47

180

62

33

15

313

248

103

32

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

503

313

143

47

110

60

35

15

393

253

108

32

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

490

311

143

36

105

58

35

12

385

253

108

24

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

559

381

143

35

108

61

35

12

451

320

108

23

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

521

360

126

35

99

59

28

12

422

301

98

23

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

550

25,3%

9,6%

1,5%

1,0%

2,0%

-2,6%

14,1%

-6,8%

5,6%

380

44,5%

13,3%

3,0%

1,0%

1,0%

-0,6%

22,5%

-5,5%

5,6%

135

7,1%

5,6%

0,8%

1,5%

5,1%

0,0%

0,0%

-11,9%

7,1%

35

-30,0%

0,0%

-6,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-23,4%

-2,8%

0,0%

0,0%

105

4,0%

11,9%

-1,8%

62,2%

-38,9%

-4,5%

2,9%

-8,3%

6,1%

63

31

34,0%

25,5%

5,1%

0,0%

-3,2%

-3,3%

5,2%

-3,3%

6,8%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

6,5%

6,1%

0,0%

0,0%

-20,0%

10,7%

11

-52,2%

0,0%

-21,7%

-16,7%

0,0%

-20,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-8,3%

445

31,7%

8,9%

2,4%

-17,0%

25,6%

-2,0%

17,1%

-6,4%

5,5%

317

46,8%

10,6%

2,5%

1,2%

2,0%

0,0%

26,5%

-5,9%

5,3%

104

9,5%

7,4%

1,0%

0,0%

4,9%

0,0%

0,0%

-9,3%

6,1%

24

-11,1%

0,0%

7,4%

10,3%

0,0%

-25,0%

-4,2%

0,0%

4,3%

550

380

135

35

NA

NA

65

15

NA

NA

48

9

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

910 / 1555

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

046-2.4.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - 
Administrative

046-2.4.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.5.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Other

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

72

39

22

11

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 52.1.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in courts 

1 608

1 594

1 578

1 519

1 582

1 536

1 715

1 678

1 666

3,6%

-0,9%

-1,0%

-3,7%

4,1%

-2,9%

11,7%

-2,2%

-0,7%

52.1.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 059

1 032

1 040

-4,6%

0,3%

-2,0%

-2,5%

2,6%

-13,0%

13,6%

-2,5%

0,8%

477

530

498

41,9%

-1,1%

2,0%

-8,8%

9,9%

36,1%

-1,2%

11,1%

-6,0%

113

-29,4%

-8,1%

-2,0%

-2,1%

0,7%

-33,1%

-12,6%

19,3%

14,1%

15

114,3%

0,0%

28,6%

22,2%

27,3%

85,7%

269,2%

-82,3%

-11,8%

52.1.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges

1 090

1 093

1 071

1 044

1 071

52.1.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks

52.1.5 Number of Technical staff

52.1.6 Number of Other non judge staff

52.2.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(men)

52.2.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(men)

52.2.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(men)

52.2.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(men)

52.2.5 Number of Technical staff(men)

52.2.6 Number of Other non judge staff(men)

52.3.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(women)

351

160

7

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

347

147

7

-

-

-

-

-

-

354

144

9

136

323

141

11

110

355

142

14

128

NAP

NAP

NAP

67

36

30

3

65

16

18

11

65

34

26

3

932

483

95

26

181

NAP

124

36

13

8

83

96

116

NAP

50

39

16

11

99

17

179

NAP

130

19

27

3

130

NAP

88

18

21

3

1 460

1 442

1 409

1 454

1 355

1 599

1 499

1 536

52.3.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(women)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

52.3.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(women)

52.3.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(women)

52.3.5 Number of Technical staff(women)

52.3.6 Number of Other non judge staff(women)

-

-

-

-

1 028

1 004

311

118

3

318

114

6

979

307

123

-

NAP

1 006

321

116

11

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

808

447

82

18

1 009

438

67

85

902

511

72

14

952

480

92

12

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-19,1%

16,4%

41,4%

-35,9%

54,3%

-27,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-3,0%

0,0%

90,8%

-59,7%

160,0%

-32,3%

-55,6%

112,5%

5,9%

8,3%

-51,3%

-5,3%

-40,0%

44,4%

-50,0%

23,1%

68,8%

-22,2%

266,7%

-72,7%

166,7%

37,5%

-72,7%

0,0%

-1,2%

-2,3%

3,2%

-6,8%

18,0%

-6,3%

2,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,3%

-2,5%

2,8%

-19,7%

24,9%

-10,6%

5,5%

2,3%

-3,5%

4,6%

39,3%

-2,0%

16,7%

-6,1%

-3,4%

7,9%

-5,7%

-29,3%

-18,3%

7,5%

27,8%

100,0%

-

-

63,6%

372,2%

-83,5%

-14,3%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

911 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

052-1.1.1 Non-judge staff (Total)

052-1.1.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (total)

052-1.1.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (total)

052-1.1.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (total)

052-1.2.1 Non-judge staff  (Males)

052-1.2.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (males)

052-1.2.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (males)

052-1.2.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (males)

052-1.3.1 Non-judge staff  (females)

052-1.3.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (females)

052-1.3.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (females)

052-1.3.4 Non-judge staff  at supreme court (females)

055.1.1 Prosecutors (total)

055.1.2 Prosecutors (1st inst.)

055.1.3 Prosecutors (2nd inst.)

055.1.4 Prosecutors (Highest instance)

055.2.1 Prosecutors - Males -total

055.2.2 Prosecutors - Males, 1st inst.

055.2.3 Prosecutors - Males, 2nd inst.

055.2.4 Prosecutors - Males, Supreme courts

055.3.1 Prosecutors - Females, Total

055.3.2 Prosecutors - Females, 1st inst.

055.3.3 Prosecutors - Females, 2nd inst.

055.3.4 Prosecutors - Females, Supreme courts

1 666

1 214

336

116

130

56

52

22

1 536

1 158

284

94

461

302

93

66

181

105

41

35

280

197

52

31

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

912 / 1555

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

060.1.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Total

060.2.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Males

060.3.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Females

004 Annual average salary in the country

132.1.1 Gross annual salary, in €  - Professional judge at the 
beginning of career

132.1.2 Gross annual salary, in €  - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.1.3 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor at the beginning 
of career

132.1.4 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

132.2.1 Net annual salary, in € - Professional judge at the beginning 
of career

132.2.2 Net annual salary, in € - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.2.3 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor at the beginning of 
career

132.2.4 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

133.1.1.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Reduced taxation

133.1.2.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Special pension

133.1.3.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Housing

133.1.4.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Other financial benefit

133.2.1.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Reduced taxation

133.2.2.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Special pension

133.2.3.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Housing

133.2.4.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Other financial benefit

397

111

286

13 716 €

34 104 €

56 093 €

33 396 €

41 411 €

23 859 €

39 690 €

23 376 €

28 842 €

False

True

False

True

False

True

False

True

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

913 / 1555

         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

144.1.1 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - Total number (1+2+3+4)

144.1.2 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 1. Breach of professional 
ethics 

144.1.3 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.1.4 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 3. Criminal offence 

144.1.5 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 4. Other

144.2.1 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - Total number 
(1+2+3+4)

144.2.2 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 1. Breach of 
professional ethics 

144.2.3 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.2.4 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 3. Criminal offence

144.2.5 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 4. Other 

145.1.1 Sanctions against Judges - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.1.2 Sanctions against Judges - 1. Reprimand

145.1.3 Sanctions against Judges - 2. Suspension

145.1.4 Sanctions against Judges - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.1.5 Sanctions against Judges - 4. Fine

145.1.6 Sanctions against Judges - 5. Temporary reduction of salary

145.1.7 Sanctions against Judges - 6. Position downgrade

145.1.8 Sanctions against Judges - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.1.9 Sanctions against Judges - 8. Resignation

145.1.10 Sanctions against  Judges - 9. Other

145.1.11 Sanctions against  Judges - 10. Dismissal

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

12

2

8

0

2

8

0

6

0

2

12

5

NAP

NAP

NAP

2

NAP

NAP

0

1

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

914 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

145.2.1 Sanctions against Prosecutors - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.2.2 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 1. Reprimand

145.2.3 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 2. Suspension

145.2.4 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.2.5 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 4. Fine

145.2.6 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 5. Temporary reduction of 
salary

145.2.7 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 6. Position downgrade

145.2.8 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.2.9 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 8. Resignation

145.2.10 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 9. Other

145.2.11 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 10. Dismissal

8

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

2

0

NAP

0

3

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lawyers

Tables 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.7 and 7.8

146.1.1 Total number of lawyers practising

1 343

1 336

1 363

1 363

1 231

1 370

1 218

1 357

1 370

2,0%

-0,5%

2,0%

0,0%

-9,7%

11,3%

-11,1%

11,4%

1,0%

146.2.1 Practicing lawyers - man

146.3.1 Practicing lawyers - woman

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

714

697

643

673

147 Does this figure include “legal advisors” who cannot represent 
their clients in court (for example, some solicitors or in-house 
counsellors)? 

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,4%

4,7%

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

915 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Latvia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 8: The existence and use of alternative dispute resolution methods

Table 8.1 8.2 and 8.3

166 Number of accredited or registered mediators who practice 
judicial mediation: 

NAP

NAP

24

38

167.1.1 Total number started

167. 1.2 Civil and commercial cases(cid:9) - started

167. 1.2 Family cases - started

167.1.4 Administrative cases - started

167.1.5 Labour cases including employment dismissal cases - started

167.1.6. Criminal cases - started

167.1.7 Consumer cases - started

43

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

46

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

52

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

48

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

50

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

58,3%

13,2%

7,0%

13,0%

-7,7%

4,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Key: Variation of more than (+ -) 20% 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

916 / 1555

Judiciary at a glance in Lithuania

General data

Population:

2 795 680

GDP per capita: 17 510 €

Average annual 

salary:

17 143 €

Professionals

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Lithuania

Lithuania

EU Median

EU Median

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual 
salary in the country

Lithuania
Lithuania

EU Median

EU Median

Professional judges

Professional judges

26,84

23,92

26,84

Non-judge staff

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

23,04

96,90

59,00

9,91

23,04

20,93

15,22

20,93

9,91

15,22

80,62
122,09

Lawyers

Lawyers

80,62

23,92

96,90

59,00

Judge at the beginning of a career 

2,12

4,09

2,90

2,02

3,61

2,74

2,12

Judge of the highest court 2,90
2,02

4,09

1,71
Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 
1,71

1,71

1,71

Public prosecutor at highest instance

2,74

3,61

122,09

Judge at the
beginning of a career

Judge of the highest
court

Prosecutor at the
beginning of a career

Public prosecutor at
highest instance

Efficiency

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

1st instance 2nd instance

Supreme Court
Supreme 
Court

,

,

%
7
0
Civil and
1
%
1
commercial
9
Administrativ
3
9
e
cases
Total 
criminal law 
cases

,

%
4
2
2
1

%
93,9%
5
7
9

,

97,5%

%
7
1
8

,

%
110,7%
4
7
9

,

%
9
8
9

,

,

%
5
81,7%
1
0
1

122,4% NAP

97,4%

98,9%

101,5%

1
1

1

1
1

100%

P
A
N

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

Administrative
cases

Total criminal law
cases

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance 2nd instance Supreme Court

Civil and commercial litigious cases
117
Administrative cases 112

66

282 NAP

Total criminal law cases 73

389

67

66

117

282

112

389

118

118

67

73

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

Information and communication technology

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

Assistance toolsCase management system
2018

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the workload
2019

Electronic communication

EU Median 2020

2020

2018
2019
2020

6,78

2,00
2,00
2,00

6,78

6,78
7,00
6,78
7,00

5,17

1,00
1,00
1,00

2,83
2,54
2,54

6,06
6,71
6,48

6,71

6,48

6,94

6,06

EU Median 2020

2,00

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

2,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

2,83

2,54

2,54

2,50

1,00

1,00

1,00

1,25

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

*ICT calculations are described in more details in Annex 5 - IT Calculation methodology

917

2020

Synthesis table for the main indicators for:

Lithuania

Economic and demographic data

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Variations

Population

GDP per capita

Exchange rate (local currency needed to 
obtain 1€)

3 003 641

2 943 472

2 921 262

2 888 558

2 847 904

2 808 901

2 794 184

2 794 090

2 795 680

-6,9%

-2,5%

-1,9%

-0,5%

11 025

11 707

12 381

12 780

13 468

14 796

16 158

17 333

17 510

58,8%

3

3

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

8,8%

NAP

20,0%

9,2%

NAP

NAP NAP

NAP

0,0%

7,3%

0,1%

1,0%

Average annual salary

7 381

8 129

9 408

11 089

15 557

17 143

132,3%

15,7%

17,9%

40,3%

10,2%

Resources

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Professional judges per 100 000 inhab.

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhab.

Lawyers per 100 000 inh.

Mediators

ICT overall assesment

First instance incoming cases per 100 
inhab.

25,6

87,2

59,8

1,6

26,2

88,4

67,5

1,6

25,8

89,3

68,1

3,7

26,4

94,5

73,3

4,5

27,3

96,2

77,7

9,4

27,3

96,9

78,6

13,0

27,1

95,3

79,2

16,8

6,7

26,8

96,1

80,5

14,0

6,8

26,5

96,9

80,6

3,5%

11,1%

5,8%

7,8%

34,8%

14,2%

-0,7%

-0,9%

1,9%

-0,7%

-1,6%

0,8%

-1,1%

-1,4%

0,8%

1,6%

0,9%

0,2%

19,7

1161,8%

153,1%

77,7%

28,8%

-16,4%

40,7%

6,8

1,9%

0,0%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Civil and commercial litigious cases

3,581

3,631

3,969

3,559

4,385

4,054

3,554

3,324

3,317

-7,4%

10,5%

-19,0%

-12,3%

-6,5%

-0,2%

Administrative law cases

0,269

0,6

0,5

0,586

0,524

0,416

0,533

0,511

0,513

91,1%

7,2%

1,8%

28,0%

-4,2%

0,5%

Total criminal law cases

0,616

First instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

First instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
cases (days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

First instance pending cases per 100 
inhab. on 31 dec.

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

 Supreme court 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Supreme court
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

101%

98%

99%

65%

97%

89%

102%

98%

102%

104%

101%

100%

144%

113%

88%

105%

94%

97%

97%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

-6,57

-0,59

0,99

5,17

1,52

55,00

-56,82

-25,43

-2,32

17,02

-7,36

-7,10

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

88

144

94

290

97

310

96

236

88

72

85

76

84

129

87

96

33,7%

-9,9%

-4,6%

-1,9%

3,8%

35,2%

-22,2%

-76,7%

77,8%

69,6%

-25,1%

16,4%

117

112

73

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

0,87

0,10

0,92

0,32

1,03

0,37

0,96

0,38

1,04

0,15

0,97

0,10

0,84

0,16

0,80

0,14

15,7%

0,5%

-18,6%

-12,7%

-5,1%

25,1%

47,8%

-59,6%

9,8%

68,2%

-14,3%

9,0%

1,00

0,15

0,12

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

102%

91%

99%

80%

101%

94%

96%

93%

107%

105%

111%

NA

101%

122%

-1,53

3,00

6,06

NA

11,04

-1,29

5,35

NA

21,04

99%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

97

204

104

252

103

295

130

352

107

NA

100

375

66

282

67

5,5%

4,5%

-17,4%

-6,9%

-34,2%

44,4%

NA

NA

NA

-25,0%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

83%

128%

NA

NAP

95%

NA

97%

NAP

115%

NAP

83%

NAP

82%

NAP

102%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

12,18

19,15

17,42

-31,65

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

-1,33

NAP

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

268

NA

133

NAP

184

NA

218

NAP

160

NAP

284

NAP

389

NAP

118

-31,1%

-13,5%

-26,9%

77,8%

37,1%

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

918 / 1555

1. Judicial organisation in Lithuania

The number of first instance courts (legal entities) in Lithuania decreased from 1st January 2018 according to the Law on Reorganization of Courts of the Republic of 
Lithuania (Law of 23rd June 2016 No. XII-2474). Instead of 49 district courts (legal entities) there are now 12 district courts (some of them have court houses), and instead 
of 5 regional administrative courts there are now 2 of them (one has houses). The number of first instance courts of general jurisdiction (legal entities) also encompasses 5 
regional courts (of general jurisdiction) which are first instance for criminal and civil cases assigned to their jurisdiction by law. In addition, these courts are appeal instance 
for judgements, decisions, rulings and orders of district courts. 

Accordingly, in total there are 17 first instance courts of general jurisdiction (legal entities). 

Besides, there are 2 courts of appeal, one of them being specialized in the field of administrative law – the Administrative Supreme court, and 1 Court of cassation.

Distribution of general courts in Lithuania

Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Lithuania - 1st instance
Lithuania - Higher instances

EU Median - 1st instance

EU Median - Higher instances

LithuaniaDistribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

According to 2020 data, the distribution between 1st instance and higher instances courts of 
general jurisdiction in Lithuania is around the EU median of 87% - 13%.

Lithuania - 1st instanceLithuania - Higher instances

General courts - Lithuania

71%

29%

General courts - Lithuania
EU Median

71%
87%

29%
13%

EU Median

87%

13%

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Lithuania

Geographic 
locations

Legal entities

General jurisdiction

Specialised 
jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

67

62

62

62

62

62

62

62

62

59

54

54

54

54

54

17

17

17

5

5

5

5

5

5

2

2

2

80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Lithuania

Geographic locations

Legal entities General jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Regional courts are first instance courts for criminal and civil cases assigned to their jurisdiction by law, also, these regional courts are appeal instance for judgments, 
decisions, rulings and orders of district courts. Taking this into account, regional courts are counted as first instance courts of general jurisdiction and as second instance 
courts of general jurisdiction, but in the totals regional courts are counted only once as one legal entity. 

First instance courts: 12 district courts and 5 regional courts (the latter are adjudicating certain categories of cases as first instance courts);
Second instance courts: 5 regional courts and the Court of Appeal of Lithuania;
Specialised courts regional administrative courts and the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania.
As regards geographic locations, there are 59 1st instance courts locations: 12 district courts (49 locations), 5 regional courts (5 locations) of general jurisdiction and 2 
regional administrative courts (5 locations).
For all the courts 62 courts locations: The Supreme Court of Lithuania, the Court of Appeal of Lithuania, the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania and 59 1st instance 
Lithuania

Distribution of first instance general jurisdiction and specialised courts

Ratio general jurisdiction vs specialised

11%

Lithuania

General jurisdiction Specialised courts

89%

75%

11%

25%

EU Median

25%

89%

75%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

919 / 1555

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

920 / 1555

The distribution between number of general jurisdiction courts and specialised courts of 89,5% - 10,5% is somewhat different from the EU median 
(distribution tendency in EU: 75,5% - 24,5%).

Specialised courts
Total

Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

Insolvency courts

Labour courts

Family courts

Rent and tenancies courts

Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

Internet related disputes

Administrative courts

Insurance and / or social welfare courts

Military courts

Juvenile courts

Other specialised 1st instance courts

First instance

Higher instance

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

921 / 1555

2. Professionals of justice in Lithuania

● Professional judges and non-judge staff

Evolution of the number of professional judges since 2012 (Q46)

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Absolute 
number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

768

772

754

762

778

767

758

750

740

25,57

26,23

25,81

26,38

27,32

27,31

27,13

26,84

26,47

EU median

23,9

Professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants

25,57

26,23

25,81

26,38

27,32

27,31

27,13

26,84

26,47

23,9

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

According to 2020 data, the total number of professional judges sitting in courts (all instances) in Lithuania is 740, which is -1,3% less than in previous cycle.

More precisely, in Lithuania, there are 26,47 professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants (this figure is above the EU median of 23,92 judges per 100 000 inhabitants) and about 3,66 non-
judge staff per judge.

There has been a small increase compared with previous cycle when this ratio was at 3,58 non-judge staff per judge.

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and gender

2020

Total

Distribution by 
instance

Male

Female

% Male

% Female

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

662

48

30

740

89,5%

6,5%

4,1%

216

26

17

259

446

22

13

481

32,6%

54,2%

56,7%

35,0%

67,4%

45,8%

43,3%

65,0%

Distribution of professional judges by instance

Lithuania

EU Median

Distribution of professional judges by gender and by instance

% Female

89,5%

72,39%

EU Median

72,39%

23,98%

4,03%

23,98%

6,5%

4,1%

4,03%

67,4%

32,6%

45,8%

43,3%

54,2%

56,7%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

% Male

65,0%

35,0%

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female professional judges (all instances) is 481, which represents 65,0% of the total number of judges.

The total number of judges is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 662 are sitting in first instance courts (of which 446 are female); 48 are sitting in 
second instance courts (of which 22 are female)  and 30 are sitting in Supreme Court (of which 13 are female).  

Compared with the EU distribution of professional judges per instance, in Lithuania there are relatively less judges in second instance.

As regards the methodology of presentation of data in respect of the number of judges, it should be noticed that it reflects the peculiarities of the Lithuanian court system. Namely, as the 
regional courts function not only as courts of appeal, but also as courts of first instance (Article 19 of the Law on Courts of the Republic of Lithuania), the number of judges of these courts 
is included in the 1st section. Accordingly, the latter indicates the number of judges of district courts, regional courts and regional administrative courts. Likewise, given that the Supreme 
Administrative Court is the court of appeal (although the rulings of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania are final and not subject to appeal) the number of judges of this court is 
encompassed in the 2nd section. The latter indicates the number of judges of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania and the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania. The 3rd section 
indicates the number of judges of the Supreme Court of Lithuania.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

922 / 1555

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Total

Civil and commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

662

48

30

740

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

43

19

NAP

62

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

In Lithuania, the distribution of judges per categories of cases is possible for some categories.

Distribution of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Civil and 
commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

6,5%

39,6%

NAP

8,4%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

TRUE

TRUE

FALSE

FALSE

NA

2

NA

NA

NA

NA

The first instance indicates the number of judges of district courts, regional courts and regional administrative courts. Likewise, given that the Supreme Administrative Court is the court of 
appeal (although the rulings of the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania are final and not subject to appeal) the number of judges of this court is encompassed in the 2nd instance. 
The latter indicates the number of judges of the Court of Appeal of Lithuania and the Supreme Administrative Court of Lithuania.

Non-judge staff

Year

2012

Number of non-judge staff

2 619

Per 100 000 inhabitants

87,19

2013

2 602

88,40

2014

2 608

89,28

2015

2 729

94,48

2016

2 740

96,21

2017

2 722

96,91

2018

2 664

95,34

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants

87,19

88,40

89,28

94,48

96,21

96,91

95,34

96,06

96,90

2020

Total

Rechtspfleger

59,00

Non-judge staff assisting the judge

Staff in charge of administrative tasks

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

Technical staff

Other

2019

2 684

96,06

Absolute 
number

2 709

NAP

1 485

873

265

86

E
U 
m

2020

2 709

96,90

in %

NAP

54,8%

32,2%

9,8%

3,2%

In 2020, Lithuania has 2 709 non-judge staff. The total number of non-judge staff in comparison with the previous cycle reveals an increase of 0,9%.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

923 / 1555

In this cycle, the non-judge staff is broken down as follows:

◦ 1 485 non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges such as registrars (of which NA are women);
◦ 873 staff in charge of different administrative tasks and of the court management (of which NA are women);
◦ 265 technical staff (of which NA are women);
◦ 86 other (of which NA are women);

In 2020, the number of non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants has increased (from 96,1 in 2019 to 96,9 in 2020).

During the same period, the number of judges per 100 000 inhabitants evolves from 26,8 judges per 100 000 inhabitants in 2019 to 26,5 in 2020.

The category “other” includes translators, court psychologists, it encompasses also other helping staff (civil servants and working under the labour agreement).

There is no such a position as trainee judges in the Lithuanian court system. 

Professional judges, non-judge staff and their ratio (Q46, Q52)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Lithuania

EU median

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

26,47

96,90

Non-judge staff per judge

3,66

23,92

59,00

3,30

Professional judges and non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

3,66

96,90

3,30

59,00

Non-judge staff per judge

26,47

23,92

Lithuania

EU median

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff  (Q46, Q52)

Judges 
per 100 000 inh.

Non-judge staff per
100 000 inh.

Ratio between professional judges and 
non-judge staff

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff 
Non-judge staff per 100 000 inh.
(Q46, Q52)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

25,57

26,23

25,81

26,38

27,32

27,31

27,13

26,84

26,47

87,19

88,40

89,28

94,48

96,21

96,91

95,34

96,06

96,90

EU median 2020

3,30

3,41

3,37

3,46

3,58

3,52

3,55

3,51

3,58

3,66

3,41

3,37

3,46

2012

2013

2014

3,41
3,37
3,46
3,58
3,52
3,55
3,51
3,58
3,66

3,58

3,52

3,55

3,51

3,66

3,58

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

924 / 1555

● Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff

Absolute number of public prosecutors by instance and gender (Q55)

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

576

NAP

68

644

Distribution by 
instance

89,4%

NAP

10,6%

Male

274

NAP

41

315

Female

302

NAP

27

329

Male

47,6%

NAP

60,3%

48,9%

Female

52,4%

NAP

39,7%

51,1%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance

Lithuania

EU Median

89,4%

73,30%

EU Median

73,30%

23,98%

23,98%

4,66%
NAP

10,6%

4,66%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance and gender

Female

Male

52,4%

47,6%

39,7%

60,3%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

NAP
2nd instance

Supreme courts

51,1%

48,9%

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female prosecutors (all instances) is 329, which represents 51,1% of the total number of prosecutors.

The total number of prosecutors is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 576 in first instance (of which 302 are female) and 68 in final instance (of which 
27 are female).  

As regards the distribution of the number of prosecutors among the different judicial instances, it should be noticed that, after the reorganization of the prosecution service in 2011, 5 
second instance prosecutors' offices were merged with 51 separate first instance prosecutor's office in their area of operation, and thus 5 regional first-second instance prosecutor's offices 
were established.

Non-prosecutor staff by gender (Q60)

Non-prosecutor staff

Total

2020

585

Male

165

Female

420

Non-prosecutor staff by gender

28%

Male

Female

72%

Public prosecutors, non-prosecutor staff and their ratio (Q55, Q60)

Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Lithuania

EU median

Public prosecutors

23,04

Non-prosecutor staff

20,93

Non-prosecutor staff per 
prosecutor

0,91

9,91

15,22

1,11

Public prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per prosecutor

23,04

20,93

0,91

15,22

1,11

9,91

Lithuania

EU median

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

925 / 1555

● Salaries of professional judges and prosecutors at beginning of a career and at the highest instance (Q132, Q4)

Salaries of professional judges and 
prosecutors (Q132, Q4)

Average gross annual 
salary 
in €

Average net annual 
salary 
in €

Ratio with national 
average annual 
gross salary

Judge at the beginning of a career 

36 267 €

21 941 €

Judge of the highest court 

49 698 €

30 067 €

Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

29 357 €

17 761 €

Public prosecutor at highest instance

47 038 €

28 458 €

2,12

2,90

1,71

2,74

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual salary in the 
country

Salaries of 
judges and 
prosecutors in 
Judge

4,09

2,90

2,02

EU Median

2,02

2,12

4,09

1,71

at the beginning 
of a career

2,74

3,61

36267

1,71

at the highest 
1,71
instance

Prosecutor

at the beginning 
of a career

49698

29357

Judge at the beginning of
career

Judge on highest instance

3,61

Lithuania

Prosecutor at the
beginning of career

EU Median

at the highest 
instance

Prosecutor at highest
instance

47038

According to 2020 data, the absolute gross salary of a judge at the begining of a career in Lithuania of 36 267 € is somewhat below when compared to the EU median of 51 946 €. As a 
ratio with the annual average salary of the country, the salary for a judge at the begining of career is: 2,12 compared with EU median of 2,02.

From the 1 January 2019 the official salary ratio of district court judges was increased. In 2019 and in 2020 a higher base amount of official salary (salary) was also applied, which is used 
to calculate the remuneration of judges and public procesutors 

● Lawyers

Lawyers

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

Number of lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

1 796

1 988

1 988

2 117

2 213

2 207

2 213

2 248

2 254

59,79

67,54

68,05

73,29

77,71

78,57

79,20

80,46

80,62

EU median 2020

122,09

In 2020, there are 2 254 lawyers, which is 0,3% more than in 2019.

67,54

68,05

73,29

59,79

77,71

78,57

79,20

80,46

80,62

122,09

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median
2020

Lithuania has 80,6 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants, which is below the EU median of 122,1 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

926 / 1555

● Judicial professionals (summary)

Judicial professionals in absolute number and per 100 000 inhabitants (Q46, Q52, Q55, Q60, Q146)

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

EU Median

Professional judges

750

26,84

23,92

Non-judge staff

2 709

96,90

59,00

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Lithuania

EU Median

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

644

585

23,04

9,91

96,90

59,00

20,93

15,22

26,84

23,92

23,04

9,91

20,93

15,22

122,09

80,62

Lawyers

2 254

80,62

122,09

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

% Male

% Female

Professional judges

35,0%

65,0%

Non judge staff

NA

NA

Prosecutors

48,9%

51,1%

Lithuania % MaleLithuania % Femalelabels

Professional judges

-35,0%

65,0%

35,0%

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

Lithuania % Male

-39,0%
EU Median  % Male

61,0%

Lithuania % Female

39,0%

EU Median  % Female

0,0%

Professional judges

35,0%

Non judge staff

#VALUE!
39,0%

NA

#VALUE!

-24,0%

76,0%

24,0%

Non-prosecutor staff

28,2%

71,8%

Prosecutors

48,9%

Lawyers

61,8%

41,7%

Prosecutors

40,5%

-48,9%
-40,5%

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

28,2%

-28,2%
-28,1%

28,1%

Lawyers

Lawyers

61,8%

-61,8%
-52,3%

52,3%

0,0%

48,9%
40,5%
0,0%
28,2%
28,1%
0,0%
61,8%
52,3%

51,1%
59,5%

71,8%
71,9%

41,7%
47,7%

65,0%

61,0%

51,1%

59,5%

71,8%

71,9%

41,7%

47,7%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

927 / 1555

3. Legal aid and court fees in Lithuania

1

1

In Lithuania, legal aid includes:

◦ Coverage of court fees: 

◦ Exemption from court fees: 

In Lithuania, legal aid is available for :

> Representation in court:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

> Legal advice, ADR and other legal services:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

>

Fees related to enforcement of judicial decisions as fees for enforcement agents (Q18) 

>

 Other costs than above (Q19) 

1

1

1

1

1

1

The costs of secondary legal aid cover the costs of the execution process (Article 2(1) of the Law on State-guaranteed legal aid). However, the costs incurred by the debtor in the 
execution process are not covered.

The costs of secondary legal aid from which the applicant is exempted are: litigation costs incurred in civil proceedings, the costs incurred in administrative proceedings, the 
costs related to the hearing of a civil action brought in a criminal matter, the costs related to defence and representation in court (including the appeal and cassation proceedings, 
irrespective of the initiator) as well as the costs of the execution process, the costs related to the drafting of procedural documents and collection of evidence, interpretation, 
representation in the event of preliminary extrajudicial consideration of a dispute, where such a procedure has been laid down by laws or by a court decision (Article 14(2) of the 
Law on State-guaranteed legal aid). The costs of state-guaranteed legal aid cover also the costs of interpretation of communication between the lawyer and the applicant where, 
in the cases provided for in treaties of the Republic of Lithuania, it is impossible to ensure that a person providing state-guaranteed legal aid communicates with the applicant in 
the language which the latter understands (Article 14(10) of the Law on State-guaranteed legal aid).
Where the physical presence of an applicant is required by the law or by the court, the travel costs to be borne by an applicant are borne by the State-guaranteed legal aid 
service (Article 20(2) of the Law on State-guaranteed legal aid).

 Number of cases for which legal aid has been granted

Absolute number 
(in 2020)

Total

Cases brought to court

Cases not brought to 
court

Ratio of number of cases brought to court for which legal aid 
has been granted

Total

76 914

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

NA

NA

36 544

27 442

9 102

40 370

NA

NA

47,5%

52,5%

In criminal cases

######### NA

In other than criminal
cases

910200,0% NA

Per 100 000 inhabitants
 (in 2020)

Lithuania

EU Median

Total

2 751,2

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

NA

NA

734,2

330,9

402,7

The number provided for non-litigious cases or cases not brought to court indicates the number of matters when primary legal aid (legal information, legal advice, drafting of the 
documents to be submitted to State and municipal institutions, with the exception of procedural documents, advice on the out-of-court settlement of a dispute, actions for the 
amicable settlement of a dispute and drafting of a settlement agreement) was granted.

The number for cases brought to court indicates the number of matters when secondary legal aid was granted. In total 36544 cases: 27442 criminal cases (26102 cases by 
decisions of a pre-trial investigation officer, prosecutor or the court when the presence of a lawyer is mandatory and 1340 cases by decisions of State-guaranteed legal aid 
service where the presence of a lawyer is not mandatory) and 9102 in other than criminal cases by decisions of State-guaranteed legal aid service.
The number of decisions to grant secondary legal aid decreased due to the Covid-19 related extreme situation and quarantine. The number of applications decreased despite 
the fact that it was possible to submit an application by electronic means or mail.

Timeframes of the procedure for granting legal aid (in relation to the duration from the initial legal aid request to the final approval of the legal aid request)

◦ Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulations: 

◦ Actual average duration: 

5

NA

According to the Law on State-guaranteed legal aid, primary legal aid must be provided as soon as the person applies to the municipality. If it is not possible to provide primary 
legal aid immediately, the applicant will be notified of the time available, which must be no later than 5 working days from the date of application.
Decisions on the provision of secondary legal aid shall be adopted by the SGLAS not later than within 7 working days from the date of receipt of the required documents and 
information. In cases when in the interests of the applicant the decision to grant secondary legal aid must be taken urgently, the decision shall be taken immediately, but not later 
than the date of the procedural step which requires lawyers assistance.
There is no timeframe for the decisions of pre-trial investigation officer, prosecutor or court on state guaranteed legal aid (when presence of lawyer is mandatory in criminal 
cases).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

928 / 1555

4. Performance of courts in Lithuania

● Efficiency indicators

◦ Clearance Rate (CR) and Disposition Time (DT)

The Clearance Rate shows the capacity of a judicial system to deal with the incoming cases. A Clearance Rate of 100% and higher does not generate backlog. 

The Disposition Time determines the estimated number of days necessary for a pending case to be solved in a court. 

First instance Total of other than criminal cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Evolution of number of all other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants
Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Incoming

5
3
9

,

9
3
9

,

,

8
0
0
1

1
8
9

,

,

0
7
0
1

,

7
5
0
1

,

3
1
1
1

,

8
1
1
1

,

2
7
1
1

,

2
9
1
1

2
5
9

,

1
7
9

,

9,35

10,08

10,70

11,13

11,72

9,39

9,81

10,57

11,18

11,92

9,71

1,13

1,43

1,57

1,53

1,35

1,18

6
9
6

,

4
7
6

,

7,62

2
8
6

,

0
6
6

,

1,11

4
5
7

,

2
6
7

,

8
1
7

,

9,52

6
2
7

,

7,54

3
1
1

,

3
4
1

,

7
5
1

,

3
5
1

,

5
3
1

,

8
1
1

,

1
1
1

,

7,18

6,96

2
0
1

,

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Lithuania (6,96 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly above EU median (6,82 per 100 inhabitants).

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

6,82
2019

7,26

5
2
1

6,74

,

6,60

2020

1,02

6
6
2

,

1,25

2,66
EU median

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Lithuania (6,74 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly above EU median (6,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Lithuania (1,25 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (2,66 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Other than criminal cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Other than criminal 
cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

101%

97%

99%

100%

102%

102%

101%

101%

97%

44

53

54

50

41

44

53

52

68

EU median

99%

109

101%

97%

99%

100%

102%

102%

101%

101%

97%

99%

DT (days)

CR (%)

44

53

54

50

41

44

53

52

68

109

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 96,7% in 2020 Lithuania seems to face some difficulties in dealing with its other than criminal cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -4,4 points.

In 2020, other than criminal cases are solved in approximately 68 days, which is somewhat below EU median of 109 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 31,7% increase of the Disposition Time.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

929 / 1555

First instance Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of civil and commercial litigious cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

8
5
3

,

0
6
3

,

3
6
3

,

9
5
3

,

7
9
3

,

7
8
3

,

5
6
3

,

6
5
3

,

9
3
4

,

2
3
4

,

5
0
4

,

4
1
4

,

8
6
3

,

5
5
3

,

2
3
3

,

7
3
3

,

7
8
0

,

2
9
0

,

3
0
1

,

6
9
0

,

4
0
1

,

7
9
0

,

4
8
0

,

3,58
3,63
3,97
3,56
4,39
4,05
3,55
3,32
3,32
1,56

0
8
0

,

3,60
3,59
3,87
3,65
4,32
4,14
3,68
3,37
3,12
1,50

2
3
3

,

2
1
3

,

0,87
0,92
1,03
0,96
1,04
0,97
0,84
0,80
1,00
1,05

6
5
1

,

0
5
1

,

5
0
1

,

0
0
1

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Lithuania (3,32 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (1,56 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Lithuania (3,12 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (1,50 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Lithuania (1,00 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below EU median (1,05 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

100,5%

98,9%

97,5%

102,5%

98,4%

102,1%

103,6%

101,3%

93,9%

88

94

97

96

88

85

84

87

117

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

DT (days)

CR (%)

100,5%

98,9%

97,5%

102,5%

98,4%

102,1%

103,6%

101,3%

93,9%

98%

88

94

97

96

88

85

84

87

117

221

EU Median

98%

221

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 93,9% in 2020, Lithuania seems to face some difficulties in dealing with its civil and commercial litigious cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -7,4 points.

In 2020, the civil and commercial litigious cases are solved in approximately 117 days, which is somewhat below EU median of 221 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 35,2% increase of the Disposition Time.

In Lithuania, there are 1 252 civil and commercial litigious cases older than 2 years. This is 4,5% of the total number of pending cases at the end of the year

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

930 / 1555

First instance Administrative cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of administrative cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

1
6
0

,

0
4
0

,

2
3
0

,

9
4
0

,

4
4
0

,

7
3
0

,

9
5
0

,

8
5
0

,

8
3
0

,

6
7
0

,

2
5
0

,

7
4
0

,

2
4
0

,

3
5
0

,

7
4
0

,

1
5
0

,

0,27
0,61
0,49
0,59
0,52
0,42
0,53
0,51
0,51
0,30

3
5
0

,

5
1
0

,

0
1
0

,

6
1
0

,

4
1
0

,

0,26
0,40
0,44
0,58
0,76
0,47
0,47
0,53
0,50
0,26

5
1
0

,

1
5
0

,

0
5
0

,

0
3
0

,

7
2
0

,

6
2
0

,

0
1
0

,

0,10
0,32
0,37
0,38
0,15
0,10
0,16
0,14
0,15
0,21

1
2
0

,

6
2
0

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Lithuania (0,51 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly above EU median (0,30 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Lithuania (0,50 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly above EU median (0,26 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Lithuania (0,15 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below EU median (0,21 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Administrative cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

98,1%

65,4%

89,4%

99,7%

144,4%

113,0%

87,6%

104,6%

97,5%

144

290

310

236

72

76

129

96

112

EU Median

100%

388

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Administrative cases

DT (days)

CR (%)

144,4%

98,1%

99,7%

89,4%

65,4%

113,0%

87,6%

104,6%

97,5%

100%

144

2012

290

2013

310

2014

236

2015

72

76

2016

2017

129

2018

96

112

388

2019

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 97,5% in 2020, Lithuania seems to face some difficulties in dealing with its administrative cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased for -7,1 points.

In 2020, the administrative cases are solved in approximately 112 days, which is significantly below EU median of 388 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 16,4% increase of the Disposition Time.

In Lithuania, there are 345 administrative law cases older than 2 years. This is 8,0% of the total number of pending cases at the end of the year.

As regards "Pending non-litigious cases", there was a general decrease of number of cases and application of administrative means.
The number of resolved civil and commercial litigious cases might have been affected by the pandemic as not all the categories of cases could have been adjudicated 
remotely. The number of administrative cases, sa well as for civil and commercial litigious cases could have decreased because of the need for some period to adapt IT 
and video conference equipment in the situation emerged. The increase of number of pending administrative cases older than 2 years is related to decisions of courts in 
environmental law cases to stay proceedings pending a decision in a related case, which will be a preliminary ruling in another case:legal entities are challenging a 
decision requiring them to pay a tax on the pollution of packaging waste from which they were exempted because they had concluded a contract for the organization of 
waste management. As the documents proving the waste management issued by the licensed recycler were canceled, the documents certifying the waste management 
of other entities were canceled, which obliged the entities (which had a contract with the waste manager to organize packaging waste management) to pay this fee. The 
cases are suspended and pending a decision in a case challenging a decision declaring waste management documents issued to applicants invalid because it will have a 
preliminary ruling in these cases.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

931 / 1555

Insolvency cases

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Insolvency cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Insolvency cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

97,3%

93,5%

92,6%

104,5%

93,4%

103,6%

127,8%

120,5%

140,9%

439

445

420

405

395

360

311

262

255

EU Median

105%

281

DT (days)

CR (%)

97,3%

93,5%

92,6%

104,5%

103,6%

93,4%

127,8%

120,5%

140,9%

105%

439

2012

445

2013

420

2014

405

2015

395

2016

360

2017

311

2018

262

2019

255

281

2020

EU Median

The Clearance Rate was calculated at 140,9% in 2020 for insolvency cases, Lithuania seems to be well able to deal with its insolvency cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased by 20,4 points.

In 2020, insolvency cases are solved in a approximately 255 days, which is slightly below the EU median of 281 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a -2,7% decrease of the Disposition Time.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

932 / 1555

● First instance Criminal Law Cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Incoming cases Resolved casesPending 

Lithuania

0,62

0,60

0,12

Total

2 907

17 225

16 779

3 353

EU Median

Total criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

1,60

1,48

0,46

Severe criminal cases 

Misdemeanour and/or 
minor cases

Other cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Per 100 inhabitants

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Incoming cases

Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

0
6
1

,

8
4
1

,

6
4
0

,

2
6
0

,

0
6
0

,

2
1
0

,

Total

0,10

0,62

0,60

0,12

Lithuania

EU Median

Severe criminal 
cases 
Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

The number of total incoming criminal cases in 2020 in Lithuania (0,62 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (1,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total resolved criminal cases in 2020 in Lithuania (0,60 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (1,48 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total pending criminal cases at the end of 2020 in Lithuania (0,12 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (0,46 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Total criminal law cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Total

97,4%

Severe criminal 
cases 

Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

NA

NA

NA

73

NA

NA

NA

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT)

DT (days)

CR (%)

Total Criminal law cases

97,4%

95,2%

EU Median

95,2%

139

EU Median

73

Total

139

EU Median

With the Clearance Rate calculated at 97,4% in 2020 for total criminal cases, Lithuania seems to face some difficulties to deal with its total criminal cases.

In 2020, criminal law cases were solved in approximately 73 days, which is somewhat below EU median of 139 days.

There is no separate statistical data allowing to distinguish between severe/minor/and other criminal cases. Neither the court information system is applied to this, nor the 
courts have obligation to provide the information on the seriousness of the crime. In the court information system offenses are described through the indication of an 
article (it does not show the severeness of a crime by itself).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

933 / 1555

Overall efficiency by instance and by case matter

CR (%)

DT (days)

CR (%)

DT (days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases

93,9%

110,7%

81,7%

Administrative cases

97,5%

122,4%

NAP

Total criminal law cases

97,4%

98,9%

101,5%

117

112

73

66

282

67

389

NAP

118

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)
2nd instance

1st instance

Supreme Court
Supreme Court

1st instance

100%

Civil and
commercial
Administrative
cases

,

%
7
0
1
1

%
9
3
9

,

%
7
1
8

,

%
93,9%
5
7
9

,

97,5%

2nd instance
%
4
2
2
1

,

%
110,7%
4
7
9

,

,

%
5
1
0
1

%
9
8
9

,

81,7%

122,4% NAP

Total criminal law cases

P
A
N

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

Administrative
cases

97,4%

Total criminal law
cases

98,9%

101,5%

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1

1

1

389

66

117

NAP

282

112

118

67
73

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

1
1

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

In first and second instance, civil and commercial, administrative and criminal cases are resolved faster than the median, while the disposition time for civil and 
commercial litigious cases is higher than the median (389 days vs 224). In 2020, Lithuanian judges resolved less cases than received (Clearance rate is below 100%) 
except for civil and commercial litigious and administrative cases in second instance and criminal cases in third instance.
As regards second instance other than criminal cases, in Lithuania, statistical data on case flow and their classification are made according to the specific regulations and 
are mainly based on the institutes of Civil, Criminal Codes and the codes of Civil and Criminal procedures, as well as the Code of Administrative Offences and the law on 
Administrative procedure. Therefore figures for some of the types of cases are unavailable because there is no such classification while making statistical reports. In 
respect of the variations that can be observed between figures provided for the different evaluation cycles and in the light of the above described peculiarity of the 
statistic system of Lithuania, it is noteworthy that cases the number of which is not available are included in other categories, i.e. “civil litigious”, “civil non-litigious”. 
Accordingly, the indicated totals are relevant. Second instance courts deal with some non-litigious cases, but their number is insignificant.

As regards other than criminal cases in third instance, in 2019, the Supreme Court of Lithuania examined fewer cases than were received, therefore the number of 
pending cases increased at the end of the year. However, it should be noted that in 2019 the Supreme Court of Lithuania has provided a number of important and 
particularly socially sensitive interpretations in both civil, criminal and administrative offences cases.
The decrease in the number of resolved civil and commercial litigious cases and accordingly the increase in the number for pending cases at the end of 2020 are due to 
the reduction in the number of judicial posts and the lengthy appointment by Parliament procedures for vacancies.

As regards criminal cases in second instance, there is no separate statistical data allowing to distinguish between severe/minor/and other criminal cases. Neither the 
court information system is applied to this, nor the courts have obligation to provide the information on the seriousness of the crime. In the court information system 
offenses are described through the indication of an article (it does not show the severeness of a crime by itself).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

934 / 1555

5. Public prosecution services in Lithuania

● Role and powers of the public prosecutor

In the criminal procedure, the public prosecutor in Lithuania has the following 9 out of 11 possible roles and powers:

To conduct or supervise police investigation

To appeal

To conduct investigations

To supervise the enforcement procedure

When necessary, to request investigation measures from the judge

To discontinue a case without needing a decision by a judge

To charge

To present the case in the court

To propose a sentence to the judge

To end the case by imposing or negotiating a penalty or measure 
without requiring a judicial decision

Other significant powers

Other significant powers granted to public prosecutors consist in defending public interest; examining, within their competence, petitions, applications and complaints submitted by 
individuals; participating in the drawing up and implementation of national and international crime prevention programmes; participating in the legislative procedure.
Due to amendments of Criminal Procedure Code that have entered into force on 1 July 2018, the function of the control of the enforcement of a sentence is no longer assigned to 
prosecutors. Prosecutor’s function prescribed by the law is to supervise only the submission of the judgements for enforcement. Under article 342 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure, the judge shall write the order to execute the decision in criminal matters and send it to the enforcement service together with the decision. If the court decision is 
amended by the appellate court, the later decision is also added. The particular enforcement service is determined by the law and depends on the kind of crime performed.

The public prosecutor also has a role in civil, administrative and insolvency cases whe they are related with criminal bankruptcy.
The prosecutor’s right to initiate civil proceedings is established in Art. 49 of the Civil Procedure Code and the Law of Prosecution Service, which says that “prosecutors shall 
protect the public interest, upon establishing a violation of a legal act, by which the rights and lawful interests of a person, society or the State are violated, and such a violation 
shall be treated as the violation of public interest, and state or municipal institution or agency, who is under the obligation to protect the said interest, failed to take any measures to 
rectify the violation, or in cases where there is no such a competent institution”. The prosecutor has also a right to initiate administrative proceedings, as it is prescribed in 
respective legal acts.

In 2020 (July 1) the Law on Confiscation of Civil Property entered into force, the aim of which is prevention of organized crime, corruption and selfish crimes. The Prosecutor's 
Office is entrusted with the main functions in the process of confiscation of civil property: to make a decision to open and end the property investigation, to organize or conduct 
property investigation or separate actions himself/herself, to decide on seizure of property, to lodge a claim and to participate in court proceedings in accordance with the 
procedure established by the Code of Civil Procedure.

● Public prosecutors: Number of first instance criminal cases

Type of cases

Absolute 
number

Per 100 
inhabitants

1. Pending cases on 1 Jan. ref. year 

25 339

0,91

2. Incoming/received cases

46 361

1,66

Pendin
Public prosecutors: Total number of first instance criminal 
Incoming/rec
g cases 
cases per 100 inhabitants
eived cases
on 31 
Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. Year
2,85

Processed 
cases
2,84

Processed cases

Incoming/received cases

3. Processed cases (3.1 + 3.2 + 3.3 + 3.4)

50 855

1,82

Lithuania

1,66 1,82

0,82

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year (3.1.1 + 3.1.2 + 3.1.3 
+ 3.1.4)

24 632

0,88

3.1.1 Discontinued by the public prosecutor because the 
offender could not be identified 

5 066

0,18

1,82

1,66

EU Median

2,85 2,84

0,84

0,82

0,84

3.1.2 Discontinued by the public prosecutor due to the lack 
of an established offence or a specific legal situation 

17 092

0,61

Lithuania

EU Median

3.1.3 Discontinued by the public prosecutor for reasons of 
opportunity

2 474

0,09

Processed cases per 100 inhabitants
EU Median

Lithuania

3.1.4 Discontinued for other reasons 

NAP

NAP

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated 
by the public prosecutor

NAP

NAP

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

-0,88

1,05

Processed cases

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

Lithuania
0,88

EU Median

1,05

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons

280

0,01

3.4. Cases brought to court

25 943

0,93

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other
reasons

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor

0,01

0,30

0,00

0,12

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons
0,30

3.4. Cases brought to court

-0,01

0,93

0,53

4. Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. year

23 035

0,82

3.4. Cases brought to court

-0,93

0,53

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

935 / 1555

Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons: cases closed under Paragraph 3 Article 68 of the Criminal Procedure Code - when criminal act has been committed in the 
territory of the Republic of Lithuania by a citizen of a foreign country or other person who have subsequently left the Republic of Lithuania, the Prosecutor General's Office of the 
Republic of Lithuania may request foreign country to take over the criminal case. When criminal case is taken over by another country, the one in Lithuania is discontinued. The 
number of registered crimes is gradually decreasing since 2017 in Lithuania, and this affects number of incoming cases, processed cases, discontinued cases and cases brought 
to court.
The reason for the non-compliance of the result of the formula used ((pending cases on 1 January 2020 + incoming cases) – processed cases = pending cases on 31 December 
2020) is a result of different sources of data and their differing formulas for calculating some statistical indicators. Numbers of „Pending cases“ and „Incoming cases“ is taken from 
the national register, however number of „Processed cases“ is taken from registers of the Lithuanian Prosecution Service. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

936 / 1555

6. Existence and use of alternative dispute resolution in Lithuania

Number of mediators

Mediators

Total

Per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

47

47

109

129

269

366

469

392

552

1,6

1,6

3,7

4,5

9,4

13,0

16,8

14,0

19,7

EU Median 2020

EU median in 2019

14,4

EU Median
2020

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

Number of mediators per 100 000 inhabitants

14,4

14,0

19,7

16,8

13,0

9,4

4,5

3,7

1,6

1,6

In 2020, there are 552 accredited or registered mediators who practise court related mediation which represents 19,7 accredited or registered mediators per 100 000 

The variation between  2019 and  2020 is about 40,8%.

On 29 June, 2017 new regulation for mediation and becoming mediator was adopted which entered into force from 2019-01-01. The amendments that have been 
made set new requirements to improve the quality of mediation services. Also, the establishment of mediation as a professional activity (with the exception of judicial 
mediation by judges) is approved, part of such activity is paid by state. These factors as well as the overall promotion of mediation in the country and the 
development of the application of mediation might have impact on the significant increase of the number of people that gained the status of mediator.
Till 1st January, 2019 National Couts Administration have been maintained the list of court mediators which included judges and other persons (not judges). Due to a 
change in legal regulation (from 1st January, 2019), National Courts Administration maintains only the list of Judges who have been granted the status of mediators 
(Article 5 (2) of the Law on Mediation of the Republic of Lithuania) and transmits this data to the State Garanteed Legal Aid Service. The latter maintains the common 
list of mediators and decides on the status of mediator for persons who are not judges. The mentioned list is published on the website of the The State Garanteed 
Legal Aid Service (Article 5 (6) of the Law on Mediation). It is to notice that court-related mediation in practice is more often executed by mediators judges however 
the mediators who are not judges are also allowed to mediate at this stage when they are appointed by the State Garanteed Legal Aid Service.

In 2020 the list contained 438 mediators not judges (of which 100 males and 338 females), and 114 mediators judges (of which 27 males and 87 females).
The Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Lithuania, implementing the project co-financed by the European Union Structural Funds "Development of the Conciliation 
Mediation System", taking into account the expansion of the Institute of Mediation and the consequent increased need for mediators, initiated the organization of 
training for mediators, during which a total of 420 persons (320 people were trained in the training of 40 academic hours, 100 people took part in the training of 24 
academic hours).
This training took place in May – October, 2019. All participants signed a contract for the provision of training services, one of the conditions of which was the 
obligation to register to take the qualification exam for mediators and to come to take it. Due to the fact that the Training Participants' Agreement did not provide for 
the obligation to pass the mediators' qualification examination but to come to take it, the Ministry of Justice did not collect information on the proportion of trainees 
who passed the mediators' qualification examination, but the persons who took part in this training were very active in applying for the qualification examination for 
mediators. There were also cases when those who did not pass the mediator qualification exam for the first time registered to take the exam again six months later.
October – November in 2020 specialized training for mediators on the topic “Mediation in family disputes in the presence of signs of domestic violence” was 
organized on the order of the Ministry of Justice. A total of 60 mediators participated in the training. These training were intended to improve the qualification of 
mediators in disputes where are possible signs of domestic violence, therefore only mediators registered in the list of mediators of the Republic of Lithuania and 
having signed agreements with the State Guaranteed Legal Aid Service on the provision of compulsory mediation services could participate in.
It is noteworthy that the organized training, which were free of charge for their participants, increased the number of mediators in both 2019 and 2020. In this context, 
it would not be appropriate to compare the increase between 2019 and 2020.

Number of court related mediations

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

937 / 1555

Type of cases

Total of all cases

Civil and commercial

Family cases

Administrative

Employment dismissal

Criminal cases

Consumer cases

Number of cases 
for which the parties
agreed to start 
mediation

Number of finished 
court-related
mediations

Number of cases 
in which there is a 
settlement agreement

523

248

254

7

14

NAP

0

390

162

214

5

9

NAP

0

161

63

90

3

5

NAP

0

Observing the general trend of court proceedings, it can be seen that in 2020, compared to the previous year, the number of family law cases (due to divorce, child 
support, etc.) decreased significantly: 15 709 cases were examined (18 066 in 2019; 18 564 in 2018). It is believed that it was mandatory mediation (the requirement 
to initiate mediation proceedings in such cases before applying to the court for the settlement of a family dispute) that allowed to reduce the number of cases in 
court and court-related mediations.
The decrease in the number of completed mediation proceedings in 2020 compared to the previous year is thought to be due to an overall decrease in the number 
of court cases received (the number of civil cases heard in district and regional courts (I instance) decreased by 6% in 2020 compared to 2019 and was 13.646% 
less than in 2018). The reduction in numbers may also have been influenced by the restrictions imposed following the quarantine in the country following the COVID-
19 pandemic, the lack of court hearings and judicial mediation proceedings.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

938 / 1555

7. ICT tools of courts in Lithuania

●The ICT tools of courts and for court users

The use of ICT in courts in 2020 has been evaluated as  :

EU Median

Total 
(0 to 10)

Assistance tools (0 to 3)

Case management system (0 to 7)
Financial management tools (0 to 3)

Measurement tools to assess the workload (0 to 5)
Electronic communication (0 to 10)

6,8
2,0

7,0

1,0
2,5

6,5

6,6
2,0

5,2

1,3
2,5

6,9

The calculation of this values for each field is based on the answers for that question/s and weighted according the avaiability 
or deployment rate. The total value is normalised to max 10 points for readability and comparison.

The details of the calculation are given in Annex 5 - IT calculations

The result by area may be summarized in these graphics, where each field has been evaluated from 0 to 4 points.

Note: index is modified based on the available questions. This cycle the recalculation was made for the last three cycles to be 
able to follow the development.

Assistance 
tools

Year
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
EU Median 20202,00
2,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

2018

2019

2020

EU Median 2020

Case 
management 
system

Financial 
management 
6,78
6,78
tools

7,00

Measurement 
tools to assess 
the workload

Electronic 
communication

6,94

6,71

6,48

6,06

5,17

2,83

2,54

2,54

1,00

1,00

1,00

6,06

6,71

6,48

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

6,78

6,78

7,00

2,00

1,00

1,00

1,00

1,25

2,83

2,54

2,54

2,50

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

Comments on writing assistance tools
Templates are prepared and stored in the Lithuanian Courts Information System (LITEKO) together with special tools for filling them with 
metadata. Also, templates are prepared in administrative offence and pretrial cases and are available in Lithuanian Courts Information System 
(LITEKO) and the Integrated Criminal Process Information System (IBPS).

Comments on voice recording tools
The courts hearings are recorded in all courts and cases, the record substitutes the written protocol except the criminal case and is made in 
all cases with some specific exceptions, when the protocol is not required (e.g. some administrative offence cases or when the case is dealt 
with by written procedure).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

939 / 1555

Comments on CMS
Lithuanian Courts Information System (LITEKO) is a unique centralized database for all matters. Also, the electronic service portal 
e.teismas.lt provide access for parties to their cases, that are managed in electronic form.

In criminal cases, status of case online - accesibility to parties and publication of decision online is possible only in criminal order cases. 
Electronic criminal order is available from 1st January 2020.

Comments on communication tools 
Criminal proceedings in district and regional courts in accordance with the prosecutor's statement on the termination of the proceedings by a 
court criminal order in which the procedural document instituting the proceedings is filed in court in January 2020 or later, are dealt with using 
information and electronic communication technologies. 2019-11-29 Resolution of the Judicial Council.

It shall be noted that the summons may be transmitted to the parties via the Lithuanian courts electronic services portal e.teismas.lt. 
Additionally, it shall be mentioned that upon the national regulations there are particular process participants, who/which are obliged to 
receive courts documents electronically, for instance, notaries, bailiffs, states institutions, insurance companies and etc. These groups are 
stated in the legal regulation. Additionally to the question 64.4 part "Other", the summons may be send via the Lithuanian courts electronic 
services portal e.teismas.lt and the integration between the Lithuanian Courts Information System (LITEKO) and the Register of 
Administrative Offences in administrative offences cases as well.
Criminal cases: criminal court order: after the court order is accepted, a paper copy of it is sent to the accused, by registered mail, to the 
victim by e-mail (if the e-mail address is indicated, if not - by post), to the prosecutor by e-mail.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

940 / 1555

8. Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and public prosecution services in Lithuania

In Lithuania, quality standards are not detemined for the judicial system at the national level.

● Systems for measuring and evaluating courts' performance

A regular monitoring system of court activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

All of these data are recorded in the Lithuanian Court Information System (LITEKO), as well as other data, related to the case, it‘s process and the parties to the proceedings.
In Lithuania, there is a system to regularly evaluate the court performance based primarily on defined indicators and the frequency of the reporting is annual.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each court.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

The evaluation of the courts' activities is used for the later allocation of means in the courts.

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

941 / 1555

● Systems for measuring and evaluating public prosecution services' performance

A regular monitoring system of public prosecution services activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases 

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs 

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecution) 

Costs of the judicial procedures 

Clearance rate 

Disposition time 

Percentage of convictions and aquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

In Lithuania, there is a system to evaluate regularly the activity of each public prosecution service and the reporting is more frequent than annual.

Chief prosecutors of the departments of the prosecutor’s offices are regularly provided with monthly data based on basic indicators of the performance of public prosecution 
offices, every 3 months – with the larger scale of performance data.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each public prosecution service.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecutors)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Percentage of convictions and acquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff

The evaluation of the public prosecution services' activities is used for the later allocation of means in the public prosecution services.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

942 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table General Data: Economic and demographic data, in absolute values (Q1, Q3, Q5)

Q1 Number of inhabitants

3 003 641

2 943 472

2 921 262

2 888 558

2 847 904

2 808 901

2 794 184

2 794 090

2 795 680

-6,9%

-2,0%

-0,8%

-1,1%

-1,4%

-1,4%

-0,5%

0,0%

0,1%

Q.3 GDP Per capita (in €) in current prices

11 025

11 707

12 381

12 780

13 468

14 796

16 158

17 333

17 510

58,8%

6,2%

5,8%

3,2%

5,4%

9,9%

9,2%

7,3%

1,0%

Q5. Exchange rate of Nat currency to € on 1 Jan

3

3

3

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

Indicator 1: Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and prosecution services  (Indicator 4 in 2019)

Table 1.1 to Table 1.10 (Q66, Q67, Q77, Q78, Q77-1, Q78-1, Q73, Q73-0, Q73-1, Q73-2, Q73-3, Q73-4, Q73-5, Q73-6, Q70, Q70-1, Q71, Q72, Q83-2, Q83-3, Q120 
and Q120-1)

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

66 Qlty standards formulated_jud system

67 Specialised court staff entrusted_qlty standards

77 Performance and quality indicators of court activities

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

False

False

True

078.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078.1.5 Backlogs 

078.1.6 Productivity of judges and court staff

078.1.7 Satisfaction of court staff 

078.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts) 

078.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078.1.10 Number of appeals

078.1.11 Appeal ratio

078.1.12 Clearance rate 

078.1.13 Disposition time 

078.1.14 Other

077-1.1.1 Defined performance and quality indicators

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

943 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

078-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078-1.1.5 Backlogs 

078-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

078-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

078-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

078-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

078-1.1.11 Disposition time 

078-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

078-1.1.13 Other

73 Regular system_evaluation_performance_each court

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

073-0.1.1 Annual

073-0.1.2 Less frequent

073-0.1.3 More frequent

073-1.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
court

073-2.1.1 Courses of action taken in the evaluation is used for the 
allocation of resources

073-2.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-2.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-2.1.4 Other

073-3.1.1 Regular evaluation of the public prosecution services 
performance

Yes

Yes

True

True

False

False

True

False

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

True

False

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

944 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

073-4.1.1 Annual

073-4.1.2 Less frequent

073-4.1.3 More frequent

073-5.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
public prosecution services

073-6.1.1 Identifying the causes of improved or deteriorated 
performance

073-6.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-6.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-6.1.4 Other

070.1.1 number of incoming cases

070.1.2 length of proceedings (timeframes)

070.1.3 number of resolved cases

070.1.4 number of pending cases

070.1.5 backlogs

070.1.6 productivity of judges and court staff

070.1.7 satisfaction of court staff

070.1.8 satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts)

070.1.9 costs of the judicial procedures

070.1.10 number of appeals

070.1.11 appeal ratio

070.1.12 clearance rate

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

945 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

070-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases 

070-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

070-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

070-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

070-1.1.5 Backlogs 

070-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

070-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

070-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

070-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

070-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

070-1.1.11 Disposition time 

070-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

070-1.1.13 Other

071.1.1 Monitoring backlogs in Civil law cases

071.1.2 Monitoring backlogs in Criminal law cases

071.1.3 Monitoring backlogs in Administrative law cases

072.1.1 Monitoring timeframes Within the courts

072.1.2 Monitoring timeframes Within the public prosecution services

083-2.1.1 Quantitative performance tagets defined for each 
prosecutors

083-3.1.1 Body responsible - Executive power (for example the 
Ministry of Justice)

083-3.1.2 Body responsible - Prosecutor General /State public 
prosecutor

083-3.1.3 Body responsible - Public Prosecutorial Council

083-3.1.4 Body responsible - Head of the organisational unit or 
hierarchically superior public prosecutor

083-3.1.5 Body responsible - Other

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

False

True

False

True

True

True

True

False

False

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

946 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

120.1.1 Qualitative individual assessment of the public prosecutors' 
work

120-1.1.1 Feequency - Annual

120-1.1.2 Feequency - Less frequent

120-1.1.3 Feequency - More frequent

Q42.1.1Total number of all courts - legal entities 

Q42.1.2 Total number of courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.3 First instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.4 Second instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.5 Highest instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.6 Total number of specialised courts - legal entities

43.1.1 Total number of specialised courts of first instance

43.1.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.1.3 Insolvency courts

43.1.4 Labour courts

43.1.5 Family courts

43.1.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.1.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.1.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.1.9 Internet related disputes

43.1.10 Administrative courts

43.1.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.1.12 Military courts

43.1.13 Juvenile courts

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

True

False

True

False

Indicator 2: The judicial organisation

Tables 2.1a; 2.1b; 2.2a; 2.2b; 2.3a; 2.3b; 2.4 and 2.5(EC) (Q42, Q43 and Q44)

-

-

59

-

-

-

5

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

5

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

54

-

-

-

5

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

5

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

54

-

-

-

5

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

5

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

54

-

-

-

5

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

5

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

54

-

-

-

5

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

5

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

54

-

-

-

5

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

5

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

17

-

-

-

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

17

-

-

-

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2

NAP

NAP

-

22

19

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

17

-71,2%

-8,5%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-68,5%

0,0%

0,0%

6

1

3

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-60,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-60,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

-60,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-60,0%

0,0%

0,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

947 / 1555

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

43.1.14 Other specialised courts

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

43.2.1 Total number of specialised courts of higher instances

43.2.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.2.3 Insolvency courts

43.2.4 Labour courts

43.2.5 Family courts

43.2.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.2.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.2.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.2.9 Internet related disputes

43.2.10 Administrative courts

43.2.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.2.12 Military courts

43.2.13 Juvenile courts

43.2.14 Other specialised courts

44.1.1 First instance courts geographic locations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

44.1.2 All courts geographic locations

67

62

62

62

62

62

62

62

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

59

62

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-7,5%

-7,5%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

948 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 3: The performance of courts at all stages of the proceedings

Tables 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.4 (all years) Number of other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 Variation of first instance other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants (Q1, Q91)

Table 3.13.7 (EC) to 3.13.12 (EC) First instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

91.1.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.1.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.1.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.1.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.1.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.1.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.1.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.1.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

91.1.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.1.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

91.1.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

91.2.1 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.2.2 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.2.3 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.2.4 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.2.5 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.2.6 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.2.7 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.2.8 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

91.2.9 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

35 363

33 908

41 985

45 735

44 147

38 475

33 101

30 934

28 622

-19,1%

-4,1%

23,8%

8,9%

-3,5%

-12,8%

-14,0%

-6,5%

-7,5%

26 545

26 005

27 197

30 149

27 595

29 543

27 167

23 582

22 385

-15,7%

-2,0%

4,6%

10,9%

-8,5%

7,1%

-8,0%

-13,2%

-5,1%

-

-

1 461

1 079

-

NA

NA

-

-

2 974

4 383

-

NA

NA

-

-

3 128

3 696

1 941

1 765

NA

NA

NA

NA

176

1 041

729

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

312

870

410

NA

NA

NA

NA

460

1 862

1 720

1 144

964

-

-

-

-46,4%

-16,4%

114,0%

-7,6%

-33,5%

-15,7%

867

1 301

721

566

-61,3%

-26,1%

63,6%

-58,7%

-43,8%

111,5%

50,1%

-44,6%

-21,5%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

995

419

423

398

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

77,3%

47,4%

116,3%

-57,9%

1,0%

-5,9%

9 332

10 845

10 893

4 270

2 748

4 599

3 943

32,6%

5,2%

198,3%

16,2%

0,4%

-60,8%

-35,6%

67,4%

-14,3%

3 515

3 700

4 789

2 800

1 466

1 609

1 330

-69,7%

-15,7%

-4,9%

5,3%

29,4%

-41,5%

-47,6%

9,8%

-17,3%

280 708

296 795

312 570

321 474

333 886

267 278

210 779

200 534

194 686

-30,6%

5,7%

5,3%

2,8%

3,9%

-19,9%

-21,1%

-4,9%

-2,9%

107 559

106 890

115 932

102 793

124 885

113 871

99 292

92 883

92 723

-13,8%

-0,6%

8,5%

-11,3%

21,5%

-8,8%

-12,8%

-6,5%

-0,2%

-

-

91 549

103 334

108 033

110 043

71 599

66 772

64 005

-

-

-

12,9%

4,5%

1,9%

-34,9%

-6,7%

-4,1%

77 669

84 829

82 707

90 640

81 613

80 626

63 208

59 748

58 023

-25,3%

9,2%

-2,5%

9,6%

-10,0%

-1,2%

-21,6%

-5,5%

-2,9%

-

NA

NA

-

-

-

NA

NA

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

8 842

12 694

26 420

29 417

8 391

7 024

5 982

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

43,6%

108,1%

11,3%

-71,5%

-16,3%

-14,8%

91.2.10 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

8 068

17 932

14 276

16 923

14 917

11 699

14 899

14 273

14 353

77,9%

122,3%

-20,4%

18,5%

-11,9%

-21,6%

27,4%

-4,2%

0,6%

91.2.11 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

87 412

87 144

90 813

98 424

86 051

31 665

24 989

26 606

23 605

-73,0%

-0,3%

4,2%

8,4%

-12,6%

-63,2%

-21,1%

6,5%

-11,3%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

949 / 1555

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

91.3.1 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.3.2 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.3.3 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.3.4 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.3.5 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.3.6 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.3.7 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.3.8 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

91.3.9 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

282 163

288 718

308 820

323 062

339 558

272 652

212 946

202 846

188 311

-33,3%

2,3%

7,0%

4,6%

5,1%

-19,7%

-21,9%

-4,7%

-7,2%

108 099

105 698

112 980

105 347

122 937

116 247

102 877

94 080

87 093

-19,4%

-2,2%

6,9%

-6,8%

16,7%

-5,4%

-11,5%

-8,6%

-7,4%

-

-

92 449

103 505

107 041

110 185

72 175

66 952

64 088

-

-

-

12,0%

3,4%

2,9%

-34,5%

-7,2%

-4,3%

78 051

83 967

83 743

90 959

81 156

80 192

63 788

59 903

58 102

-25,6%

7,6%

-0,3%

8,6%

-10,8%

-1,2%

-20,5%

-6,1%

-3,0%

-

NA

NA

-

-

-

NA

NA

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

8 706

12 546

25 885

29 993

8 387

7 049

5 986

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

44,1%

106,3%

15,9%

-72,0%

-16,0%

-15,1%

91.3.10 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

7 914

11 728

12 763

16 875

21 540

13 221

13 048

14 929

13 994

76,8%

48,2%

8,8%

32,2%

27,6%

-38,6%

-1,3%

14,4%

-6,3%

88 099

87 325

90 628

97 335

88 040

32 999

24 846

26 885

23 136

-73,7%

-0,9%

3,8%

7,4%

-9,5%

-62,5%

-24,7%

8,2%

-13,9%

33 908

41 985

45 735

44 147

38 475

33 101

30 934

28 622

34 997

3,2%

23,8%

8,9%

-3,5%

-12,8%

-14,0%

-6,5%

-7,5%

22,3%

26 005

27 197

30 149

27 595

29 543

27 167

23 582

22 385

28 015

7,7%

4,6%

10,9%

-8,5%

7,1%

-8,0%

-13,2%

-5,1%

25,2%

91.4.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

1 079

1 941

-

-

1 041

1 862

1 720

1 144

867

1 301

721

91.3.11 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

91.4.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.4.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.4.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.4.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.4.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.4.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.4.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

91.4.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.4.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

91.4.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

-

NA

NA

-

-

3 128

3 696

729

NA

NA

NA

NA

312

-

NA

NA

-

-

870

410

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

460

NA

NA

NA

NA

995

4 270

2 800

964

566

NA

NA

NA

NA

881

-

-

-

-16,4%

114,0%

-7,6%

-33,5%

-15,7%

-8,6%

487

-54,9%

79,9%

-62,4%

-43,8%

111,5%

50,1%

-44,6%

-21,5%

-14,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

394

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

47,4%

116,3%

-57,9%

1,0%

-5,9%

-1,0%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

419

423

398

9 332

10 845

10 893

3 515

3 700

4 789

2 748

4 599

3 943

4 302

37,5%

198,3%

16,2%

0,4%

-60,8%

-35,6%

67,4%

-14,3%

9,1%

1 466

1 609

1 330

1 799

-51,3%

-4,9%

5,3%

29,4%

-41,5%

-47,6%

9,8%

-17,3%

35,3%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

950 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.2 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.4 to 3.3.7 Variation of Clearence Rate and Disposition Time of first instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

Table 3.13.1 (EC) to 3.13.6 (EC) First instance courts: Disposition time and clearance rate for other than criminal cases  (Q91)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

100,5%

97,3%

98,8%

100,5%

101,7%

102,0%

101,0%

101,2%

96,7%

(3,77)

(3,22)

1,56

1,71

1,20

0,31

(0,96)

0,12

(4,38)

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

100,5%

98,9%

97,5%

102,5%

98,4%

102,1%

103,6%

101,3%

93,9%

(6,54)

(1,61)

(1,45)

5,16

(3,95)

3,70

1,49

(2,24)

(7,27)

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

-

-

101,0%

100,2%

99,1%

100,1%

100,8%

100,3%

100,1%

-

-

-

(0,81)

(1,08)

1,06

0,67

(0,53)

(0,14)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

100,5%

99,0%

101,3%

100,4%

99,4%

99,5%

100,9%

100,3%

100,1%

(0,35)

(1,50)

2,29

(0,89)

(0,91)

0,02

1,46

(0,65)

(0,12)

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

-

NA

NA

-

-

-

NA

NA

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

98,5%

98,8%

98,0%

102,0%

100,0%

100,4%

100,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,38

(0,87)

4,07

(1,97)

0,40

(0,29)

CR Administrative law cases

98,1%

65,4%

89,4%

99,7%

144,4%

113,0%

87,6%

104,6%

97,5%

(0,60)

(33,32)

36,69

11,54

44,81

(21,74)

(22,51)

19,43

(6,79)

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

100,8%

100,2%

99,8%

98,9%

102,3%

104,2%

99,4%

101,0%

98,0%

(2,75)

(0,57)

(0,41)

(0,90)

3,46

1,86

(4,59)

1,63

(3,00)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

44

88

-

5

-

NA

NA

-

-

144

15

53

94

-

8

-

NA

NA

-

-

290

15

54

97

4

3

NA

NA

NA

NA

13

310

15

50

96

3

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

13

236

18

41

88

6

4

NA

NA

NA

NA

14

72

12

44

85

6

6

NA

NA

NA

NA

5

76

16

53

84

6

4

NA

NA

NA

NA

18

129

24

52

87

5

3

NA

NA

NA

NA

21

96

18

68

54,7%

21,0%

1,8%

-7,7%

-17,1%

7,1%

19,7%

-2,9%

31,7%

117

33,7%

7,0%

3,7%

-1,8%

-8,3%

-2,8%

-1,9%

3,8%

35,2%

5

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

24

-

-

-

-25,4%

107,0%

-10,3%

1,5%

-9,2%

-4,5%

-39,4%

67,2%

-62,3%

-48,2%

137,0%

51,9%

-30,3%

-16,4%

-11,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,3%

4,8%

-63,7%

261,0%

11,9%

16,6%

112

-22,2%

101,3%

6,8%

-24,0%

-69,3%

4,9%

69,6%

-25,1%

16,4%

28

85,3%

-4,1%

1,4%

20,5%

-35,4%

39,7%

45,8%

-23,6%

57,2%

951 / 1555

        
        
         
         
         
         
        
         
        
        
        
        
         
        
         
         
        
        
        
        
         
         
        
        
        
        
         
        
        
         
         
        
        
         
        
         
        
         
        
        
      
       
       
       
      
      
       
        
        
        
        
        
         
         
        
         
        
Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.4.1 (all years) First instance courts, number of cases for specific case categories (Q101)

101.1.1 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Litigious divorce case

101.1.2 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Employment dismissal case

101.1.3 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Insolvency

101.2.1 Incoming cases_Litigious divorce case

101.2.2 Incoming cases_Employment dismissal case

101.2.3 Incoming cases_Insolvency

101.3.1 Resolved cases_Litigious divorce case

101.3.2 Resolved cases_Employment dismissal case

946

146

4 253

8 196

453

3 717

8 275

477

867

122

4 352

8 192

429

4 051

8 361

419

698

132

4 615

8 034

308

4 656

8 172

355

560

85

4 960

8 164

273

4 114

7 940

274

784

84

4 775

7 457

264

5 058

7 657

264

584

84

765

53

709

70

582

-38,5%

-8,4%

-19,5%

-19,8%

40,0%

-25,5%

31,0%

-7,3%

-17,9%

51

-65,1%

-16,4%

8,2%

-35,6%

-1,2%

0,0%

-36,9%

32,1%

-27,1%

5 108

4 936

3 931

3 178

-25,3%

2,3%

6,0%

7,5%

-3,7%

7,0%

-3,4%

-20,4%

-19,2%

7 711

7 787

7 705

7 378

-10,0%

0,0%

-1,9%

1,6%

-8,7%

3,4%

1,0%

-1,1%

-4,2%

267

195

145

178

-60,7%

-5,3%

-28,2%

-11,4%

-3,3%

1,1%

-27,0%

-25,6%

22,8%

4 836

3 609

3 674

2 282

-38,6%

9,0%

14,9%

-11,6%

22,9%

-4,4%

-25,4%

1,8%

-37,9%

7 530

7 843

7 832

7 557

-8,7%

1,0%

-2,3%

-2,8%

-3,6%

-1,7%

4,2%

-0,1%

-3,5%

298

178

164

161

-66,2%

-12,2%

-15,3%

-22,8%

-3,6%

12,9%

-40,3%

-7,9%

-1,8%

101.3.3 Resolved cases_Insolvency

3 618

3 788

4 311

4 299

4 725

5 008

4 614

4 427

3 215

-11,1%

4,7%

13,8%

-0,3%

9,9%

6,0%

-7,9%

-4,1%

-27,4%

101.4.1 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Litigious divorce case

101.4.2 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Employment dismissal case

867

122

698

132

560

85

784

84

584

84

765

53

709

70

582

51

403

-53,5%

-19,5%

-19,8%

40,0%

-25,5%

31,0%

-7,3%

-17,9%

-30,8%

68

-44,3%

8,2%

-35,6%

-1,2%

0,0%

-36,9%

32,1%

-27,1%

33,3%

101.4.3 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Insolvency

4 352

4 615

4 960

4 775

5 108

4 936

3 931

3 178

2 245

-48,4%

6,0%

7,5%

-3,7%

7,0%

-3,4%

-20,4%

-19,2%

-29,4%

Table 3.5.1 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for specific case categories (Q101)

Table 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 Variations of CR and DT for specific case categories of first instance cases (Q101)

CR Litigious divorce cases

101,0%

102,1%

101,7%

97,3%

102,7%

97,7%

100,7%

101,6%

102,4%

1,45

1,09

(0,34)

(4,39)

5,58

(4,90)

3,14

0,92

0,77

CR Employment dismissal cases

105,3%

97,7%

115,3%

100,4%

100,0%

111,6%

91,3%

113,1%

90,4%

(14,10)

(7,25)

18,01

(12,92)

(0,36)

11,61

(18,21)

23,91

(20,03)

CR Insolvency cases

97,3%

93,5%

92,6%

104,5%

93,4%

103,6%

127,8%

120,5%

140,9%

44,74

(3,93)

(0,98)

12,86

(10,60)

10,85

23,46

(5,75)

16,92

DT Litigious divorce cases

DT Employment dismissal cases

DT Insolvency cases

38

93

439

30

115

445

25

87

420

36

112

405

28

116

395

37

65

360

33

144

311

27

114

262

19

-49,1%

-20,3%

-17,9%

44,1%

-22,8%

33,2%

-11,0%

-17,8%

-28,2%

154

65,1%

23,2%

-24,0%

28,0%

3,8%

-44,1%

121,1%

-20,9%

35,8%

255

-41,9%

1,3%

-5,6%

-3,5%

-2,7%

-8,8%

-13,6%

-15,7%

-2,7%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

952 / 1555

         
         
        
        
         
        
         
         
         
      
        
       
      
        
       
      
       
      
       
        
        
       
      
       
       
        
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.1.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.1.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.1.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.1.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.1.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.1.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.1.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.1.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

97.1.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.1.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

Table 3.7.1 to 3.7.5 (2019 and 2020) Second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Table 3.9.1 to 3.9.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

6 426

4 303

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

6 419

3 995

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

7 782

4 213

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

7 841

8 620

7 990

7 320

4 130

4 745

3 917

3 305

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

1 656

2 010

3 119

3 385

3 692

3 888

3 839

97.1.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases 

467

414

450

326

183

185

176

97.2.1 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.2.2 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.2.3 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.2.4 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.2.5 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.2.6 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.2.7 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.2.8 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

97.2.9 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.2.10 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

97.2.11 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases 

23 545

25 440

23 053

20 648

18 336

17 082

15 742

14 687

14 992

14 605

13 943

12 498

11 463

10 788

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

3 948

4 910

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

5 635

4 813

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

4 457

3 991

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

4 138

3 877

3 683

3 286

2 567

1 961

1 936

1 668

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-0,1%

21,2%

0,8%

9,9%

-7,3%

-8,4%

-7,2%

5,5%

-2,0%

14,9%

-17,4%

-15,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

21,4%

55,2%

8,5%

9,1%

5,3%

-1,3%

-11,3%

8,7%

-27,6%

-43,9%

1,1%

-4,9%

8,0%

-9,4%

-10,4%

-11,2%

-6,8%

-7,8%

2,1%

-2,6%

-4,5%

-10,4%

-8,3%

-5,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

42,7%

-20,9%

-7,2%

-6,3%

-5,0%

-10,8%

-2,0%

-17,1%

-35,7%

-23,6%

-1,3%

-13,8%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

953 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

23 552

24 077

22 994

19 869

18 966

17 752

17 657

14 995

14 774

14 688

13 328

13 326

12 075

11 941

97.3.1 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.3.2 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.3.3 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.3.4 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.3.5 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.3.6 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.3.7 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.3.8 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

97.3.9 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.3.10 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

97.3.11 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases 

97.4.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.4.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.4.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.4.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.4.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.4.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.4.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.4.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

97.4.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.4.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

3 594

4 963

6 419

3 995

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4 526

4 777

7 782

4 213

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

4 191

4 115

7 841

4 130

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

3 831

NA

3 732

4 021

2 710

1 959

1 945

1 695

8 620

7 990

7 320

5 405

4 745

3 917

3 305

2 152

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

185

47

22

25

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

3 839

3 104

176

149

26

13

13

37

15

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,2%

-4,5%

-13,6%

-4,5%

-6,4%

-0,5%

-1,5%

-0,6%

-9,3%

0,0%

-9,4%

-1,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

25,9%

-7,4%

-8,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7,7%

-3,7%

-13,9%

-34,1%

-27,7%

-0,7%

-12,9%

21,2%

0,8%

9,9%

-7,3%

-8,4%

-26,2%

5,5%

-2,0%

14,9%

-17,4%

-15,6%

-34,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

55,2%

8,5%

9,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-19,1%

8,7%

-27,6%

-43,9%

1,1%

-4,9%

-15,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-3,4%

67,9%

-44,7%

42,3%

5,6%

15,8%

-40,9%

15,4%

-18,2%

177,8%

-48,0%

-84,6%

97.4.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases

414

450

326

183

97.5.1 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.5.2 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.5.10 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

-

-

-

-

-

-

29

18

11

28

19

9

2 010

3 119

3 385

3 692

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

954 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 (2019 and 2020): Second instance clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.9.4 and 3.9.5 (2019 and 2020): Variation of second clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

100,0%

94,6%

99,7%

96,2%

103,4%

103,9%

112,2%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

102,1%

98,5%

100,6%

95,6%

106,6%

105,3%

110,7%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

91,0%

80,3%

94,0%

92,6%

NA

101,3%

122,4%

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

101,1%

99,3%

103,1%

105,6%

99,9%

100,5%

101,6%

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

99

97

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

204

30

118

104

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

252

34

124

103

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

295

29

158

130

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

352

25

154

107

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

34

151

100

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

375

33

112

66

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

282

32

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(5,39)

5,39

(3,53)

7,49

0,47

7,93

(3,48)

2,05

(4,95)

11,55

(1,21)

5,08

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(11,77)

17,07

(1,54)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

20,76

(1,81)

3,88

2,39

(5,37)

0,57

1,15

18,6%

5,5%

27,2%

-2,9%

-2,1%

-25,8%

7,0%

-1,4%

26,6%

-17,4%

-6,9%

-34,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

23,2%

17,2%

19,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-25,0%

12,9%

-15,9%

-14,8%

39,8%

-4,2%

-2,9%

955 / 1555

        
         
        
         
         
         
        
         
        
       
        
         
      
       
        
       
        
         
         
        
         
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.10.1 to 3.10.5 (2019 and 2020) Supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Table 3.12.1 to 3.12.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of the supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.1.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.1.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.1.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.1.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.1.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.1.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.1.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.1.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

99.1.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.1.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

99.1.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.2.1 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.2.2 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.2.3 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.2.4 High inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.2.5 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.2.6 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.2.7 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.2.8 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

99.2.9 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.2.10 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

99.2.11 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

315

293

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

22

820

659

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

161

439

403

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

36

690

543

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

147

281

252

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

29

709

576

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

133

298

278

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

20

634

502

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

132

321

292

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

29

572

451

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

121

250

226

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

24

585

476

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

109

328

307

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

21

546

447

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

99

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

39,4%

-36,0%

6,0%

7,7%

-22,1%

31,2%

37,5%

-37,5%

10,3%

5,0%

-22,6%

35,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

63,6%

-19,4%

-31,0%

45,0%

-17,2%

-12,5%

-15,9%

2,8%

-10,6%

-9,8%

2,3%

-6,7%

-17,6%

6,1%

-12,8%

-10,2%

5,5%

-6,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-8,7%

-9,5%

-0,8%

-8,3%

-9,9%

-9,2%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

956 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.3.1 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.3.2 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.3.3 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.3.4 High inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.3.5 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.3.6 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.3.7 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.3.8 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

99.3.9 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.3.10 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

99.3.11 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.4.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.4.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.4.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.4.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.4.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.4.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.4.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.4.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry 
cases

99.4.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.4.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative 
law cases

99.4.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.5.1 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.5.2 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.5.10 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

696

549

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

147

439

403

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

36

-

-

-

848

694

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

154

252

252

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

29

-

-

-

692

550

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

142

298

278

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

20

-

-

611

488

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

123

321

292

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

29

5

5

643

517

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

126

250

226

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

24

1

1

507

395

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

112

328

307

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

21

-

-

466

365

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

101

408

389

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

19

3

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

21,8%

-18,4%

-11,7%

5,2%

-21,2%

-8,1%

26,4%

-20,7%

-11,3%

5,9%

-23,6%

-7,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4,8%

-7,8%

-13,4%

2,4%

-11,1%

-9,8%

-42,6%

18,3%

7,7%

-22,1%

31,2%

24,4%

-37,5%

10,3%

5,0%

-22,6%

35,8%

26,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-19,4%

-31,0%

45,0%

-17,2%

-12,5%

-9,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-80,0%

-80,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

957 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 Supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.12.4 and 3.12.5 Variation of the supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

84,9%

122,9%

97,6%

96,4%

112,4%

86,7%

85,3%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

83,3%

127,8%

95,5%

97,2%

114,6%

83,0%

81,7%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

91,3%

104,8%

106,8%

93,2%

104,1%

102,8%

102,0%

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

230

268

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

89

108

133

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

69

157

184

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

51

192

218

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

86

142

160

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

70

236

284

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

68

320

389

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

69

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

44,79

(20,58)

(1,26)

16,64

(22,90)

(1,52)

53,42

(25,29)

1,81

17,92

(27,61)

(1,60)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

14,74

1,91

(12,72)

11,75

(1,33)

(0,71)

-52,9%

44,9%

22,0%

-26,0%

66,4%

35,3%

-50,5%

39,2%

18,4%

-26,9%

77,8%

37,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-23,1%

-25,2%

67,4%

-19,2%

-1,6%

0,3%

958 / 1555

       
      
        
       
      
        
       
      
         
       
      
        
       
         
      
       
        
        
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.14.1 to 3.14.5 First instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

094.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

094.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

094.2.1 Total -incoming

094.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

094.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

094.2.4 Other - incoming

094.3.1 Total - resolved

094.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

094.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

094.3.4 Other - resolved

094.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

094.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

094.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

094.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

2 907

NA

NA

NA

17 225

NA

NA

NA

16 779

NA

NA

NA

3 353

NA

NA

NA

208

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

959 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.15.1 to 3.10.2 CR and DT for first instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

098.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

098.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

098.2.1 Total -incoming

098.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

098.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

098.2.4 Other - incoming

098.3.1 Total - resolved

098.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

098.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

098.3.4 Other - resolved

Table 3.16.1 to 3.16.5 Second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

97,4%

NA

NA

NA

73

NA

NA

NA

759

NA

NA

NA

4 466

NA

NA

NA

4 418

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

960 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

098.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

098.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

098.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

098.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

807

NA

NA

NA

7

NA

NA

NA

Table 3.17.1 to 3.17.2 CR and DT for second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

98,9%

NA

NA

NA

67

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

961 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.18.1 to 3.18.5 Supreme court criminal law cases (Q100)

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

100.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

100.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

100.2.1 Total -incoming

100.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

100.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

100.2.4 Other - incoming

100.3.1 Total - resolved

100.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

100.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

100.3.4 Other - resolved

100.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

100.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

100.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

100.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

93

NA

NA

NA

261

NA

NA

NA

265

NA

NA

NA

86

NA

NA

NA

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

962 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.19.1 to 3.19.2 CR and DT for supreme court  criminal law cases (Q100)

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

101,5%

NA

NA

NA

118

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

963 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 5: Access to justice

Legal aid

Table 5.1 to Table 5.6 (Q12-2, Q16, Q18, Q19, Q20, Q20-1)

12-2.1.1 Coverage of court fees

12-2.1.2 Exemption from court fees

16.1.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (criminal cases)

16.1.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (criminal cases)

16.2.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (other than criminal 
cases)

16.2.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (other than criminal cases)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

-

-

-

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

18.1.1 Legal aid for the enforcement of judicial decisions

19.1.1  Legal aid granted for other costs - criminal cases

19.1.2  Legal aid granted for other costs - other than criminal cases

020.1.1 Total

020.1.2 Total - criminal cases

020.1.3 Total - other than criminal cases

020.2.1 Total brought to court

020.2.2 Broight to court - criminal cases

020.2.3 Brought to court - other then criminal

020.3.1 Total not brought to court

020.3.2 Not broight to court - criminal cases

020.3.3 Not brought to court - other then criminal

020-1.1.1 Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulation

020-1.1.2 Average duration

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

76 914

NA

NA

36 544

27 442

9 102

40 370

NA

NA

5

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

964 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

System for compensating users

Table 5.7.1 and Table 5.7.2 (Q37)

037.1.1 Requests for compensation - Total

037.1.2 Requests for compensation - Excessive length of 
proceedings

037.1.3 Requests for compensation - Non-execution of court 
decisions

037.1.4 Requests for compensation - Wrongful arrest

037.1.5 Requests for compensation - Wrongful conviction

037.1.6 Requests for compensation - Other

037.2.1 Condemnations - Total

037.2.2 Condemnations - Excessive length of proceedings

037.2.3 Condemnations - Non-execution of court decisions

037.2.4 Condemnations - Wrongful arrest

037.2.5 Condemnations - Wrongful conviction

037.2.6 Condemnations - Other

037.3.1 Amount - Total

037.3.2 Amount - Excessive length of proceedings

037.3.3 Amount - Non-execution of court decisions

037.3.4 Amount - Wrongful arrest

037.3.5 Amount - Wrongful conviction

037.3.6 Amount - Other

78

22

-

25

12

19

35

6

2

15

8

4

26 705 €

6 000 €

-

5 690 €

14 050 €

966 €

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

965 / 1555

         
           
           
         
              
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 6.1 to Table 6.11 (Q62-7, Q62-7-1, Q62-8,  Q62-8-1, Q63-1, Q63-1-1, Q63-2 Q63-6, Q63-7, Q63-7-1, Q64-2,  Q64-4, Q64-6, Q64-3, Q64-3-1, Q64-7, Q64-7-1, 
Q64-9)

Indicator 6: The ICT tools of courts and for court users

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

62-7 Writing assistance tools coordinated at national level

62-7-1.1 Deployment rate in civil matter

62-7-1.2 Deployment rate in criminal matter

62-7-1.3 Deployment rate in administrative matter

62-8 Voice recording tools

62-8-1.1.1 Availability of simple dictation tools in civil matter

62-8-1.1.2 Availability of simple dictation tools in criminal matter

62-8-1.1.3 Availability of simple dictation tools in administrative 
matter

62-8-1.2.1 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in civil 
matter

62-8-1.2.2 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in criminal 
matter

62-8-1.2.3 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in 
administrative matter

62-8-1.3.1 Availability of voice recognition in civil matter

62-8-1.3.2 Availability of voice recognition in criminal matter

62-8-1.3.3 Availability of voice recognition in administrative matter

062-9 Availability of intranet site within the judicial system for 
distribution of news/novelties

63.1 Is there a case management system? 

63.1-1.1 CMS for civil matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for criminal matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for administrative matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.2 CMS for civil matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for criminal matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for administrative matter (status of case onlinee)

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

-

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

-

-

Both

Both

Publication of 
decision online

Publication of 
decision online

Both

Both

Both

Both

Both

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

966 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63.1-1.3 CMS for civil matter (Centralised or interoperable database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for criminal matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for administrative matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.4 CMS for civil matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for criminal matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for administrative matter (Early warning signals)

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS civil matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS criminal matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS administrative matter

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - land registry

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - business registry

63-2.2 Data consolidated at national level for land registry

63-2.2  Data consolidated at national level for business registry

63-2.3 Service available online for land registry

63-2.3  Service available online for business registry

63-2.4 Statistical module integrated or connected for land registry

63-2.4  Statistical module integrated or connected for business 
registry

063-6.1.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (deployment 
rate)

063-6.1.2 Justice expenses management (deployment rate)

063-6.1.3 Other financial management tools (deployment rate)

063-6.2.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (Data 
consolidated at national level)

063-6.2.2 Justice expenses management (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.2.3 Other financial management tools (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.3.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (System 
communicating with other ministries)

063-6.3.2 Justice expenses management (System communicating 
with other ministries)

063-6.3.3 Other financial management tools (System communicating 
with other ministries)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

NA

NA

True

True

True

True

NA

NA

True

True

True

True

NA

NA

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

100%

100%

100%

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

967 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63-7.1 Measurement tools to assess the workload

63-7-1.1.1 Deployment rate - workload of judges

63-7-1.1.2 Deployment rate - workload of prosecutors

63-7-1.1.3 Deployment rate - workload of non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.2.1 Monitoring on national level - judges

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - prosecutors

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.3.1 Monitoring on court level - judges

63-7-1.3.2 Monitoring on court level - prosecutors

63-7-1.3.3 Monitoring on court level - non-judge and non-prosecutor 
staff

064-2 - Possibility to submit a case to courts by electronic means

064-2 - Civil and/or commercial

064-2 - Criminal

064-2 - Administrative

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - civil

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - criminal

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory  - administrative

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - civil

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - criminal

064-2 - Specific legislative framework  - administrative

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - civil

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - criminal

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - administrative

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

True

False

False

False

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

NA

100%

100%

100%

False

NA

False

True

True

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

968 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-3 - Is it possible to request for granting legal aid by electronic 
means? 

064-3-1.1 - Equipment rate

064-3-1.2 - Request in paper mandatory

064-3-1.3 - Specific legislative framework

064-3-1.4 - Granting LA is also electronic

064-3-1.5 - Information available in CMS

064-4 - Possibility to transmit summons to a judicial meeting or a 
hearing by electronic means

064-4-1.1.1 - Summons produced by CMS- civil

064-4-1.1.2 - Summons produced by CMS- criminal

064-4-1.1.3 - Summons produced by CMS- administrative

064-4-1.2.1 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- civil

064-4-1.2.2 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- criminal

064-4-1.2.3 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- administrative

064-4-1.3.1 - Consent of the user - civil

064-4-1.3.2 - Consent of the user - criminal

064-4-1.3.3 - Consent of the user - administrative

064-6.1.1 - Civil and/or commercial (deployment rate)

064-6.1.2 - Criminal (deployment rate)

064-6.1.3 - Administrative (deployment rate)

True

True

True

NA

100%

NA

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

NA

NA

NA

100%

100%

100%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

969 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-6.2.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.2 - Criminal (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.3 - Administrative (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.3.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Modalities)

064-6.3.2 - Criminal (Modalities)

064-6.3.3 - Administrative (Modalities)

064-6.4.1 - Civil and/or commercial (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.2 - Criminal (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.3 - Administrative (specific legal framework)

064-6.5.1 - Civil and/or commercial (availability for)

064-6.5.2 - Criminal (availability for)

064-6.5.3 - Administrative (availability for)

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

    Other

    Other

    Other

    Other

    Other

    Other

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer

Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

970 / 1555

      
      
      
    
    
    
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-7.1.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (deployment rate)

064-7.1.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.2.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (Modalities)

064-7.2.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.3.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (specific legal framework)

064-7.32.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-7.3.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts (specific 
legal framework)

064-7.3.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-9 - Existance of online processing devices of specialised 
litigation

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

100%

100%

100%

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

971 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

46.1.1 Total Number of professional judges

46.1.2 Number of 1st inst professional judges

46.1.3 Number of 2nd inst professional judges

46.1.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges

46.2.1 Number of professional judges_males

46.2.2 Number of 1st instance professional judges_males

46.2.3 Number of 2nd instance professional judges_males

46.2.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges_males

46.3.1  Number of professional judges_females

46.3.2  Number of 1st inst professional judges_females

46.3.3  Number of 2nd inst professional judges_females

46.3.4  Number of Supreme court professional judges_females

046-2.1.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Total

046-2.2.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Civil and commercial

046-2.2.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.3.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Criminal

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

Indicator 7: Professionals of justice  (Indicator 9 in 2019)

Table 7.1.1 to 7.5.6 for judges, non judge staff, prosecutors, non prosecutor staff and salaries

768

684

51

33

315

259

31

25

453

425

20

8

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

772

691

48

33

312

261

27

24

460

430

21

9

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

754

671

49

34

297

246

27

24

457

425

22

10

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

762

679

48

35

291

240

27

24

471

439

21

11

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

778

692

51

35

298

245

29

24

480

447

22

11

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

767

686

48

33

291

242

28

21

476

444

20

12

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

758

676

49

33

284

235

29

20

474

441

20

13

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

750

667

50

33

268

220

29

19

482

447

21

14

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

740

-3,6%

0,5%

-2,3%

1,1%

2,1%

-1,4%

-1,2%

-1,1%

-1,3%

662

-3,2%

1,0%

-2,9%

1,2%

1,9%

-0,9%

-1,5%

-1,3%

-0,7%

48

30

-5,9%

-5,9%

2,1%

-2,0%

6,3%

-5,9%

2,1%

2,0%

-4,0%

-9,1%

0,0%

3,0%

2,9%

0,0%

-5,7%

0,0%

0,0%

-9,1%

259

-17,8%

-1,0%

-4,8%

-2,0%

2,4%

-2,3%

-2,4%

-5,6%

-3,4%

216

-16,6%

0,8%

-5,7%

-2,4%

2,1%

-1,2%

-2,9%

-6,4%

-1,8%

26

-16,1%

-12,9%

0,0%

0,0%

7,4%

-3,4%

3,6%

0,0%

-10,3%

17

-32,0%

-4,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-12,5%

-4,8%

-5,0%

-10,5%

481

6,2%

1,5%

-0,7%

3,1%

1,9%

-0,8%

-0,4%

1,7%

-0,2%

446

4,9%

1,2%

-1,2%

3,3%

1,8%

-0,7%

-0,7%

1,4%

-0,2%

22

13

740

662

48

30

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

10,0%

5,0%

4,8%

-4,5%

4,8%

-9,1%

0,0%

5,0%

4,8%

62,5%

12,5%

11,1%

10,0%

0,0%

9,1%

8,3%

7,7%

-7,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

972 / 1555

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

046-2.4.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - 
Administrative

046-2.4.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.5.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Other

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

62

43

19

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 52.1.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in courts 

2 619

2 602

2 608

2 729

2 740

2 722

2 664

2 684

2 709

3,4%

-0,6%

0,2%

4,6%

0,4%

-0,7%

-2,1%

0,8%

0,9%

52.1.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

52.1.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges

1 348

1 358

1 369

1 475

1 526

1 505

1 451

1 467

1 485

10,2%

0,7%

0,8%

7,7%

3,5%

-1,4%

-3,6%

1,1%

1,2%

52.1.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks

52.1.5 Number of Technical staff

52.1.6 Number of Other non judge staff

52.2.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(men)

52.2.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(men)

52.2.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(men)

52.2.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(men)

52.2.5 Number of Technical staff(men)

52.2.6 Number of Other non judge staff(men)

776

425

70

-

-

-

-

-

-

733

428

83

-

-

-

-

-

-

52.3.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(women)

2 243

2 259

801

353

85

NA

816

350

88

NA

855

272

87

NA

871

259

87

NA

849

280

84

NA

861

270

86

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

52.3.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(women)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

52.3.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(women)

1 243

1 256

52.3.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(women)

52.3.5 Number of Technical staff(women)

52.3.6 Number of Other non judge staff(women)

665

268

-

690

233

80

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

873

12,5%

-5,5%

9,3%

1,9%

4,8%

1,9%

-2,5%

1,4%

1,4%

265

-37,6%

0,7%

-17,5%

-0,8%

-22,3%

-4,8%

8,1%

-3,6%

-1,9%

86

22,9%

18,6%

2,4%

3,5%

-1,1%

0,0%

-3,4%

2,4%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,7%

-

1,0%

3,8%

-13,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

973 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

052-1.1.1 Non-judge staff (Total)

052-1.1.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (total)

052-1.1.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (total)

052-1.1.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (total)

052-1.2.1 Non-judge staff  (Males)

052-1.2.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (males)

052-1.2.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (males)

052-1.2.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (males)

052-1.3.1 Non-judge staff  (females)

052-1.3.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (females)

052-1.3.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (females)

052-1.3.4 Non-judge staff  at supreme court (females)

055.1.1 Prosecutors (total)

055.1.2 Prosecutors (1st inst.)

055.1.3 Prosecutors (2nd inst.)

055.1.4 Prosecutors (Highest instance)

055.2.1 Prosecutors - Males -total

055.2.2 Prosecutors - Males, 1st inst.

055.2.3 Prosecutors - Males, 2nd inst.

055.2.4 Prosecutors - Males, Supreme courts

055.3.1 Prosecutors - Females, Total

055.3.2 Prosecutors - Females, 1st inst.

055.3.3 Prosecutors - Females, 2nd inst.

055.3.4 Prosecutors - Females, Supreme courts

2 709

1 916

701

92

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

644

576

NAP

68

315

274

NAP

41

329

302

NAP

27

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

974 / 1555

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

060.1.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Total

060.2.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Males

060.3.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Females

004 Annual average salary in the country

132.1.1 Gross annual salary, in €  - Professional judge at the 
beginning of career

132.1.2 Gross annual salary, in €  - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.1.3 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor at the beginning 
of career

132.1.4 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

132.2.1 Net annual salary, in € - Professional judge at the beginning 
of career

132.2.2 Net annual salary, in € - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.2.3 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor at the beginning of 
career

132.2.4 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

133.1.1.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Reduced taxation

133.1.2.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Special pension

133.1.3.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Housing

133.1.4.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Other financial benefit

133.2.1.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Reduced taxation

133.2.2.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Special pension

133.2.3.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Housing

133.2.4.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Other financial benefit

585

165

420

17 143 €

36 267 €

49 698 €

29 357 €

47 038 €

21 941 €

30 067 €

17 761 €

28 458 €

False

True

False

False

False

True

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

975 / 1555

         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

144.1.1 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - Total number (1+2+3+4)

144.1.2 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 1. Breach of professional 
ethics 

144.1.3 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.1.4 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 3. Criminal offence 

144.1.5 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 4. Other

144.2.1 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - Total number 
(1+2+3+4)

144.2.2 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 1. Breach of 
professional ethics 

144.2.3 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.2.4 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 3. Criminal offence

144.2.5 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 4. Other 

145.1.1 Sanctions against Judges - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.1.2 Sanctions against Judges - 1. Reprimand

145.1.3 Sanctions against Judges - 2. Suspension

145.1.4 Sanctions against Judges - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.1.5 Sanctions against Judges - 4. Fine

145.1.6 Sanctions against Judges - 5. Temporary reduction of salary

145.1.7 Sanctions against Judges - 6. Position downgrade

145.1.8 Sanctions against Judges - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.1.9 Sanctions against Judges - 8. Resignation

145.1.10 Sanctions against  Judges - 9. Other

145.1.11 Sanctions against  Judges - 10. Dismissal

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7

2

2

0

3

25

5

17

3

NAP

3

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

976 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

145.2.1 Sanctions against Prosecutors - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.2.2 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 1. Reprimand

145.2.3 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 2. Suspension

145.2.4 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.2.5 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 4. Fine

145.2.6 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 5. Temporary reduction of 
salary

145.2.7 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 6. Position downgrade

145.2.8 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.2.9 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 8. Resignation

145.2.10 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 9. Other

145.2.11 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 10. Dismissal

18

5

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

6

3

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lawyers

Tables 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.7 and 7.8

146.1.1 Total number of lawyers practising

1 796

1 988

1 988

2 117

2 213

2 207

2 213

2 248

2 254

25,5%

10,7%

0,0%

6,5%

4,5%

-0,3%

0,3%

1,6%

0,3%

146.2.1 Practicing lawyers - man

146.3.1 Practicing lawyers - woman

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 377

1 393

1 393

836

855

941

147 Does this figure include “legal advisors” who cannot represent 
their clients in court (for example, some solicitors or in-house 
counsellors)? 

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,2%

0,0%

2,3%

10,1%

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

977 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Indicator 8: The existence and use of alternative dispute resolution methods

Lithuania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

166 Number of accredited or registered mediators who practice 
judicial mediation: 

47

47

109

129

167.1.1 Total number started

167. 1.2 Civil and commercial cases(cid:9) - started

167. 1.2 Family cases - started

167.1.4 Administrative cases - started

167.1.5 Labour cases including employment dismissal cases - started

167.1.6. Criminal cases - started

167.1.7 Consumer cases - started

Table 8.1 8.2 and 8.3

269

313

139

172

366

540

200

333

469

483

223

258

NAP

NAP

NAP

2

7

2

392

696

314

367

5

8

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

2

-

552

1074,5%

0,0%

131,9%

18,3%

108,5%

36,1%

28,1%

-16,4%

40,8%

523

248

254

7

14

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

72,5%

-10,6%

44,1%

-24,9%

43,9%

11,5%

40,8%

-21,0%

93,6%

-22,5%

42,2%

-30,8%

-

-

-

40,0%

250,0%

-71,4%

300,0%

75,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Key: Variation of more than (+ -) 20% 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

978 / 1555

Judiciary at a glance in Luxembourg

General data

Population:

634 730

GDP per capita: 101 056 €

Average annual 

salary:

63 015 €

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Professionals

Luxembourg

Luxembourg EU Median

EU Median

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual 
salary in the country
Luxembourg EU Median
Luxembourg

EU Median

Professional judges

Professional judges

36,10

23,92

36,10

23,92

Non-judge staff

35,13

59,00

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

9,77

9,91

23,63

15,22

35,13

59,00

9,77

9,91

23,63

15,22

1,46

Judge at the beginning of a career 

1,46

4,09

Judge of the highest court 1,75
2,02
1,75

1,71
Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 
1,71

1,46

1,46

Public prosecutor at highest instance

1,75

3,61

2,02

4,09

3,61

1,75

Lawyers

Lawyers

485,25

122,09

122,09

485,25

Judge at the
beginning of a career

Judge of the highest
court

Prosecutor at the
beginning of a career

Public prosecutor at
highest instance

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

Efficiency

1st instance

2nd instance

1st instance 2nd instance

100%

,

,

%
1
Civil and
5
%
0
commercial
1
Administrativ
5
2
9
e
cases
Total 
criminal law 
cases

,

%
0
0
0
1

NA

,

92,5%
%
4
7
8

%
87,4%
0
3
7

,

Supreme Court
Supreme 
Court

,

%
0
9
1
1

100,0%

,

%
8
9
0
1

105,1%

73,0% NAP

109,8%

119,0%

P
A
N

A
N

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

Administrative
cases

Total criminal law
cases

1
1

1

1
1

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance 2nd instance Supreme Court

Civil and commercial litigious cases
161
Administrative cases 513

368

NAP

Total criminal law cases

NA

NA

421

497

161

513

497
421 NAP

368

226

226

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

Information and communication technology

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

Assistance toolsCase management system
2018

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the workload
2019

Electronic communication

EU Median 2020

2020

2018
2019
2020

1,00
1,00
1,00

5,17

5,17

EU Median 2020

2,00

2,00

1,00

1,00

1,00

5,17
5,17
5,17
5,17

5,17

0,00
0,00
0,00

5,17

0,00
0,00
0,00

4,26
4,26
4,81

6,94

4,81

4,26

4,26

1,25

2,50

6,94

2,50

1,25

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

*ICT calculations are described in more details in Annex 5 - IT Calculation methodology

979

2020

Synthesis table for the main indicators for:

Luxembourg

Economic and demographic data

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Variations

Population

GDP per capita

Exchange rate (local currency needed to 
obtain 1€)

525 000

550 000

563 000

563 000

590 700

602 005

613 900

626 108

634 730

20,9%

83 600

83 400

88 500

88 500

90 700

92 026

95 943

101 446

101 056

20,9%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4,9%

2,5%

NAP

3,9%

5,8%

NAP

2,0%

4,3%

2,0%

5,7%

1,4%

-0,4%

NAP NAP

NAP

Average annual salary

42 500

46 000

66 300

61 720

63 015

63 015

48,3%

44,1%

-6,9%

2,1%

0,0%

Resources

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Professional judges per 100 000 inhab.

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhab.

34,1

NA

32,7

36,0

32,7

34,8

32,5

35,0

31,7

33,9

32,9

33,2

36,2

35,8

36,1

35,9

36,1

35,1

5,8%

-3,1%

14,2%

NA

-2,7%

5,8%

9,9%

7,9%

-0,2%

0,0%

0,3%

-2,2%

Lawyers per 100 000 inh.

384,8

400,5

387,2

412,6

403,1

431,4

487,5

465,4

485,2

26,1%

4,1%

21,0%

13,0%

-4,5%

Mediators

21,0

23,6

24,0

19,5

29,3

23,9

32,3

3,7

36,3

3,7

37,5

3,9

79,0%

22,1%

10,1%

34,8%

12,4%

0,0%

4,3%

3,4%

5,3%

ICT overall assesment

First instance incoming cases per 100 
inhab.

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Civil and commercial litigious cases

0,899

0,844

0,901

0,809

0,767

0,765

0,855

1,218

1,208

34,4%

-14,9%

11,4%

11,8%

42,5%

-0,9%

Administrative law cases

0,308

0,2

0,2

0,225

0,200

0,201

0,203

0,233

0,173

-43,9%

-17,8%

1,3%

0,7%

14,6%

-25,8%

Total criminal law cases

NA

First instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

173%

182%

CR administrative law cases

70%

94%

97%

94%

105%

100%

91%

98%

96%

94%

93%

86%

88%

75%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

-80,31

17,61

3,25

4,20

-6,56

-11,76

-2,84

-8,36

-5,42

4,50

-10,75

12,19

93%

87%

NA

CR total criminal law cases

First instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
cases (days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

First instance pending cases per 100 
inhab. on 31 dec.

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

73

NA

53

NA

103

NA

86

NA

91

NA

108

NA

123

NA

139

NA

120,3%

-11,0%

34,2%

14,1%

13,5%

15,8%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

161

513

NA

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

0,31

NA

0,22

NA

0,25

NA

0,20

NA

0,19

NA

0,22

NA

0,27

NA

0,41

NA

58,5%

-21,7%

39,7%

23,8%

52,3%

20,7%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0,49

0,21

NA

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

87%

100%

106%

118%

115%

103%

105%

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

101%

104%

102%

97%

103%

96%

73%

110%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

19,43

1,09

8,50

1,19

-3,55

-11,74

2,20

5,64

-6,97

-22,89

Second instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

 Supreme court 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Supreme court
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

722

175

601

202

553

228

466

211

467

222

488

285

497

421

NA

-23,5%

-15,6%

30,1%

-2,5%

0,1%

5,1%

4,6%

1,7%

28,1%

47,9%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NA

NAP

90%

NAP

100%

NAP

78%

NAP

95%

NAP

96%

NAP

100%

NAP

119%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

NA

NAP

-4,67

NAP

17,20

NAP

0,36

NAP

4,31

NAP

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

NA

NAP

287

NAP

276

NAP

398

NAP

408

NAP

358

NAP

368

NAP

226

NA

NAP

47,6%

2,5%

-12,1%

NAP

NAP

NAP

2,8%

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

980 / 1555

1. Judicial organisation in Luxembourg

In Luxembourg in 2020, the number of courts considered as legal entities is 13. Namely, there are 7 courts of general jurisdiction and 6 specialised courts. 

The 7 legal entities of general jurisdiction encompass 5 first instance courts, namely 3 Justices of the peace and 2 District courts, one Appellate court and one Cassation 
Court. It is noteworthy that the Court of appeal and the Court of cassation are both part of the Supreme Court of Justice.  

Among the 6 specialised courts, 3 act at first instance and 3 are higher instance courts (see below for more details).  

In terms of geographic locations, there are 8 courts among which 3 are of first instance.

Distribution of general courts in Luxembourg

Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Luxembourg - 1st instance
Luxembourg - Higher instances
Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

EU Median - 1st instance

EU Median - Higher instances

Luxembourg

According to 2020 data, the distribution between 1st instance and higher instances courts of 
general jurisdiction in Luxembourg is around the EU median of 87% - 13%.

Luxembourg - 1st instance
General courts - Luxembourg

Luxembourg - Higher instances

71%

29%

General courts - Luxembourg
29%
13%
EU Median

71%
87%

EU Median

87%

13%

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Luxembourg

Geographic 
locations

Legal entities

General jurisdiction

Specialised 
jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

13

23

2

13

13

13

13

3

25

20

15

10

5

0

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Luxembourg

Geographic locations
Legal entities General jurisdiction
Legal entities Specialised jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Luxembourg

Distribution of first instance general jurisdiction and specialised courts

Luxembourg

Ratio general jurisdiction vs specialised
General jurisdiction Specialised courts

63%

75%

38%

38%

25%

63%

EU Median

25%

75%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

The distribution between number of general jurisdiction courts and specialised courts of 62,5% - 37,5% is around the EU median (distribution 
tendency in EU: 75,5% - 24,5%).

Specialised courts
Total

Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

Insolvency courts

Labour courts

Family courts

Rent and tenancies courts

Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

Internet related disputes

Administrative courts

Insurance and / or social welfare courts

Military courts

Juvenile courts

Other specialised 1st instance courts

First instance

Higher instance

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

1

1

NAP

NAP

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

1

1

NAP

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

981 / 1555

For 2020, in contrast with previous evaluation cycles, data on specialised courts is presented in terms of legal entities. 

General courts are organized into specialized sections of a court. For example, the commercial courts (which also deal with insolvency cases) are specialized sections of 
the District court. Only the administrative, military and social security courts are autonomous.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

982 / 1555

2. Professionals of justice in Luxembourg

● Professional judges and non-judge staff

Evolution of the number of professional judges since 2012 (Q46)

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Absolute 
number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

179

180

184

183

187

198

222

226

229

34,10

32,73

32,68

32,50

31,66

32,89

36,16

36,10

36,08

Professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants

34,10

32,73

32,68

32,50

31,66

32,89

36,16

36,10

36,08

23,9

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

EU median
According to 2020 data, the total number of professional judges sitting in courts (all instances) in Luxembourg is 229, which is 1,3% more than in previous cycle.

23,9

More precisely, in Luxembourg, there are 36,08 professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants (this figure is above the EU median of 23,92 judges per 100 000 inhabitants) and about 0,97 
non-judge staff per judge .

There is no significant difference compared with previous cycle when this ratio was at 1,00 non-judge staff per judge.

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and gender

2020

Total

Distribution by 
instance

Male

Female

% Male

% Female

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

171

53

5

229

74,7%

23,1%

2,2%

49

18

3

70

122

35

2

159

28,7%

34,0%

60,0%

30,6%

71,3%

66,0%

40,0%

69,4%

Distribution of professional judges by instance

Luxembourg

EU Median

74,7%

72,39%

EU Median

72,39%

23,98%

4,03%

23,1%

23,98%

2,2%

4,03%

Distribution of professional judges by gender and by instance% Female

71,3%

28,7%

66,0%

34,0%

40,0%

60,0%

% Male

69,4%

30,6%

Total

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

In this cycle, the total number of female professional judges (all instances) is 159, which represents 69,4% of the total number of judges.

The total number of judges is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 171 are sitting in first instance courts (of which 122 are female); 53 are sitting in 
second instance courts (of which 35 are female)  and 5 are sitting in Supreme Court (of which 2 are female).  

Compared with the EU distribution of professional judges per instance, the trend observed in Luxembourg is quite similar, especially as concerns 1st and 2nd instances. Last instance 
judges are less numerous. 

As regards the distribution of the number of judges among the different judicial instances, Luxembourg presents some peculiarities which should be mentioned. Namely, the number of 
professional judges at first instance courts includes District courts judges, justices of the peace and judges of the administrative tribunal. The number of professional judges at appellate 
courts  (2nd instance) includes judges of the Court of appeal of the Supreme Court of Justice and the Administrative court. The number of professional judges at Supreme court level 
includes only judges of the Cassation Court. 

As regards the distribution male/female, it has to be specified that female judges do not have the majority only at third instance. 

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Total

Civil and commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

171

53

5

229

106

33

NAP

144

48

15

NAP

63

17

5

NAP

22

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

In Luxembourg, the distribution of judges per categories of cases is possible as presented in the graph below. 

Distribution of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Civil and 
commercial

62,0%

62,3%

NAP

62,9%

Criminal

Administrative

Other

28,1%

28,3%

NAP

27,5%

9,9%

9,4%

NAP

9,6%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

Distribution of the total number of professional judges by instance and 
matter

62,9% Civil and commercial

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

0

63%
9,6% Administrative

28%

10% NAP

0%

27,5% Criminal

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

983 / 1555

Non-judge staff

Year

Number of non-judge staff

Per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

NA

NA

2013

198

36,00

2014

196

34,81

2015

197

2016

200

2017

200

2018

220

2019

225

2020

223

34,99

33,86

33,22

35,84

35,94

35,13

E
U 
m

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants

59,00

2020

Total

Rechtspfleger

36,00

34,81

34,99

33,86

33,22

35,84

35,94

35,13

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

Non-judge staff assisting the judge

Staff in charge of administrative tasks

Technical staff

Other

Absolute 
number

223

NAP

213

3

3

4

in %

NAP

95,5%

1,3%

1,3%

1,8%

In 2020, Luxembourg has 223 non-judge staff (of which 144 are females). The total number of non-judge staff in comparison with the previous cycle reveals a decrease of -0,9%.

In this cycle, the non-judge staff is broken down as follows:

◦ 213 non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges such as registrars (of which 140 are women);
◦ 3 staff in charge of different administrative tasks and of the court management (of which 1 are women);
◦ 3 technical staff (of which 0 are women);
◦ 4 other (of which 3 are women);

In 2020, the number of non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants has decreased (from 35,9 in 2019 to 35,1 in 2020).

During the same period, the number of judges per 100 000 inhabitants evolves from 36,1 judges per 100 000 inhabitants in 2019 to 36,1 in 2020.

It is noteworthy that all non-judge staff is in charge of assisting judges (except at the administrative courts). Therefore, starting from 2017, the distinction between staff in charge of 
administrative tasks and staff assisting judges in no more carried out. Only at the administrative courts there are 6 persons not assisting judges.

The other non-judicial staff consists of three legal secretaries and a data protection compliance officer of the administrative courts.

Professional judges, non-judge staff and their ratio (Q46, Q52)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Luxembourg

EU median

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

36,08

35,13

Non-judge staff per judge

0,97

23,92

59,00

3,30

Professional judges and non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

36,08

35,13

Non-judge staff per judge

0,97

59,00

3,30

23,92

Luxembourg

EU median

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff  (Q46, Q52)

Judges 
per 100 000 inh.

Non-judge staff per
100 000 inh.

Ratio between professional judges and 
non-judge staff

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff 
Non-judge staff per 100 000 inh.
(Q46, Q52)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

34,10

32,73

32,68

32,50

31,66

32,89

36,16

36,10

36,08

NA

36,00

34,81

34,99

33,86

33,22

35,84

35,94

35,13

EU median 2020

3,30

NA

1,10

1,07

1,08

1,07

1,01

0,99

1,00

0,97

1,10

1,07

2013

2014

1,08

1,10
1,07
1,08
1,07
1,01
0,99
1,00
0,97

2015

1,07

1,01

0,99

1,00

0,97

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

984 / 1555

● Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff

Absolute number of public prosecutors by instance and gender (Q55)

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

47

NAP

15

62

Distribution by 
instance

75,8%

NAP

24,2%

Male

24

NAP

7

31

Female

23

NAP

8

31

Male

51,1%

NAP

46,7%

50,0%

Female

48,9%

NAP

53,3%

50,0%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance
Luxembourg

EU Median

75,8%

EU Median

73,30%

73,30%

21,28%

4,66%

24,2%

4,66%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance and gender

Female

Male

48,9%

51,1%

53,3%

46,7%

1st instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

Supreme courts

50,0%

50,0%

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female prosecutors (all instances) is 31, which represents 50,0% of the total number of prosecutors.

The total number of prosecutors is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 47 in first instance (of which 23 are female); NAP are in second instance (of 
which NAP are female)  and 15 in final instance (of which 8 are female).  

As regards the distribution of the number of prosecutors among the different judicial instances, Luxembourg presents some peculiarities which should be mentioned. Namely, the data 
communicated for the 3dt instance includes both second instance and Supreme Court prosecutors, as they are grouped together in the Supreme Court of Justice, which is subdivided into 
the Court of Appeal and the Court of Cassation.

As regards the distribution male/female, it has to be specified that female prosecutors have the majority at third instance, while at first instance male prosecutors are still more numerous.

Non-prosecutor staff by gender (Q60)

Non-prosecutor staff

Total

2020

150

Male

79

Female

71

Non-prosecutor staff by gender

Male

Female

47%

53%

Public prosecutors, non-prosecutor staff and their ratio (Q55, Q60)

Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Luxembourg

EU median

Public prosecutors

9,77

Non-prosecutor staff

23,63

Non-prosecutor staff per 
prosecutor

2,42

9,91

15,22

1,11

Public prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per prosecutor

23,63

2,42

9,77

15,22

9,91

1,11

Luxembourg

EU median

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

985 / 1555

● Salaries of professional judges and prosecutors at beginning of a career and at the highest instance (Q132, Q4)

Salaries of professional judges and 
prosecutors (Q132, Q4)

Average gross annual 
salary 
in €

Average net annual 
salary 
in €

Ratio with national 
average annual 
gross salary

Judge at the beginning of a career 

92 016 €

Judge of the highest court 

110 177 €

Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

92 016 €

Public prosecutor at highest instance

110 177 €

NA

NA

NA

NA

1,46

1,75

1,46

1,75

EU Median

2,02

1,46
4,09

1,71

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual salary in the 
country

Salaries of 
judges and 
prosecutors in 
Judge

4,09

at the beginning 
of a career

3,61

92016

2,02

1,75

1,46

at the highest 
1,71
instance

1,75

110177

Prosecutor

at the beginning 
of a career

92016

Judge at the beginning of
career

Judge on highest instance

3,61

Luxembourg

Prosecutor at the
beginning of career

at the highest 
instance

EU Median

Prosecutor at highest
instance

110177

According to 2020 data, the absolute gross salary of a judge at the begining of a career in Luxembourg of 92 016€ is more than 50% above when compared to the EU median of 51 946€. 
As a ratio with the annual average salary of the country, the salary for a judge at the begining of career is: 1,46 compared with EU median of : 2,02.

As a starting salary (first instance professional judge or prosecutor) is considered the salary of the "attachés de justice" after their first appointment. The salary scale of the magistrates 
provides for 380 index points as a basis, a possible professional experience can be added to it but is not taken into account in the present calculations.

As a theoretical basic salary in respect of a judge or prosecutor at the Court of Appeal, is taken the grade M4, step 4, which corresponds to 455 points and to the average seniority of a 
magistrate appointed to the Court (courts and General Prosecutor's Office). However, it should be taken into account that this salary is strongly influenced by the family situation of the 
person concerned.
To calculate the annual salary, these points must be multiplied by the value of the index point. In December 2020, the value of the index point for a civil servant was 20.17893, which 
corresponds to a 12-month salary of 92.016€ for a professional judge of first instance, respectively a salary of 110.177€ for a judge or prosecutor at the Supreme Court. These figures do 
not include any bonuses, allowances or benefits that may be added to the basic salary depending on the magistrate concerned. More explanations on the calculation of civil servants' 
salaries, which also apply to the M career of magistrates, can be found on the civil service website (https://fonction-publique.public.lu/fr/carriere/parcours-
remuneration/fonctionnaire/traitement.html).

● Lawyers

Lawyers

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

Number of lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2 020

2 203

2 180

2 323

2 381

2 597

2 993

2 914

3 080

384,76

400,55

387,21

412,61

403,08

431,39

487,54

465,41

485,25

EU median 2020

122,09

In 2020, there are 3 080 lawyers, which is 5,7% more than in 2019.

384,76

400,55

387,21

412,61

403,08

431,39

487,54

465,41

485,25

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

122,09

EU median
2020

Luxembourg has 485,2 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants, which is above the EU median of 122,1 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

986 / 1555

● Judicial professionals (summary)

Judicial professionals in absolute number and per 100 000 inhabitants (Q46, Q52, Q55, Q60, Q146)

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

EU Median

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

226

223

62

150

36,10

23,92

35,13

59,00

9,77

9,91

23,63

15,22

Lawyers

3 080

485,25

122,09

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Luxembourg

EU Median

485,25

36,10

23,92

35,13

59,00

9,77

9,91

23,63

15,22

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

122,09

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

Professional judges

Luxembourg % Male
EU Median  % Male

-30,6%

69,4%

Luxembourg % Female
EU Median  % Female

30,6%

labels
Luxembourg % MaleLuxembourg % Female

% Male

% Female

Professional judges

30,6%

-39,0%

61,0%

39,0%

69,4%

Professional judges

30,6%

69,4%

39,0%

0,0%

61,0%

Non judge staff

35,4%

64,6%

Prosecutors

50,0%

50,0%

Non judge staff

Non judge staff

35,4%

-35,4%

64,6%

35,4%

64,6%

24,0%

76,0%

-24,0%

76,0%

24,0%

Non-prosecutor staff

52,7%

47,3%

Prosecutors

50,0%

Lawyers

52,3%

47,7%

40,5%

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

52,7%

Non-prosecutor staff

28,1%

Lawyers

Lawyers

52,3%

52,3%

-50,0%
-40,5%

-52,7%
-28,1%

-52,3%
-52,3%

50,0%
59,5%

47,3%
71,9%

47,7%
47,7%

50,0%

0,0%

59,5%

50,0%
40,5%
0,0%
52,7%
28,1%
0,0%
52,3%
52,3%

47,3%

47,7%

47,7%

71,9%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

987 / 1555

3. Legal aid and court fees in Luxembourg

In Luxembourg, legal aid includes:
◦ Coverage of court fees: 

◦ Exemption from court fees: 

0

0

In Luxembourg, litigants are not subject to the payment of taxes/court fees. No judicial body collects any tax or other payment in connection with the introduction or processing of a 
case in court. This answer does not include any fees charged by other entities (e.g. enforcement agents) in connection with court cases. 

In Luxembourg, legal aid is available for :

> Representation in court:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

> Legal advice, ADR and other legal services:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

>

Fees related to enforcement of judicial decisions as fees for enforcement agents (Q18) 

>

 Other costs than above (Q19) 

1

1

1

1

1

0

The Council of the Order has the task of providing legal aid to persons whose financial resources are insufficient to meet the costs of their defence. This insufficiency of resources 
is assessed in relation to the income and wealth of the person requesting legal aid and of the persons living with him/her in legal community.

Under the law, access to legal aid on national territory is not reserved to Luxembourg citizens and extends to a wide range of people. This concerns nationals of a EU Member 
State, foreigners authorised to settle in the Grand Duchy, foreigners assimilated to Luxembourg citizens in terms of legal aid by virtue of an international treaty and, lastly, any 
other foreign national, as regards procedures relating to the right of asylum, residence, establishment, access to or removal from the national territory.

Legal aid is granted to plaintiffs and defendants, both in judicial and extra-judicial matters, whether they are litigious or non-litigious. However, legal aid is refused to any person 
whose case appears to be manifestly inadmissible, unfounded or disproportionate to the costs to be incurred. It should also be noted that, unless there is a conflict of interest or 
an impediment, the lawyer appointed by the Bar Council is obliged to provide assistance (Source: Barreau.lu : https://www.barreau.lu/votre-avocat/assistance-judiciaire).

The request for legal aid must be made by means of a questionnaire available through the Central Social Assistance Service or on the website of the Luxembourg Bar, signed by 
the applicant, and sent to the President of the Bar Association with territorial jurisdiction (Diekirch or Luxembourg). In the case of persons detained by the police or accused, the 
lawyer or the examining magistrate will forward the request to the President of the Bar. The applicant may also indicate the name of the lawyer(s) from whom he or she wishes to 
receive legal assistance, or if applicable, indicate the name of the lawyer from whom he or she is currently receiving legal assistance. A number of documents must be attached to 
the application. After verification of the insufficiency of resources, the admission or rejection of the application for legal aid is notified to the applicant by the President of the Bar or 
the member of the Bar Council delegated by him for this purpose, by simple letter in the case of admission, and by registered letter in the case of rejection. The latter appoints the 
lawyer freely chosen by the applicant or, in the absence of choice or when the President of the Bar considers the choice inappropriate, a designated lawyer. (Source: Guichet.lu: 
https://guichet.public.lu/fr/citoyens/citoyennete/voies-recours-reglement-litiges/frais-avocat/demander-assistance-judiciaire.html) The lawyer cannot, however, make the 
application on behalf of the applicant. 

 Number of cases for which legal aid has been granted

Absolute number 
(in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

Total

4 660

1 182

3 478

Cases brought to court

Cases not brought to 
court

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Per 100 000 inhabitants
 (in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

Luxembourg

EU Median

734,2

186,2

547,9

734,2

330,9

402,7

Number of cases for which legal has been granted per 100 000 
inhabitants

Luxembourg

EU Median

734,2

734,2

330,9

186,2

547,9

402,7

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

Timeframes of the procedure for granting legal aid (in relation to the duration from the initial legal aid request to the final approval of the legal aid request)

◦ Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulations: 

◦ Actual average duration: 

NAP

NA

According to the Luxembourg Bar Association, the average reply time to an application for legal aid is impossible to determine. Namely, the majority of the legal aid applications 
received are incomplete and will have to be returned before a final decision can be taken. The date of this decision depends on how quickly the applicant responds. The bar 
association does not have statistics on this point. The processing time of a legal aid application by the Legal Aid Department of the Luxembourg Bar is on average +/- 1 month, i.e. 
after receipt of a legal aid application until a decision is taken, which can be either an agreement or a refusal or a return in case of an incomplete application. However, it should 
be noted that urgent requests are treated as a priority by the service.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

988 / 1555

4. Performance of courts in Luxembourg

● Efficiency indicators

◦ Clearance Rate (CR) and Disposition Time (DT)

The Clearance Rate shows the capacity of a judicial system to deal with the incoming cases. A Clearance Rate of 100% and higher does not generate backlog. 

The Disposition Time determines the estimated number of days necessary for a pending case to be solved in a court. 

First instance Total of other than criminal cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Evolution of number of all other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants
Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Incoming

5
8
1

,

8
8
1

,

9
7
1

,

7
7
1

,

3
9
1

,

4
8
1

,

7
2
2

,

0
1
2

,

0
1
2

,

NA

NA

NA

NA

1,85

1,79

0
0
2

,

1,93

2016

2017

2018

2019

2,27

2,10

2020

NA

NA

NA

2
8
6

,

NA

1,88

1,77

1,84

2,10

7
8
0

,

2,00

EU median

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0
6
6

,

NA

6
6
2

,

NA

NA

0,87

2,66

6,60
The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Luxembourg (2,10 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (6,82 per 100 inhabitants).

6,82

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Luxembourg (2,00 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below the EU median (6,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Luxembourg (0,87 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below the EU median (2,66 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Other than criminal cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Other than criminal 
cases

102%

99%

96%

93%

95%

99%

DT (days)

CR (%)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NA

NA

NA

NA

102%

99%

96%

93%

95%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

158

EU median

99%

109

2016

2017

2018

2019

158

2020

109

EU median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 95,2% in 2020 Luxembourg seems to face some difficulties in dealing with its other than criminal cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased by 2,7 points.

The Disposition Time of other than criminal cases cannot be calculated.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

989 / 1555

First instance Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of civil and commercial litigious cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

5
5
1

,

3
5
1

,

0
9
0

,

4
8
0

,

0
9
0

,

7
8
0

,

5
8
0

,

1
8
0

,

7
7
0

,

7
7
0

,

6
7
0

,

4
7
0

,

5
8
0

,

0
8
0

,

1
3
0

,

2
2
0

,

5
2
0

,

0
2
0

,

9
1
0

,

2
2
0

,

7
2
0

,

2
2
1

,

7
0
1

,

0,90
0,84
0,90
0,81
0,77
0,76
0,85
1,22
1,21
1,56

1
4
0

,

1
2
1

,

2
1
1

,

9
4
0

,

6
5
1

,

1,55
1,53
0,87
0,85
0,77
0,74
0,80
1,07
1,12
1,50

0,31
0,22
0,25
0,20
0,19
0,22
0,27
0,41
0,49
1,05

0
5
1

,

5
0
1

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Luxembourg (1,21 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below the EU median (1,56 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Luxembourg (1,12 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below the EU median (1,50 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Luxembourg (0,49 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below the EU median (1,05 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

172,8%

181,6%

96,8%

105,4%

100,0%

96,3%

93,5%

88,0%

92,5%

73

53

103

86

91

108

123

139

161

EU Median

98%

221

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

DT (days)

CR (%)

172,8%

181,6%

96,8%

105,4%

100,0%

96,3%

93,5%

88,0%

92,5%

98%

73

53

2012

2013

103

2014

86

91

2015

2016

108

2017

123

2018

139

2019

161

221

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 92,5% in 2020, Luxembourg seems to encounter difficulties in dealing with its civil and commercial litigious cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased by 4,5 points.

In 2020, the civil and commercial litigious cases are solved in approximately 161 days, which is somewhat below the EU median of 221 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 15,8% increase of the Disposition Time.

The number of civil and commercial litigious cases older than 2 years is not available. To date, it is not possible to provide information on cases in progress that are more 
than 2 years old. Computer developments aimed at establishing more detailed statistics are currently being studied. 

It is worth recalling that since the law of July 27, 2018 establishing the Family judge (JAF), in force as of 1.11. 2018, cases currently under the jurisdiction of the JAF are 
included in the category "civil litigious cases". These are cases previously handled by the civil chambers, but also cases handled by the juvenile and guardianship court 
(e.g., parental responsibility cases involving a natural child or a child whose parents are divorced) or at the justice of the peace level (alimony cases). There has been an 
increase in the number of incoming cases in these areas since they are handled by the Family judge. This fact can be explained by the simplification of access to justice 
for the litigant, who, in procedures other than divorce, can refer to the JAF by a simple letter; by the emergence of cases based on new legal provisions (e.g. request 
emanating from the minor); and by all the litigation generated by the new legal provision of the institution of a generalized joint parental authority. Moreover, since 
proceedings before the JAF take much less time than proceedings before the introduction of the JAF law, motions to modify decisions are filed more quickly and thus 
increase the volume of cases.

Due to the lockdown measures during the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of public hearings was reduced to a minimum, allowing courts to prioritize work on cases not 
requiring such hearings. In addition, special crisis legislation allowed cases to be taken under advisement without a public hearing, with the agreement of the parties.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

990 / 1555

First instance Administrative cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of administrative cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

1
3
0

,

1
2
0

,

5
2
0

,

3
2
0

,

4
2
0

,

3
2
0

,

2
2
0

,

0
2
0

,

0
2
0

,

0
2
0

,

0
2
0

,

9
1
0

,

0
2
0

,

7
1
0

,

3
2
0

,

0,31
0,25
0,24
0,22
0,20
0,20
0,20
0,23
0,17
0,30

7
1
0

,

0
3
0

,

0,21
0,23
0,23
0,20
0,20
0,19
0,17
0,17
0,15
0,26

1
2
0

,

7
1
0

,

5
1
0

,

NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
0,21
0,21

1
2
0

,

6
2
0

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Luxembourg (0,17 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below the EU median (0,30 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Luxembourg (0,15 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below the EU median (0,26 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Luxembourg (0,21 per 100 inhabitants) is is the EU median (0,21 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Administrative cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

69,8%

93,5%

93,5%

90,7%

97,7%

94,3%

86,0%

75,2%

87,4%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

513

EU Median

100%

388

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Administrative cases

DT (days)

CR (%)

93,5%

93,5%

90,7%

97,7%

94,3%

86,0%

87,4%

75,2%

100%

69,8%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU Median

513

388

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 87,4% in 2020, Luxembourg seems to face difficulties in dealing with its administrative cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased for 12,2 points.

In 2020, the administrative cases are solved in approximately 513 days, which is somewhat above the EU median of 388 days.

The number of administrative law cases older than 2 years is not available. To date, it is not possible to provide information on cases in progress that are more than 2 
years old. Computer developments aimed at establishing more detailed statistics are currently being studied

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

991 / 1555

Insolvency cases

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Insolvency cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Insolvency cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

DT (days)

CR (%)

105%

281

EU Median

105%

281

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU Median

The Clearance Rate was calculated at 100,0% in 2020 for insolvency cases, Luxembourg seems to be able to deal with its insolvency cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has been stable, aligned at the 100% threshold.

The Disposition Time for insolvency cases cannot be calculated.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

992 / 1555

● First instance Criminal Law Cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Incoming cases

Luxembourg

Total criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases Resolved casesPending 
Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

NA

2,18

NA

Total

Severe criminal cases 

Misdemeanour and/or 
minor cases

Other cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1 995

13 858

4 272

7 998

1 588

NA

NA

NA

NA

Per 100 inhabitants

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 
Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

0,31

2,18

0,67

1,26

0,25

NA

NA

NA

NA

8
1
2

,

EU Median

1,60

0
6
1

,

1,48

0,46

8
4
1

,

6
4
0

,

Luxembourg

EU Median

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, and other 
criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases

Resolved cases

2,18

Total

Severe criminal
cases

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

Other cases

0,31

0,25

0,67

1,26

The number of total incoming criminal cases in 2020 in Luxembourg is not available. 

The number of total resolved criminal cases in 2020 in Luxembourg (2,18 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat above the EU median (1,48 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total pending criminal cases at the end of 2020 in Luxembourg is not available.

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Total criminal law cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 

Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

NA

NA

NA

Other cases

79,6%

NA

NA

NA

NA

EU Median
The Clearance Rate of total criminal cases cannot be calculated

95,2%

139

The Disposition Time for criminal law cases cannot be calculated.

Minor offenses are all cases terminated by criminal order in police court or district court. Serious offenses represent all cases terminated by trial in police, correctional, or 
criminal court. The figures in "other cases" are cases referred to the investigating office.

The number of pending and incoming criminal cases is not available due to the specific organization of the workflow between the courts and the public prosecutor's 
office. Namely, the files are transferred to courts only shortly before the hearing and, if a case is not heard on the given date, it is then returned to the public prosecutor's 
office until the new hearing date. Thus, there are - with a few exceptions - no cases pending in the criminal courts over a long period of time. The number of incoming 
cases is more or less equal to the cases resolved. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

993 / 1555

Overall efficiency by instance and by case matter

CR (%)

DT (days)

CR (%)

DT (days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases

92,5%

105,1%

100,0%

Administrative cases

87,4%

73,0%

NAP

Total criminal law cases

NA

109,8%

119,0%

161

513

NA

497

421

NA

368

NAP

226

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)
2nd instance

1st instance

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Supreme Court

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and
commercial
Administrative
cases

%
5
2
9

,

100%

,

%
1
5
0
1

,

%
0
0
0
1

,

%
4
7
8

92,5%
%
0
3
7

87,4%

,

Total criminal law cases

,

%
8
9
0
1

105,1%

,

%
0
9
1
1

100,0%

73,0% NAP

P
A
N

A
N

1

1

1

368

497

161

Civil and
commercial
NA
litigious cases

Administrative
cases

Total criminal law
cases

109,8%

119,0%

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

1
1

421

513

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

226

According to the efficiency indicators for 2020, the administrative courts of Luxembourg prove to be less efficient than courts dealing with civil and criminal cases. On the 
one hand, the Clearance Rate is well below the 100% threshold for both first and second instances. On the other hand, the Disposition Time is considerably above the 
respective EU medians at first and second instance (respectively 388 days and 362 days). In this respect, it has been explained that the decrease in the Clearance Rate 
for 2020 of the second instance Administrative court is primarily due to the increase in the number of appeals, particularly those related to the City of Luxembourg's 
general development plan. These cases were entered in the first instance from January to March 2018, while the related judgments, consolidated by the first instance 
Administrative tribunal, were issued between May and September 2020. The related appeals (51) were filed between July and November 2020 and were still being 
processed on December 31, 2020, due to the fixed timeframe regime (suspension from July 16 to September 15 - one month for the answer - one month for the reply - 
one month for the replica duplicate), but also due to the pandemic and the implementation of the crisis legislation involving a suspension of the appeal deadlines (until 
June 24, 2020). However, throughout 2020, the Administrative Court was essentially up to date and disposed of cases as soon as they had been heard. 

In civil matters, first instance courts registered an increase of 4,5 points between 2019 and 2020 concerning the Clearance Rate indicator. Besides this evolution, the 
positive analyse should be completed by the fact that the Disposition Time with regard to first instance civil cases is below the EU median of 221 days. As to second and 
third instances, even if the Clearance Rate indicator is above the 100%, the Disposition Time indicator is for both instances significantly above the respective EU 
medians (177 days, 224 days). 

In criminal matters, given that the Clearance Rate cannot be calculated for first instance criminal cases, while the Disposition Time is available only in respect of the 
Cassation Court, the analysis can only be partial. On the one hand, the Clearance rate is above the 100% at first and second instances. On the other hand, the 
Disposition Time indicator at third instance is well above the EU median of 120 days.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

994 / 1555

5. Public prosecution services in Luxembourg

● Role and powers of the public prosecutor

In the criminal procedure, the public prosecutor in Luxembourg has the following 10 out of 11 possible roles and powers:

To conduct or supervise police investigation

To appeal

To conduct investigations

To supervise the enforcement procedure

When necessary, to request investigation measures from the judge

To discontinue a case without needing a decision by a judge

To charge

To present the case in the court

To propose a sentence to the judge

To end the case by imposing or negotiating a penalty or measure 
without requiring a judicial decision

Other significant powers

Public prosecutors have enhanced powers in certain investigative measures, in which the police, before acting, must obtain the approval of the state prosecutor (e.g. DNA 
processing, vehicle searches, extensive identity checks, etc.).

The public prosecutor also has a role in civil and insolvency cases.

In civil matters, with regard to all civil status cases, i.e. family and personality cases, the public prosecutor is heard in his/her conclusions. In insolvency cases, the public 
prosecutor attends all insolvency hearings and can also open a case proprio motu if, according to his/her records, a trader (civil or legal person) is insolvent.

● Public prosecutors: Number of first instance criminal cases

Type of cases

Absolute 
number

Per 100 
inhabitants

1. Pending cases on 1 Jan. ref. year 

NA

NA

2. Incoming/received cases

62 116

9,79

Incoming/received cases

9,79

Public prosecutors: Total number of first instance criminal 
cases per 100 inhabitants

Processed cases

Incoming/rec
eived cases

Processed 
Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. Year
cases

Pendin
g cases 
on 31 

3. Processed cases (3.1 + 3.2 + 3.3 + 3.4)

35 563

5,60

Luxembourg

9,79 5,60

NA

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year (3.1.1 + 3.1.2 + 3.1.3 
+ 3.1.4)

23 366

3,68

EU Median

2,85 2,84

0,84

5,60

3.1.1 Discontinued by the public prosecutor because the 
offender could not be identified 

3 600

0,57

3.1.2 Discontinued by the public prosecutor due to the lack 
of an established offence or a specific legal situation 

3 875

0,61

3.1.3 Discontinued by the public prosecutor for reasons of 
opportunity

15 725

2,48

3.1.4 Discontinued for other reasons 

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated 
by the public prosecutor

166

673

0,03

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons

NAP

NAP

3.4. Cases brought to court

11 524

1,82

2,85

2,84

0,84

NA

Luxembourg

EU Median

Processed cases per 100 inhabitants
EU Median

Luxembourg

Processed cases

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

Luxembourg EU Median
3,68

1,05

0,11

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

-3,68

1,05

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed
or negotiated by the public prosecutor

0,11

0,12

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other
reasons

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons
0,30

0,00

NAP

-0,11

0,12

0,30

0,53

4. Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. year

NA

NA

3.4. Cases brought to court

3.4. Cases brought to court

1,82
-1,82

0,53

The cases referred to under "3.2. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons", shall be considered closed if the party concerned complies with the condition imposed 
by the warning or fulfills its obligations arising from the mediation. In case of non-compliance, the public action will resume.

"3.1.4 Cases discontinued for other reasons": these are essentially two specific measures: firstly, in the area of traffic, the obligation to follow a driving course and, only for young 
offenders of full age, participation in a training course in the Choice 18+ program for the prevention of drug addiction (https://www.solina.lu/fr/facilities/impuls/).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

995 / 1555

 
6. Existence and use of alternative dispute resolution in Luxembourg

Number of mediators

Mediators

Total

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Number of mediators per 100 000 inhabitants

EU Median
2020

14,4

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

110

130

135

110

173

144

198

227

238

21,0

23,6

24,0

19,5

29,3

23,9

32,3

36,3

37,5

EU Median 2020

EU median in 2019

14,4

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

37,5

36,3

32,3

29,3

23,9

24,0

23,6

19,5

21,0

In 2020, there are 238 accredited or registered mediators who practise court related mediation which represents 37,5 accredited or registered mediators per 100 

The variation between  2019 and  2020 is about 4,8%.

The figures provided represent the total number of accredited mediators as of 31.12. of the reference year (in civil, commercial and criminal matters) without taking 
into account mediators who have ceased their activity (source: Ministry of Justice).

The increase in the number of mediators is the consequence of a political decision to focus on alternative methods of dispute resolution. This political decision has 
been translated in particular by a strengthening of the mediation offer. 

Number of court related mediations

Type of cases

All Cases

Civil and commercial

Family cases

Administrative

Employment dismissal

Criminal cases

Consumer cases

Number of cases 
for which the parties
agreed to start 
mediation

Number of finished 
court-related
mediations

Number of cases 
in which there is a 
settlement agreement

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

41

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

14

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

996 / 1555

7. ICT tools of courts in Luxembourg

●The ICT tools of courts and for court users

The use of ICT in courts in 2020 has been evaluated as  :

EU Median

Total 
(0 to 10)

Assistance tools (0 to 3)

Case management system (0 to 7)
Financial management tools (0 to 3)

Measurement tools to assess the workload (0 to 5)
Electronic communication (0 to 10)

3,9
1,0

5,2

0,0
0,0

4,8

6,6
2,0

5,2

1,3
2,5

6,9

The calculation of this values for each field is based on the answers for that question/s and weighted according the avaiability 
or deployment rate. The total value is normalised to max 10 points for readability and comparison.

The details of the calculation are given in Annex 5 - IT calculations

The result by area may be summarized in these graphics, where each field has been evaluated from 0 to 4 points.

Note: index is modified based on the available questions. This cycle the recalculation was made for the last three cycles to be 
able to follow the development.

Year Assistance 
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
EU Median 20202,00

1,00

1,00

1,00

1,00

1,00

Assistance tools

2,00

1,00

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

2018

2019

2020

EU Median 2020

Case 

Financial 

Measurement 

Electronic 

5,17

5,17

5,17

5,17

6,94

4,26

4,26

4,81

2,50

5,17

5,17

5,17

5,17

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

4,26
0,00
4,26

0,00

0,00

1,25

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

Case management system
1,25

0,00

2,50

4,81

Financial management tools

6,94

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

Comments on writing assistance tools

All magistrates and clerks have access to the writing assistance tools. However, not the entire scope of documents is covered, as the possibility to 
use free text is essential to the work of the judiciary. Administrative courts have been provided with a new application in 2018.

Comments on voice recording tools

The use of private dictation applications is tolerated, but is not in general use.

Comments on communication tools 
Although the legally correct answer is "no", as there are as of now no legal provisions, practically speaking, convocation letters and other 
communications that must not be sent by charged mail are often replaced by electronic mail.

A specific legal framework exists only in criminal law, and even there it is only partial. In criminal cases, files are sent to lawyers through a secured 
OTX link. A similar system has been set up with insurance companies. In minor criminal cases, the communication with the parties can also be 
done - with the consent of the concerned person - electronically.

In civil and commercial cases, informal communications are generally done electronically. Work is ongoing on adapting the legal framework to the 
new technologies.

In administrative law, the project JA-NGA currently being implemented tends to introduce a far-reaching digitization of the procedures that will 
serve as a POC for a similar civil/ commercial procedural law project. Informal communications tend to be done now by way of email, and a 
specific working group is currently being set up between the Judiciary and the bar associations to streamline these communication and single out 
those points that would need a change in the existing legislation. Please note that under ""deployment rate"" the figure of 100% means that the 
whole judiciary is technically equipped to communicate.

Please note that for certain procedures representation by a lawyer is mandatory. In these cases, although the parties can contact the court by 
mail, these mails however cannot be taken into consideration procedurally. 

In respect of notaries, there is a specific application allowing a largely automatized access to the matrimonial register and paramatrimonial 
partnerships register.

In respect of the police there is a specific application allowing a largely automatized input of data from electronic police reports ("e-pv") into the 
prosecution's CMS. Other applications are being developed.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

997 / 1555

8. Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and public prosecution services in Luxembourg

In Luxembourg, quality standards are not detemined for the judicial system at the national level.

● Systems for measuring and evaluating courts' performance

A regular monitoring system of court activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

In fact, no regular system has been implemented up to today. However, a monitoring can be carried out through the statistical service of the judiciary (SSJ) on punctual basis 
and upon request by the competent authorities.

In Luxembourg, there is no system to regularly evaluate the court performance based on defined indicators.

Although the technically correct answer is "no", the Judiciary edits every year an annual report on its activities during the previous year. These reports are available to the 
public (report 2020, see https://justice.public.lu/fr/publications/juridictions-judiciaires/rapports-juridictions-judiciaires-2020.html).

Performance and quality indicators are not defined for the activity of each court.

The evaluation of the courts' activities is not used for the later allocation of means in the courts.

Nevertheless, the figures presented by the SSJ are used on a regular basis to allocate (and ask for) means to the courts and prosecutorial services. The annual report is used 
to this effect (report 2020, see https://justice.public.lu/fr/publications/juridictions-judiciaires/rapports-juridictions-judiciaires-2020.html). 

● Systems for measuring and evaluating public prosecution services' performance

A regular monitoring system of public prosecution services activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases 

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs 

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecution) 

Costs of the judicial procedures 

Clearance rate 

Disposition time 

Percentage of convictions and aquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

In Luxembourg, there is no system to evaluate regularly the activity of each public prosection service.

The annual report covers both judges and prosecutors (report 2020, see https://justice.public.lu/fr/publications/juridictions-judiciaires/rapports-juridictions-judiciaires-2020.html).

Performance and quality indicators are not defined for the activity of each public prosecution service.

The evaluation of the public prosecution services' activities is not used for the later allocation of means in the public prosecution services.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

998 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table General Data: Economic and demographic data, in absolute values (Q1, Q3, Q5)

Q1 Number of inhabitants

525 000

550 000

563 000

563 000

590 700

602 005

613 900

626 108

634 730

20,9%

4,8%

2,4%

0,0%

4,9%

1,9%

2,0%

2,0%

1,4%

Q.3 GDP Per capita (in €) in current prices

83 600

83 400

88 500

88 500

90 700

92 026

95 943

101 446

101 056

20,9%

-0,2%

6,1%

0,0%

2,5%

1,5%

4,3%

5,7%

-0,4%

Q5. Exchange rate of Nat currency to € on 1 Jan

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 1: Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and prosecution services  (Indicator 4 in 2019)

Table 1.1 to Table 1.10 (Q66, Q67, Q77, Q78, Q77-1, Q78-1, Q73, Q73-0, Q73-1, Q73-2, Q73-3, Q73-4, Q73-5, Q73-6, Q70, Q70-1, Q71, Q72, Q83-2, Q83-3, Q120 
and Q120-1)

66 Qlty standards formulated_jud system

67 Specialised court staff entrusted_qlty standards

77 Performance and quality indicators of court activities

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

078.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078.1.5 Backlogs 

078.1.6 Productivity of judges and court staff

078.1.7 Satisfaction of court staff 

078.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts) 

078.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078.1.10 Number of appeals

078.1.11 Appeal ratio

078.1.12 Clearance rate 

078.1.13 Disposition time 

078.1.14 Other

077-1.1.1 Defined performance and quality indicators

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

999 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

078-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078-1.1.5 Backlogs 

078-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

078-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

078-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

078-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

078-1.1.11 Disposition time 

078-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

078-1.1.13 Other

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

73 Regular system_evaluation_performance_each court

No

No

No

No

073-0.1.1 Annual

073-0.1.2 Less frequent

073-0.1.3 More frequent

073-1.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
court

073-2.1.1 Courses of action taken in the evaluation is used for the 
allocation of resources

073-2.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-2.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-2.1.4 Other

073-3.1.1 Regular evaluation of the public prosecution services 
performance

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1000 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

073-4.1.1 Annual

073-4.1.2 Less frequent

073-4.1.3 More frequent

073-5.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
public prosecution services

073-6.1.1 Identifying the causes of improved or deteriorated 
performance

073-6.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-6.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-6.1.4 Other

070.1.1 number of incoming cases

070.1.2 length of proceedings (timeframes)

070.1.3 number of resolved cases

070.1.4 number of pending cases

070.1.5 backlogs

070.1.6 productivity of judges and court staff

070.1.7 satisfaction of court staff

070.1.8 satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts)

070.1.9 costs of the judicial procedures

070.1.10 number of appeals

070.1.11 appeal ratio

070.1.12 clearance rate

-

-

-

False

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

True

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1001 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

070-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases 

070-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

070-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

070-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

070-1.1.5 Backlogs 

070-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

070-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

070-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

070-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

070-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

070-1.1.11 Disposition time 

070-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

070-1.1.13 Other

071.1.1 Monitoring backlogs in Civil law cases

071.1.2 Monitoring backlogs in Criminal law cases

071.1.3 Monitoring backlogs in Administrative law cases

072.1.1 Monitoring timeframes Within the courts

072.1.2 Monitoring timeframes Within the public prosecution services

083-2.1.1 Quantitative performance tagets defined for each 
prosecutors

083-3.1.1 Body responsible - Executive power (for example the 
Ministry of Justice)

083-3.1.2 Body responsible - Prosecutor General /State public 
prosecutor

083-3.1.3 Body responsible - Public Prosecutorial Council

083-3.1.4 Body responsible - Head of the organisational unit or 
hierarchically superior public prosecutor

083-3.1.5 Body responsible - Other

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1002 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

120.1.1 Qualitative individual assessment of the public prosecutors' 
work

120-1.1.1 Feequency - Annual

120-1.1.2 Feequency - Less frequent

120-1.1.3 Feequency - More frequent

Indicator 2: The judicial organisation

Tables 2.1a; 2.1b; 2.2a; 2.2b; 2.3a; 2.3b; 2.4 and 2.5(EC) (Q42, Q43 and Q44)

Q42.1.1Total number of all courts - legal entities 

Q42.1.2 Total number of courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.3 First instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.4 Second instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.5 Highest instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.6 Total number of specialised courts - legal entities

43.1.1 Total number of specialised courts of first instance

43.1.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

-

-

5

-

-

-

13

2

-

-

5

-

-

-

23

2

-

-

5

-

-

-

-

2

43.1.3 Insolvency courts

NAP

NAP

NAP

43.1.4 Labour courts

43.1.5 Family courts

43.1.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.1.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.1.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.1.9 Internet related disputes

43.1.10 Administrative courts

43.1.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.1.12 Military courts

43.1.13 Juvenile courts

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

3

2

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

1

1

-

3

5

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

1

1

-

3

2

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

1

1

-

-

-

5

-

-

-

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

1

1

-

-

-

5

-

-

-

13

2

-

-

5

-

-

-

13

2

-

-

5

-

-

-

13

2

-

-

5

-

-

-

13

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

3

2

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

1

1

-

3

2

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

1

1

-

3

2

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

1

1

-

3

2

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

1

1

-

False

-

-

-

13

7

5

1

1

6

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

1

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-76,9%

76,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

150,0%

-60,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

550,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-76,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1003 / 1555

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

43.1.14 Other specialised courts

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

43.2.1 Total number of specialised courts of higher instances

43.2.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.2.3 Insolvency courts

43.2.4 Labour courts

43.2.5 Family courts

43.2.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.2.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.2.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.2.9 Internet related disputes

43.2.10 Administrative courts

43.2.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.2.12 Military courts

43.2.13 Juvenile courts

43.2.14 Other specialised courts

44.1.1 First instance courts geographic locations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

44.1.2 All courts geographic locations

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

8

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

1

1

NAP

NAP

3

8

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1004 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 3: The performance of courts at all stages of the proceedings

Tables 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.4 (all years) Number of other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 Variation of first instance other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants (Q1, Q91)

Table 3.13.7 (EC) to 3.13.12 (EC) First instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

NA

NA

NA

NA

5 072

5 007

1 218

1 382

NA

NA

NA

4 871

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 136

1 306

1 649

2 561

-49,5%

-1,3%

-75,7%

13,5%

-17,7%

-0,1%

15,0%

26,3%

55,3%

91.1.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.1.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.1.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.1.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.1.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.1.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.1.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.1.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

91.1.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.1.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

91.1.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

91.2.1 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.2.2 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.2.3 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.2.4 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.2.5 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.2.6 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

-

NA

-

NA

-

NA

-

NA

NAP

NAP

-

-

NA

NAP

NA

-

-

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

4 718

4 643

5 074

4 555

-

937

-

NA

-

948

-

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

1 137

1 646

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 440

1 314

1 319

1 103

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 646

1 440

1 314

1 319

1 103

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

1 207

NAP

NAP

NA

10 911

10 776

11 820

14 208

13 339

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-12,5%

-8,8%

0,4%

-16,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-12,5%

-8,8%

0,4%

-16,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-1,2%

9,7%

20,2%

-6,1%

4 533

5 195

1 111

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4 084

1 183

NAP

4 604

5 248

7 626

7 665

62,5%

-1,6%

9,3%

-10,2%

-0,5%

1,6%

14,0%

45,3%

0,5%

4 959

5 326

5 126

4 579

-

-

987

1 031

1 047

865

-7,7%

1,2%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

3 972

4 295

4 079

3 714

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-4,5%

7,4%

-3,8%

-10,7%

-11,2%

4,5%

1,6%

-17,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,7%

8,1%

-5,0%

-8,9%

1 213

1 246

1 456

1 095

-32,2%

-15,0%

0,0%

-7,9%

-6,4%

2,5%

2,7%

16,9%

-24,8%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

91.2.7 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

NAP

NAP

91.2.8 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

91.2.9 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

-

-

-

-

91.2.10 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

1 615

1 372

1 372

1 264

91.2.11 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1005 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

NA

NA

NA

NA

11 091

10 637

11 297

13 151

12 703

-

-

-

-

-

-4,1%

6,2%

16,4%

-3,4%

8 155

8 432

4 910

4 800

91.3.1 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.3.2 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.3.3 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.3.4 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.3.5 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.3.6 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

-

937

-

NA

-

948

-

NA

91.3.7 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

NAP

NAP

91.3.8 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

91.3.9 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

1 044

1 104

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

91.3.10 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

1 127

1 283

1 283

1 146

91.3.11 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

91.4.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.4.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.4.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.4.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.4.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.4.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.4.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.4.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

91.4.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.4.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

91.4.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

1 635

1 218

1 382

1 137

-

-

-

NA

NAP

-

-

NA

NAP

-

-

-

NA

NAP

-

-

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

3 700

NAP

4 534

5 401

1 111

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4 290

1 156

NAP

NA

1 136

1 440

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4 434

4 905

6 714

7 093

-13,0%

3,4%

-41,8%

-2,2%

-5,5%

-2,2%

10,6%

36,9%

5,6%

5 059

5 321

5 342

4 653

-

-

-

-

-

-6,3%

5,2%

0,4%

-12,9%

987

1 031

1 047

865

-7,7%

1,2%

10,1%

5,7%

0,6%

-11,2%

4,5%

1,6%

-17,4%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4 072

4 290

4 295

3 788

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-5,1%

5,4%

0,1%

-11,8%

1 144

1 071

1 095

957

-15,1%

13,8%

0,0%

-10,7%

0,9%

-1,0%

-6,4%

2,2%

-12,6%

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

5 507

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 306

1 649

2 561

3 133

91,6%

-25,5%

13,5%

-17,7%

-0,1%

15,0%

26,3%

55,3%

22,3%

1 341

1 319

1 103

1 029

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 440

1 341

1 319

1 103

1 029

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

1 345

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-6,9%

-1,6%

-16,4%

-6,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-6,9%

-1,6%

-16,4%

-6,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1006 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.2 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.4 to 3.3.7 Variation of Clearence Rate and Disposition Time of first instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

Table 3.13.1 (EC) to 3.13.6 (EC) First instance courts: Disposition time and clearance rate for other than criminal cases  (Q91)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

101,6%

98,7%

95,6%

92,6%

95,2%

-

-

-

-

-

(2,89)

(3,18)

(3,15)

2,89

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

172,8%

181,6%

96,8%

105,4%

100,0%

96,3%

93,5%

88,0%

92,5%

(46,46)

5,07

(46,72)

8,90

(5,08)

(3,71)

(2,95)

(5,80)

5,11

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

-

-

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

100,0%

100,0%

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

-

NA

-

NA

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

NAP

NAP

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

-

-

-

-

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

104,0%

102,0%

99,9%

104,2%

101,6%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

105,0%

102,5%

99,9%

105,3%

102,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CR Administrative law cases

69,8%

93,5%

93,5%

90,7%

97,7%

94,3%

86,0%

75,2%

87,4%

25,24

34,01

-

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(1,87)

(2,07)

4,31

(2,49)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(2,41)

(2,57)

5,42

(3,14)

(3,05)

7,78

(3,49)

(8,86)

(12,51)

16,21

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NAP

158

-

-

-

-

161

120,3%

-28,0%

94,9%

-15,8%

5,8%

17,6%

14,1%

13,5%

15,8%

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

73

-

-

-

NA

NAP

-

-

NA

NAP

NA

53

-

-

-

NA

NAP

-

-

NA

NAP

NA

103

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

86

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

91

97

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

123

NA

NA

108

97

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

120

NA

NA

123

90

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

112

NA

NA

139

75

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

94

NA

81

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

99

513

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-0,6%

-6,5%

-16,7%

7,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-1,9%

-6,6%

-16,5%

5,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1007 / 1555

        
        
        
         
      
         
      
         
        
        
        
        
         
        
        
         
        
           
           
           
           
           
           
        
        
         
        
       
       
           
        
         
        
        
      
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.4.1 (all years) First instance courts, number of cases for specific case categories (Q101)

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

101.1.1 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Litigious divorce case

101.1.2 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Employment dismissal case

101.1.3 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Insolvency

101.2.1 Incoming cases_Litigious divorce case

101.2.2 Incoming cases_Employment dismissal case

101.2.3 Incoming cases_Insolvency

101.3.1 Resolved cases_Litigious divorce case

101.3.2 Resolved cases_Employment dismissal case

101.3.3 Resolved cases_Insolvency

101.4.1 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Litigious divorce case

101.4.2 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Employment dismissal case

101.4.3 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Insolvency

NA

NA

NA

NA

2 343

NA

NA

1 824

1 029

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

434

1 606

1 058

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

782

NA

NAP

498

631

NA

NAP

617

663

NA

NAP

668

737

NA

NAP

1 070

764

NA

NA

923

-

-

-

-

1 726

1 670

1 455

1 308

1 434

1 367

1 287

-45,1%

NAP

589

912

794

915

649

988

586

1 086

1 227

1 158

594

1 043

972

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-19,3%

5,1%

11,2%

3,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

23,9%

8,3%

60,2%

-13,7%

-3,2%

-12,9%

-10,1%

9,6%

-4,7%

-5,9%

-

0,3%

8,0%

9,9%

13,0%

-5,6%

35,7%

34,8%

-18,3%

-9,7%

1,4%

75,6%

-6,8%

1 901

1 826

1 735

1 743

1 698

1 625

1 434

-21,4%

-12,0%

18,4%

-3,9%

-5,0%

0,5%

-2,6%

-4,3%

-11,8%

869

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

915

631

NA

988

663

NA

1 086

1 227

1 158

12,5%

2,8%

-17,9%

737

NA

764

NA

715

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CR Litigious divorce cases

CR Employment dismissal cases

CR Insolvency cases

DT Litigious divorce cases

DT Employment dismissal cases

DT Insolvency cases

Table 3.5.1 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for specific case categories (Q101)

Table 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 Variations of CR and DT for specific case categories of first instance cases (Q101)

NA

77,8%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

130,3%

95,0%

88,9%

97,5%

105,3%

-

110,1%

109,3%

119,2%

133,3%

118,4%

118,9%

111,4%

43,13

NAP

NAP

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

100,0%

NA

NA

NA

NA

355

NA

413

NA

453

NA

267

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

268

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

8,0%

9,9%

13,0%

-5,6%

5,1%

11,2%

3,7%

-6,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(27,12)

(6,37)

9,62

8,03

(0,72)

9,06

11,75

(11,14)

0,39

(6,27)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

16,4%

9,7%

-41,0%

0,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1008 / 1555

      
        
         
         
       
        
         
       
      
         
        
           
           
           
           
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.1.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.1.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.1.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.1.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.1.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.1.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.1.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.1.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

97.1.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.1.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

97.1.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases 

97.2.1 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.2.2 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.2.3 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.2.4 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.2.5 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.2.6 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.2.7 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.2.8 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

97.2.9 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.2.10 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

97.2.11 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases 

Table 3.7.1 to 3.7.5 (2019 and 2020) Second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Table 3.9.1 to 3.9.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1 993

2 111

2 111

2 033

1 814

1 683

1 648

NA

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

170

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

168

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

157

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

153

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

161

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

154

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

163

NA

NA

1 259

1 283

1 265

1 202

1 125

1 197

1 112

NA

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

348

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

273

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

241

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

286

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

246

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

218

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

285

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5,9%

0,0%

-3,7%

-10,8%

-7,2%

-2,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-1,2%

-6,5%

-2,5%

5,2%

-4,3%

5,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,9%

-1,4%

-5,0%

-6,4%

6,4%

-7,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-21,6%

-11,7%

18,7%

-14,0%

-11,4%

30,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1009 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.3.1 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.3.2 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.3.3 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.3.4 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.3.5 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.3.6 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.3.7 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.3.8 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

97.3.9 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.3.10 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

97.3.11 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases 

97.4.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.4.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.4.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.4.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.4.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.4.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.4.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.4.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

97.4.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.4.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

97.4.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases

97.5.1 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.5.2 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.5.10 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1 092

1 283

1 343

1 421

1 290

1 232

1 169

NA

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

350

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

284

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

245

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

278

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

253

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

209

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

208

NA

NA

2 160

2 111

2 033

1 814

1 649

1 648

1 591

NA

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

168

NA

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

157

NA

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

153

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

161

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

154

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

163

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

240

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

17,5%

4,7%

5,8%

-9,2%

-4,5%

-5,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-18,9%

-13,7%

13,5%

-9,0%

-17,4%

-0,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,3%

-3,7%

-10,8%

-9,1%

-0,1%

-3,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-6,5%

-2,5%

5,2%

-4,3%

5,8%

47,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1010 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 (2019 and 2020): Second instance clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.9.4 and 3.9.5 (2019 and 2020): Variation of second clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

86,7%

100,0%

106,2%

118,2%

114,7%

102,9%

105,1%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

100,6%

104,0%

101,7%

97,2%

102,8%

95,9%

73,0%

NA

NA

722

NA

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

175

NA

NA

NA

601

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

202

NA

NA

NA

553

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

228

NA

NA

NA

466

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

211

NA

NA

NA

467

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

222

NA

NA

NA

488

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

285

NA

NA

NA

497

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

421

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

15,29

6,17

11,35

(3,01)

(10,24)

2,14

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,43

(2,28)

(4,38)

5,81

(6,78)

(23,87)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-16,8%

-8,0%

-15,7%

0,1%

4,6%

1,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

15,2%

13,0%

-7,3%

5,1%

28,1%

47,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

1011 / 1555

       
         
       
        
      
         
         
        
        
         
        
      
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.10.1 to 3.10.5 (2019 and 2020) Supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Table 3.12.1 to 3.12.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of the supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.1.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.1.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.1.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.1.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.1.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.1.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.1.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.1.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

99.1.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.1.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

99.1.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.2.1 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.2.2 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.2.3 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.2.4 High inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.2.5 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.2.6 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.2.7 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.2.8 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

99.2.9 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.2.10 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

99.2.11 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

70

70

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

114

114

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

81

81

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

107

107

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

81

81

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

128

128

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

109

109

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

107

107

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

104

104

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

116

116

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

109

109

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

108

108

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

15,7%

0,0%

34,6%

-4,6%

4,8%

15,7%

0,0%

34,6%

-4,6%

4,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-6,1%

19,6%

-16,4%

8,4%

-6,9%

-6,1%

19,6%

-16,4%

8,4%

-6,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1012 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.3.1 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.3.2 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.3.3 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.3.4 High inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.3.5 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.3.6 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.3.7 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.3.8 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

99.3.9 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.3.10 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

99.3.11 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.4.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.4.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.4.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.4.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.4.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.4.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.4.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.4.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry 
cases

99.4.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.4.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative 
law cases

99.4.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.5.1 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.5.2 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.5.10 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

100

100

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

103

103

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

81

81

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

107

107

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

81

81

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

100

100

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

109

109

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

102

102

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

114

114

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

111

111

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

109

109

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

108

108

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

109

109

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,0%

3,9%

-6,5%

2,0%

8,8%

-2,7%

3,0%

3,9%

-6,5%

2,0%

8,8%

-2,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

34,6%

4,6%

-4,4%

0,0%

0,0%

34,6%

4,6%

-4,4%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1013 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 Supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.12.4 and 3.12.5 Variation of the supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

90,4%

100,0%

78,1%

95,3%

95,7%

100,0%

90,4%

100,0%

78,1%

95,3%

95,7%

100,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

287

287

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

276

276

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

398

398

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

408

408

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

358

358

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

368

368

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

10,68

(21,88)

22,02

0,38

4,50

10,68

(21,88)

22,02

0,38

4,50

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-3,7%

44,0%

2,5%

-12,1%

2,8%

-3,7%

44,0%

2,5%

-12,1%

2,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1014 / 1555

       
      
       
         
         
       
      
       
         
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.14.1 to 3.14.5 First instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

094.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

094.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

094.2.1 Total -incoming

094.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

094.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

094.2.4 Other - incoming

094.3.1 Total - resolved

094.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

094.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

094.3.4 Other - resolved

094.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

094.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

094.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

094.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1 995

13 858

4 272

7 998

1 588

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1015 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.15.1 to 3.10.2 CR and DT for first instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

098.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

098.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

098.2.1 Total -incoming

098.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

098.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

098.2.4 Other - incoming

098.3.1 Total - resolved

098.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

098.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

098.3.4 Other - resolved

Table 3.16.1 to 3.16.5 Second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

NA

NA

NA

79,6%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

418

374

44

NAP

459

398

61

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1016 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

098.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

098.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

098.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

098.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

Table 3.17.1 to 3.17.2 CR and DT for second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

109,8%

106,4%

138,6%

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1017 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.18.1 to 3.18.5 Supreme court criminal law cases (Q100)

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

100.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

100.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

100.2.1 Total -incoming

100.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

100.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

100.2.4 Other - incoming

100.3.1 Total - resolved

100.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

100.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

100.3.4 Other - resolved

100.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

100.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

100.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

100.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

39

NAP

NAP

NAP

42

NAP

NAP

NAP

50

NAP

NAP

NAP

31

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1018 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.19.1 to 3.19.2 CR and DT for supreme court  criminal law cases (Q100)

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

119,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

226

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1019 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 5: Access to justice

Legal aid

Table 5.1 to Table 5.6 (Q12-2, Q16, Q18, Q19, Q20, Q20-1)

12-2.1.1 Coverage of court fees

12-2.1.2 Exemption from court fees

16.1.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (criminal cases)

16.1.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (criminal cases)

16.2.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (other than criminal 
cases)

16.2.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (other than criminal cases)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

-

-

-

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

18.1.1 Legal aid for the enforcement of judicial decisions

19.1.1  Legal aid granted for other costs - criminal cases

19.1.2  Legal aid granted for other costs - other than criminal cases

020.1.1 Total

020.1.2 Total - criminal cases

020.1.3 Total - other than criminal cases

020.2.1 Total brought to court

020.2.2 Broight to court - criminal cases

020.2.3 Brought to court - other then criminal

020.3.1 Total not brought to court

020.3.2 Not broight to court - criminal cases

020.3.3 Not brought to court - other then criminal

020-1.1.1 Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulation

020-1.1.2 Average duration

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

NAP

NAP

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

4 660

1 182

3 478

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1020 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

System for compensating users

Table 5.7.1 and Table 5.7.2 (Q37)

037.1.1 Requests for compensation - Total

037.1.2 Requests for compensation - Excessive length of 
proceedings

037.1.3 Requests for compensation - Non-execution of court 
decisions

037.1.4 Requests for compensation - Wrongful arrest

037.1.5 Requests for compensation - Wrongful conviction

037.1.6 Requests for compensation - Other

037.2.1 Condemnations - Total

037.2.2 Condemnations - Excessive length of proceedings

037.2.3 Condemnations - Non-execution of court decisions

037.2.4 Condemnations - Wrongful arrest

037.2.5 Condemnations - Wrongful conviction

037.2.6 Condemnations - Other

037.3.1 Amount - Total

037.3.2 Amount - Excessive length of proceedings

037.3.3 Amount - Non-execution of court decisions

037.3.4 Amount - Wrongful arrest

037.3.5 Amount - Wrongful conviction

037.3.6 Amount - Other

NA

NA

NA

8

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

7

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

125 599 €

NA

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1021 / 1555

       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 6.1 to Table 6.11 (Q62-7, Q62-7-1, Q62-8,  Q62-8-1, Q63-1, Q63-1-1, Q63-2 Q63-6, Q63-7, Q63-7-1, Q64-2,  Q64-4, Q64-6, Q64-3, Q64-3-1, Q64-7, Q64-7-1, 
Q64-9)

Indicator 6: The ICT tools of courts and for court users

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

62-7 Writing assistance tools coordinated at national level

62-7-1.1 Deployment rate in civil matter

62-7-1.2 Deployment rate in criminal matter

62-7-1.3 Deployment rate in administrative matter

62-8 Voice recording tools

62-8-1.1.1 Availability of simple dictation tools in civil matter

62-8-1.1.2 Availability of simple dictation tools in criminal matter

62-8-1.1.3 Availability of simple dictation tools in administrative 
matter

62-8-1.2.1 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in civil 
matter

62-8-1.2.2 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in criminal 
matter

62-8-1.2.3 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in 
administrative matter

62-8-1.3.1 Availability of voice recognition in civil matter

62-8-1.3.2 Availability of voice recognition in criminal matter

62-8-1.3.3 Availability of voice recognition in administrative matter

062-9 Availability of intranet site within the judicial system for 
distribution of news/novelties

63.1 Is there a case management system? 

63.1-1.1 CMS for civil matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for criminal matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for administrative matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.2 CMS for civil matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for criminal matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for administrative matter (status of case onlinee)

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

False

False

False

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

-

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

-

-

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1022 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63.1-1.3 CMS for civil matter (Centralised or interoperable database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for criminal matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for administrative matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.4 CMS for civil matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for criminal matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for administrative matter (Early warning signals)

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS civil matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS criminal matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS administrative matter

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - land registry

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - business registry

63-2.2 Data consolidated at national level for land registry

63-2.2  Data consolidated at national level for business registry

63-2.3 Service available online for land registry

63-2.3  Service available online for business registry

63-2.4 Statistical module integrated or connected for land registry

63-2.4  Statistical module integrated or connected for business 
registry

063-6.1.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (deployment 
rate)

063-6.1.2 Justice expenses management (deployment rate)

063-6.1.3 Other financial management tools (deployment rate)

063-6.2.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (Data 
consolidated at national level)

063-6.2.2 Justice expenses management (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.2.3 Other financial management tools (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.3.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (System 
communicating with other ministries)

063-6.3.2 Justice expenses management (System communicating 
with other ministries)

063-6.3.3 Other financial management tools (System communicating 
with other ministries)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not connected 
at all

Not connected 
at all

Not connected 
at all

NA

NA

False

False

False

False

False

False

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

NA

NA

NA

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

NA

NA

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

NA

NA

1023 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63-7.1 Measurement tools to assess the workload

63-7-1.1.1 Deployment rate - workload of judges

63-7-1.1.2 Deployment rate - workload of prosecutors

63-7-1.1.3 Deployment rate - workload of non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.2.1 Monitoring on national level - judges

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - prosecutors

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.3.1 Monitoring on court level - judges

63-7-1.3.2 Monitoring on court level - prosecutors

63-7-1.3.3 Monitoring on court level - non-judge and non-prosecutor 
staff

064-2 - Possibility to submit a case to courts by electronic means

064-2 - Civil and/or commercial

064-2 - Criminal

064-2 - Administrative

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - civil

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - criminal

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory  - administrative

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - civil

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - criminal

064-2 - Specific legislative framework  - administrative

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - civil

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - criminal

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - administrative

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1024 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-3 - Is it possible to request for granting legal aid by electronic 
means? 

064-3-1.1 - Equipment rate

064-3-1.2 - Request in paper mandatory

064-3-1.3 - Specific legislative framework

064-3-1.4 - Granting LA is also electronic

064-3-1.5 - Information available in CMS

064-4 - Possibility to transmit summons to a judicial meeting or a 
hearing by electronic means

064-4-1.1.1 - Summons produced by CMS- civil

064-4-1.1.2 - Summons produced by CMS- criminal

064-4-1.1.3 - Summons produced by CMS- administrative

064-4-1.2.1 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- civil

064-4-1.2.2 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- criminal

064-4-1.2.3 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- administrative

064-4-1.3.1 - Consent of the user - civil

064-4-1.3.2 - Consent of the user - criminal

064-4-1.3.3 - Consent of the user - administrative

064-6.1.1 - Civil and/or commercial (deployment rate)

064-6.1.2 - Criminal (deployment rate)

064-6.1.3 - Administrative (deployment rate)

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1025 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-6.2.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.2 - Criminal (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.3 - Administrative (Trial phases concerned)

  Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

  Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

  Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

  Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

  Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

  Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

  Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling  

  Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling  

  Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling  

064-6.3.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Modalities)

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

064-6.3.2 - Criminal (Modalities)

064-6.3.3 - Administrative (Modalities)

064-6.4.1 - Civil and/or commercial (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.2 - Criminal (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.3 - Administrative (specific legal framework)

064-6.5.1 - Civil and/or commercial (availability for)

064-6.5.2 - Criminal (availability for)

064-6.5.3 - Administrative (availability for)

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer
Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer
Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1026 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-7.1.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (deployment rate)

064-7.1.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.2.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (Modalities)

064-7.2.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.3.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (specific legal framework)

064-7.32.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-7.3.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts (specific 
legal framework)

064-7.3.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-9 - Existance of online processing devices of specialised 
litigation

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

100%

100%

100%

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1027 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

46.1.1 Total Number of professional judges

46.1.2 Number of 1st inst professional judges

46.1.3 Number of 2nd inst professional judges

46.1.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges

46.2.1 Number of professional judges_males

46.2.2 Number of 1st instance professional judges_males

46.2.3 Number of 2nd instance professional judges_males

46.2.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges_males

46.3.1  Number of professional judges_females

46.3.2  Number of 1st inst professional judges_females

46.3.3  Number of 2nd inst professional judges_females

46.3.4  Number of Supreme court professional judges_females

046-2.1.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Total

046-2.2.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Civil and commercial

046-2.2.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.3.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Criminal

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

Indicator 7: Professionals of justice  (Indicator 9 in 2019)

Table 7.1.1 to 7.5.6 for judges, non judge staff, prosecutors, non prosecutor staff and salaries

179

139

NA

40

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

180

139

NA

41

63

46

NA

17

117

93

NA

24

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

184

143

37

4

65

49

14

2

183

142

37

4

64

48

14

2

119

119

94

23

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

94

23

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

187

143

40

4

66

49

13

4

121

94

27

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

198

146

47

5

70

47

19

4

128

99

28

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

222

168

49

5

71

50

17

4

151

118

32

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

226

170

51

5

71

50

17

4

155

120

34

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

229

27,9%

0,6%

2,2%

-0,5%

2,2%

5,9%

12,1%

1,8%

1,3%

171

23,0%

0,0%

2,9%

-0,7%

0,7%

2,1%

15,1%

1,2%

0,6%

53

-

-

-

0,0%

8,1%

17,5%

4,3%

4,1%

3,9%

5

-87,5%

2,5%

-90,2%

0,0%

0,0%

25,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

70

49

18

3

159

122

35

2

229

171

53

5

144

106

33

NAP

63

48

15

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,2%

-1,5%

3,1%

6,1%

1,4%

0,0%

-1,4%

6,5%

-2,0%

2,1%

-4,1%

6,4%

0,0%

-2,0%

-

0,0%

-7,1%

46,2%

-10,5%

0,0%

5,9%

-88,2%

0,0%

100,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-25,0%

1,7%

0,0%

1,7%

5,8%

18,0%

2,6%

2,6%

1,1%

0,0%

0,0%

5,3%

19,2%

1,7%

1,7%

-

0,0%

17,4%

3,7%

14,3%

6,3%

2,9%

-91,7%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

100,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1028 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

046-2.4.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - 
Administrative

046-2.4.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.5.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Other

 52.1.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in courts 

52.1.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)

52.1.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges

52.1.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks

52.1.5 Number of Technical staff

52.1.6 Number of Other non judge staff

52.2.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(men)

52.2.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(men)

52.2.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(men)

52.2.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(men)

52.2.5 Number of Technical staff(men)

52.2.6 Number of Other non judge staff(men)

52.3.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(women)

52.3.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(women)

52.3.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(women)

52.3.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(women)

52.3.5 Number of Technical staff(women)

52.3.6 Number of Other non judge staff(women)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

198

NAP

192

5

1

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

120

NAP

117

3

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

196

NAP

132

63

1

NAP

79

NAP

58

20

1

NAP

117

NAP

74

43

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

197

NAP

129

67

1

NAP

78

NAP

56

21

1

NAP

119

NAP

73

46

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

200

NAP

131

66

3

NAP

85

NAP

59

23

3

NAP

115

NAP

72

43

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

200

NAP

191

6

3

NAP

75

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

220

NAP

210

3

3

4

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

225

NAP

215

3

3

4

22

17

5

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

223

NAP

213

3

3

4

84

82

79

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

69

3

3

NAP

125

NAP

122

3

-

77

75

73

2

3

2

136

NAP

133

1

-

2

2

3

2

143

NAP

140

1

-

2

2

3

1

144

NAP

140

1

-

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-1,0%

0,5%

1,5%

0,0%

10,0%

2,3%

-0,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-31,3%

-2,3%

1,6%

45,8%

9,9%

2,4%

-0,9%

1160,0%

6,3%

-1,5%

-90,9%

-50,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

200,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

-1,3%

9,0%

-11,8%

12,0%

-2,4%

-3,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-3,4%

5,4%

16,9%

11,6%

-2,6%

-2,7%

5,0%

9,5%

-87,0%

-33,3%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

200,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

0,0%

-50,0%

-2,5%

1,7%

-3,4%

8,7%

8,8%

5,1%

0,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-36,8%

-1,4%

-1,4%

69,4%

9,0%

5,3%

0,0%

1333,3%

7,0%

-6,5%

-93,0%

-66,7%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

50,0%

1029 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

052-1.1.1 Non-judge staff (Total)

052-1.1.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (total)

052-1.1.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (total)

052-1.1.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (total)

052-1.2.1 Non-judge staff  (Males)

052-1.2.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (males)

052-1.2.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (males)

052-1.2.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (males)

052-1.3.1 Non-judge staff  (females)

052-1.3.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (females)

052-1.3.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (females)

052-1.3.4 Non-judge staff  at supreme court (females)

055.1.1 Prosecutors (total)

055.1.2 Prosecutors (1st inst.)

055.1.3 Prosecutors (2nd inst.)

055.1.4 Prosecutors (Highest instance)

055.2.1 Prosecutors - Males -total

055.2.2 Prosecutors - Males, 1st inst.

055.2.3 Prosecutors - Males, 2nd inst.

055.2.4 Prosecutors - Males, Supreme courts

055.3.1 Prosecutors - Females, Total

055.3.2 Prosecutors - Females, 1st inst.

055.3.3 Prosecutors - Females, 2nd inst.

055.3.4 Prosecutors - Females, Supreme courts

223

199

22

2

79

69

10

-

144

130

12

2

62

47

NAP

15

31

24

NAP

7

31

23

NAP

8

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1030 / 1555

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

060.1.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Total

060.2.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Males

060.3.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Females

004 Annual average salary in the country

132.1.1 Gross annual salary, in €  - Professional judge at the 
beginning of career

132.1.2 Gross annual salary, in €  - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.1.3 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor at the beginning 
of career

132.1.4 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

132.2.1 Net annual salary, in € - Professional judge at the beginning 
of career

132.2.2 Net annual salary, in € - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.2.3 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor at the beginning of 
career

132.2.4 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

133.1.1.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Reduced taxation

133.1.2.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Special pension

133.1.3.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Housing

133.1.4.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Other financial benefit

133.2.1.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Reduced taxation

133.2.2.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Special pension

133.2.3.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Housing

133.2.4.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Other financial benefit

150

79

71

63 015 €

92 016 €

110 177 €

92 016 €

110 177 €

NA

NA

NA

NA

False

False

False

True

False

False

False

True

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1031 / 1555

         
         
       
         
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

144.1.1 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - Total number (1+2+3+4)

144.1.2 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 1. Breach of professional 
ethics 

144.1.3 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.1.4 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 3. Criminal offence 

144.1.5 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 4. Other

144.2.1 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - Total number 
(1+2+3+4)

144.2.2 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 1. Breach of 
professional ethics 

144.2.3 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.2.4 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 3. Criminal offence

144.2.5 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 4. Other 

145.1.1 Sanctions against Judges - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.1.2 Sanctions against Judges - 1. Reprimand

145.1.3 Sanctions against Judges - 2. Suspension

145.1.4 Sanctions against Judges - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.1.5 Sanctions against Judges - 4. Fine

145.1.6 Sanctions against Judges - 5. Temporary reduction of salary

145.1.7 Sanctions against Judges - 6. Position downgrade

145.1.8 Sanctions against Judges - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.1.9 Sanctions against Judges - 8. Resignation

145.1.10 Sanctions against  Judges - 9. Other

145.1.11 Sanctions against  Judges - 10. Dismissal

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

NAP

0

0

NAP

NAP

0

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1032 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

145.2.1 Sanctions against Prosecutors - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.2.2 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 1. Reprimand

145.2.3 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 2. Suspension

145.2.4 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.2.5 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 4. Fine

145.2.6 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 5. Temporary reduction of 
salary

145.2.7 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 6. Position downgrade

145.2.8 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.2.9 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 8. Resignation

145.2.10 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 9. Other

145.2.11 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 10. Dismissal

0

0

0

NAP

0

0

NAP

NAP

0

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lawyers

Tables 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.7 and 7.8

146.1.1 Total number of lawyers practising

2 020

2 203

2 180

2 323

2 381

2 597

2 993

2 914

3 080

52,5%

9,1%

-1,0%

6,6%

2,5%

9,1%

15,2%

-2,6%

5,7%

146.2.1 Practicing lawyers - man

146.3.1 Practicing lawyers - woman

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

1 553

1 610

NA

1 361

1 470

147 Does this figure include “legal advisors” who cannot represent 
their clients in court (for example, some solicitors or in-house 
counsellors)? 

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,7%

8,0%

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1033 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Luxembourg (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

166 Number of accredited or registered mediators who practice 
judicial mediation: 

167.1.1 Total number started

167. 1.2 Civil and commercial cases(cid:9) - started

167. 1.2 Family cases - started

167.1.4 Administrative cases - started

167.1.5 Labour cases including employment dismissal cases - started

167.1.6. Criminal cases - started

167.1.7 Consumer cases - started

Indicator 8: The existence and use of alternative dispute resolution methods

Table 8.1 8.2 and 8.3

110

130

135

110

173

144

198

227

238

116,4%

18,2%

3,8%

-18,5%

57,3%

-16,8%

37,5%

14,6%

4,8%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

68

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

49

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

41

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-27,9%

-16,3%

-

-

Key: Variation of more than (+ -) 20% 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1034 / 1555

Judiciary at a glance in Malta

General data

Population:

514 565

GDP per capita: 24 634 €

Average annual 

salary:

18 923 €

Professionals

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Malta

Malta

EU Median

EU Median

Professional judges

Professional judges

8,71

23,92

Non-judge staff

8,71

76,96

23,92

59,00

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

7,38

9,91

4,08

76,96

59,00

7,38

9,91

15,22

4,08

15,22

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual 
salary in the country
EU Median

Malta

Malta

EU Median

5,03

Judge at the beginning of a career 

5,46
5,03

2,02

4,09

Judge of the highest court 5,46

4,09

2,02

1,71
Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

2,35

2,35

1,71

Public prosecutor at highest instance

NA

3,61

Lawyers

Lawyers

342,43

122,09

122,09

342,43

Judge at the beginning of a
career

Judge of the highest court

Prosecutor at the beginning of
a career

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

Efficiency

1st instance

2nd instance

1st instance 2nd instance

Supreme 
Court
%
9
8
4
1

,

100%

,

%
8
9
2
1

Civil and
commercial
Administrativ
%
e
5
0
cases
9
Total 
criminal law 
cases

,

%
90,5%
2
6
0
1

,

106,2% NA

129,8% NAP

NAP

%
0
6
6

,

148,9% NAP

66,0%

A
N

1
1

1

1
1

1st instance

2nd instance

1st instance 2nd instance Supreme Court

Civil and commercial litigious cases
Administrative cases 924 NA

550

838 NAP
NAP

838

Total criminal law cases792

545 NAP

924

550

545

792

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

Administrative
cases

Total criminal law
cases

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

Information and communication technology

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

Assistance toolsCase management system
2018

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the workload
2019

Electronic communication

EU Median 2020

2020

2018
2019
2020

1,50
1,50
1,50

4,74

4,74

EU Median 2020

2,00

1,50

1,50

1,50

2,00

4,74
4,74
4,74
4,74

5,17

2,00
2,00
2,00

5,17

1,67
2,33
2,33

4,12
3,94
4,77

1,25

2,50

6,94

2,00

2,00

2,00

1,25

1,67

2,33

2,33

2,50

6,94

4,77

4,12

3,94

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

*ICT calculations are described in more details in Annex 5 - IT Calculation methodology

1035

2020

Synthesis table for the main indicators for:

Malta

Economic and demographic data

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Variations

Population

GDP per capita

Exchange rate (local currency needed to 
obtain 1€)

422 509

429 424

439 691

450 415

460 297

475 701

475 701

493 559

514 565

21,8%

4,7%

3,3%

16 417

16 831

18 525

21 469

22 664

23 778

25 556

26 490

24 634

50,1%

22,3%

12,8%

0,0%

7,5%

3,8%

3,7%

4,3%

-7,0%

Average annual salary

15 536

16 082

17 261

19 036

19 590

18 923

21,8%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

7,3%

NAP

NAP NAP

NAP

10,3%

2,9%

-3,4%

Resources

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Professional judges per 100 000 inhab.

9,5

9,8

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhab.

85,2

105,0

9,3

88,5

9,3

87,3

9,8

83,2

9,0

82,8

9,5

86,8

8,7

83,5

8,2

77,0

-13,8%

4,8%

-3,2%

-9,7%

-6,0%

4,3%

Lawyers per 100 000 inh.

331,4

259,0

337,7

348,3

288,3

309,6

322,7

333,9

342,4

3,3%

-14,6%

11,9%

4,7%

4,8%

4,2%

-7,9%

-3,9%

3,5%

-6,3%

-7,8%

2,6%

Mediators

16,3

16,1

13,9

13,5

14,3

14,5

14,1

5,0

13,6

5,2

12,8

5,5

-21,5%

3,4%

-1,8%

-2,9%

-3,6%

-5,5%

3,4%

5,7%

ICT overall assesment

First instance incoming cases per 100 
inhab.

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Civil and commercial litigious cases

0,985

0,916

1,511

1,535

1,443

1,609

1,816

1,805

1,445

46,7%

-4,5%

25,9%

12,9%

-0,6%

-20,0%

Administrative law cases

0,082

0,1

0,0

0,017

0,020

0,017

0,031

0,026

0,025

-69,4%

-27,8%

58,0%

81,5%

-14,8%

-4,8%

Total criminal law cases

2,154

First instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

114%

110%

101%

107%

107%

97%

CR administrative law cases

40%

40%

149%

411%

114%

147%

93%

91%

92%

91%

-23,30

6,01

-13,97

-3,63

-1,58

-1,28

121%

106%

66,03

-34,30

-23,29

-55,76

29,61

-14,57

CR total criminal law cases

66%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

DT administrative law cases (days)

1 457

2 036

1 408

685

750

536

445

495

432

435

440

1 464

1 147

1 057

465

839

550

924

792

-19,6%

-19,5%

1,9%

1,1%

5,8%

18,3%

-36,6%

3,9%

-27,8%

-7,9%

-20,6%

10,2%

First instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

First instance pending cases per 100 
inhab. on 31 dec.

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

 Supreme court 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Supreme court
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

2,10

0,13

2,06

0,18

2,25

0,16

2,01

0,09

1,83

0,09

1,86

0,08

2,04

0,08

2,11

0,07

-6,2%

-18,5%

11,6%

-48,7%

-42,2%

-9,1%

9,8%

3,7%

3,3%

-10,3%

-6,7%

-7,8%

1,97

0,07

3,09

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

87%

NAP

96%

NAP

106%

118%

80%

112%

130%

18,65

-25,87

-37,65

32,49

17,38

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

149%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

1 010

NAP

973

NAP

783

NA

796

1 120

NA

NA

875

NA

838

NA

545

-22,4%

42,9%

40,7%

-21,8%

-4,2%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1036 / 1555

1. Judicial organisation in Malta

According to 2020 data, the 1st Instance Courts in Malta include general jurisdiction and specialised courts, tribunals and boards. There are 4 first intance courts of general 
jurisdiction and 7 specialised first instance courts (as legal entities). 

In Malta, there is no Supreme Court, the Court of Appeal being the Court of second instance. The Constitutional Court is presided over by the three judges who compose 
the Court of second instance also known as the Court of Appeal in its Superior Jurisdiction.

Distribution of general courts in Malta

Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Malta - 1st instance

Malta - Higher instances

EU Median - 1st instance

EU Median - Higher instances

MaltaDistribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

According to 2020 data, the distribution between 1st instance and higher instances courts of 
general jurisdiction in Malta is different of the EU median of 87% - 13%.

Malta - 1st instance Malta - Higher instances

General courts - Malta

50%

50%

General courts - Malta
EU Median

50%
87%

50%
13%

EU Median

87%

13%

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Malta

Geographic 
locations

Legal entities

General jurisdiction

Specialised 
jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

3

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

4

7

7

7

7

7

8

9

9

7

10

8

6

4

2

0

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Malta

Geographic locations
Legal entities General jurisdiction
Legal entities Specialised jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

The 1st instance courts of general jurisdiction are as follows:
- the Court of Magistrates, Civil Jurisdiction (competency up to Euros 15,000)
- the Civil Court, First Hall (civil cases above Euros 15,000)

The 2nd instance courts of general jurisdiction are:
- the Civil Court of Appeal, Inferior Jurisdiction - the Civil Court of Appeal, Superior Jurisdiction
In the Maltese judicial system, there are only 2 instances of courts, hence Q1.3 is marked as NAP.

The increase in the number of courts as legal entities reflects the addition of the criminal courts to the above data, namely:
- 1st Instance Courts: Court of Magistrates Criminal Jurisdiction and Criminal Court
- 2nd Instance Courts: Criminal Court of Appeal in its Inferior and Superior Jurisdiction.

In 2018, the Commercial Division was set up in order to hear cases filed under the Companies Act that include Insolvency cases. This new specialised first instance court is 
the reason behind the increase in the number of courtsbetween 2018 and 2019.

Malta

Ratio general jurisdiction vs specialised

Malta

General jurisdiction Specialised courts

36%

36%

75%

64%

25%

64%

Distribution of first instance general jurisdiction and specialised courts

EU Median

25%

75%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1037 / 1555

In Malta, 36,4% of all first instance courts are general jurisdiction courts, whereas 63,6% are specialised courts. This is different from the 
distribution tendency in EU: 75,5% and 24,5% respectively.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1038 / 1555

Specialised courts
Total

Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

Insolvency courts

Labour courts

Family courts

Rent and tenancies courts

Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

Internet related disputes

Administrative courts

Insurance and / or social welfare courts

Military courts

Juvenile courts

Other specialised 1st instance courts

First instance

Higher instance

7

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

1

4

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

The number of specialised courts includes non-criminal, administrative and criminal courts established as legal entities in line with the CEPEJ methodology. The seven (7) 
specialised courts referred are the Rent Regulation Board, the Land Arbitration Board, the Rural Leases Control Board, the Small Claims Tribunal, the Court of Voluntary 
Jurisdiction, the Administrative Review Tribunal and the Juvenile Court.

A number of courts that used to be previously identified as specialised courts, are not being categorised this time, given that they all make part of the First Hall, General 
Jurisdiction Court. These are:
- The Commercial Court (including insolvency cases)
- The Family Court

The identified specialised courts listed under 'Other specialised courts' are:
- the Land Arbitration Board
- the Rural Leases Control Board
- the Small Claims Tribunal
- the Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction
The Juvenile Court is a specialised criminal court.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1039 / 1555

2. Professionals of justice in Malta

● Professional judges and non-judge staff

Evolution of the number of professional judges since 2012 (Q46)

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020
EU median

Absolute 
number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

40

42

41

42

45

43

45

43

42

9,47

9,78

9,32

9,32

9,78

9,04

9,46

8,71

8,16

23,9

Professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants

23,9

9,47

9,78

9,32

9,32

9,78

9,04

9,46

8,71

8,16

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

According to the 2020 data, the total number of professional judges sitting in courts (all instances) in Malta is 42, which is -2,3% less than in previous cycle.

More precisely, there are 8,16 professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants (this figure is below the EU median of 23,92 judges per 100 000 inhabitants).

As mentioned earlier, Malta does not have a Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal is the Court of second instance.  It is interesting to notice that 2 judges presiding over the Second 
Instance Courts also preside over the Civil Court, First Hall and the family Court (which are specialised 1st instance courts).

Finally, the number of 1st Instance 'judges' also includes magistrates that preside over 1st Instance Courts.

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and gender

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

33

9

NAP

42

Distribution by 
instance

78,6%

21,4%

NAP

Male

11

7

NAP

18

Female

% Male

% Female

22

2

NAP

24

33,3%

77,8%

NAP

42,9%

66,7%

22,2%

NAP

57,1%

Distribution of professional judges by instance

Malta

EU Median

78,6%

72,39%

21,4%

23,98%

EU Median
72,39%

23,98%

4,03%

Distribution of professional judges by gender and by 
instance

% Female

% Male

66,7%

33,3%

22,2%

77,8%

57,1%

42,9%

1st instance

2nd instance

1st instance

2nd instance

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female professional judges (all instances) is 24, which represents 57,1% of the total number of judges.
The total number of judges is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 33 are sitting in first instance courts (of which 22 are female) and 9 are sitting in 
second instance courts (of which 2 are female).  

Compared with the EU distribution of professional judges per instance, Malta has similar distribution of judges per instance. The distrubution of Maltese judges is 78,6% in the first 
instance (slightly over the EU median of 72,39%) and 21,4% in the second instance (slightly less than the EU median of 23,98%).

As regards the distribution male/female judges by instance, it has to tb noticed that, although the total number of female judges is 57,1%, the percentage of female judges in the second 
instance courts is only 22,2%.

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Total

Civil and commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

33

9

NAP

42

17

5

NAP

22

13

4

NAP

17

3

NA

NAP

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

In Malta, the distribution of judges per categories of cases is presented in the graph below. 

Distribution of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Civil and 
commercial

51,5%

55,6%

NAP

52,4%

Criminal

Administrative

Other

39,4%

44,4%

NAP

40,5%

9,1%

NA

NAP

7,1%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

Distribution of the total number of professional judges by  matter

52,4% Civil and commercial

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

0

52%
7,1% Administrative

40%

7% NAP

0%

40,5% Criminal

Some judges in the Maltese judicial system preside over both civil and criminal courts. In this instance, such judges have been distributed evenly between the 2 courts.
Administrative cases at first instance are heard by the Administrative Review Tribunal, presided over by 3 magistrates. If appealed, such cases are heard by the Court of Appeal Inferior 
Jurisdiction presided over by a judge who hears and decides cases appealed form a number of first instance courts (not only the Administrative Review Tribunal).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1040 / 1555

Non-judge staff

Year

2012

Number of non-judge staff

360

2013

451

Per 100 000 inhabitants

85,21

105,02

2014

389

88,47

2015

393

2016

383

2017

394

2018

413

2019

412

2020

396

87,25

83,21

82,83

86,82

83,48

76,96

E
U 
m

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants

105,02

85,21

88,47

87,25

83,21

82,83

86,82

83,48

76,96

59,00

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

2020

Total

Rechtspfleger

Non-judge staff assisting the judge

Staff in charge of administrative tasks

Technical staff

Other

Absolute 
number

396

NAP

246

53

4

93

in %

NAP

62,1%

13,4%

1,0%

23,5%

In 2020, Malta has 396 non-judge staff (of which 230 are females). The total number of non-judge staff in comparison with the previous cycle reveals a decrease of -3,9%.

In this cycle, the non-judge staff is distrubuted as follows:

◦ 246 non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges such as registrars (of which 182 are women);
◦ 53 staff in charge of different administrative tasks and of the court management (of which 28 are women);
◦ 4 technical staff (of which 0 are women);
◦ 93 other (of which 20 are women);

In 2020, the number of non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants has decreased (from 83,5 in 2019 to 77,0 in 2020).

During the same period, the number of judges per 100 000 inhabitants decreases from 8,7 judges per 100 000 inhabitants in 2019 to 8,2 in 2020.

Professional judges, non-judge staff and their ratio (Q46, Q52)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Malta

EU median

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

8,16

76,96

Non-judge staff per judge

9,43

23,92

59,00

3,30

Professional judges and non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Non-judge staff per judge

9,43

76,96

8,16

Malta

59,00

23,92

3,30

EU median

 There are about 9,43 non-judge staff per judge and there is no significant difference compared with previous cycle when this ratio was at 9,58 non-judge staff per judge.

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff  (Q46, Q52)

Judges 
per 100 000 inh.

Non-judge staff per
100 000 inh.

Ratio between professional judges and 
non-judge staff

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff 
Non-judge staff per 100 000 inh.
(Q46, Q52)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

9,47

9,78

9,32

9,32

9,78

9,04

9,46

8,71

8,16

85,21

105,02

88,47

87,25

83,21

82,83

86,82

83,48

76,96

EU median 2020

3,30

9,00

10,74

9,49

9,36

8,51

9,16

9,18

9,58

9,43

10,74

9,00

2012

2013

9,00
10,74
9,49
9,36
8,51
9,16
9,18
9,58
9,43

9,49

9,36

8,51

9,16

9,18

9,58

9,43

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1041 / 1555

● Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff

Absolute number of public prosecutors by instance and gender (Q55)

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

NAP

NAP

NAP

38

Distribution by 
instance

NAP

NAP

NAP

Male

NAP

NAP

NAP

20

Female

NAP

NAP

NAP

18

Male

NAP

NAP

NAP

Female

NAP

NAP

NAP

52,6%

47,4%

Distribution of total number of public prosecutors by gender

Male

Female

Total

52,6%

47,4%

EU Median

73,96%

21,28%

4,52%

In this cycle, the total number of female prosecutors (all instances) is 18, which represents 47,4% of the total number of prosecutors.

All the lawyers working in the Office of the AG prosecute cases in the criminal courts, but it is not possible, as yet to distinguish between 1st and 2nd Instance Courts. All full-time lawyers 
have been included in the above figure except the AG herself.

The increase in the number of lawyers working at the Office of the AG follows the reform in 2020 whereby the AG has taken up exclusively the role of prosecutor general (the advisory role 
to government has been vested in the State Advocate). Given this special focus, the Office of the AG has been recruiting more lawyers in order to meet the case demands of the courts.

Non-prosecutor staff by gender (Q60)

Non-prosecutor staff

Total

2020

21

Male

11

Female

10

Non-prosecutor staff by gender

Male

Female

48%

52%

Public prosecutors, non-prosecutor staff and their ratio (Q55, Q60)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Malta

EU median

Public prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per 
prosecutor

7,38

4,08

0,55

9,91

15,22

1,11

Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Public prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

7,38

Non-prosecutor staff per prosecutor

4,08

0,55

15,22

9,91

1,11

Malta

EU median

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1042 / 1555

● Salaries of professional judges and prosecutors at beginning of a career and at the highest instance (Q132, Q4)

Salaries of professional judges and 
prosecutors (Q132, Q4)

Average gross annual 
salary 
in €

Average net annual 
salary 
in €

Ratio with national 
average annual 
gross salary

Judge at the beginning of a career 

95 215 €

68 770 €

Judge of the highest court 

103 246 €

74 587 €

Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

44 496 €

28 843 €

5,03

5,46

2,35

2,02

4,09

1,71

2,02

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual salary in the 
country

EU Median

5,03

Salaries of 
judges and 
5,46
prosecutors in 
Judge

4,09

at the beginning 
of a career

95215

2,35
at the highest 
instance

103246

1,71

Judge at the beginning of career

Judge on highest instance

Prosecutor

at the beginning 
of a career

44496

Prosecutor at the beginning of
career

NAP

at the highest 
instance

Public prosecutor at highest instance

NAP

NAP

NAP

3,61

Malta

EU Median

According to 2020 data, the absolute gross salary of a judge at the beginning of the career in Malta is 95 215€, which is more than 50% above the EU median of 51 946€. The ratio 
between the salary of a judge at the beginning of the career with national annual average gross salary is 5,03, which is much higher than the EU median (2,02).

In 2020, wages for the lawyers of the AG were improved following a revision of salaries.  The absolute gross salary of a prosecutor at the beginning of the career in Malta is 44 496€ and 
the ratio between the salary of a prosecutor at the beginning of the career with national annual average gross salary is 2,35, which is higher than the EU median  of 1,71.

● Lawyers

Lawyers

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

Number of lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

1 400

1 112

1 485

1 569

1 327

1 473

1 535

1 648

1 762

331,35

258,95

337,74

348,35

288,29

309,65

322,68

333,90

342,43

331,35

337,74

348,35

309,65

322,68

288,29

333,90

342,43

258,95

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

122,09

EU median
2020

EU median 2020

122,09

In 2020, there are 1 762 lawyers, which is 6,9% more than in 2019.

Malta has 342,4 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants, which is well above the EU median of 122,1.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1043 / 1555

● Judicial professionals (summary)

Judicial professionals in absolute number and per 100 000 inhabitants (Q46, Q52, Q55, Q60, Q146)

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

EU Median

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

43

396

38

21

8,71

23,92

76,96

59,00

7,38

4,08

9,91

15,22

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Malta

EU Median

342,43

76,96

59,00

23,92

8,71

7,38

9,91

4,08

15,22

122,09

Lawyers

1 762

342,43

122,09

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

Malta % Male Malta % Female labels

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

% Male

% Female

EU Median  % Male

-39,0%

Professional judges

Malta % Male

-42,9%

Professional judges

42,9%

39,0%

57,1%

Malta % Female

42,9%

61,0%

EU Median  % Female
39,0%

0,0%

57,1%

61,0%

58,1%

Professional judges

42,9%

57,1%

Non judge staff

41,9%

58,1%

Prosecutors

52,6%

47,4%

Non-prosecutor staff

52,4%

47,6%

Lawyers

47,3%

52,7%

Non judge staff

-41,9%

58,1%

41,9%

Non judge staff

41,9%

24,0%

-24,0%

76,0%

24,0%

76,0%

Prosecutors

52,6%

Prosecutors

40,5%

Non-prosecutor staff

52,4%

Non-prosecutor staff

28,1%

Lawyers

Lawyers

47,3%

52,3%

-52,6%
-40,5%

-52,4%
-28,1%

-47,3%
-52,3%

47,4%
59,5%

47,6%
71,9%

52,7%
47,7%

0,0%

47,4%

52,6%
40,5%
0,0%
52,4%
28,1%
0,0%
47,3%
52,3%

59,5%

47,6%

52,7%

47,7%

71,9%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1044 / 1555

3. Legal aid and court fees in Malta

In Malta, legal aid includes:

◦ Coverage of court fees: 

◦ Exemption from court fees: 

0

1

In Malta, Legal Aid does not cover court fees because it is totally exempt from paying them.

Legal aid is available for :

> Representation in court:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

> Legal advice, ADR and other legal services:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

>

>

Fees related to enforcement of judicial decisions as fees for enforcement agents (Q18) 

 Other costs than above (Q19) 

1

1

1

1

1

0

Eligible candidates can enforce foreign judgements in Malta through legal aid as long as the procedure is carried out through court representation.

 Number of cases for which legal aid has been granted

Absolute number 
(in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

Per 100 000 inhabitants
 (in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

Total

Cases brought to court

Cases not brought to 
court

Ratio of number of cases brought to court for which legal aid 
has been granted

946

626

320

Malta

183,8

121,7

62,2

755

626

129

EU Median

734,2

330,9

402,7

191

NAP

191

In criminal cases

79,8%

20,2%

In other than criminal
cases

100,0% NAP

40,3%

59,7%

Number of cases for which legal has been granted per 100 000 
inhabitants

Malta

EU Median

734,2

183,8

330,9

121,7

402,7

62,2

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

The figures quoted for civil and criminal cases do not refer to the actual number of cases but to the number of nominations (requests) for legal aid. For example, if a case is 
brought to court having 5 accused people requiring legal aid, then this would count as 5 requests but just 1 case.

In Other than Criminal Cases, the low figure quoted as compared to previous evaluations relates to the disruptive effect that the COVID-19 pandemic had on court operations. 
During 2020, most services at the Legal Aid Agency were limited to the provision of services and the Courts of Law were closed for non-urgent court applications.
It is important to note that towards the end of April 2020, Legal Aid Malta started offering legal advice (not representation in courts) to clients experiencing domestic violence. In 
addition to the 129 cases brought to court, Legal Aid Malta offered legal advice to 191 clients experiencing DV. Each client referred to or requiring assistance from Legal Aid Malta 
Agency in relation to domestic violence is being assigned a legal aid lawyer for the necessary legal advice required. Such clients do not always want to pursue assistance at 
Court. This service has fulfilled the obligation set in the Istanbul Convention and has been incorporated in domestic law under Article 57 of the schedule attached to Chapter 581 
of the Laws of Malta.

Timeframes of the procedure for granting legal aid (in relation to the duration from the initial legal aid request to the final approval of the legal aid request)

◦ Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulations: 

◦ Actual average duration: 

NA

19

The average number of days indicated above (19 days) refers to Other than Criminal cases and is computed as follows:
> 5 days: from the time a person asks for legal aid information up to the presentation of the actual means test documents.
> between 7 to 14 days (avg: 10.5 days): from the presentation of the documents by the client to the day set for an appointment with the Advocate for Legal Aid.
> 3 days: from date a Court application is presented at the Court’s registry up to the day the Judge gives a decree.
In criminal cases:
No means test is required. When a person is referred to Legal Aid for a criminal case assistance and court representation, the Agency only requires the summons issued by the 
Police to draft the necessary Court applications, or a copy of the judgment in case of appeals. The average duration of the procedure for the granting of Legal Aid in Criminal 
Cases, from the point of referral to the day when a Court application is filed, is 4 days.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1045 / 1555

4. Performance of courts in Malta

● Efficiency indicators

◦ Clearance Rate (CR) and Disposition Time (DT)

The Clearance Rate shows the capacity of a judicial system to deal with the incoming cases. A Clearance Rate of 100% and higher does not generate backlog. 

The Disposition Time determines the estimated number of days necessary for a pending case to be solved in a court. 

First instance Total of other than criminal cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Evolution of number of all other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants
Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Incoming

1,07

0,99

1,54

1,55

1,46

1,15

1,04

1,57

1,72

1,57

2,20

3
9
1

2,41

,

8
2
2

,

2
1
2

,

2,29

5
6
2

,

2,49

2
4
2

,

2,65

2,12

2019

6,82

2,42

1,93
2020
6,60

2,23

2,24

2,40

0
6
6

,

2,10

2
8
6

,

8
1
2

,

1,92

2,00

2,13

2,28

6
6
2

,

2,18
EU median
2,66

3
2
2

,

7
0
1

,

5
1
1

,

4
2
2

,

9
9
0

,

4
0
1

,

0
4
2

,

4
5
1

,

7
5
1

,

0
1
2

,

5
5
1

,

2
7
1

,

2
9
1

,

6
4
1

,

7
5
1

,

9
2
2

,

0
2
2

,

0
0
2

,

9
4
2

,

1
4
2

,

3
1
2

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Malta (2,12 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (6,82 per 100 inhabitants).

Moreover, the number of resolved cases in 2020 in Malta (1,93 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (6,60 per 100 inhabitants).

Finally, the number of pending cases at the end of 2020 in Malta (2,18 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below EU median (2,66 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Other than criminal cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Other than criminal 
cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

108%

104%

102%

111%

107%

96%

97%

91%

91%

707

789

558

447

446

331

322

344

414

EU median

99%

109

108%

104%

102%

111%

107%

96%

97%

91%

91%

99%

DT (days)

CR (%)

707

2012

789

2013

558

2014

447

2015

446

2016

331

2017

322

2018

344

2019

414

109

2020

EU median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 90,9% in 2020 Malta does not seem to be able to deal with its other than criminal cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -0,4 points.

In 2020, other than criminal cases are solved in approximately 414 days, which is well above EU median of 109 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 20,2% increase of the Disposition Time.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1046 / 1555

First instance Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of civil and commercial litigious cases per 100 inhabitants

5
2
2

,

1
5
1

,

3
5
1

,

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

1
0
2

,

5
6
1

,

4
5
1

,

3
8
1

,

5
5
1

,

4
4
1

,

6
8
1

,

1
6
1

,

6
5
1

,

4
0
2

,

2
8
1

,

0
7
1

,

1
8
1

,

0
1
2

,

6
0
2

,

2
1
1

,

8
9
0

,

0
0
1

,

2
9
0

,

0,98
0,92
1,51
1,54
1,44
1,61
1,82
1,81
1,44
1,56

1
1
2

,

6
6
1

,

1,12
1,00
1,53
1,65
1,55
1,56
1,70
1,66
1,31
1,50

7
9
1

,

6
5
1

,

0
5
1

,

4
4
1

,

1
3
1

,

2,10
2,06
2,25
2,01
1,83
1,86
2,04
2,11
1,97
1,05

5
0
1

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Malta (1,44 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below EU median (1,56 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Malta (1,31 per 100 inhabitants) is also slightly below EU median (1,50 per 100 inhabitants).

Yet, the number of pending cases at the end of 2020 in Malta (1,97 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly above EU median (1,05 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

113,8%

109,6%

101,3%

107,3%

107,3%

97,0%

93,4%

91,8%

90,5%

685

750

536

445

432

435

440

465

550

EU Median

98%

221

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

DT (days)

CR (%)

113,8%

109,6%

101,3%

107,3%

107,3%

97,0%

93,4%

91,8%

90,5%

98%

685

2012

750

2013

536

2014

445

2015

432

2016

435

2017

440

2018

465

2019

550

221

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 90,5% in 2020, Malta does not seem to be to deal with its civil and commercial litigious cases.

Moreover, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -1,3 points between 2019 and 2020.

In 2020, the civil and commercial litigious cases are solved in approximately 550 days, which is well above EU median of 221 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 18,3% increase of the Disposition Time.

In Malta, there are 3 972 civil and commercial litigious cases older than 2 years. This is 39,1% of the total number of pending cases at the end of the year

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1047 / 1555

First instance Administrative cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of administrative cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

0,08
0,08
0,03
0,02
0,02
0,02
0,03
0,03
0,03
0,30

0,13
0,18
0,16
0,09
0,09
0,08
0,08
0,07
0,07
0,21

1
2
0

,

6
2
0

,

0
3
0

,

0,03
0,03
0,04
0,07
0,02
0,03
0,03
0,03
0,03
0,26

7
0
0

,

3
1
0

,

8
0
0

,

3
0
0

,

8
1
0

,

6
1
0

,

8
0
0

,

3
0
0

,

4
0
0

,

3
0
0

,

9
0
0

,

7
0
0

,

2
0
0

,

9
0
0

,

2
0
0

,

2
0
0

,

3
0
0

,

2
0
0

,

8
0
0

,

8
0
0

,

3
0
0

,

3
0
0

,

7
0
0

,

3
0
0

,

3
0
0

,

3
0
0

,

3
0
0

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

In 2020, the number of incoming and resoveld cases in Malta (0,03 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (0,30  and 0,26 per 100 inhabitants, 
respectively).

The number of pending cases at the end of 2020 (0,07 per 100 inhabitants) is also significantly below EU median (0,21 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Administrative cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

40,2%

40,1%

148,7%

410,7%

114,4%

146,9%

91,2%

120,8%

106,2%

1457

2036

1408

495

1464

1147

1057

839

924

EU Median

100%

388

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Administrative cases

DT (days)

CR (%)

410,7%

148,7%

146,9%

114,4%

40,2%

40,1%

1457
2012

2036
2013

1408

2014

495

2015

1464

2016

1147

2017

91,2%

1057

2018

120,8%

106,2%

100%

839

2019

924

388

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 106,2% in 2020, Malta seems to be to deal with its administrative cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -14,6 points.

In 2020, the administrative cases are solved in approximately 924 days, which is well above EU median of 388 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 10,2% increase of the Disposition Time.

In Malta, there are 206 administrative law cases older than 2 years. This is 59,4% of the total number of pending cases at the end of the year.

The vast majority of cases heard before the courts of Malta are litigious cases. Nevertheless, there is the Court of Voluntary Jurisdiction which deals with adoptions, 
appointment of tutor, curators and other administrators, interdiction and incapacitation and opening of secret wills.

The lack of horizontal consistency results from recounts that happen throughout the year, and that ensure that the data is always as up to date as possible. However 
when taken as a global figure, horizontal consistency might then be lost.

The cases included in the non-litigious case category are codified under Art 166A of the Code of Organisation and Civil Procedure (COCP), Chp 12 of the Laws of Malta.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1048 / 1555

Insolvency cases

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Insolvency cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Insolvency cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

75,0%

121,4%

42,9%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1144

1031

3407

EU Median

105%

281

75,0%

1144

2018

DT (days)

CR (%)

121,4%

1031

2019

105%

281

EU Median

42,9%

3407

2020

The Clearance Rate was calculated at 42,9% in 2020 for insolvency cases, Malta seems ... to deal with its insolvency cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -78,6 points.

In 2020, insolvency cases are solved in a approximately 3 407 days, which is well above EU median of 281 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 230,6% increase of the Disposition Time.

Due to cour closure, there are less incoming and resolved cases in 2020.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1049 / 1555

● First instance Criminal Law Cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

11 899

11 086

7 321

15 883

Severe criminal cases 

Misdemeanour and/or 
minor cases

Other cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Per 100 inhabitants

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

2,31

2,15

1,42

3,09

Severe criminal 
cases 
Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Incoming cases Resolved casesPending 

Malta

EU Median

2,15

1,60

1,42

3,09

1,48

0,46

Total criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases

Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

9
0
3

,

5
1
2

,

2
4
1

,

0
6
1

,

8
4
1

,

6
4
0

,

Malta

EU Median

The number of total incoming criminal cases in 2020 in Malta (2,15 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat above EU median (1,60 per 100 inhabitants).

Moreover, the number of total resolved criminal cases in 2020 in Malta (1,42 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below EU median (1,48 per 100 inhabitants).

Finally, the number of total pending criminal cases at the end of 2020 in Malta (3,09 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (0,46 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT)

Total criminal law cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

DT (days)

CR (%)

Total

66,0%

Severe criminal 
cases 

Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

NA

NA

NA

792

NA

NA

NA

EU Median

95,2%

139

EU Median

Total Criminal law cases

95,2%

66,0%

792

Total

139

EU Median

With the Clearance Rate calculated at 66,0% in 2020 for total criminal cases, Malta seems to struggle to deal with its total criminal cases.

In 2020, criminal law cases were solved in approximately 792 days, which is well above EU median of 139 days.

In the Maltese legal system, all proceedings which appear before the Court of Magistrates may be punishable with a fine or imprisonment, bar a few contraventions which 
still appear before the Court of Magistrates and it is not possible to obtain data relating to these few cases. Nevertheless, all cases which lead to an imprisonment of ten 
years or more can only be heard by the Criminal Court whilst cases between 2 and 12 years may be heard by the Court of Magistrates only once the procedure before it 
as a Court of Criminal Inquiry is completed. Since in Malta the vast majority of the cases contemplate the possibility of imprisonment, barring a few contraventions, the 
cases indicated as misdemeanors/minor offences, are those cases which are heard by the Court of Magistrates (excluding those being heard as a Court of Criminal 
Inquiry) having a maximum punishment of 2 years imprisonment while the cases indicated as 'severe criminal offences' are those having a punishment of over 2 years 
(Criminal Court & Court of Criminal Inquiry).

Given that the categorisation of criminal offences in Malta does not exactly match with the CEPEJ definitions provided, only the total of such cases is being reported. An 
actual breakdown of the figures quoted above is as follows:
- Pending 1st January 2020 = 11899 (79 cases Criminal Court and 11820 cases Court of Magistrates)
- Incoming cases 2020 = 11086 (17 cases Criminal Court and 11069 cases Court of Magistrates)
- Resolved cases 2020 = 7321 (5 cases Criminal Court and 7316 cases Court of Magistrates)
- Pending cases 31st December 2020 = 15883 (89 cases Criminal Court and 15794 cases Court of Magistrates)
The lack of horizontal consistency results from recounts that happen throughout the year, and that ensure that the data is always as up to date as possible. However 
when taken as a global figure, horizontal consistency might then be lost.
The decrease in the number of incoming and resolved cases, and the ensuing high number of pending cases, results from the restrictions imposed by the pandemic on 
the functioning of the Courts of Law. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1050 / 1555

Overall efficiency by instance and by case matter

CR (%)

DT (days)

CR (%)

DT (days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases

90,5%

129,8%

Administrative cases

106,2%

NA

Total criminal law cases

66,0%

148,9%

NAP

NAP

NAP

550

924

792

838

NA

545

NAP

NAP

NAP

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

1st instance

1st instance

2nd instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Civil and
commercial
Administrative cases

%
5
0
9

,

100%

Total criminal law cases

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

,

%
8
9
2
1

90,5%
%
2
6
0
1

106,2% NA

,

,

%
9
8
4
1

129,8% NAP
NAP

%
0
6
6

,

A
N

66,0%

148,9% NAP

Administrative cases Total criminal law

cases

1

1
1

838

550

545

792

924

Civil and commercial litigious cases

1
1

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

Malta has a two-tier system, therefore the Court of Appeal is the second, highest and final instance court.The case flow data of the Court of Appeal are here presented 
as second instance cases. For this reason, CR and DT of the Court of Appeal are presented in the second instance, whereas NAP is indicated in the third instance. 

It should also be noticed that, in the second instance courts, Administrative law cases are included in the number of Civil (and commercial) litigious cases. Moreover, 
the number of second instance criminal law cases reflects the aggregate number of cases of the Criminal Court of Appeal in its Superior and Inferior Jurisdiction.

Looking at the charts above, it is clear that Malta is struggling to solve the pending cases in all matters and instances and the Disposition Time (DT) for first and 
second instance cases is well above the EU median.  

As far as the first instance cases are concerned, the DT is: 550 days for Civil and Commercial Litigious cases (vs the EU median of 221days); 924 days for 
Administrative cases (vs the EU median of 388 days); and 792 days for Total Criminal Law cases (vs the EU medina of 139). The Clearance Rate (CR) is above the 
threshold of 100% only for the Administrative cases (106,2%), whereas for Total Criminal Law cases the CR is as low as 66%. This shows that the first instance courts 
are not able to deal with the incoming Total Criminal Law cases.

Although the CR is much higher than the 100% threshold for the second instance cases (129,8% for Civil and Commercial Litigious cases and 148,9% for Criminal 
Law cases), the DT is still well above the EU median for all matters. Namely, it is 838 days for Civil and Commercial Litigious cases (whereas the EU medians is 177 
days) and it is 545 days for Total Criminal Law cases (while the EU median is 101 days).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1051 / 1555

5. Public prosecution services in Malta

● Role and powers of the public prosecutor

In the criminal procedure, the public prosecutor in Malta has the following 6 out of 11 possible roles and powers:

To conduct or supervise police investigation

To appeal

To conduct investigations

To supervise the enforcement procedure

When necessary, to request investigation measures from the judge

To discontinue a case without needing a decision by a judge

To charge

To present the case in the court

To propose a sentence to the judge

To end the case by imposing or negotiating a penalty or measure 
without requiring a judicial decision

Other significant powers

The public prosecutor does not have any role in civil, administrative or insolvency cases.

● Public prosecutors: Number of first instance criminal cases

Type of cases

Absolute 
number

Per 100 
inhabitants

1. Pending cases on 1 Jan. ref. year 

11 899

2,31

2. Incoming/received cases

3. Processed cases (3.1 + 3.2 + 3.3 + 3.4)

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year (3.1.1 + 3.1.2 + 3.1.3 
+ 3.1.4)

3.1.1 Discontinued by the public prosecutor because the 
offender could not be identified 

3.1.2 Discontinued by the public prosecutor due to the lack 
of an established offence or a specific legal situation 

3.1.3 Discontinued by the public prosecutor for reasons of 
opportunity

3.1.4 Discontinued for other reasons 

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Public prosecutors: Total number of first instance criminal 
Incoming/rec
cases per 100 inhabitants
eived cases

Processed 
cases

Pendin
g cases 
on 31 
Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. Year

Processed cases

Incoming/received cases

3,09

Malta NA

2,85

NA

2,84

3,09

EU Median

2,85 2,84

0,84

NA

NA

Malta

0,84

EU Median

Processed cases per 100 inhabitants

Processed cases

Malta

EU Median

Malta

EU Median

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated 
by the public prosecutor

NAP

NAP

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

NA

1,05

0,00

1,05

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons

NA

NA

3.4. Cases brought to court

11 086

2,15

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure
imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor

NAP

0,12

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for
other reasons

0,30
3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons
0,30

0,00

NA

0,00

0,12

4. Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. year

15 883

3,09

3.4. Cases brought to court
3.4. Cases brought to court

2,15

-2,15

0,53

0,53

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1052 / 1555

 
6. Existence and use of alternative dispute resolution in Malta

Number of mediators

Mediators

Total

Per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

69

69

61

61

66

69

67

67

66

16,3

16,1

13,9

13,5

14,3

14,5

14,1

13,6

12,8

EU Median 2020

EU median in 2019

14,4

EU Median
2020

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

Number of mediators per 100 000 inhabitants

14,4

12,8

13,6

14,1

14,5

14,3

13,5

13,9

16,1

16,3

In 2020, there are 66 accredited or registered mediators who practise court related mediation which is 12,8 per 100 000 inhabitants (-1,5% less than in 2019).

Number of court related mediations

Type of cases

All cases

Civil and commercial

Family cases

Administrative

Employment dismissal

Criminal cases

Consumer cases

Number of cases 
for which the parties
agreed to start 
mediation

Number of finished 
court-related
mediations

Number of cases 
in which there is a 
settlement agreement

1668

5

1663

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1809

2

1807

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1053 / 1555

7. ICT tools of courts in Malta

●The ICT tools of courts and for court users

The use of ICT in courts in 2020 has been evaluated as  :

EU Median

Total 
(0 to 10)

Assistance tools (0 to 3)

Case management system (0 to 7)
Financial management tools (0 to 3)

Measurement tools to assess the workload (0 to 5)
Electronic communication (0 to 10)

5,5
1,5

4,7

2,0
2,3

4,8

6,6
2,0

5,2

1,3
2,5

6,9

The calculation of this values for each field is based on the answers for that question/s and weighted according the avaiability or deployment 
rate. The total value is normalised to max 10 points for readability and comparison.

The details of the calculation are given in Annex 5 - IT calculations.

The result by area may be summarized in these graphics, where each field has been evaluated from 0 to 4 points.

Note: index is modified based on the available questions. This cycle the recalculation was made for the last three cycles to be able to follow 
the development.

Assistance 
tools

Year
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
EU Median 20202,00
1,50

1,50

1,50

1,50

1,50

1,50

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

Case 
management 

Financial 
management 

2018

Measurement 
tools to assess 

2020
2019
Electronic 
communication

EU Median 2020

4,74

4,74

4,74

4,74

4,74
2,00

2,00

2,00

5,17

4,74

1,67

2,33

2,33

4,12

3,94

4,77

2,00

5,17

1,25

2,50

2,00

2,00

6,94
2,00

2,33

2,33

2,50

1,25

1,67

6,94

4,77

4,12

3,94

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

Comments on CMS

Regarding the Case Management System, it does indicate the age of the pending caseload but it does not 'issue' a warning to the judiciary 
once cases exceed a pre-established threshold.

Comments on communication tools 
As far as the electronic communication between courts and lawyers and/or parties is concerned, in Civil and/or  Commercial cases and in 
Administrative cases, parties not represented by a lawyer have access to some of the features outlined under 'Trial phases concerned' but not 
all. For example, it is mandatory by law that the filing of a case is made through a lawyer or a legal procurator and not by a party without a 
lawyer. Moreover the system only recognises legal professionals in executing certain information-sharing functions, whilst communicating 
directly with parties in relation to other aspects of the phases of a hearing (for example through MyActs).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1054 / 1555

8. Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and public prosecution services in Malta

In Malta, quality standards are determined for the judicial system at national level (e.g. quality systems for the judiciary and/or judicial quality policies). However, there is no 
specialised personnel within the courts or the public prosecution services entrusted with implementation of these national level quality standards.
There exists a Code of Ethics for the members of the Judiciary which, though not providing for the organisation and quality of the judicial work, does lay upon the members of 
the Judiciary certain obligations which are important in ensuring the transparency and independence of the judicial process.

● Systems for measuring and evaluating courts' performance

A regular monitoring system of court activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

In Malta, there is a system to regularly evaluate the court performance based primarily on defined indicators and the reporting is more frequent than annual.

Court performance is evaluated on a quarterly basis, or as the need arises.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each court.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other: age of pending cases

The evaluation of the courts' activity is used for the later allocation of means in this court.

● Systems for measuring and evaluating public prosecution services' performance

A regular monitoring system of public prosecution services activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases 

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs 

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecution) 

Costs of the judicial procedures 

Clearance rate 

Disposition time 

Percentage of convictions and aquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

In Malta, there is a system to evaluate regularly the activity of each public prosecution service and the frequency of the reporting is annual.

The Office of the AG has started setting up a system to assess the performance of the prosecution service, but this is still in its initial phases and more work is being planned 
on it to make it more integrated.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each public prosecution service.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecutors)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Percentage of convictions and acquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff

The evaluation of the public prosecution services' activity is used for the later allocation of means in this service.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1055 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Q1 Number of inhabitants

422 509

429 424

439 691

450 415

460 297

475 701

475 701

493 559

514 565

21,8%

1,6%

2,4%

2,4%

2,2%

3,3%

0,0%

3,8%

4,3%

Q.3 GDP Per capita (in €) in current prices

16 417

16 831

18 525

21 469

22 664

23 778

25 556

26 490

24 634

50,1%

2,5%

10,1%

15,9%

5,6%

4,9%

7,5%

3,7%

-7,0%

Q5. Exchange rate of Nat currency to € on 1 Jan

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Table General Data: Economic and demographic data, in absolute values (Q1, Q3, Q5)

Indicator 1: Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and prosecution services  (Indicator 4 in 2019)

Table 1.1 to Table 1.10 (Q66, Q67, Q77, Q78, Q77-1, Q78-1, Q73, Q73-0, Q73-1, Q73-2, Q73-3, Q73-4, Q73-5, Q73-6, Q70, Q70-1, Q71, Q72, Q83-2, Q83-3, Q120 
and Q120-1)

66 Qlty standards formulated_jud system

67 Specialised court staff entrusted_qlty standards

77 Performance and quality indicators of court activities

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

078.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078.1.5 Backlogs 

078.1.6 Productivity of judges and court staff

078.1.7 Satisfaction of court staff 

078.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts) 

078.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078.1.10 Number of appeals

078.1.11 Appeal ratio

078.1.12 Clearance rate 

078.1.13 Disposition time 

078.1.14 Other

077-1.1.1 Defined performance and quality indicators

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1056 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

078-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078-1.1.5 Backlogs 

078-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

078-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

078-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

078-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

078-1.1.11 Disposition time 

078-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

078-1.1.13 Other

True

False

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

73 Regular system_evaluation_performance_each court

No

No

No

Yes

073-0.1.1 Annual

073-0.1.2 Less frequent

073-0.1.3 More frequent

073-1.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
court

073-2.1.1 Courses of action taken in the evaluation is used for the 
allocation of resources

073-2.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-2.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-2.1.4 Other

073-3.1.1 Regular evaluation of the public prosecution services 
performance

Yes

Yes

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1057 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

073-4.1.1 Annual

073-4.1.2 Less frequent

073-4.1.3 More frequent

073-5.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
public prosecution services

073-6.1.1 Identifying the causes of improved or deteriorated 
performance

073-6.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-6.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-6.1.4 Other

070.1.1 number of incoming cases

070.1.2 length of proceedings (timeframes)

070.1.3 number of resolved cases

070.1.4 number of pending cases

070.1.5 backlogs

070.1.6 productivity of judges and court staff

070.1.7 satisfaction of court staff

070.1.8 satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts)

070.1.9 costs of the judicial procedures

070.1.10 number of appeals

070.1.11 appeal ratio

070.1.12 clearance rate

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1058 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

070-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases 

070-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

070-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

070-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

070-1.1.5 Backlogs 

070-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

070-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

070-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

070-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

070-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

070-1.1.11 Disposition time 

070-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

070-1.1.13 Other

071.1.1 Monitoring backlogs in Civil law cases

071.1.2 Monitoring backlogs in Criminal law cases

071.1.3 Monitoring backlogs in Administrative law cases

072.1.1 Monitoring timeframes Within the courts

072.1.2 Monitoring timeframes Within the public prosecution services

083-2.1.1 Quantitative performance tagets defined for each 
prosecutors

083-3.1.1 Body responsible - Executive power (for example the 
Ministry of Justice)

083-3.1.2 Body responsible - Prosecutor General /State public 
prosecutor

083-3.1.3 Body responsible - Public Prosecutorial Council

083-3.1.4 Body responsible - Head of the organisational unit or 
hierarchically superior public prosecutor

083-3.1.5 Body responsible - Other

True

False

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

False

True

False

False

False

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1059 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

120.1.1 Qualitative individual assessment of the public prosecutors' 
work

120-1.1.1 Feequency - Annual

120-1.1.2 Feequency - Less frequent

120-1.1.3 Feequency - More frequent

Q42.1.1Total number of all courts - legal entities 

Q42.1.2 Total number of courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.3 First instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.4 Second instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.5 Highest instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.6 Total number of specialised courts - legal entities

43.1.1 Total number of specialised courts of first instance

43.1.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.1.3 Insolvency courts

43.1.4 Labour courts

43.1.5 Family courts

43.1.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.1.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.1.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.1.9 Internet related disputes

43.1.10 Administrative courts

43.1.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.1.12 Military courts

43.1.13 Juvenile courts

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

Indicator 2: The judicial organisation

Tables 2.1a; 2.1b; 2.2a; 2.2b; 2.3a; 2.3b; 2.4 and 2.5(EC) (Q42, Q43 and Q44)

-

-

1

-

-

-

7

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

7

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

7

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

7

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

7

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

8

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

9

1

NAP

NAP

1

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

9

1

NAP

NAP

1

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

-

True

False

False

True

15

8

4

4

NAP

7

7

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

300,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

300,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

14,3%

12,5%

0,0%

-22,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

NAP

NAP

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1060 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

43.1.14 Other specialised courts

5

5

4

4

4

5

5

5

4

-20,0%

0,0%

-20,0%

0,0%

0,0%

25,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-20,0%

43.2.1 Total number of specialised courts of higher instances

43.2.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.2.3 Insolvency courts

43.2.4 Labour courts

43.2.5 Family courts

43.2.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.2.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.2.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.2.9 Internet related disputes

43.2.10 Administrative courts

43.2.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.2.12 Military courts

43.2.13 Juvenile courts

43.2.14 Other specialised courts

44.1.1 First instance courts geographic locations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

44.1.2 All courts geographic locations

2

2

2

2

2

2

3

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2

3

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

50,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

50,0%

0,0%

0,0%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1061 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Indicator 3: The performance of courts at all stages of the proceedings

Tables 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.4 (all years) Number of other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 Variation of first instance other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants (Q1, Q91)

Table 3.13.7 (EC) to 3.13.12 (EC) First instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

9 789

10 845

10 568

9 238

10 092

9 885

9 492

10 138

11 243

14,7%

-0,2%

10,8%

-2,6%

-10,5%

8 856

9 727

10 429

10,3%

-2,3%

9,2%

-2,1%

-8,5%

91.1.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.1.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.1.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.1.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.1.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.1.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.1.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.1.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

91.1.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.1.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

91.1.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

91.2.1 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.2.2 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.2.3 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

9 805

9 457

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

348

NAP

4 507

4 161

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

551

NAP

4 272

3 935

-

91.2.4 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

NAP

NAP

91.2.5 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.2.6 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.2.7 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.2.8 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

91.2.9 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

91.2.10 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

91.2.11 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

346

NAP

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

337

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

753

NAP

6 762

6 643

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

119

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

683

NAP

6 991

6 916

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

75

NAP

9 459

9 041

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

418

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

413

NAP

262

262

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

374

NAP

23

23

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

388

NAP

453

453

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6,8%

10,9%

9,8%

7,2%

-91,2% 1869,6%

-91,2% 1869,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

361

3,7%

58,3%

36,7%

-9,3%

-38,8%

-1,2%

-9,4%

3,7%

-7,0%

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6 730

10 911

11 827

13 066

10 915

142,2%

-5,2%

58,3%

3,4%

-3,7%

62,1%

8,4%

10,5%

-16,5%

6 640

7 656

8 640

8 909

7 433

78,6%

-5,4%

68,8%

4,1%

-4,0%

15,3%

12,9%

3,1%

-16,6%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

90

NAP

3 174

3 040

4 027

3 353

3 174

3 040

4 027

3 353

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

81

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

147

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

130

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-4,2%

32,5%

-16,7%

-4,2%

32,5%

-16,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

129

-62,7%

-2,6%

-64,7%

-37,0%

20,0%

-10,0%

81,5%

-11,6%

-0,8%

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1062 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

91.3.1 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.3.2 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.3.3 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

4 875

4 736

-

4 447

4 312

-

91.3.4 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

NAP

NAP

91.3.5 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.3.6 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.3.7 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.3.8 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

91.3.9 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

91.3.10 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

91.3.11 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

91.4.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.4.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.4.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.4.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.4.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.4.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.4.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.4.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

91.4.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.4.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

91.4.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

139

NAP

9 437

8 882

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

135

NAP

-

NAP

NAP

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

555

NAP

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

753

NAP

6 909

6 732

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

177

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

683

NAP

7 727

7 419

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

308

NAP

9 459

9 041

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

418

NAP

7 231

10 458

11 481

11 932

9 923

103,5%

-8,8%

55,4%

11,8%

-6,4%

44,6%

9,8%

3,9%

-16,8%

7 128

7 427

8 068

8 178

6 728

42,1%

-9,0%

56,1%

10,2%

-3,9%

4,2%

8,6%

1,4%

-17,7%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

103

NAP

8 843

8 430

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

413

NAP

2 912

3 279

3 597

3 058

2 912

3 279

3 597

3 058

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

119

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

134

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

157

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

12,6%

9,7%

-15,0%

12,6%

9,7%

-15,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

137

-1,4%

-2,9%

31,1%

74,0%

-66,6%

15,5%

12,6%

17,2%

-12,7%

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9 492

10 138

11 243

11 242

19,1%

1,9%

9,9%

-10,5%

-6,5%

7,3%

6,8%

10,9%

0,0%

8 856

9 727

10 429

10 147

14,2%

-0,2%

11,6%

-8,5%

-6,8%

5,1%

9,8%

7,2%

-2,7%

262

262

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

374

NAP

23

23

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

388

NAP

453

453

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

361

NAP

748

748

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-91,2% 1869,6%

65,1%

-91,2% 1869,6%

65,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

347

-37,5%

35,7%

-9,3%

-38,8%

-1,2%

-9,4%

3,7%

-7,0%

-3,9%

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9 614

10 568

8 861

9 885

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1063 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.2 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.4 to 3.3.7 Variation of Clearence Rate and Disposition Time of first instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

Table 3.13.1 (EC) to 3.13.6 (EC) First instance courts: Disposition time and clearance rate for other than criminal cases  (Q91)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

108,2%

104,1%

102,2%

110,5%

107,4%

95,8%

97,1%

91,3%

90,9%

(15,95)

(3,76)

(1,85)

8,18

(2,79)

(10,79)

1,28

(5,93)

(0,45)

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

113,8%

109,6%

101,3%

107,3%

107,3%

97,0%

93,4%

91,8%

90,5%

(20,47)

(3,72)

(7,52)

5,85

0,07

(9,63)

(3,74)

(1,70)

(1,39)

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

-

-

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

NAP

NAP

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

91,7%

107,9%

89,3%

91,2%

91,7%

107,9%

89,3%

91,2%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

17,57

(17,19)

2,10

17,57

(17,19)

2,10

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CR Administrative law cases

40,2%

40,1%

148,7%

410,7%

114,4%

146,9%

91,2%

120,8%

106,2%

164,36

(0,28)

271,30

176,10

(72,13)

28,37

(37,95)

32,49

(12,06)

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

707

685

-

789

750

-

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

NAP

NAP

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

1457

NAP

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

2036

NAP

558

536

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1408

NAP

447

445

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

495

NAP

446

432

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1464

NAP

331

435

33

33

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1147

NAP

322

440

3

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1057

NAP

344

465

46

46

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

839

NAP

414

-41,5%

11,7%

-29,2%

-20,0%

-0,1%

-25,8%

-2,7%

6,7%

20,2%

550

-19,6%

9,6%

-28,5%

-17,0%

-3,0%

0,8%

1,1%

5,8%

18,3%

89

89

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-92,2% 1695,4%

94,2%

-92,2% 1695,4%

94,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

924

-36,6%

39,7%

-30,8%

-64,8%

195,5%

-21,6%

-7,9%

-20,6%

10,2%

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1064 / 1555

      
        
        
         
        
      
         
        
        
      
        
        
         
         
        
        
        
        
       
      
         
       
      
         
     
        
     
     
      
       
      
       
      
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.4.1 (all years) First instance courts, number of cases for specific case categories (Q101)

101.1.1 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Litigious divorce case

101.1.2 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Employment dismissal case

101.1.3 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Insolvency

101.2.1 Incoming cases_Litigious divorce case

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

142

NAP

NA

285

162

NAP

NA

299

130

NAP

NA

358

121

NAP

NA

334

126

NAP

NA

395

151

NAP

47

372

170

NAP

48

10

101.2.2 Incoming cases_Employment dismissal case

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

101.2.3 Incoming cases_Insolvency

101.3.1 Resolved cases_Litigious divorce case

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

265

NA

331

NA

367

NA

329

20

370

14

353

14

7

101.3.2 Resolved cases_Employment dismissal case

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

101.3.3 Resolved cases_Insolvency

101.4.1 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Litigious divorce case

101.4.2 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Employment dismissal case

101.4.3 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Insolvency

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

162

NAP

NA

NA

130

NAP

NA

NA

121

NAP

NA

NA

126

NAP

NA

15

151

17

170

6

173

NAP

NAP

NAP

47

48

56

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CR Litigious divorce cases

CR Employment dismissal cases

CR Insolvency cases

DT Litigious divorce cases

DT Employment dismissal cases

DT Insolvency cases

Table 3.5.1 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for specific case categories (Q101)

Table 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 Variations of CR and DT for specific case categories of first instance cases (Q101)

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

93,0%

110,7%

102,5%

98,5%

93,7%

94,9%

70,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

223

NAP

NA

NA

143

NAP

NA

NA

120

NAP

NA

NA

140

NAP

75,0%

121,4%

42,9%

149

NAP

176

NAP

9 021

NAP

NA

1 144

1 031

3 407

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

14,1%

-19,8%

-6,9%

4,1%

19,8%

12,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,1%

4,9%

19,7%

-6,7%

18,3%

-5,8%

-97,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-30,0%

0,0%

24,9%

10,9%

-10,4%

12,5%

-4,6%

-98,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

13,3%

-64,7%

-19,8%

-6,9%

4,1%

19,8%

12,6%

1,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,1%

16,7%

19,06

(7,40)

(3,91)

(4,91)

1,30

(26,23)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

61,90

(64,71)

-35,8%

-16,1%

16,2%

6,6%

18,0% 5031,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-9,9%

230,6%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1065 / 1555

       
        
        
        
         
      
       
      
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

97.1.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.1.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.1.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.1.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.1.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.1.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.1.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.1.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

97.1.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.1.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

97.1.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases 

97.2.1 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.2.2 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.2.3 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.2.4 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.2.5 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.2.6 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.2.7 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.2.8 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

97.2.9 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.2.10 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

97.2.11 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases 

Table 3.7.1 to 3.7.5 (2019 and 2020) Second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Table 3.9.1 to 3.9.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

1 841

1 841

1 945

1 945

NA

1 922

1 797

1 951

1 870

2 015

1 922

1 797

1 951

1 870

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

807

807

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

772

772

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

867

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

701

701

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

796

796

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

694

694

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

571

571

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5,6%

-

-

-6,5%

8,6%

-4,2%

5,6%

3,6%

-4,6%

-6,5%

8,6%

-4,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-4,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

13,6%

-12,8%

-17,7%

-4,3%

12,3%

-19,1%

13,6%

-12,8%

-17,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1066 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

97.3.1 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.3.2 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.3.3 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.3.4 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.3.5 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.3.6 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.3.7 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.3.8 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

97.3.9 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.3.10 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

97.3.11 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases 

97.4.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.4.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.4.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.4.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.4.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.4.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.4.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.4.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

97.4.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.4.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

97.4.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases

97.5.1 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.5.2 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.5.10 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

703

703

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 945

1 945

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

738

738

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 968

1 968

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NA

917

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

824

824

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

636

636

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

780

780

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

741

741

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

1 797

1 951

1 870

1 701

1 968

1 797

1 951

1 870

1 701

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

1 657

1 657

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

758

758

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

889

889

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

973

973

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

908

908

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5,0%

-

-

-22,8%

22,6%

-5,0%

5,0%

24,3%

-10,1%

-22,8%

22,6%

-5,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

8,6%

-4,2%

-9,0%

1,2%

0,0%

-8,7%

8,6%

-4,2%

-9,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-54,3%

17,3%

9,4%

-6,7%

-54,3%

17,3%

9,4%

-6,7%

-

-

-

-

1067 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 (2019 and 2020): Second instance clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.9.4 and 3.9.5 (2019 and 2020): Variation of second clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

87,1%

95,6%

NA

117,5%

79,9%

112,4%

129,8%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

87,1%

95,6%

105,8%

117,5%

79,9%

112,4%

129,8%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1010

1010

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

973

973

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

783

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

796

796

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

1120

1120

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

875

875

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

838

838

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9,74

-

-

(32,03)

40,67

15,46

9,74

10,64

11,14

(32,03)

40,67

15,46

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-3,6%

-

-

40,7%

-21,8%

-4,2%

-3,6%

-19,5%

1,6%

40,7%

-21,8%

-4,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1068 / 1555

         
      
       
       
         
       
       
      
       
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.10.1 to 3.10.5 (2019 and 2020) Supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Table 3.12.1 to 3.12.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of the supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

99.1.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.1.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.1.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.1.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.1.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.1.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.1.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.1.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

99.1.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.1.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

99.1.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.2.1 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.2.2 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.2.3 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.2.4 High inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.2.5 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.2.6 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.2.7 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.2.8 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

99.2.9 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.2.10 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

99.2.11 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1069 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

99.3.1 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.3.2 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.3.3 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.3.4 High inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.3.5 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.3.6 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.3.7 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.3.8 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

99.3.9 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.3.10 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

99.3.11 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.4.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.4.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.4.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.4.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.4.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.4.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.4.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.4.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry 
cases

99.4.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.4.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative 
law cases

99.4.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.5.1 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.5.2 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.5.10 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1070 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 Supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.12.4 and 3.12.5 Variation of the supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1071 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Table 3.14.1 to 3.14.5 First instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

094.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

094.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

094.2.1 Total -incoming

094.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

094.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

094.2.4 Other - incoming

094.3.1 Total - resolved

094.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

094.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

094.3.4 Other - resolved

094.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

094.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

094.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

094.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

11 899

NA

NA

NA

11 086

NA

NA

NA

7 321

NA

NA

NA

15 883

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1072 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Table 3.15.1 to 3.10.2 CR and DT for first instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

098.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

098.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

098.2.1 Total -incoming

098.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

098.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

098.2.4 Other - incoming

098.3.1 Total - resolved

098.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

098.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

098.3.4 Other - resolved

Table 3.16.1 to 3.16.5 Second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

66,0%

NA

NA

NA

792

NA

NA

NA

843

NA

NA

NA

311

NA

NA

NA

463

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1073 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

098.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

098.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

098.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

098.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

691

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Table 3.17.1 to 3.17.2 CR and DT for second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

148,9%

NA

NA

NA

545

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1074 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Table 3.18.1 to 3.18.5 Supreme court criminal law cases (Q100)

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

100.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

100.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

100.2.1 Total -incoming

100.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

100.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

100.2.4 Other - incoming

100.3.1 Total - resolved

100.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

100.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

100.3.4 Other - resolved

100.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

100.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

100.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

100.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1075 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Table 3.19.1 to 3.19.2 CR and DT for supreme court  criminal law cases (Q100)

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1076 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Indicator 5: Access to justice

Legal aid

Table 5.1 to Table 5.6 (Q12-2, Q16, Q18, Q19, Q20, Q20-1)

12-2.1.1 Coverage of court fees

12-2.1.2 Exemption from court fees

16.1.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (criminal cases)

16.1.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (criminal cases)

16.2.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (other than criminal 
cases)

16.2.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (other than criminal cases)

Yes

No

Yes

No

-

-

-

-

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

Yes

No

18.1.1 Legal aid for the enforcement of judicial decisions

19.1.1  Legal aid granted for other costs - criminal cases

19.1.2  Legal aid granted for other costs - other than criminal cases

020.1.1 Total

020.1.2 Total - criminal cases

020.1.3 Total - other than criminal cases

020.2.1 Total brought to court

020.2.2 Broight to court - criminal cases

020.2.3 Brought to court - other then criminal

020.3.1 Total not brought to court

020.3.2 Not broight to court - criminal cases

020.3.3 Not brought to court - other then criminal

020-1.1.1 Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulation

020-1.1.2 Average duration

True

True

False

False

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

946

626

320

755

626

129

191

NAP

191

NA

19

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1077 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

System for compensating users

Table 5.7.1 and Table 5.7.2 (Q37)

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

037.1.1 Requests for compensation - Total

037.1.2 Requests for compensation - Excessive length of 
proceedings

037.1.3 Requests for compensation - Non-execution of court 
decisions

037.1.4 Requests for compensation - Wrongful arrest

037.1.5 Requests for compensation - Wrongful conviction

037.1.6 Requests for compensation - Other

037.2.1 Condemnations - Total

037.2.2 Condemnations - Excessive length of proceedings

037.2.3 Condemnations - Non-execution of court decisions

037.2.4 Condemnations - Wrongful arrest

037.2.5 Condemnations - Wrongful conviction

037.2.6 Condemnations - Other

037.3.1 Amount - Total

037.3.2 Amount - Excessive length of proceedings

037.3.3 Amount - Non-execution of court decisions

037.3.4 Amount - Wrongful arrest

037.3.5 Amount - Wrongful conviction

037.3.6 Amount - Other

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1078 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 6.1 to Table 6.11 (Q62-7, Q62-7-1, Q62-8,  Q62-8-1, Q63-1, Q63-1-1, Q63-2 Q63-6, Q63-7, Q63-7-1, Q64-2,  Q64-4, Q64-6, Q64-3, Q64-3-1, Q64-7, Q64-7-1, 
Q64-9)

Indicator 6: The ICT tools of courts and for court users

62-7 Writing assistance tools coordinated at national level

62-7-1.1 Deployment rate in civil matter

62-7-1.2 Deployment rate in criminal matter

62-7-1.3 Deployment rate in administrative matter

62-8 Voice recording tools

62-8-1.1.1 Availability of simple dictation tools in civil matter

62-8-1.1.2 Availability of simple dictation tools in criminal matter

62-8-1.1.3 Availability of simple dictation tools in administrative 
matter

62-8-1.2.1 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in civil 
matter

62-8-1.2.2 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in criminal 
matter

62-8-1.2.3 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in 
administrative matter

62-8-1.3.1 Availability of voice recognition in civil matter

62-8-1.3.2 Availability of voice recognition in criminal matter

62-8-1.3.3 Availability of voice recognition in administrative matter

062-9 Availability of intranet site within the judicial system for 
distribution of news/novelties

63.1 Is there a case management system? 

63.1-1.1 CMS for civil matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for criminal matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for administrative matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.2 CMS for civil matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for criminal matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for administrative matter (status of case onlinee)

True

True

True

10-49%

10-49%

10-49%

10-49%

10-49%

10-49%

10-49%

10-49%

10-49%

True

True

True

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

-

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

100%

100%

100%

-

-

-

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1079 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

63.1-1.3 CMS for civil matter (Centralised or interoperable database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for criminal matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for administrative matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.4 CMS for civil matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for criminal matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for administrative matter (Early warning signals)

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS civil matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS criminal matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS administrative matter

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - land registry

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - business registry

63-2.2 Data consolidated at national level for land registry

63-2.2  Data consolidated at national level for business registry

63-2.3 Service available online for land registry

63-2.3  Service available online for business registry

63-2.4 Statistical module integrated or connected for land registry

63-2.4  Statistical module integrated or connected for business 
registry

063-6.1.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (deployment 
rate)

063-6.1.2 Justice expenses management (deployment rate)

063-6.1.3 Other financial management tools (deployment rate)

063-6.2.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (Data 
consolidated at national level)

063-6.2.2 Justice expenses management (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.2.3 Other financial management tools (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.3.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (System 
communicating with other ministries)

063-6.3.2 Justice expenses management (System communicating 
with other ministries)

063-6.3.3 Other financial management tools (System communicating 
with other ministries)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

0% (NAP)

NA

NA

100%

100%

100%

False

True

False

True

True

True

NA

True

NA

True

NA

True

NA

True

NA

True

NA

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

NA

True

True

False

True

True

False

NA

True

True

NA

True

True

NA

NA

True

True

NA

True

True

NA

1080 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

63-7.1 Measurement tools to assess the workload

63-7-1.1.1 Deployment rate - workload of judges

63-7-1.1.2 Deployment rate - workload of prosecutors

63-7-1.1.3 Deployment rate - workload of non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.2.1 Monitoring on national level - judges

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - prosecutors

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.3.1 Monitoring on court level - judges

63-7-1.3.2 Monitoring on court level - prosecutors

63-7-1.3.3 Monitoring on court level - non-judge and non-prosecutor 
staff

064-2 - Possibility to submit a case to courts by electronic means

064-2 - Civil and/or commercial

064-2 - Criminal

064-2 - Administrative

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - civil

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - criminal

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory  - administrative

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - civil

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - criminal

064-2 - Specific legislative framework  - administrative

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - civil

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - criminal

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - administrative

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

10-49%

10-49%

10-49%

NA

NA

0% (NAP)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

False

False

False

False

True

True

NA

NA

NA

False

False

False

True

True

True

10-49%

10-49%

50-99%

NA

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

100%

100%

100%

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

NAP

True

True

NAP

True

False

False

False

False

False

True

False

NAP

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1081 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

064-3 - Is it possible to request for granting legal aid by electronic 
means? 

064-3-1.1 - Equipment rate

064-3-1.2 - Request in paper mandatory

064-3-1.3 - Specific legislative framework

064-3-1.4 - Granting LA is also electronic

064-3-1.5 - Information available in CMS

064-4 - Possibility to transmit summons to a judicial meeting or a 
hearing by electronic means

064-4-1.1.1 - Summons produced by CMS- civil

064-4-1.1.2 - Summons produced by CMS- criminal

064-4-1.1.3 - Summons produced by CMS- administrative

064-4-1.2.1 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- civil

064-4-1.2.2 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- criminal

064-4-1.2.3 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- administrative

064-4-1.3.1 - Consent of the user - civil

064-4-1.3.2 - Consent of the user - criminal

064-4-1.3.3 - Consent of the user - administrative

064-6.1.1 - Civil and/or commercial (deployment rate)

064-6.1.2 - Criminal (deployment rate)

064-6.1.3 - Administrative (deployment rate)

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

True

True

False

True

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

NA

NA

0% (NAP)

100%

100%

100%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1082 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

064-6.2.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.2 - Criminal (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.3 - Administrative (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.3.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Modalities)

064-6.3.2 - Criminal (Modalities)

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling  

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling  

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling  

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling  

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling  

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling  

E-mail    Other E-mail    Other E-mail    Other

064-6.3.3 - Administrative (Modalities)

E-mail    Other E-mail    Other E-mail    Other

064-6.4.1 - Civil and/or commercial (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.2 - Criminal (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.3 - Administrative (specific legal framework)

064-6.5.1 - Civil and/or commercial (availability for)

064-6.5.2 - Criminal (availability for)

064-6.5.3 - Administrative (availability for)

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer

Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1083 / 1555

      
      
      
    
    
    
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

064-7.1.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (deployment rate)

064-7.1.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.2.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (Modalities)

064-7.2.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.3.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (specific legal framework)

064-7.32.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-7.3.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts (specific 
legal framework)

064-7.3.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-9 - Existance of online processing devices of specialised 
litigation

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

NA

NA

NA

0% (NAP)

NA

NA

-

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1084 / 1555

    
    
    
    
    
    
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Indicator 7: Professionals of justice  (Indicator 9 in 2019)

Table 7.1.1 to 7.5.6 for judges, non judge staff, prosecutors, non prosecutor staff and salaries

46.1.1 Total Number of professional judges

46.1.2 Number of 1st inst professional judges

46.1.3 Number of 2nd inst professional judges

40

34

6

42

36

6

41

33

8

42

34

8

45

36

9

43

34

9

45

34

11

43

32

11

42

33

5,0%

5,0%

-2,4%

2,4%

7,1%

-4,4%

4,7%

-4,4%

-2,3%

-2,9%

5,9%

-8,3%

3,0%

5,9%

-5,6%

0,0%

-5,9%

3,1%

9

50,0%

0,0%

33,3%

0,0%

12,5%

0,0%

22,2%

0,0%

-18,2%

46.1.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

46.2.1 Number of professional judges_males

46.2.2 Number of 1st instance professional judges_males

46.2.3 Number of 2nd instance professional judges_males

26

20

6

27

21

6

25

18

7

24

17

7

26

18

8

23

15

8

22

14

8

19

10

9

18

-30,8%

3,8%

-7,4%

-4,0%

8,3%

-11,5%

-4,3%

-13,6%

-5,3%

11

-45,0%

5,0%

-14,3%

-5,6%

5,9%

-16,7%

-6,7%

-28,6%

10,0%

7

16,7%

0,0%

16,7%

0,0%

14,3%

0,0%

0,0%

12,5%

-22,2%

46.2.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges_males

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

46.3.1  Number of professional judges_females

46.3.2  Number of 1st inst professional judges_females

46.3.3  Number of 2nd inst professional judges_females

14

14

-

15

15

-

16

15

1

18

17

1

19

18

1

20

19

1

23

20

3

24

22

2

24

22

2

46.3.4  Number of Supreme court professional judges_females

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

046-2.1.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Total

046-2.2.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Civil and commercial

046-2.2.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.3.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Criminal

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

42

33

9

NAP

22

17

5

NAP

17

13

4

NAP

71,4%

7,1%

6,7%

12,5%

5,6%

5,3%

15,0%

4,3%

0,0%

57,1%

7,1%

0,0%

13,3%

5,9%

5,6%

5,3%

10,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

200,0%

-33,3%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1085 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

046-2.4.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - 
Administrative

046-2.4.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.5.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Other

 52.1.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in courts 

52.1.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)

52.1.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges

52.1.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks

52.1.5 Number of Technical staff

52.1.6 Number of Other non judge staff

52.2.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(men)

52.2.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(men)

52.2.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(men)

52.2.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(men)

52.2.5 Number of Technical staff(men)

52.2.6 Number of Other non judge staff(men)

52.3.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(women)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

360

NAP

213

111

8

28

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

451

NAP

156

103

8

36

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

389

NAP

231

59

9

90

NA

NAP

73

NA

9

70

NA

52.3.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(women)

NAP

NAP

NAP

52.3.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(women)

52.3.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(women)

52.3.5 Number of Technical staff(women)

52.3.6 Number of Other non judge staff(women)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

158

NA

-

20

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

393

NAP

239

60

5

89

187

NAP

73

40

5

69

206

NAP

166

20

-

20

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

383

NAP

227

59

7

90

180

NAP

69

36

7

68

203

NAP

158

23

-

22

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

394

NAP

231

56

9

98

177

NAP

64

29

9

75

217

NAP

167

27

-

23

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

413

NAP

247

61

9

96

183

NAP

69

30

9

75

230

NAP

178

31

-

21

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

412

NAP

262

52

6

92

172

NAP

69

24

6

73

240

NAP

193

28

-

19

3

3

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

396

10,0%

25,3%

-13,7%

1,0%

-2,5%

2,9%

4,8%

-0,2%

-3,9%

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

246

15,5%

-26,8%

48,1%

3,5%

-5,0%

1,8%

6,9%

6,1%

-6,1%

53

-52,3%

-7,2%

-42,7%

1,7%

-1,7%

-5,1%

8,9%

-14,8%

1,9%

4

-50,0%

0,0%

12,5%

-44,4%

40,0%

28,6%

0,0%

-33,3%

-33,3%

93

232,1%

28,6%

150,0%

-1,1%

1,1%

8,9%

-2,0%

-4,2%

1,1%

166

NAP

64

25

4

73

230

NAP

182

28

-

20

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-3,7%

-1,7%

3,4%

-6,0%

-3,5%

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

-5,5%

-7,2%

7,8%

0,0%

-7,2%

-

-10,0%

-19,4%

3,4%

-20,0%

4,2%

-44,4%

40,0%

28,6%

0,0%

-33,3%

-33,3%

-1,4%

-1,4%

10,3%

0,0%

-2,7%

0,0%

-

-

-1,5%

6,9%

6,0%

4,3%

-4,2%

-

-

-

-

-

5,1%

-4,8%

5,7%

6,6%

8,4%

-5,7%

-

-

15,0%

17,4%

14,8%

-9,7%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

10,0%

4,5%

-8,7%

-9,5%

5,3%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1086 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

052-1.1.1 Non-judge staff (Total)

052-1.1.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (total)

052-1.1.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (total)

052-1.1.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (total)

052-1.2.1 Non-judge staff  (Males)

052-1.2.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (males)

052-1.2.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (males)

052-1.2.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (males)

052-1.3.1 Non-judge staff  (females)

052-1.3.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (females)

052-1.3.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (females)

052-1.3.4 Non-judge staff  at supreme court (females)

055.1.1 Prosecutors (total)

055.1.2 Prosecutors (1st inst.)

055.1.3 Prosecutors (2nd inst.)

055.1.4 Prosecutors (Highest instance)

055.2.1 Prosecutors - Males -total

055.2.2 Prosecutors - Males, 1st inst.

055.2.3 Prosecutors - Males, 2nd inst.

055.2.4 Prosecutors - Males, Supreme courts

055.3.1 Prosecutors - Females, Total

055.3.2 Prosecutors - Females, 1st inst.

055.3.3 Prosecutors - Females, 2nd inst.

055.3.4 Prosecutors - Females, Supreme courts

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

38

NAP

NAP

NAP

20

NAP

NAP

NAP

18

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1087 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

060.1.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Total

060.2.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Males

060.3.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Females

004 Annual average salary in the country

132.1.1 Gross annual salary, in €  - Professional judge at the 
beginning of career

132.1.2 Gross annual salary, in €  - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.1.3 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor at the beginning 
of career

132.1.4 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

132.2.1 Net annual salary, in € - Professional judge at the beginning 
of career

132.2.2 Net annual salary, in € - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.2.3 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor at the beginning of 
career

132.2.4 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

133.1.1.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Reduced taxation

133.1.2.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Special pension

133.1.3.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Housing

133.1.4.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Other financial benefit

133.2.1.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Reduced taxation

133.2.2.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Special pension

133.2.3.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Housing

133.2.4.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Other financial benefit

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

21

11

10

18 923 €

95 215 €

103 246 €

44 496 €

NAP

68 770 €

74 587 €

28 843 €

NAP

False

True

False

True

False

True

False

True

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1088 / 1555

         
         
       
         
         
         
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

144.1.1 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - Total number (1+2+3+4)

144.1.2 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 1. Breach of professional 
ethics 

144.1.3 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.1.4 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 3. Criminal offence 

144.1.5 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 4. Other

144.2.1 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - Total number 
(1+2+3+4)

144.2.2 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 1. Breach of 
professional ethics 

144.2.3 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.2.4 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 3. Criminal offence

144.2.5 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 4. Other 

145.1.1 Sanctions against Judges - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.1.2 Sanctions against Judges - 1. Reprimand

145.1.3 Sanctions against Judges - 2. Suspension

145.1.4 Sanctions against Judges - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.1.5 Sanctions against Judges - 4. Fine

145.1.6 Sanctions against Judges - 5. Temporary reduction of salary

145.1.7 Sanctions against Judges - 6. Position downgrade

145.1.8 Sanctions against Judges - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.1.9 Sanctions against Judges - 8. Resignation

145.1.10 Sanctions against  Judges - 9. Other

145.1.11 Sanctions against  Judges - 10. Dismissal

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1089 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

145.2.1 Sanctions against Prosecutors - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.2.2 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 1. Reprimand

145.2.3 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 2. Suspension

145.2.4 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.2.5 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 4. Fine

145.2.6 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 5. Temporary reduction of 
salary

145.2.7 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 6. Position downgrade

145.2.8 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.2.9 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 8. Resignation

145.2.10 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 9. Other

145.2.11 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 10. Dismissal

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lawyers

Tables 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.7 and 7.8

146.1.1 Total number of lawyers practising

1 400

1 112

1 485

1 569

1 327

1 473

1 535

1 648

1 762

25,9%

-20,6%

33,5%

5,7%

-15,4%

11,0%

4,2%

7,4%

6,9%

146.2.1 Practicing lawyers - man

146.3.1 Practicing lawyers - woman

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

749

793

834

786

855

928

147 Does this figure include “legal advisors” who cannot represent 
their clients in court (for example, some solicitors or in-house 
counsellors)? 

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5,9%

5,2%

8,8%

8,5%

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1090 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Indicator 8: The existence and use of alternative dispute resolution methods

Table 8.1 8.2 and 8.3

Malta (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

166 Number of accredited or registered mediators who practice 
judicial mediation: 

69

69

61

61

66

69

167.1.1 Total number started

1 896

1 911

67

NA

2 104

1 668

67

66

-4,3%

0,0%

-11,6%

0,0%

8,2%

4,5%

-2,9%

0,0%

-1,5%

167. 1.2 Civil and commercial cases(cid:9) - started

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

5

167. 1.2 Family cases - started

167.1.4 Administrative cases - started

167.1.5 Labour cases including employment dismissal cases - started

167.1.6. Criminal cases - started

167.1.7 Consumer cases - started

1 896

1 911

2 059

2 103

1 663

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-20,7%

400,0%

0,8%

7,7%

2,1%

-20,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Key: Variation of more than (+ -) 20% 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1091 / 1555

Judiciary at a glance in Netherlands

General data

Population:

17 475 415

GDP per capita: 45 900 €

Average annual 

salary:

62 700 €

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Professionals

Netherlands

Netherlands EU Median

EU Median

Professional judges

Professional judges

14,49

23,92

14,49

23,92

Non-judge staff

42,55

59,00

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual 
salary in the country
Netherlands EU Median
Netherlands

EU Median

Judge at the beginning of a career 

1,34

2,02

2,02

1,71

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

5,41

42,55

59,00

Judge of the highest court 
1,34

NA

4,09
1,35

9,91

5,41

22,88

15,22

22,88

9,91

15,22

1,71
Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

1,35

Public prosecutor at highest instance

NA

3,61

Lawyers

Lawyers

102,80

122,09

102,80

122,09

Judge at the beginning of a career

Prosecutor at the beginning of a career

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

Efficiency

1st instance

2nd instance

1st instance 2nd instance

Supreme Court
Supreme 
Court

,

%
5
8
1
1

%
99,7% NA
7
8
9

,

%
3
6
8

,

86,3%

%
2
5
9

,

%
5
4
9

,

118,5%

89,5%
%
1
5
9

,

98,7%

95,2%

94,5%

95,1%

100%

%
5
9
8

,

,

Civil and
%
7
commercial
9
Administrativ
9
e
cases
Total 
criminal law 
cases

A
N

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

1
1

1

1
1

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance 2nd instance Supreme Court

Civil and commercial litigious cases
Administrative cases 304

127 NA
344

Total criminal law cases139

465

348

427

127

465

304

427
344

261
261

348

139

Administrative
cases

Total criminal law
cases

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

Information and communication technology

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

Assistance toolsCase management system
2018

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the workload
2019

Electronic communication

EU Median 2020

2020

2018
2019
2020

0,00
0,00
0,00

4,50

4,50

EU Median 2020

2,00

2,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

4,50
4,50
4,50
4,50

5,17

1,00
1,00
0,50

5,17

0,00
0,00
0,00

0,83
0,83
1,34

1,25

2,50

6,94

6,94

1,00

1,00

1,25

0,50

0,00

0,00

0,00

2,50

1,34

0,83

0,83

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

*ICT calculations are described in more details in Annex 5 - IT Calculation methodology

1092

ICT overall assesment

First instance incoming cases per 100 
inhab.

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

First instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

First instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
cases (days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

First instance pending cases per 100 
inhab. on 31 dec.

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

2020

Synthesis table for the main indicators for:

Netherlands

Economic and demographic data

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Variations

Population

GDP per capita

Exchange rate (local currency needed to 
obtain 1€)

16 779 575

16 829 289

16 902 146

16 979 120

17 081 507

17 181 084

17 282 163

17 407 585

17 475 415

4,1%

38 236

38 255

39 313

39 937

41 258

42 578

45 052

46 883

45 900

20,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

Average annual salary

54 700

56 900

57 300

58 800

60 500

62 700

14,6%

1,1%

4,9%

NAP

0,7%

1,2%

9,2%

NAP

2,6%

0,6%

5,8%

0,7%

4,1%

0,4%

-2,1%

NAP NAP

NAP

2,9%

3,6%

Resources

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Professional judges per 100 000 inhab.

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhab.

14,4

37,3

14,1

43,3

14,0

43,9

13,9

42,8

13,6

42,8

14,8

43,8

14,6

43,4

14,5

44,2

14,9

42,5

Lawyers per 100 000 inh.

101,7

102,8

104,8

102,1

102,4

102,9

102,9

102,4

102,8

Mediators

4,9

5,5

7,0

8,3

8,6

8,8

5,8

2,3

5,4

2,3

4,9

2,3

3,5%

14,2%

1,1%

1,3%

-2,2%

-2,4%

-2,3%

6,9%

1,2%

0,5%

-1,2%

-1,0%

0,0%

22,2%

-32,4%

-34,1%

-0,7%

2,5%

2,0%

-3,8%

-0,5%

-7,4%

0,0%

0,4%

-7,8%

0,1%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

NA

0,685

NA

0,7

0,995

0,954

0,944

0,861

0,779

0,797

0,733

NA

-5,1%

-17,4%

-9,5%

2,3%

-8,0%

0,6

0,591

0,662

0,579

0,576

0,608

0,571

-16,7%

1,8%

-12,9%

-0,5%

5,5%

-6,1%

1,280

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

NA

NA

CR administrative law cases

98%

100%

99%

99%

CR total criminal law cases

100%

101%

99%

101%

100%

100%

NA

103%

95%

105%

95%

94%

-11,22

86%

95%

1,57

-3,62

0,52

-0,09

2,13

-9,91

-1,03

-1,51

-0,50

-7,34

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

NA

163

NA

164

132

171

115

168

121

178

124

165

110

200

110

215

NA

-8,1%

-9,4%

-11,8%

86,9%

4,1%

11,8%

20,9%

0,3%

7,7%

15,7%

41,6%

127

304

139

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

NA

0,30

NA

0,30

0,36

0,30

0,30

0,28

0,32

0,31

0,29

0,28

0,24

0,30

0,24

0,34

NA

-11,5%

-24,7%

-18,4%

1,5%

5,9%

37,8%

2,1%

-2,7%

9,0%

11,8%

22,5%

0,25

0,41

0,46

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

101%

93%

103%

99%

108%

100%

119%

94%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

NA

1,64

NA

5,35

NA

9,43

NA

NA

-8,35

18,55

Second instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

 Supreme court 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Supreme court
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

NA

411

NA

427

NA

348

NA

444

NA

437

NA

476

NA

465

348

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-15,3%

25,4%

-1,7%

9,0%

-2,4%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NA

98%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

100%

87%

84%

80%

90%

99%

95%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-16,38

5,44

-6,91

18,53

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

320

299

459

382

427

344

261

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

43,3%

-6,9%

27,9%

-9,9%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1093 / 1555

1. Judicial organisation in Netherlands

In 2013, following the implementation of the reform related to the reorganization of the judicial map, the number of district courts which are first instance courts of general 
jurisdiction was reduced from 19 to 11. Moreover, this reform resulted in the closure of sub-district court locations due to which the number of geographic locations 
decreased from 64 to 40. 

Besides, there are 4 second instance courts and 1 higher instance court of general jurisdicion. The second instance courts of general jurisdiction are 4 courts of appeal  
that handle civil cases, criminal cases and tax cases, while the highest instance court of general jurisdiction is the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad). Furthermore, there are 
three specialized courts.

Distribution of general courts in Netherlands

Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Netherlands - 1st instance

EU Median - 1st instance

Netherlands - Higher instances
Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

EU Median - Higher instances

Netherlands

Netherlands - 1st instanceNetherlands - Higher instances
General courts - Netherlands

69%

31%

According to 2020 data, the distribution between 1st instance and higher instances courts of 
general jurisdiction in Netherlands is 60% - 31%, which is different from the EU median of 
87% - 13%.

General courts - Netherlands
EU Median

69%
87%

31%
13%

EU Median

87%

13%

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Netherlands

Geographic 
locations

Legal entities

General jurisdiction

Specialised 
jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

60

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

42

19

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

11

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Netherlands

Geographic locations

Legal entities General jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

As regards the number of geographic locations, in one case a first instance court of general jurisdiction, a specialized first instance court, and a court of appeal are housed 
at the same site.
In 3 cases, a first instance court of general jurisdiction and a court of appeal are housed at the same site.
In 1 case, a first istance court of general jurisdiction and a specialized second instance court are housed at the same site.
Finally, the Supreme Court, 1 specialized second instance court, and 2 appeal courts are housed at unique locations.

Netherlands

Ratio general jurisdiction vs specialised

Netherlands
8%

General jurisdiction Specialised courts

92%

75%

8%

25%

92%

Distribution of first instance general jurisdiction and specialised courts

EU Median

25%

75%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

The distribution between number of general jurisdiction courts and specialised courts of 91,7% - 8,3% is well different from the EU median 
(distribution tendency in EU: 75,5% - 24,5%).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1094 / 1555

Specialised courts
Total

Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

Insolvency courts

Labour courts

Family courts

Rent and tenancies courts

Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

Internet related disputes

Administrative courts

Insurance and / or social welfare courts

Military courts

Juvenile courts

Other specialised 1st instance courts

First instance

Higher instance

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

The specialized courts are:
- Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal: the administrative High Court for trade and industry. This tribunal is a specialized administrative court that rules on disputes in the 
area of social-economic administrative law. Categorized as administrative court.
- The Central Appeals Tribunal is the highest judicial authority in areas of social security and civil service. Categorized as other.
The other specialized jurisdictions are not legal entities (Natte kamer, Ondernemingskamer, Militaire kamer) but only chambers within the courts.
There is no separate military court, but there is a military chamber in one of the district courts.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1095 / 1555

2. Professionals of justice in Netherlands

● Professional judges and non-judge staff

Evolution of the number of professional judges since 2012 (Q46)

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Absolute 
number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

2 410

2 378

2 359

2 357

2 331

2 538

2 522

2 523

2 597

14,36

14,13

13,96

13,88

13,65

14,77

14,59

14,49

14,86

EU median

23,9

Professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants

23,9

14,36

14,13

13,96

13,88

13,65

14,77

14,59

14,49

14,86

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

According to 2020 data, the total number of professional judges sitting in courts (all instances) in Netherlands is 2 597, which is 2,9% more than in previous cycle.

More precisely, in Netherlands, there are 14,86 professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants (this figure is below the EU median of 23,92 judges per 100 000 inhabitants) and about 2,86 
non-judge staff per judge .

There is no significant difference compared with previous cycle when this ratio was at 3,05 non-judge staff per judge.

Since 2010 the provided numbers include court presidents. The number of first instance judges encompasses judges 'overig RA' that cannot be assigned solely to 1st or 2nd instance.

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and gender

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

1 882

680

35

2 597

Distribution by 
instance

72,5%

26,2%

1,3%

Male

698

312

21

1 031

Female

% Male

% Female

1 184

368

14

1 566

37,1%

45,9%

60,0%

39,7%

62,9%

54,1%

40,0%

60,3%

Distribution of professional judges by instance

Netherlands

EU Median

72,5%

72,39%

EU Median

72,39%

23,98%

4,03%

26,2%

23,98%

1,3%

4,03%

Distribution of professional judges by gender and by instance

62,9%

37,1%

54,1%

45,9%

40,0%

60,0%

% Female
% Male

60,3%

39,7%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female professional judges (all instances) is 1 566, which represents 60,3% of the total number of judges.

The total number of judges is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 1 882 are sitting in first instance courts (of which 1 184 are female); 680 are sitting in 
second instance courts (of which 368 are female) and 35 are sitting in Supreme Court (of which 14 are female).  

Compared with the EU distribution of professional judges per instance the Netherland presents similar percentages of distribution.

As regards the methodology of presentation of data in respect of the number of judges, it should be noticed that these numbers are on posts filled, not fte. The total fte for first and second 
instance together is 2372, but information on fte is NA for the rest of the categories and detail required for this question. These numbers include court presidents.

As regards the distribution of the number of judges among the different judicial instances, Netherlands presents some peculiarities which should be mentioned. In the previous cycles, due 
to an inability to differentiate between first or second instance for a certain group of judges, they were counted as first instance judges. This inflated the first instance numbers and 
underreported the second instance numbers. This problem was present in the data up until the 2019 survey. For the 2020 data, this problem has been solved, and the data is now correct.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1096 / 1555

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Total

Civil and commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

1 882

680

35

2 597

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

In Netherlands, the distribution of judges per categories of cases in not possible because judges often work with more than one case type. There is a large overlap, but in the 
administrative system, only one sector can be registered. Therefore, while this information is not easily available, making this distinction would also not be a fair reflection of the true 
situation.

Non-judge staff

Year

2012

Number of non-judge staff

6 252

Per 100 000 inhabitants

37,26

2013

7 287

43,30

2014

7 422

43,91

2015

7 265

42,79

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants

2016

7 317

42,84

59,00

2017

7 523

43,79

2018

7 492

43,35

2020

Total

43,30

43,91

42,79

42,84

43,79

43,35

44,23

42,55

Rechtspfleger

37,26

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

Non-judge staff assisting the judge

Staff in charge of administrative tasks

Technical staff

Other

2019

7 699

44,23

Absolute 
number

7 435

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

E
U 
m

2020

7 435

42,55

in %

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

In 2020, Netherlands has 7 435 non-judge staff. The total number of non-judge staff in comparison with the previous cycle reveals a decrease of -3,4%.

In 2020, the number of non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants has decreased (from 44,2 in 2019 to 42,5 in 2020).

During the same period, the number of judges per 100 000 inhabitants evolves from 14,5 judges per 100 000 inhabitants in 2019 to 14,9 in 2020.

Only the total of non-judge staff working in courts is available.

Professional judges, non-judge staff and their ratio (Q46, Q52)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Netherlands

EU median

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

14,86

42,55

Non-judge staff per judge

2,86

23,92

59,00

3,30

Professional judges and non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

2,86

42,55

Non-judge staff per judge

14,86

59,00

3,30

23,92

Netherlands

EU median

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff  (Q46, Q52)

Judges 
per 100 000 inh.

Non-judge staff per
100 000 inh.

Ratio between professional judges and 
non-judge staff

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff 
Non-judge staff per 100 000 inh.
(Q46, Q52)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

14,36

14,13

13,96

13,88

13,65

14,77

14,59

14,49

14,86

37,26

43,30

43,91

42,79

42,84

43,79

43,35

44,23

42,55

EU median 2020

3,30

2,59

3,06

3,15

3,08

3,14

2,96

2,97

3,05

2,86

3,06

3,15

2,59

2012

2013

2014

2,59
3,06
3,15
3,08
3,14
2,96
2,97
3,05
2,86

3,08

3,14

2,96

2,97

3,05

2,86

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1097 / 1555

● Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff

Absolute number of public prosecutors by instance and gender (Q55)

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

850

95

NAP

945

Distribution by 
instance

89,9%

10,1%

NAP

Male

319

48

NAP

367

Female

531

47

NAP

578

Male

37,5%

50,5%

NAP

38,8%

Female

62,5%

49,5%

NAP

61,2%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance

Netherlands

EU Median

89,9%

73,30%

EU Median

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance and gender

Female

Male

73,30%

23,98%
10,1%
4,66%

23,98%

NAP

4,66%

62,5%

37,5%

49,5%

50,5%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

NAP
Supreme courts

61,2%

38,8%

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female prosecutors (all instances) is 578, which represents 61,2% of the total number of prosecutors.

The total number of prosecutors is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 850 in first instance (of which 531 are female) and 95 are in second instance (of 
which 47 are female).  

As regards the distribution of prosecution among instances, the Supreme Court does not have (public) prosecutors. The office of the procurator general and attorneys general that the 
Supreme Court houses, is separate from the public prosecution and does not function as prosecution. They have a different function.

Non-prosecutor staff by gender (Q60)

Non-prosecutor staff

2020

Total

3 998

Male

1 336

Female

2 662

Non-prosecutor staff by gender

33%

Male

Female

67%

Public prosecutors, non-prosecutor staff and their ratio (Q55, Q60)

Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Netherlands

EU median

Public prosecutors

5,41

Non-prosecutor staff

22,88

Non-prosecutor staff per 
prosecutor

4,23

9,91

15,22

1,11

22,88

4,23

Public prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per prosecutor

5,41

15,22

9,91

1,11

Netherlands

EU median

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1098 / 1555

● Salaries of professional judges and prosecutors at beginning of a career and at the highest instance (Q132, Q4)

Salaries of professional judges and 
prosecutors (Q132, Q4)

Average gross annual 
salary 
in €

Average net annual 
salary 
in €

Ratio with national 
average annual 
gross salary

Judge at the beginning of a career 

83 765 €

52 772 €

1,34

Judge of the highest court 

NA

NA

NA

Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

84 351 €

42 900 €

1,35

Public prosecutor at highest instance

NA

NA

NA

EU Median

2,02

4,09

1,71

3,61

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual salary in the 
country

Salaries of 
judges and 
prosecutors in 
Judge

2,02

1,34

at the beginning 
of a career

1,71

1,35
at the highest 
instance

Prosecutor

at the beginning 
of a career

Judge at the beginning of career

Netherlands

Prosecutor at the beginning of career
at the highest 
instance

EU Median

83765

NA

84351

NA

According to 2020 data, the absolute gross salary of a judge at the beginning of a career in Netherlands of 83 765 € is more than 50% above when compared to the EU median of 51 946 
€. As a ratio with the annual average salary of the country, the salary for a judge at the baginning of career is: 1,34 compared with EU median of: 2,02.

For the calculation of the salary of judge or prosecutor 'at the beginning of career', the salary used is the one for a starting judge / prosecutor, after finalizing a training period of several 
years. During the training there is a fixed saraly, lower than the salary of a fully functional judge / prosecutor.
As regards public prosecutor at the beginning of his / her career, the recent salary table RM of the end of 2020 is used (Scale 9, first step). On top of this the holiday stipend and end of 
year stipend is calculated. The 42.900 is a rough estimate of the net annual salary, after taxes, pensions etc. 

● Lawyers

Lawyers

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

Number of lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

17 068

17 298

17 713

17 343

17 498

17 672

17 784

17 829

17 964

101,72

102,79

104,80

102,14

102,44

102,86

102,90

102,42

102,80

EU median 2020

122,09

In 2020, there are 17 964 lawyers, which is 0,8% more than in 2019.

101,72

102,79

104,80

102,14

102,44

102,86

102,90

102,42

102,80

122,09

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median
2020

Netherlands has 102,8 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants, which is below the EU median of 122,1 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1099 / 1555

● Judicial professionals (summary)

Judicial professionals in absolute number and per 100 000 inhabitants (Q46, Q52, Q55, Q60, Q146)

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

EU Median

Professional judges

2 523

14,49

Non-judge staff

7 435

42,55

Prosecutors

945

5,41

23,92

59,00

9,91

Non-prosecutor staff

3 998

22,88

15,22

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Netherlands

EU Median

122,09

102,80

59,00

42,55

23,92

14,49

5,41

9,91

22,88

15,22

Lawyers

17 964

102,80

122,09

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

Professional judges

-39,7%

60,3%

labels
Netherlands % MaleNetherlands % Female

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

39,7%

Netherlands % Male

Netherlands % Female

% Male

% Female

EU Median  % Male
-39,0%

Professional judges

39,7%

60,3%

Professional judges

39,7%

Non judge staff

39,0%
#VALUE!

NA

EU Median  % Female

61,0%

39,0%

0,0%

#VALUE!

Prosecutors

-24,0%

38,8%

76,0%

24,0%

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Lawyers

54,8%

52,3%

40,5%

-38,8%
-40,5%
33,4%

28,1%

-33,4%
-28,1%

-54,8%
-52,3%

61,2%
59,5%

66,6%
71,9%

45,2%
47,7%

0,0%

38,8%
40,5%
0,0%
33,4%
28,1%
0,0%
54,8%
52,3%

60,3%

61,0%

61,2%

59,5%

66,6%

71,9%

45,2%

47,7%

Non judge staff

NA

NA

Prosecutors

38,8%

61,2%

Non-prosecutor staff

33,4%

66,6%

Lawyers

54,8%

45,2%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1100 / 1555

3. Legal aid and court fees in Netherlands

In Netherlands, legal aid includes:

◦ Coverage of court fees: 

◦ Exemption from court fees: 

0

0

In Netherlands, legal aid is avaiable for :

> Representation in court:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

> Legal advice, ADR and other legal services:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

>

Fees related to enforcement of judicial decisions as fees for enforcement agents (Q18) 

>

 Other costs than above (Q19) 

It is noteworthy that the court fees are lower in respect of litigants with lower incomes.

1

1

1

1

1

1

Legal aid can also be granted for the following costs: travel costs, interpreter and translation costs, administrative costs, medical expert costs in injury cases for which a special 
regulation exists.

 Number of cases for which legal aid has been granted

Total

Cases brought to court

Cases not brought to 
court

Ratio of number of cases brought to court for which legal aid 
has been granted

253 506

88 075

165 431

47 798

NAP

47 798

In criminal cases

84,1%

15,9%

In other than criminal
cases

100,0% NAP

77,6%

22,4%

Absolute number 
(in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

213 229

301 304

88 075

1 724,2

504,0

Netherlands

EU Median

Per 100 000 inhabitants
 (in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

1 220,2

734,2

330,9

402,7

Number of cases for which legal has been granted per 100 000 
inhabitants

Netherlands

EU Median

1 724,2

734,2

1 220,2

504,0

330,9

402,7

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

The number of cases in 2020 is considerably lower than previous years, probably in part due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Due to the pandemic, criminal cases had been paused, 
waiting to be handled.
At the outset, it should be recalled that the Netherlands have a policy which makes a distinction between primary and secondary legal aid. 
Primary legal aid aims at solving judicial problems of citizens without necessarily going to court. There is for example a Legal Service Counters, where people get free legal advice 
on simple, judicial problems. There is also primary legal aid for citizens who want an advice by a lawyer for more complicated legal problems, without going to court directly. 
Secondary legal aid covers specifically lawyer’s costs in the frame of court proceedings. The provided figures relate to legal aid certificates. It is worth noticing that besides legal 
aid certificates, the Legal Aid Board also provides stand-by duty lawyers. Each criminal suspect, alien or psychiatric patient who has been lawfully deprived of his liberty against 
his will is visited by a subsidized lawyer. The bulk of such cases are criminal cases. Cases for which stand-by duty lawyers have been assigned are excluded. The number of 
stand-by duty lawyers assigned was respectively 110 000 in 2010, 127 000 in 2012, 126 000 in 2014, 108500 in 2020. Cases dealt with by Legal Service Counters (one of the 
providers of primary legal aid) are not counted.

Timeframes of the procedure for granting legal aid (in relation to the duration from the initial legal aid request to the final approval of the legal aid request)

◦ Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulations: 

◦ Actual average duration: 

40

12

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1101 / 1555

The maximum duration is 8 weeks (40 working days). This is based on statutory law (the AWB: the General Administrative Law Act). However, this only applies to approximately 
to 20% of the applications. Around 80% of the applications falls under the High Trust regime (see below) in which the application is granted automatically within 7 days (after the 
income and assets-check with the tax authorities). 
High Trust regime: Many lawyers and mediators regarded the application for a certificate as burdensome and time consuming, and the verification as bureaucratic. Therefore 
alternatives were considered to simplify the verification of applications and expense statements. The LAB introduced a High Trust method for dealing with the applications for 
certificates. This High Trust method implies that the LAB and lawyers and mediators work together on the basis of transparency, trust and mutual understanding. The High Trust 
method involves greater compliance on the part of the legal profession, both as to administrative proceedings of rules and working in accordance with the law, fixed procedures 
and support facilities such as Kenniswijzer (an online tool of the LAB with information about legislation, jurisprudence and guidelines for the application of certificates). The LAB 
developed specific tools for compliance assistance, such as information and instruction meetings, which are free of charge for lawyers and mediators under High Trust. The basic 
philosophy underlying High Trust is that trust among a larger group of people will more readily lead to positive cooperation and compliance than institutionalised distrust. In 2009, 
the Board started with its first High Trust pilot. Since 2011, the Board has been implementing High Trust across the country in phases. At the end of 2020, more than three 
quarters of the certificates are issued to lawyers and mediators who work based on the principles of High Trust. It has become easier for providers of legal aid to apply for 
certificates without having to send documents along with their applications. The Board grants the certificate shortly after assessing the client’s eligibility for legal aid. The 
applications of the lawyers and mediators that work together with the Board according to High Trust are accepted automatically. This means that the client will very soon receive 
confirmation on whether or not the application has been granted. Verification takes place after the provider of legal aid has submitted the statement of expenses. There are two 
ways of verification: either verification on the basis of a random sample, or verification on a one-on-one basis of certificates granted.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1102 / 1555

4. Performance of courts in Netherlands

● Efficiency indicators

◦ Clearance Rate (CR) and Disposition Time (DT)

The Clearance Rate shows the capacity of a judicial system to deal with the incoming cases. A Clearance Rate of 100% and higher does not generate backlog. 

The Disposition Time determines the estimated number of days necessary for a pending case to be solved in a court. 

First instance Total of other than criminal cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Evolution of number of all other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants
Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Incoming

7,50

7,35

0
5
7

,

1
4
7

,

5
3
7

,

5
2
7

,

6
4
7

,

9
3
7

,

9
3
7

,

3
4
7

,

9
2
7

,

1
3
7

,

4
2
7

,

0
2
7

,

4
9
6

,

9
9
6

,

8
9
6

,

0
7
1

,

2
8
1

,

4
8
1

,

6
7
1

,

7
6
1

,

3
6
1

,

4
5
1

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

7,46

7,39

5
9
6

,

7,29

7,24

6,94

2
5
1

,

7,41

7,25

7,39

7,43

7,31

7,20

4
4
6

,

4
3
6

,

6,99

8
5
1

,

1,70

1,82

1,84

0
6
6

,

1,76

1,67

2
8
6

,

1,63

6
6
2

,

1,54

6,98

6,44

2019

6,82

6,95

6,34

6,60

2020

1,52

1,58

EU median

2,66

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Netherlands (6,44 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below EU median (6,82 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Netherlands (6,34 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below EU median (6,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending cases at the end of 2020 in Netherlands (1,58 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below EU median (2,66 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Other than criminal cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Other than criminal 
cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

99%

99%

99%

101%

100%

100%

101%

100%

98%

84

91

91

87

83

83

80

80

91

EU median

99%

109

99%

99%

99%

101%

100%

100%

101%

100%

98%

99%

DT (days)

CR (%)

84

91

91

87

83

83

80

80

91

109

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 98,5% in 2020 Netherlands seems to face some difficulties to deal with its other than criminal cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -1,1 points.

In 2020, other than criminal cases are solved in approximately 91 days, which is slightly below EU median of 109 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 14,2% increase of the Disposition Time.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1103 / 1555

First instance Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of civil and commercial litigious cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

5
9
0

,

4
9
0

,

9
9
0

,

9
9
0

,

5
9
0

,

6
9
0

,

4
9
0

,

5
9
0

,

6
8
0

,

5
8
0

,

8
7
0

,

9
7
0

,

0
8
0

,

0
8
0

,

NA
NA
0,99
0,95
0,94
0,86
0,78
0,80
0,73
1,56

3
7
0

,

3
7
0

,

6
3
0

,

0
3
0

,

2
3
0

,

9
2
0

,

4
2
0

,

4
2
0

,

5
2
0

,

0,95
0,94
0,99
0,96
0,95
0,85
0,79
0,80
0,73
1,50

6
5
1

,

NA
NA
0,36
0,30
0,32
0,29
0,24
0,24
0,25
1,05

0
5
1

,

5
0
1

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Netherlands (0,73 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (1,56 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Netherlands (0,73 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (1,50 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Netherlands (0,25 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (1,05 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NA

NA

99,1%

100,4%

100,7%

99,1%

101,2%

100,2%

99,7%

NA

NA

132

115

121

124

110

110

127

EU Median

98%

221

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

DT (days)

CR (%)

99,1%

100,4%

100,7%

99,1%

101,2%

100,2%

99,7%

98%

132

2014

115

2015

121

2016

124

2017

110

2018

110

2019

127

2020

221

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 99,7% in 2020, Netherlands seems to face some difficulties to deal with its civil and commercial litigious cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -0,5 points.

In 2020, the civil and commercial litigious cases are solved in approximately 127 days, which is somewhat below EU median of 221 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 15,7% increase of the Disposition Time.

The number of civil and commercial litigious cases older than 2 years is not available.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1104 / 1555

First instance Administrative cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of administrative cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

8
6
0

,

7
6
0

,

6
6
0

,

6
6
0

,

5
6
0

,

4
6
0

,

1
6
0

,

9
5
0

,

6
6
0

,

3
6
0

,

1
6
0

,

8
5
0

,

8
5
0

,

5
5
0

,

1
6
0

,

0
3
0

,

0
3
0

,

0
3
0

,

8
2
0

,

1
3
0

,

8
2
0

,

0
3
0

,

0,68
0,66
0,65
0,59
0,66
0,58
0,58
0,61
0,57
0,30

7
5
0

,

7
5
0

,

9
4
0

,

4
3
0

,

0,67
0,66
0,64
0,61
0,63
0,61
0,55
0,57
0,49
0,26

1
4
0

,

0
3
0

,

0,30
0,30
0,30
0,28
0,31
0,28
0,30
0,34
0,41
0,21

6
2
0

,

1
2
0

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Netherlands (0,57 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly above EU median (0,30 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Netherlands (0,49 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly above EU median (0,26 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Netherlands (0,41 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly above EU median (0,21 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Administrative cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

97,5%

100,3%

98,9%

103,0%

95,3%

105,1%

95,2%

93,7%

86,3%

163

164

171

168

178

165

200

215

304

EU Median

100%

388

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Administrative cases

97,5%

100,3%

98,9%

103,0%

95,3%

105,1%

95,2%

93,7%

86,3%

100%

DT (days)

CR (%)

163

2012

164

2013

171

2014

168

2015

178

2016

165

2017

200

2018

215

2019

304

388

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 86,3% in 2020, Netherlands seems to face difficulties to deal with its administrative cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased for -7,3 points.

In 2020, the administrative cases are solved in approximately 304 days, which is somewhat below EU median of 388 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 41,6% increase of the Disposition Time.

The number of administrative law cases older than 2 years is not available.

Administrative law cases include tax cases and immigration / asylum cases.
First instance cases at Council of State, Court of Appeal, including trade tribunal, are excluded.
In the Netherlands, there are some registers that are kept by the judiciary. Those do not include a land or business registry, see www.rechtspraak.nl/registers. Most 
registers are related to debt, bankruptcy and help or surveillance of people who are unable to handle their financial situation. There is also a register with so-called 
‘nevenfuncties’ (a list of jobs and positions held by judges next to their judgeship). Mutations in these registers are not counted as court cases. For the category ‘other 
registry cases’ the answer is NAP, as the Dutch system does not count mutations in the registers as court cases.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1105 / 1555

Insolvency cases

The Clearance Rate of insolvency cases cannot be calculated

The evolution of Clearance Rate cannot be calculated.

The Disposition Time for insolvency cases cannot be calculated.

There are some data available on insolvency cases, but they are registered following a different categorisation

● First instance Criminal Law Cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Incoming cases

Netherlands

Total

Severe criminal cases 

Misdemeanour and/or 
minor cases

NA

NA

NA

223 723

213 096

81 040

159 476

158 827

56 620

64 247

54 269

24 420

Other cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

8
2
1

,

Total criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases Resolved casesPending 
Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

EU Median

2
2
1

,

1,28

0
6
1

,

8
4
1

,

1,22

0,46

1,60

1,48

0,46

6
4
0

,

6
4
0

,

Per 100 inhabitants

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 
Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

NA

NA

NA

Other cases

NAP

1,28

0,91

0,37

NAP

1,22

0,91

0,31

NAP

0,46

0,32

0,14

NAP

Netherlands

EU Median

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, and other 
criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases

Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

Total

0,46

Severe criminal
cases

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

0,32

0,37

0,31

0,14

1,28

1,22

0,91
0,91

The number of total incoming criminal cases in 2020 in Netherlands (1,28 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below EU median (1,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total resolved criminal cases in 2020 in Netherlands (1,22 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below EU median (1,48 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total pending criminal cases at the end of 2020 in Netherlands (0,46 per 100 inhabitants) is equal to the EU median

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT)

Total criminal law cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

DT (days)

CR (%)

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 

Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

95,2%

99,6%

84,5%

NAP

139

130

164

NAP

EU Median

95,2%

139

EU Median

Total Criminal law cases

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, 
and other criminal law cases 

95,2%

139

Total

99,6%

84,5%

130

164

Severe criminal
cases

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

NAP

Other cases

With the Clearance Rate calculated at 95,2% in 2020 for total criminal cases, Netherlands seems to face difficulties to deal with its total criminal cases.

Classification of severe and minor cases:
Minor offences: mainly traffic offences (speeding tickets, running red lights) and petty theft, vagrancy, littering, etc.
Severe offences: driving while drunk, grand theft, violent crimes, vice, drugs/narcotics, etc.
Effects of the pandemic:
No in person hearings happened in the period between 17 March and April 6 2020. At the start of the pandemic, not everyone was able to work remotely due to 
insufficient available laptops and that many files were still coming in on paper. There were some exceptions for working remotely as well, such as security, some 
administrative staff (people that compiled paper files, for example), etc.
Some measures were taken: hearing in other buildings, online or hybrid, and hearings in the evenings. The age restriction for judges was upped from 70 years old to 73 
years old, more criminal orders were handled by the public prosecution and more cases were handled by one judge instead of more (enkelvoudig versus meervoudig)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1106 / 1555

Overall efficiency by instance and by case matter

CR (%)

DT (days)

CR (%)

DT (days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases

99,7%

NA

89,5%

Administrative cases

86,3%

118,5%

98,7%

Total criminal law cases

95,2%

94,5%

95,1%

127

304

139

NA

465

348

427

344

261

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)
2nd instance

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Supreme Court

1st instance

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

%
Civil and commercial 
7
100%
litigious cases
9
9
Administrative cases

,

%
5
9
8

,

Total criminal law cases

A
N

Civil and commercial
litigious cases

,

%
5
8
1
1

99,7% NA
%
3
86,3%
6
8

,

%
7
8
9

,

%
2
5
9

,

118,5%

%
5
4
9

,

%
1
5
9

,

89,5%
98,7%

1

1
1

427

127

344

465

304

261

348

139

Administrative cases Total criminal law
95,2%

94,5%

cases

95,1%

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

1
1

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

In the Netherlands, in first and second instance, civil and commercial litigious cases are resolved faster than the EU median (127 days vs 221 for civil cases and 304 
days vs 388 days in second instance), while the DT of criminal law cases coincides with the median. As regards second and third instance, the DT is higher than the 
EU median for the three categories of cases. In 2020, Dutch judges resolved less cases than received (Clearance rate is below 100%) except for administrative cases 
in second instance.

As to the lack of horizontal consistency that can be observed (pending cases at the end of the period are not equal to the pending cases at the beginning + incoming - 
resolved), the reason is that the official number of cases pending on January 1st is determined at different time than the other 3 categories (official incoming, official 
resolved, official pending on December 31st). Due to time lags in registration and dynamics in the data systems, if the cases pending on January 1st are measured at the 
same time as the others, the result would be different.

As regards second instance cases, it is not possible to differentiate between litigious and non-litigious cases. 

As regards third instance cases, and in particular:
Non litigious cases: In theory, it is possible these cases get to the Supreme Court, but these cases are not specified in available numbers for the courts.
Administrative law cases: Please note that the Dutch Supreme Court only handles tax cases and some social security cases. There is no third instance court for other 
administrative cases in the Netherlands, so these are not represented in this number.
Other cases: There might be other cases in separate courts (Kamers), but these numbers are not available nationally.
With regard to the discrepancies: there are always some factors that might influence the number of cases the Supreme Court handles in a year. It might be due to delays 
or catch ups in lower courts (so incoming cases are lower/higher), new laws or changes in law that the SC must answer (like covid-regulations), cases may become more 
complex because laws and differences are more complex (as a result cases may take longer), or cases that are connected that are grouped to deal with in clusters 
(meaning more cases for a longer time). While there is not a specific cause of the discrepancies, all these factors mentioned might influence the numbers.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1107 / 1555

5. Public prosecution services in Netherlands

● Role and powers of the public prosecutor

In the criminal procedure, the public prosecutor in Netherlands has the following 10 out of 11 possible roles and powers:

To conduct or supervise police investigation

To appeal

To conduct investigations

To supervise the enforcement procedure

When necessary, to request investigation measures from the judge

To discontinue a case without needing a decision by a judge

To charge

To present the case in the court

To propose a sentence to the judge

To end the case by imposing or negotiating a penalty or measure 
without requiring a judicial decision

Other significant powers

The public prosecutor does not have any role in civil, administrative or insolvency cases.

● Public prosecutors: Number of first instance criminal cases

Type of cases

Absolute 
number

Per 100 
inhabitants

1. Pending cases on 1 Jan. ref. year 

73 800

0,42

2. Incoming/received cases

184 900

1,06

Public prosecutors: Total number of first instance criminal 
Pendin
Incoming/rec
cases per 100 inhabitants
g cases 
eived cases
Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. Year
on 31 
2,85

Processed 
cases
2,84

Processed cases

Incoming/received cases

3. Processed cases (3.1 + 3.2 + 3.3 + 3.4)

179 500

1,03

Netherlands

1,06 1,03

0,34

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year (3.1.1 + 3.1.2 + 3.1.3 
+ 3.1.4)

55 100

0,32

EU Median

2,85 2,84

0,84

1,06

1,03

0,84

3.1.1 Discontinued by the public prosecutor because the 
offender could not be identified 

NAP

NAP

0,34

3.1.2 Discontinued by the public prosecutor due to the lack 
of an established offence or a specific legal situation 

39 800

0,23

Netherlands

EU Median

3.1.3 Discontinued by the public prosecutor for reasons of 
opportunity

15 300

0,09

3.1.4 Discontinued for other reasons 

NAP

NAP

Processed cases per 100 inhabitants
EU Median

Netherlands

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated 
by the public prosecutor

44 700

0,26

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

Processed cases

Netherlands EU Median

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

0,32

1,05

-0,32

1,05

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons

3 900

0,02

3.4. Cases brought to court

75 800

0,43

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed
or negotiated by the public prosecutor

0,26

0,12

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other
reasons

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons
0,30

-0,02

0,02

0,30

-0,26

0,12

4. Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. year

59 300

0,34

3.4. Cases brought to court

3.4. Cases brought to court

0,43

-0,43

0,53
0,53

The number of pending cases at the end of the year cannot equal to the number of pending cases at the start of the year + incoming cases – processed cases because a certain 
type of cases can only be counted in the stock when the file has been judged, not when they are pending. These cases are criminal cases where an order is given, but they are 
then returned because the order cannot be executed. These criminal cases return to the stock, but cannot be measured in the system the public prosecution uses. Once a case 
like that it assessed again and streams out, it becomes visible in the numbers of the system.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1108 / 1555

 
6. Existence and use of alternative dispute resolution in Netherlands

Number of mediators

Mediators

Total

Per 100 000 inhabitants

EU Median
2020

Number of mediators per 100 000 inhabitants

14,4

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

820

927

1187

1409

1466

1511

1002

935

865

4,9

5,5

7,0

8,3

8,6

8,8

5,8

5,4

4,9

EU Median 2020

EU median in 2019

14,4

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

4,9

5,4

5,8

7,0

5,5

4,9

8,8

8,6

8,3

In 2020, there are 865 accredited or registered mediators who practise court related mediation which represents 4,9 accredited or registered mediators per 100 
000 inhabitants.

The variation between  2019 and  2020 is about -7,5%.

Number of court related mediations

Type of cases

Number of cases 
for which the parties
agreed to start 
mediation

Number of finished 
court-related
mediations

Number of cases 
in which there is a 
settlement agreement

Total of all cases

1823

1795

1181

Civil and commercial

Family cases

Administrative

Employment dismissal

Criminal cases

Consumer cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

637

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

666

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

567

NA

Lower numbers in 2020 are due to the Covid-19 pandemic, as not all mediations can be done digitally.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1109 / 1555

7. ICT tools of courts in Netherlands

●The ICT tools of courts and for court users

The use of ICT in courts in 2020 has been evaluated as  :

EU Median

Total 
(0 to 10)

Assistance tools (0 to 3)

Case management system (0 to 7)
Financial management tools (0 to 3)

Measurement tools to assess the workload (0 to 5)
Electronic communication (0 to 10)

2,3
0,0

4,5

0,5
0,0

1,3

6,6
2,0

5,2

1,3
2,5

6,9

The calculation of this values for each field is based on the answers for that question/s and weighted according the avaiability 
or deployment rate. The total value is normalised to max 10 points for readability and comparison.

The details of the calculation are given in Annex 5 - IT calculations

The result by area may be summarized in these graphics, where each field has been evaluated from 0 to 4 points.

Note: index is modified based on the available questions. This cycle the recalculation was made for the last three cycles to be 
able to follow the development.

Assistance 
tools

Year
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
EU Median 20202,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

2018

2019

2020

EU Median 2020

Case 
management 
system

Financial 
management 
tools

Measurement 
tools to assess 
the workload

Electronic 
communication

6,94

4,50

4,50

4,50

4,50

4,50

4,50

5,17

2,00

1,00

1,00

0,50

5,17

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,83

0,83

1,34

1,25

2,50

6,94

1,00

1,00

1,25

0,50

2,50

1,34

0,83

0,83

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

0,00

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

Comments on writing assistance tools
There is a tool, called 'Schrijfhulp' (writing assistance), which helps people to, for example, write a letter to respond to a summons. 
https://formulieren.rechtspraak.nl/formulier/SchrijfhulpKanton_Dagvaarding_004.aspx/Benodigdheden_Dagvaarding_004
Templates for the courts are approved centrally, so if they are available they would be available for all courts, but no specific information is 
available.

Comments on voice recording tools
In some courtrooms, sound is recorded to an SD-card. This is solely to assist in reporting, it is not a product in itself. The level of automation / 
computerization differs between courts and types of courts, which makes it difficult to report on how often and how much voice recording tools 
are used. Voice recognition is not used.

Comments on communication tools 
Communication on the planning of court meetings or procedural issues is possible. Communication on the case itself is a sensitive issue. Due 
to the high variance in practice (between and within the areas of justice), the last column cannot be answered. Hopefully there will be more 
uniformity in the future thanks to the project Digital Accessibility.

There certainly is a possibility for bailiffs to submit cases in electronic form. For other professional parties, this is not clear.
Due to the high variance in practice (between and within the areas of justice), not all questions can be answered. Hopefully there will be more 
uniformity in the future thanks to the project Digital Accessibility.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1110 / 1555

8. Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and public prosecution services in Netherlands

In Netherlands, quality standards are determined for the judicial system at national level (e.g. quality systems for the judiciary and/or judicial quality policies). Specialised 
personnel within the courts and the public prosecution services is entrusted with implementation of these national level quality standards.

There are quality standards which are measured by annual statistical figures per individual court. Examples are the scores of customer satisfaction surveys, the percentage of 
cases judged by three instead of one judge and case processing times (the so called ‘Kengetallen gerechten’). There is a Team Judicial Quality (Team Juridische Kwaliteit) 
which studies topics in a theme-wise manner, on a structural basis. A team of public prosecutors participates in TKJ and assesses the judicial work of colleagues in a 
structured and systematic way. Often there is a baseline assessment and a follow-up, sometimes a second follow-up. If necessary, the assessment framework is adjusted.
www.tweedekamer.nl/kamerstukken/detail?id=2018D52900&did=2018D52900
There are also professional standards, developed to show what good justice entails. These are publically available on the website of the Judiciary 
(https://www.rechtspraak.nl/Organisatie-en-contact/Rechtspraak-in-Nederland/Rechters/Paginas/De-professionele-standaarden-van-de-rechters.aspx)

● Systems for measuring and evaluating courts' performance

A regular monitoring system of court activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

There is an annual publication that includes the appeal ratio for some case types. To call it ‘monitoring’ would be a bit too much, but it is annually checked and reported on.
Incoming cases and length of proceedings have not previously been mentioned, but these are monitored.
In Netherlands, there is a system to regularly evaluate the court performance based primarily on defined indicators and the reporting is more frequent than annual.

Along with monthly reports and quarterly reports, there are annual reports which are more thorough and elaborate.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each court.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

Satisfaction is monitored, but courts are not necessarily judged for that.

The evaluation of the courts' activities is used for the later allocation of means in the courts.

The outcomes of the evaluation do not directly influence the allocation of resources in the next years.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1111 / 1555

● Systems for measuring and evaluating public prosecution services' performance

A regular monitoring system of public prosecution services activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases 

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs 

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecution) 

Costs of the judicial procedures 

Clearance rate 

Disposition time 

Percentage of convictions and aquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

In Netherlands, there is a system to evaluate regularly the activity of each public prosecution service and the reporting is more frequent than annual.

Along with the monthly reports and quarterly reports, there are annual reports which are more thorough and elaborate.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each public prosecution service.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecutors)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Percentage of convictions and acquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff

The evaluation of the public prosecution services' activities is used for the later allocation of means in the public prosecution services.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1112 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table General Data: Economic and demographic data, in absolute values (Q1, Q3, Q5)

Q1 Number of inhabitants

16 779 575

16 829 289

16 902 146

16 979 120

17 081 507

17 181 084

17 282 163

17 407 585

17 475 415

4,1%

0,3%

0,4%

0,5%

0,6%

0,6%

0,6%

0,7%

0,4%

Q.3 GDP Per capita (in €) in current prices

38 236

38 255

39 313

39 937

41 258

42 578

45 052

46 883

45 900

20,0%

0,0%

2,8%

1,6%

3,3%

3,2%

5,8%

4,1%

-2,1%

Q5. Exchange rate of Nat currency to € on 1 Jan

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 1: Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and prosecution services  (Indicator 4 in 2019)

Table 1.1 to Table 1.10 (Q66, Q67, Q77, Q78, Q77-1, Q78-1, Q73, Q73-0, Q73-1, Q73-2, Q73-3, Q73-4, Q73-5, Q73-6, Q70, Q70-1, Q71, Q72, Q83-2, Q83-3, Q120 
and Q120-1)

66 Qlty standards formulated_jud system

67 Specialised court staff entrusted_qlty standards

77 Performance and quality indicators of court activities

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

078.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078.1.5 Backlogs 

078.1.6 Productivity of judges and court staff

078.1.7 Satisfaction of court staff 

078.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts) 

078.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078.1.10 Number of appeals

078.1.11 Appeal ratio

078.1.12 Clearance rate 

078.1.13 Disposition time 

078.1.14 Other

077-1.1.1 Defined performance and quality indicators

False

False

False

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1113 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

078-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078-1.1.5 Backlogs 

078-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

078-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

078-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

078-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

078-1.1.11 Disposition time 

078-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

078-1.1.13 Other

False

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

73 Regular system_evaluation_performance_each court

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

073-0.1.1 Annual

073-0.1.2 Less frequent

073-0.1.3 More frequent

073-1.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
court

073-2.1.1 Courses of action taken in the evaluation is used for the 
allocation of resources

073-2.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-2.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-2.1.4 Other

073-3.1.1 Regular evaluation of the public prosecution services 
performance

Yes

Yes

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1114 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

073-4.1.1 Annual

073-4.1.2 Less frequent

073-4.1.3 More frequent

073-5.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
public prosecution services

073-6.1.1 Identifying the causes of improved or deteriorated 
performance

073-6.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-6.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-6.1.4 Other

070.1.1 number of incoming cases

070.1.2 length of proceedings (timeframes)

070.1.3 number of resolved cases

070.1.4 number of pending cases

070.1.5 backlogs

070.1.6 productivity of judges and court staff

070.1.7 satisfaction of court staff

070.1.8 satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts)

070.1.9 costs of the judicial procedures

070.1.10 number of appeals

070.1.11 appeal ratio

070.1.12 clearance rate

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1115 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

070-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases 

070-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

070-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

070-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

070-1.1.5 Backlogs 

070-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

070-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

070-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

070-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

070-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

070-1.1.11 Disposition time 

070-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

070-1.1.13 Other

071.1.1 Monitoring backlogs in Civil law cases

071.1.2 Monitoring backlogs in Criminal law cases

071.1.3 Monitoring backlogs in Administrative law cases

072.1.1 Monitoring timeframes Within the courts

072.1.2 Monitoring timeframes Within the public prosecution services

083-2.1.1 Quantitative performance tagets defined for each 
prosecutors

083-3.1.1 Body responsible - Executive power (for example the 
Ministry of Justice)

083-3.1.2 Body responsible - Prosecutor General /State public 
prosecutor

083-3.1.3 Body responsible - Public Prosecutorial Council

083-3.1.4 Body responsible - Head of the organisational unit or 
hierarchically superior public prosecutor

083-3.1.5 Body responsible - Other

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

True

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1116 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

120.1.1 Qualitative individual assessment of the public prosecutors' 
work

120-1.1.1 Feequency - Annual

120-1.1.2 Feequency - Less frequent

120-1.1.3 Feequency - More frequent

Q42.1.1Total number of all courts - legal entities 

Q42.1.2 Total number of courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.3 First instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.4 Second instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.5 Highest instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.6 Total number of specialised courts - legal entities

43.1.1 Total number of specialised courts of first instance

43.1.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.1.3 Insolvency courts

43.1.4 Labour courts

43.1.5 Family courts

43.1.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.1.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.1.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.1.9 Internet related disputes

43.1.10 Administrative courts

43.1.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.1.12 Military courts

43.1.13 Juvenile courts

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

True

True

False

False

Indicator 2: The judicial organisation

Tables 2.1a; 2.1b; 2.2a; 2.2b; 2.3a; 2.3b; 2.4 and 2.5(EC) (Q42, Q43 and Q44)

-

-

19

-

-

-

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

11

-

-

-

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

11

-

-

-

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

11

-

-

-

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

11

-

-

-

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

11

-

-

-

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

11

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

-

-

11

-

-

-

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

-

19

16

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

11

-42,1%

-42,1%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

4

1

1

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1117 / 1555

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

43.1.14 Other specialised courts

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

43.2.1 Total number of specialised courts of higher instances

43.2.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.2.3 Insolvency courts

43.2.4 Labour courts

43.2.5 Family courts

43.2.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.2.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.2.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.2.9 Internet related disputes

43.2.10 Administrative courts

43.2.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.2.12 Military courts

43.2.13 Juvenile courts

43.2.14 Other specialised courts

44.1.1 First instance courts geographic locations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

33

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

44.1.2 All courts geographic locations

60

40

40

40

40

40

40

40

42

-30,0%

-33,3%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

5,0%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1118 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 3: The performance of courts at all stages of the proceedings

Tables 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.4 (all years) Number of other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 Variation of first instance other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants (Q1, Q91)

Table 3.13.7 (EC) to 3.13.12 (EC) First instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

91.1.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.1.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.1.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.1.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.1.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.1.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.1.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.1.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

91.1.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.1.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

91.1.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

91.2.1 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.2.2 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.2.3 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.2.4 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.2.5 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.2.6 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.2.7 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.2.8 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

91.2.9 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

279 460

287 474

305 520

310 170

299 580

284 649

279 950

266 100

NA

-

NA

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NA

-

NA

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

51 794

204 372

204 372

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

48 010

50 084

49 800

51 020

47 570

52 649

47 290

51 840

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,9%

6,3%

1,5%

-3,4%

-5,0%

-1,7%

-4,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4,3%

-0,6%

2,4%

-6,8%

10,7%

-10,2%

9,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 258 187

1 237 427

1 260 111

1 253 987

1 245 537

1 243 209

1 199 579

1 214 258

1 124 792

-10,6%

-1,6%

1,8%

-0,5%

-0,7%

-0,2%

-3,5%

1,2%

-7,4%

NA

-

NA

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NA

-

NA

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

168 127

161 950

161 171

147 954

134 710

138 752

128 180

982 142

991 752

971 332

995 731

965 230

969 669

896 895

NA

991 752

971 332

995 731

965 230

969 669

896 895

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-3,7%

-0,5%

-8,2%

-9,0%

3,0%

-7,6%

1,0%

-2,1%

2,5%

-3,1%

0,5%

-7,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,1%

2,5%

-3,1%

0,5%

-7,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

91.2.10 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

114 930

110 273

109 842

100 285

113 034

99 524

99 629

105 837

99 717

-13,2%

-4,1%

-0,4%

-8,7%

12,7%

-12,0%

0,1%

6,2%

-5,8%

91.2.11 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1119 / 1555

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

91.3.1 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.3.2 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.3.3 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.3.4 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.3.5 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.3.6 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.3.7 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.3.8 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

91.3.9 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

1 243 457

1 219 381

1 248 701

1 261 182

1 247 910

1 237 649

1 207 954

1 209 419

1 107 740

-10,9%

-1,9%

2,4%

1,0%

-1,1%

-0,8%

-2,4%

0,1%

-8,4%

159 165

158 722

166 639

162 533

162 270

146 581

136 326

138 986

127 753

-19,7%

-0,3%

5,0%

-2,5%

-0,2%

-9,7%

-7,0%

2,0%

-8,1%

-

-

973 447

995 325

977 958

986 489

976 807

971 301

893 907

-

-

972 185

950 102

NA

995 325

977 958

986 489

976 807

971 301

893 907

-8,1%

-2,3%

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,2%

-1,7%

0,9%

-1,0%

-0,6%

-8,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-1,7%

0,9%

-1,0%

-0,6%

-8,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

91.3.10 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

112 107

110 557

108 615

103 324

107 682

104 579

94 821

99 132

86 080

-23,2%

-1,4%

-1,8%

-4,9%

4,2%

-2,9%

-9,3%

4,5%

-13,2%

91.3.11 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

91.4.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.4.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.4.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.4.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.4.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.4.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.4.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.4.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

91.4.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.4.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

91.4.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

285 340

305 520

310 170

299 580

284 649

279 950

266 100

264 130

276 260

-3,2%

7,1%

1,5%

-3,4%

-5,0%

-1,7%

-4,9%

-0,7%

4,6%

NA

-

NA

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NA

-

NA

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

60 160

51 211

53 826

49 944

40 981

41 905

44 560

198 990

200 799

178 174

182 716

173 279

163 855

159 930

NA

200 799

178 174

182 716

173 279

163 855

159 930

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-14,9%

5,1%

-7,2%

-17,9%

2,3%

6,3%

0,9%

-11,3%

2,5%

-5,2%

-5,4%

-2,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-11,3%

2,5%

-5,2%

-5,4%

-2,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

50 010

49 800

51 020

47 570

52 649

47 290

51 846

58 370

71 770

43,5%

-0,4%

2,4%

-6,8%

10,7%

-10,2%

9,6%

12,6%

23,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1120 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.2 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.4 to 3.3.7 Variation of Clearence Rate and Disposition Time of first instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

Table 3.13.1 (EC) to 3.13.6 (EC) First instance courts: Disposition time and clearance rate for other than criminal cases  (Q91)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

98,8%

98,5%

99,1%

100,6%

100,2%

99,6%

100,7%

99,6%

98,5%

(0,35)

(0,29)

0,56

1,49

(0,38)

(0,64)

1,15

(1,09)

(1,12)

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

NA

-

NA

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NA

-

NA

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

99,1%

100,4%

100,7%

99,1%

101,2%

100,2%

99,7%

99,1%

100,4%

100,7%

99,1%

101,2%

100,2%

99,7%

NA

100,4%

100,7%

99,1%

101,2%

100,2%

99,7%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,26

0,32

(1,60)

2,15

(1,02)

(0,50)

1,26

0,32

(1,60)

2,15

(1,02)

(0,50)

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,32

(1,60)

2,15

(1,02)

(0,50)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CR Administrative law cases

97,5%

100,3%

98,9%

103,0%

95,3%

105,1%

95,2%

93,7%

86,3%

(11,50)

2,78

(1,37)

4,19

(7,54)

10,30

(9,43)

(1,59)

(7,84)

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

84

NA

-

NA

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

163

NAP

91

NA

-

NA

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

164

NAP

91

132

75

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

171

NAP

87

115

74

74

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

168

NAP

83

121

66

66

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

178

NAP

83

124

68

68

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

165

NAP

80

110

65

65

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

200

NAP

80

110

62

62

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

215

NAP

91

8,7%

9,2%

-0,9%

-4,4%

-4,0%

-0,8%

-2,6%

-0,9%

14,2%

127

65

65

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-12,7%

5,3%

2,7%

-11,8%

0,3%

15,7%

-1,3%

-9,7%

1,7%

-4,2%

-4,9%

6,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-9,7%

1,7%

-4,2%

-4,9%

6,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

304

86,9%

1,0%

4,3%

-2,0%

6,2%

-7,5%

20,9%

7,7%

41,6%

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1121 / 1555

        
        
         
         
        
        
         
        
        
         
         
        
         
        
        
         
         
        
         
        
        
         
        
         
        
        
      
         
        
         
        
       
        
        
        
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.4.1 (all years) First instance courts, number of cases for specific case categories (Q101)

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

101.1.1 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Litigious divorce case

101.1.2 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Employment dismissal case

101.1.3 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Insolvency

101.2.1 Incoming cases_Litigious divorce case

101.2.2 Incoming cases_Employment dismissal case

101.2.3 Incoming cases_Insolvency

101.3.1 Resolved cases_Litigious divorce case

101.3.2 Resolved cases_Employment dismissal case

101.3.3 Resolved cases_Insolvency

101.4.1 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Litigious divorce case

101.4.2 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Employment dismissal case

101.4.3 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Insolvency

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

6 118

4 676

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

6 200

4 689

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

5 757

3 897

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

5 827

3 289

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

5 332

3 752

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5 018

4 539

4 648

4 147

-32,2%

1,3%

-7,1%

1,2%

-8,5%

-5,9%

-9,5%

2,4%

-10,8%

2 720

2 117

1 801

2 060

-55,9%

0,3%

-16,9%

-15,6%

14,1%

-27,5%

-22,2%

-14,9%

14,4%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CR Litigious divorce cases

CR Employment dismissal cases

CR Insolvency cases

DT Litigious divorce cases

DT Employment dismissal cases

DT Insolvency cases

Table 3.5.1 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for specific case categories (Q101)

Table 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 Variations of CR and DT for specific case categories of first instance cases (Q101)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1122 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.7.1 to 3.7.5 (2019 and 2020) Second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Table 3.9.1 to 3.9.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.1.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.1.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.1.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.1.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.1.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.1.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.1.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.1.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

97.1.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.1.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

27 910

26 110

27 510

27 932

27 980

27 940

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

14 350

14 180

15 110

14 650

14 770

13 880

97.1.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases 

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

97.2.1 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.2.2 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.2.3 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.2.4 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.2.5 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.2.6 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.2.7 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.2.8 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

97.2.9 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

26 463

27 845

29 324

25 706

23 500

23 008

19 363

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

97.2.10 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

12 419

13 853

14 904

12 266

10 701

10 632

8 172

97.2.11 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases 

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-6,4%

5,4%

1,5%

0,2%

-0,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-1,2%

6,6%

-3,0%

0,8%

-6,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5,2%

5,3%

-12,3%

-8,6%

-2,1%

-15,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

11,5%

7,6%

-17,7%

-12,8%

-0,6%

-23,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1123 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.3.1 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.3.2 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.3.3 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.3.4 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.3.5 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.3.6 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.3.7 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.3.8 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

97.3.9 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

27 979

26 482

29 263

26 236

24 992

23 506

21 232

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

97.3.10 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

12 586

12 925

15 349

12 132

11 593

10 630

9 686

97.3.11 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases 

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

97.4.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.4.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.4.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.4.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.4.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.4.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.4.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.4.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

97.4.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.4.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

26 110

27 510

27 932

27 980

27 940

27 510

24 530

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

14 180

15 110

14 650

14 770

13 880

13 870

12 340

97.4.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

97.5.1 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.5.2 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.5.10 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-5,4%

10,5%

-10,3%

-4,7%

-5,9%

-9,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,7%

18,8%

-21,0%

-4,4%

-8,3%

-8,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

5,4%

1,5%

0,2%

-0,1%

-1,5%

-10,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6,6%

-3,0%

0,8%

-6,0%

-0,1%

-11,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1124 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 (2019 and 2020): Second instance clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.9.4 and 3.9.5 (2019 and 2020): Variation of second clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

105,7%

95,1%

99,8%

102,1%

106,3%

102,2%

109,7%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

101,3%

93,3%

103,0%

98,9%

108,3%

100,0%

118,5%

NAP

341

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

411

NAP

NAP

379

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

427

NAP

NAP

348

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

348

NAP

NAP

389

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

444

NAP

NAP

408

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

437

NAP

NAP

427

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

476

NAP

NAP

422

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

465

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(10,05)

4,93

2,27

4,20

(3,93)

7,33

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(7,94)

10,38

(3,96)

9,53

(7,71)

18,55

-

-

-

-

-

-

11,3%

-8,1%

11,7%

4,8%

4,7%

-1,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,8%

-18,4%

27,6%

-1,7%

9,0%

-2,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

1125 / 1555

      
         
         
         
        
         
        
       
        
         
        
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.10.1 to 3.10.5 (2019 and 2020) Supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Table 3.12.1 to 3.12.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of the supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.1.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.1.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.1.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.1.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.1.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.1.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.1.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.1.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

99.1.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.1.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

99.1.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.2.1 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.2.2 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.2.3 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.2.4 High inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.2.5 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.2.6 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.2.7 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.2.8 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

99.2.9 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.2.10 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

99.2.11 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1 512

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1 021

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

920

380

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

540

NA

1 037

1 307

378

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

659

NAP

445

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

862

NAP

1 353

1 447

1 316

429

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

924

NA

421

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 026

NAP

439

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

877

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

12,7%

26,0%

-0,5%

17,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

22,0%

30,8%

-

-

6,9%

-9,1%

-1,9%

4,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

11,0%

-14,5%

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1126 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.3.1 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.3.2 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.3.3 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.3.4 High inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.3.5 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.3.6 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.3.7 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.3.8 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

99.3.9 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

1 405

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

99.3.10 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

1 000

99.3.11 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.4.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.4.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.4.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.4.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.4.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.4.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.4.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.4.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry 
cases

99.4.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.4.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative 
law cases

99.4.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.5.1 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.5.2 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.5.10 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1 236

1 177

1 259

431

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

805

NA

354

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

823

NAP

393

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

866

NAP

1 037

1 307

1 277

378

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

659

NA

NA

NA

NA

445

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

862

NAP

NA

NA

NA

460

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

817

NAP

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-4,8%

7,0%

-17,9%

11,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,2%

5,2%

-

-

26,0%

-2,3%

17,7%

3,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

30,8%

-5,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1127 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 Supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.12.4 and 3.12.5 Variation of the supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

92,9%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

97,9%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

91,4%

81,3%

95,7%

100,5%

84,1%

89,5%

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

87,1%

80,2%

98,7%

NA

306

320

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

299

NA

NAP

NAP

405

459

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

382

NAP

370

427

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

344

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(10,96)

17,61

(16,30)

6,47

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(7,93)

23,10

-

-

32,4%

-8,7%

43,3%

-6,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

27,9%

-9,9%

-

-

1128 / 1555

      
       
      
         
        
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.14.1 to 3.14.5 First instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

094.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

094.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

094.2.1 Total -incoming

094.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

094.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

094.2.4 Other - incoming

094.3.1 Total - resolved

094.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

094.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

094.3.4 Other - resolved

094.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

094.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

094.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

094.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

NA

NA

NA

NAP

223 723

159 476

64 247

NAP

213 096

158 827

54 269

NAP

81 040

56 620

24 420

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1129 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.15.1 to 3.10.2 CR and DT for first instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

098.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

098.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

098.2.1 Total -incoming

098.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

098.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

098.2.4 Other - incoming

098.3.1 Total - resolved

098.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

098.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

098.3.4 Other - resolved

Table 3.16.1 to 3.16.5 Second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

95,2%

99,6%

84,5%

NAP

139

130

164

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

26 972

NA

NA

NA

25 482

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1130 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

098.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

098.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

098.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

098.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

24 270

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Table 3.17.1 to 3.17.2 CR and DT for second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

94,5%

NA

NA

NA

348

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1131 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.18.1 to 3.18.5 Supreme court criminal law cases (Q100)

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

100.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

100.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

100.2.1 Total -incoming

100.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

100.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

100.2.4 Other - incoming

100.3.1 Total - resolved

100.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

100.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

100.3.4 Other - resolved

100.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

100.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

100.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

100.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

2 363

NA

NA

NA

3 414

NA

NA

NA

3 246

NA

NA

NA

2 318

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1132 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.19.1 to 3.19.2 CR and DT for supreme court  criminal law cases (Q100)

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

95,1%

NA

NA

NA

261

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1133 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 5: Access to justice

Legal aid

Table 5.1 to Table 5.6 (Q12-2, Q16, Q18, Q19, Q20, Q20-1)

12-2.1.1 Coverage of court fees

12-2.1.2 Exemption from court fees

16.1.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (criminal cases)

16.1.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (criminal cases)

16.2.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (other than criminal 
cases)

16.2.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (other than criminal cases)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

-

-

-

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

18.1.1 Legal aid for the enforcement of judicial decisions

19.1.1  Legal aid granted for other costs - criminal cases

19.1.2  Legal aid granted for other costs - other than criminal cases

020.1.1 Total

020.1.2 Total - criminal cases

020.1.3 Total - other than criminal cases

020.2.1 Total brought to court

020.2.2 Broight to court - criminal cases

020.2.3 Brought to court - other then criminal

020.3.1 Total not brought to court

020.3.2 Not broight to court - criminal cases

020.3.3 Not brought to court - other then criminal

020-1.1.1 Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulation

020-1.1.2 Average duration

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

301 304

88 075

213 229

253 506

88 075

165 431

47 798

NAP

47 798

40

12

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1134 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

System for compensating users

Table 5.7.1 and Table 5.7.2 (Q37)

037.1.1 Requests for compensation - Total

037.1.2 Requests for compensation - Excessive length of 
proceedings

037.1.3 Requests for compensation - Non-execution of court 
decisions

037.1.4 Requests for compensation - Wrongful arrest

037.1.5 Requests for compensation - Wrongful conviction

037.1.6 Requests for compensation - Other

037.2.1 Condemnations - Total

037.2.2 Condemnations - Excessive length of proceedings

037.2.3 Condemnations - Non-execution of court decisions

037.2.4 Condemnations - Wrongful arrest

037.2.5 Condemnations - Wrongful conviction

037.2.6 Condemnations - Other

037.3.1 Amount - Total

037.3.2 Amount - Excessive length of proceedings

037.3.3 Amount - Non-execution of court decisions

037.3.4 Amount - Wrongful arrest

037.3.5 Amount - Wrongful conviction

037.3.6 Amount - Other

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1135 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 6.1 to Table 6.11 (Q62-7, Q62-7-1, Q62-8,  Q62-8-1, Q63-1, Q63-1-1, Q63-2 Q63-6, Q63-7, Q63-7-1, Q64-2,  Q64-4, Q64-6, Q64-3, Q64-3-1, Q64-7, Q64-7-1, 
Q64-9)

Indicator 6: The ICT tools of courts and for court users

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

62-7 Writing assistance tools coordinated at national level

62-7-1.1 Deployment rate in civil matter

62-7-1.2 Deployment rate in criminal matter

62-7-1.3 Deployment rate in administrative matter

62-8 Voice recording tools

62-8-1.1.1 Availability of simple dictation tools in civil matter

62-8-1.1.2 Availability of simple dictation tools in criminal matter

62-8-1.1.3 Availability of simple dictation tools in administrative 
matter

62-8-1.2.1 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in civil 
matter

62-8-1.2.2 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in criminal 
matter

62-8-1.2.3 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in 
administrative matter

62-8-1.3.1 Availability of voice recognition in civil matter

62-8-1.3.2 Availability of voice recognition in criminal matter

62-8-1.3.3 Availability of voice recognition in administrative matter

062-9 Availability of intranet site within the judicial system for 
distribution of news/novelties

63.1 Is there a case management system? 

63.1-1.1 CMS for civil matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for criminal matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for administrative matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.2 CMS for civil matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for criminal matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for administrative matter (status of case onlinee)

True

True

True

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

True

True

True

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

No

No

No

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

No

No

No

-

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

FALSE

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

FALSE

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

FALSE

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1136 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63.1-1.3 CMS for civil matter (Centralised or interoperable database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for criminal matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for administrative matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.4 CMS for civil matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for criminal matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for administrative matter (Early warning signals)

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS civil matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS criminal matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS administrative matter

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - land registry

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - business registry

63-2.2 Data consolidated at national level for land registry

63-2.2  Data consolidated at national level for business registry

63-2.3 Service available online for land registry

63-2.3  Service available online for business registry

63-2.4 Statistical module integrated or connected for land registry

63-2.4  Statistical module integrated or connected for business 
registry

063-6.1.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (deployment 
rate)

063-6.1.2 Justice expenses management (deployment rate)

063-6.1.3 Other financial management tools (deployment rate)

063-6.2.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (Data 
consolidated at national level)

063-6.2.2 Justice expenses management (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.2.3 Other financial management tools (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.3.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (System 
communicating with other ministries)

063-6.3.2 Justice expenses management (System communicating 
with other ministries)

063-6.3.3 Other financial management tools (System communicating 
with other ministries)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

False

False

False

False

False

False

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

100%

100%

100%

NA

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

NA

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

True

False

False

True

NAP

NAP

True

NAP

NAP

False

False

False

False

False

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1137 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63-7.1 Measurement tools to assess the workload

63-7-1.1.1 Deployment rate - workload of judges

63-7-1.1.2 Deployment rate - workload of prosecutors

63-7-1.1.3 Deployment rate - workload of non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.2.1 Monitoring on national level - judges

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - prosecutors

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.3.1 Monitoring on court level - judges

63-7-1.3.2 Monitoring on court level - prosecutors

63-7-1.3.3 Monitoring on court level - non-judge and non-prosecutor 
staff

064-2 - Possibility to submit a case to courts by electronic means

064-2 - Civil and/or commercial

064-2 - Criminal

064-2 - Administrative

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - civil

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - criminal

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory  - administrative

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - civil

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - criminal

064-2 - Specific legislative framework  - administrative

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - civil

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - criminal

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - administrative

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

NA

NA

NA

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1138 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-3 - Is it possible to request for granting legal aid by electronic 
means? 

064-3-1.1 - Equipment rate

064-3-1.2 - Request in paper mandatory

064-3-1.3 - Specific legislative framework

064-3-1.4 - Granting LA is also electronic

064-3-1.5 - Information available in CMS

064-4 - Possibility to transmit summons to a judicial meeting or a 
hearing by electronic means

064-4-1.1.1 - Summons produced by CMS- civil

064-4-1.1.2 - Summons produced by CMS- criminal

064-4-1.1.3 - Summons produced by CMS- administrative

064-4-1.2.1 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- civil

064-4-1.2.2 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- criminal

064-4-1.2.3 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- administrative

064-4-1.3.1 - Consent of the user - civil

064-4-1.3.2 - Consent of the user - criminal

064-4-1.3.3 - Consent of the user - administrative

064-6.1.1 - Civil and/or commercial (deployment rate)

064-6.1.2 - Criminal (deployment rate)

064-6.1.3 - Administrative (deployment rate)

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

100%

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

NA

NA

NA

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

NA

NA

100%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1139 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-6.2.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Trial phases concerned)

    Scheduling  

          Scheduling  

064-6.2.2 - Criminal (Trial phases concerned)

    Scheduling  

          Scheduling  

064-6.2.3 - Administrative (Trial phases concerned)

    Scheduling  

          Scheduling  

064-6.3.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Modalities)

E-mail    

E-mail    

064-6.3.2 - Criminal (Modalities)

064-6.3.3 - Administrative (Modalities)

064-6.4.1 - Civil and/or commercial (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.2 - Criminal (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.3 - Administrative (specific legal framework)

064-6.5.1 - Civil and/or commercial (availability for)

064-6.5.2 - Criminal (availability for)

064-6.5.3 - Administrative (availability for)

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

False

False

False

-

-

-

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1140 / 1555

    
    
    
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-7.1.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (deployment rate)

064-7.1.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.2.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (Modalities)

064-7.2.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.3.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (specific legal framework)

064-7.32.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-7.3.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts (specific 
legal framework)

064-7.3.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-9 - Existance of online processing devices of specialised 
litigation

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

E-mail    

E-mail    

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1141 / 1555

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Indicator 7: Professionals of justice  (Indicator 9 in 2019)

Table 7.1.1 to 7.5.6 for judges, non judge staff, prosecutors, non prosecutor staff and salaries

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2 538

2 522

2 523

2 597

7,8%

-1,3%

-0,8%

-0,1%

-1,1%

8,9%

-0,6%

0,0%

2,9%

1 930

1 907

1 906

1 882

1,5%

-0,3%

-1,1%

-1,0%

-1,3%

7,9%

-1,2%

-0,1%

-1,3%

680

31,0%

1,7%

0,4%

3,0%

-0,5%

5,0%

2,1%

0,0%

16,8%

35

-2,8%

-

-

-

-

1 031

-8,1%

-5,7%

-2,6%

-0,5%

-3,7%

-

-

-13,2%

6,1%

0,0%

-

-0,7%

3,2%

698

-11,0%

-3,4%

-2,5%

-2,2%

-4,0%

4,0%

-3,7%

-0,1%

0,7%

312

2,0%

-1,6%

-2,7%

3,8%

-3,0%

-0,7%

-0,3%

-2,1%

9,1%

1 516

1 524

1 566

21,6%

2,5%

0,6%

0,2%

0,9%

21

-34,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

5,0%

0,5%

2,8%

1 209

1 213

1 213

1 184

10,6%

2,1%

-0,2%

-0,2%

0,6%

10,4%

0,3%

0,0%

-2,4%

368

72,8%

6,6%

4,4%

2,1%

2,5%

11,7%

4,7%

2,1%

24,3%

46.1.1 Total Number of professional judges

46.1.2 Number of 1st inst professional judges

46.1.3 Number of 2nd inst professional judges

46.1.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges

2 410

1 855

519

36

2 378

1 850

528

NA

2 359

1 829

530

NA

2 357

1 811

546

NA

46.2.1 Number of professional judges_males

1 122

1 058

1 031

1 026

46.2.2 Number of 1st instance professional judges_males

46.2.3 Number of 2nd instance professional judges_males

46.2.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges_males

46.3.1  Number of professional judges_females

46.3.2  Number of 1st inst professional judges_females

46.3.3  Number of 2nd inst professional judges_females

46.3.4  Number of Supreme court professional judges_females

046-2.1.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Total

046-2.2.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Civil and commercial

046-2.2.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.3.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Criminal

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

784

306

32

1 288

1 071

213

4

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

757

301

NA

1 320

1 093

227

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

738

293

NA

1 328

1 091

237

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

722

304

NA

1 331

1 089

242

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 331

1 788

543

NA

988

693

295

NA

1 343

1 095

248

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

582

33

1 006

694

292

20

582

35

999

693

286

20

570

38

NA

721

293

NA

NA

277

NA

290

13

296

15

14

250,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 597

1 882

680

35

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

15,4%

-6,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1142 / 1555

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

046-2.4.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - 
Administrative

046-2.4.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.5.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Other

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 52.1.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in courts 

6 252

7 287

7 422

7 265

7 317

7 523

7 492

7 699

7 435

18,9%

16,6%

1,9%

-2,1%

0,7%

2,8%

-0,4%

2,8%

-3,4%

52.1.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)

52.1.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges

52.1.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks

52.1.5 Number of Technical staff

52.1.6 Number of Other non judge staff

52.2.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(men)

52.2.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(men)

52.2.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(men)

52.2.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(men)

52.2.5 Number of Technical staff(men)

52.2.6 Number of Other non judge staff(men)

52.3.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(women)

NAP

4 847

NA

NA

1 405

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

52.3.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(women)

NAP

NAP

NAP

52.3.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(women)

52.3.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(women)

52.3.5 Number of Technical staff(women)

52.3.6 Number of Other non judge staff(women)

-

NA

NA

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

2 595

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

5 104

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1143 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

052-1.1.1 Non-judge staff (Total)

052-1.1.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (total)

052-1.1.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (total)

052-1.1.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (total)

052-1.2.1 Non-judge staff  (Males)

052-1.2.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (males)

052-1.2.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (males)

052-1.2.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (males)

052-1.3.1 Non-judge staff  (females)

052-1.3.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (females)

052-1.3.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (females)

052-1.3.4 Non-judge staff  at supreme court (females)

055.1.1 Prosecutors (total)

055.1.2 Prosecutors (1st inst.)

055.1.3 Prosecutors (2nd inst.)

055.1.4 Prosecutors (Highest instance)

055.2.1 Prosecutors - Males -total

055.2.2 Prosecutors - Males, 1st inst.

055.2.3 Prosecutors - Males, 2nd inst.

055.2.4 Prosecutors - Males, Supreme courts

055.3.1 Prosecutors - Females, Total

055.3.2 Prosecutors - Females, 1st inst.

055.3.3 Prosecutors - Females, 2nd inst.

055.3.4 Prosecutors - Females, Supreme courts

7 435

6 263

965

207

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

945

850

95

NAP

367

319

48

NAP

578

531

47

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1144 / 1555

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

060.1.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Total

060.2.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Males

060.3.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Females

004 Annual average salary in the country

132.1.1 Gross annual salary, in €  - Professional judge at the 
beginning of career

132.1.2 Gross annual salary, in €  - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.1.3 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor at the beginning 
of career

132.1.4 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

132.2.1 Net annual salary, in € - Professional judge at the beginning 
of career

132.2.2 Net annual salary, in € - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.2.3 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor at the beginning of 
career

132.2.4 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

133.1.1.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Reduced taxation

133.1.2.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Special pension

133.1.3.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Housing

133.1.4.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Other financial benefit

133.2.1.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Reduced taxation

133.2.2.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Special pension

133.2.3.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Housing

133.2.4.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Other financial benefit

3 998

1 336

2 662

62 700 €

83 765 €

NA

84 351 €

NA

52 772 €

NA

42 900 €

NA

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1145 / 1555

         
         
         
         
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

144.1.1 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - Total number (1+2+3+4)

144.1.2 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 1. Breach of professional 
ethics 

144.1.3 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.1.4 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 3. Criminal offence 

144.1.5 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 4. Other

144.2.1 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - Total number 
(1+2+3+4)

144.2.2 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 1. Breach of 
professional ethics 

144.2.3 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.2.4 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 3. Criminal offence

144.2.5 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 4. Other 

145.1.1 Sanctions against Judges - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.1.2 Sanctions against Judges - 1. Reprimand

145.1.3 Sanctions against Judges - 2. Suspension

145.1.4 Sanctions against Judges - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.1.5 Sanctions against Judges - 4. Fine

145.1.6 Sanctions against Judges - 5. Temporary reduction of salary

145.1.7 Sanctions against Judges - 6. Position downgrade

145.1.8 Sanctions against Judges - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.1.9 Sanctions against Judges - 8. Resignation

145.1.10 Sanctions against  Judges - 9. Other

145.1.11 Sanctions against  Judges - 10. Dismissal

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2

0

0

0

2

4

1

3

0

0

2

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

2

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1146 / 1555

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

145.2.1 Sanctions against Prosecutors - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.2.2 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 1. Reprimand

145.2.3 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 2. Suspension

145.2.4 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.2.5 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 4. Fine

145.2.6 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 5. Temporary reduction of 
salary

145.2.7 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 6. Position downgrade

145.2.8 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.2.9 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 8. Resignation

145.2.10 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 9. Other

145.2.11 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 10. Dismissal

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

4

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lawyers

Tables 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.7 and 7.8

146.1.1 Total number of lawyers practising

17 068

17 298

17 713

17 343

17 498

17 672

17 784

17 829

17 964

5,2%

1,3%

2,4%

-2,1%

0,9%

1,0%

0,6%

0,3%

0,8%

146.2.1 Practicing lawyers - man

146.3.1 Practicing lawyers - woman

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9 899

9 867

9 837

7 885

7 962

8 127

147 Does this figure include “legal advisors” who cannot represent 
their clients in court (for example, some solicitors or in-house 
counsellors)? 

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-0,3%

-0,3%

1,0%

2,1%

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1147 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Netherlands (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 8: The existence and use of alternative dispute resolution methods

Table 8.1 8.2 and 8.3

166 Number of accredited or registered mediators who practice 
judicial mediation: 

820

927

1 187

1 409

167.1.1 Total number started

167. 1.2 Civil and commercial cases(cid:9) - started

167. 1.2 Family cases - started

167.1.4 Administrative cases - started

167.1.5 Labour cases including employment dismissal cases - started

167.1.6. Criminal cases - started

167.1.7 Consumer cases - started

1 466

2 399

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

1 511

1 002

935

865

5,5%

13,0%

28,0%

18,7%

4,0%

3,1%

-33,7%

-6,7%

-7,5%

2 429

3 686

3 442

1 823

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

637

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,3%

51,7%

-6,6%

-47,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Key: Variation of more than (+ -) 20% 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1148 / 1555

Judiciary at a glance in Poland

General data

Population:

38 244 000

GDP per capita: 12 953 €

Average annual 

salary:

13 437 €

Professionals

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Poland

Poland

EU Median

EU Median

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual 
salary in the country

Poland
Poland

EU Median

EU Median

Professional judges

Professional judges

25,35

23,92

25,35

Non-judge staff

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

23,92

109,75

59,00

Judge at the beginning of a career 

1,92

5,35

2,02

5,35

4,09

3,61

15,28

109,75

59,00

Judge of the highest court 5,35

4,09

9,91

15,28

23,72

15,22

23,72

9,91

15,22

1,92

2,02
1,71
Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 
1,71

1,92

1,92

Public prosecutor at highest instance

5,35

3,61

Lawyers

Lawyers

150,00

122,09

150,00

122,09

Judge at the
beginning of a career

Judge of the highest
court

Prosecutor at the
beginning of a career

Public prosecutor at
highest instance

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

Efficiency

1st instance

2nd instance

1st instance 2nd instance

Supreme Court
Supreme 
Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance 2nd instance Supreme Court

100%

,

%
5
6
2
1

,

,

%
%
3
2
Civil and
5
5
0
0
commercial
1
1
Administrativ
e
cases
Total 
criminal law 
cases

,

%
8
9
0
1

105,3%
%
0
5
9

,

%
105,2%
0
8
9

,

%
0
9
9

,

,

%
7
0
1
1

126,5%

95,0%

109,8% NA

98,0%

99,0%

110,7%

A
N

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

Administrative
cases

Total criminal law
cases

1
1

1

1
1

Civil and commercial litigious cases
317
Administrative cases 150

188
618 NA

156

Total criminal law cases 82

61

188

317

618

150

156

151

151

61
82

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

Information and communication technology

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

Assistance toolsCase management system
2018

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the workload
2019

Electronic communication

EU Median 2020

2020

2018
2019
2020

0,33
0,83
1,94

3,67
5,83
6,28
6,28

5,83

5,17

2,00
2,00
2,00

1,33
1,50
3,50

3,68
3,68
4,24

EU Median 2020

3,67

2,00

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

1,94

2,00

0,83

0,33

2,00

2,00

2,00

1,25

1,33

1,50

6,94

4,24

3,68

3,68

3,50

2,50

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

*ICT calculations are described in more details in Annex 5 - IT Calculation methodology

1149

2020

Synthesis table for the main indicators for:

Poland

Economic and demographic data

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Variations

Population

GDP per capita

Exchange rate (local currency needed to 
obtain 1€)

Average annual salary

38 533 000

10 126

4

10 338

Resources

2012

2013

Professional judges per 100 000 inhab.

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhab.

Lawyers per 100 000 inh.

Mediators

ICT overall assesment

26,2

106,0

114,1

NA

First instance incoming cases per 100 
inhab.

2012

2013

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

2,769

0,187

First instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

2012

2013

89%

100%

First instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

2012

2013

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
cases (days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

195

112

DT total criminal law cases (days)

First instance pending cases per 100 
inhab. on 31 dec.

2012

2013

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

1,31

0,06

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

38 496 000

38 433 000

38 433 558

38 412 000

38 411 000

38 244 000

-0,8%

-0,2%

-0,1%

-0,1%

10 538

4

10 650

11 370

12 365

12 960

13 289

12 953

27,9%

4

NA

4

4

NA

4

5

12,9%

14 736

13 437

30,0%

7,9%

3,7%

NA

14,0%

-2,7%

4,8%

3,1%

NA

NA NA

0,0%

2,5%

0,0%

-0,4%

-2,5%

7,3%

-8,8%

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

26,2

107,9

137,1

NA

26,0

26,1

25,5

25,3

25,2

-3,9%

-1,0%

-2,0%

-2,6%

-0,4%

-0,5%

112,3

121,8

105,9

109,2

109,8

3,5%

4,1%

-5,8%

-13,1%

125,7

133,3

138,2

143,7

150,0

31,4%

-8,3%

NA

NA

NA

3,9

10,7

4,9

10,7

6,4

NA

NA

9,9%

NA

3,7%

NA

3,1%

4,0%

0,5%

4,4%

NA

-0,1%

25,7%

29,7%

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

3,186

0,2

3,113

3,520

3,449

3,266

2,474

-10,7%

-2,3%

10,8%

-2,0%

-5,3%

-24,3%

0,200

0,188

0,172

0,183

0,179

-4,4%

-8,7%

-13,9%

-8,9%

6,5%

-2,1%

4,871

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

99%

94%

92%

103%

107%

105%

99%

99%

105%

95%

98%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

16,73

-4,59

-0,47

6,47

-6,70

2,08

-1,74

-2,02

7,19

-6,49

5,96

-3,59

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

225

143

232

121

273

118

270

123

317

150

82

62,7%

10,7%

21,5%

17,5%

-1,1%

17,6%

33,7%

2,4%

-17,4%

-2,7%

4,5%

22,0%

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

1,76

0,08

1,89

0,08

2,10

0,07

2,38

0,06

2,40

0,06

2,26

0,07

1,07

72,8%

21,9%

7,6%

25,5%

13,0%

-0,2%

-27,5%

-13,0%

1,0%

4,4%

-5,6%

15,1%

99%

97%

2014

2015

203

139

-

-

-

-

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

96%

89%

97%

108%

96%

93%

90%

97%

105%

110%

99%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

-0,88

4,53

-0,26

-0,69

4,28

-15,04

-5,84

4,30

15,24

12,41

Second instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

 Supreme court 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Supreme court
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases

97%

84%

2012

2013

2014

2015

89

537

2012

2013

2014

2015

94%

NA

2012

2013

2014

2015

187

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

105

607

119

502

137

537

175

625

188

618

61

18,6%

30,1%

15,3%

27,9%

7,2%

13,0%

-11,5%

7,1%

16,3%

-1,1%

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

104%

108%

89%

108%

88%

93%

98%

126%

10,13

-16,70

-20,53

10,19

28,60

NA

NA

NA

4,58

-14,37

NA

NA

111%

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

180

607

158

504

250

535

234

NA

156

NA

151

-3,7%

39,4%

58,0%

-6,6%

-33,1%

NA

-11,8%

6,3%

NA

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1150 / 1555

1. Judicial organisation in Poland

At the outset, it should be recalled that the Polish court structure is characterized by four levels of courts but only three instances. Basically, there are District courts which are first instance 
courts, Regional courts which are first and second instance courts, and Appellate courts which are second instance courts. The highest instance courts are the Supreme Court, the Supreme 
Administrative Court and the Constitutional Tribunal. 

In 2020 in Poland, the number of courts considered as legal entities is 402. Namely, there are 376 courts of general jurisdiction and 26 specialised courts. 

Among the 376 legal entities of general jurisdiction, 364 are competent at first instance, namely the 318 District and the 46 Regional courts. The 11 Appellate courts intervene at second 
instance, while the Supreme Court is the highest court of general jurisdiction. The latter operates under the Constitution of the Republic of Poland and the Supreme Court Act. It is established to 
exercise supervision over the activities of common and military courts in the area of adjudication - this is the so-called judicial supervision (Article 183(1) of the Constitution). The means used to 
exercise such supervision include: recognition of extraordinary complaints, cassations and other appeals (instance supervision), passing resolutions resolving legal issues (extra-institutional 
supervision) Resolutions of the entire chamber or a larger body of judges have the force of law and are binding on all Supreme Court formations. A panel of 7 judges may decide to give the 
resolution the force of legal principle.

Among the 26 specialised courts, 23 are of first instance, while 3 are higher specialised courts (infra). 

In terms of geographic locations, there are 494 courts among which 433 are of first instance. It is noteworthy highlighting that a different method of data presentation has been applied for 2020. 
Namely, the 2020 data show first-instance courts and all courts together with all seats in different locations, which in the realities of the Polish legal system should be understood as a necessity 
to show the number of courts together with local divisions. The figure of 494 indicated for 2020 is the sum of the common, administrative and military courts of first and second instance and the 
Supreme Court by geographic location (i.e. including the subdivisions). To the number of courts of first instance by geographical location (all common, administrative, military courts of first 
instance with localised divisions: 433) was added the number of 61 courts: 46 Regional courts; 11 Courts of appeal; 2 military courts; the Supreme Administrative Court; the Supreme Court. 

Distribution of general courts in Poland

Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Poland - 1st instance
Poland - Higher instances

EU Median - 1st instance

EU Median - Higher instances

PolandDistribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Poland - 1st instancePoland - Higher instances
97%

General courts - Poland

3%

General courts - Poland
EU Median

97%
87%

3%
13%

EU Median

87%

13%

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Poland

According to 2020 data, the distribution between 1st instance and higher instances courts of general jurisdiction in 
Poland is somewhat different from the EU median of 87% - 13%.

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Poland

Geographic 
locations

Legal entities

General jurisdiction

Specialised 
jurisdiction

827

-

NA

-

401

401

401

401

494

287

-

287

-

363

363

363

363

364

26

-

26

-

26

25

25

25

23

1 000

800

600

400

200

0

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Poland

Geographic locations

Legal entities

General jurisdiction

Specialised jurisdiction

Geographic locations
Legal entities General jurisdiction
287
Legal entities Specialised jurisdiction

287

363
363
363
363

364

2017

2018

2019

2020

26

26

26
25
25
25

23

827

401
401
401
401

494
2016

2012

2013

2014

2015

Distribution of first instance general jurisdiction and specialised courts

Ratio general jurisdiction vs specialised

Poland
6%

General jurisdiction Specialised courts

94%

75%

6%

25%

94%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

EU Median

25%

75%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

The distribution between number of general jurisdiction courts and specialised courts of 94,1% - 5,9% is quite different from the EU median (distribution tendency in EU: 
75,5% - 24,5%).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1151 / 1555

Specialised courts
Total

Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

Insolvency courts

Labour courts

Family courts

Rent and tenancies courts

Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

Internet related disputes

Administrative courts

Insurance and / or social welfare courts

Military courts

Juvenile courts

Other specialised 1st instance courts

First instance

Higher instance

23

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

16

NAP

7

NAP

NAP

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

2

NAP

NAP

The 23 first instance specialised courts encompass 16 administrative courts and 7 military courts. The 3 higher instance specialised courts include 2 military courts and the Supreme 
Administrative Court. 

It is noteworthy that the Land and Mortgage Courts which are within the structure of the common court system deal with specific topics, but they are departments.

Besides, the National Court Register and Pledge Registry Departments are business divisions.

The EU Trademark and Community Design Court (which existed in the XXII Division of the District Court in Warsaw)- functioned from 2004 until the creation of intellectual property courts, which 
took place on 1 July 2020. Cases in the field of intellectual property belong to the jurisdiction of selected District Courts (Article 47990 of the Code of Civil Procedure), while the District Court in 
Warsaw (XXII Division) has exclusive jurisdiction in matters of intellectual property concerning computer programs, inventions, utility models, topography of integrated circuits, plant varieties and 
company secrets of a technical nature.

The Court of Competition and Consumer Protection is a special department functioning within the District Court in Warsaw. In the current state of law, the scope of activity of the 17th 
Department of the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection includes the handling of the following cases in court proceedings of appeals and complaints against decisions and orders 
issued by the government: the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, the President of the Energy Regulatory Office, the President of the Railway Transport Office, the 
President of the Office of Electronic Communications.

When it comes to matters from lease or tenancy agreements - as long as these matters are of an economic nature, they are recognized by business departments, as are matters related to new 
technologies and the Internet space.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1152 / 1555

2. Professionals of justice in Poland

● Professional judges and non-judge staff

Evolution of the number of professional judges since 2012 (Q46)

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Absolute 
number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

10 114

-

10 096

-

9 980

10 047

9 776

9 736

9 650

26,25

-

26,23

-

25,97

26,14

25,45

25,35

25,23

EU median

23,9

Professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants

26,25

26,23

25,97

26,14

25,45

25,35

25,23

23,9

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

According to 2020 data, the total number of professional judges sitting in courts (all instances) in Poland is 9 650, which is -0,9% less than in previous cycle.

More precisely, in Poland, there are 25,23 professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants (this figure is above the EU median of 23,92 judges per 100 000 inhabitants) and about 4,35 non-
judge staff per judge .

There has been a small increase compared with previous cycle when this ratio was at 4,31 non-judge staff per judge.

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and gender

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

9 034

417

199

9 650

Distribution by 
instance

93,6%

4,3%

2,1%

Male

3 390

197

115

3 702

Female

% Male

% Female

5 644

220

84

5 948

37,5%

47,2%

57,8%

38,4%

62,5%

52,8%

42,2%

61,6%

Distribution of professional judges by instance

Poland

EU Median

93,6%

72,39%

EU Median

72,39%

23,98%

23,98%

4,3%

2,1%

4,03%

Distribution of professional judges by gender and by 
instance

% Female
% Male

62,5%

37,5%

52,8%

47,2%

42,2%

57,8%

61,6%

38,4%

1st instance

4,03%

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female professional judges (all instances) is 5 948, which represents 61,6% of the total number of judges.
The total number of judges is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 9 034 are sitting in first instance courts (of which 5 644 are female); 417 are sitting in 
second instance courts (of which 220 are female)  and 199 are sitting in Supreme Court (of which 84 are female).  

Compared with the EU distribution of professional judges per instance the trend in Poland is similar. The predominance of first instance judges is accentuated, while there are less judges 
at second and third instances than at the EU level.

As regards the distribution of the number of judges among the different judicial instances, Poland presents some peculiarities which should be mentioned. Namely, owing to the fact that 
there are four levels of courts but only three instances in Poland, some judges sit as first and second instance magistrates. According to the methodology of presentation of data that has 
been chosen, judges of Regional courts are counted as first instance judges together with judges of District courts and judges of first instance administrative courts. Only judges of 
Appellate courts are considered as second instance magistrates. 

The number of judges of district courts: 6036 (3922 women, 2114 men)
The number of judges of regional courts: 2544 (1462 women, 1082 men)
The number of judges of the first instance administrative courts: 454 (260 women, 194 men)

The number of judges of the appeal courts: 417 (220 women, 197 men)

Supreme courts:
The number of judges of the Supreme Administrative court: 102 (62 women, 40 men)
The number of judges of the supreme court: 97 (75 women, 22 men)

*Starting from 2020 the number of Supreme court judges include also judges of the Supreme Administrative Court.

Military courts:
The number of judges of district military courts: 18 (1 woman, 17 men)
The number of garrison judges: 27 (5 women, 22 men).

As regards the distribution male/female, it has to be specified that female judges do not have the majority only at third instance. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1153 / 1555

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Total

Civil and commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

NA

NA

199

NA

NA

NA

25

NA

NA

NA

28

NA

454

NA

102

556

NA

NA

44

NA

In Poland, the distribution of judges per categories of cases is possible only for some categories.

Distribution of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Civil and 
commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

NA

NA

12,6%

NA

NA

NA

14,1%

NA

NA

NA

51,3%

NA

NA

NA

22,1%

NA

TRUE

TRUE

FALSE

TRUE

NA

3

NA

NA

NA

NA

Supreme Court - the 13 judges of the Supreme Court Chamber of Labour Law and Social Insurance appear in the column “other” together with the 18 judges of the Extraordinary Review 
and Public Affairs Chamber and the 13 judges of the Disciplinary Chamber. 

Non-judge staff

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Number of non-judge staff

40 844

Per 100 000 inhabitants

106,00

-

-

41 534

107,89

-

-

43 176

46 807

40 662

41 927

41 973

112,34

121,79

105,86

109,15

109,75

E
U 
m

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants

106,00

107,89

121,79

112,34

105,86

109,15

109,75

2020

Total

Rechtspfleger

Absolute 
number

41 973

2 669

59,00

Non-judge staff assisting the judge

23 711

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

Staff in charge of administrative tasks

Technical staff

Other

7 801

2 346

5 446

in %

6,4%

56,5%

18,6%

5,6%

13,0%

In 2020, Poland has 41 973 non-judge staff (of which 35 428 are females). The total number of non-judge staff in comparison with the previous cycle reveals an increase of 0,1%.

In this cycle, the non-judge staff is broken down as follows:

◦ 2 669 Rechtspfleger (or similar bodies) with judicial or quasi-judicial tasks having autonomous competence and whose decisions could be subject to appeal (among which 
1 904 are women);

◦ 23 711 non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges such as registrars (of which 21 663 are women);

◦ 7 801 staff in charge of different administrative tasks and of the court management (of which 5 998 are women);

◦ 2 346 technical staff (of which 1 569 are women);

◦ 5 446 other (of which 4 294 are women);

In 2020, the number of non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants has increased (from 109,2 in 2019 to 109,8 in 2020).

During the same period, the number of judges per 100 000 inhabitants evolves from 25,3 judges per 100 000 inhabitants in 2019 to 25,2 in 2020.

The category "other" includes probation officers, Specialists of Opinion Teams of Forensic Specialists.

The presented data does not include court assessors (trainee judges). According to Article 2 § 1a of the Act of 27 July 2001. Law on the Common Court System (Journal of Laws of 2020, 
item 2072), in district courts, tasks related to the administration of justice are also performed by court assessors/trainee judges, with the exception of: 1) applying temporary detention in 
pre-trial proceedings in relation to a detainee handed over to the court's disposal together with a request to apply temporary detention; 2) examining complaints against decisions on 
refusal to initiate an investigation or enquiry, decisions to discontinue an investigation or enquiry and decisions to discontinue an enquiry and on decisions to discontinue an investigation 
and enter the case in the register of crimes; 3) deciding family and juvenile cases.
As at 31 December 2020 there were 486 trainee judges employed in district courts, including 317 women and 169 men. 

1. "Rechtspfleger": the number of rechtspflegers of 16 voivodeship administrative courts are included (males 23, females 34);

In 2020 data include also employees of the Supreme Administrative Court.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1154 / 1555

Professional judges, non-judge staff and their ratio (Q46, Q52)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Poland

EU median

Professional judges

25,23

Non-judge staff

109,75

Non-judge staff per judge

4,35

23,92

59,00

3,30

Professional judges and non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

109,75

4,35

3,30

59,00

Non-judge staff per judge

25,23

23,92

Poland

EU median

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff  (Q46, Q52)

Judges 
per 100 000 inh.

Non-judge staff per
100 000 inh.

Ratio between professional judges and 
non-judge staff

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff 
(Q46, Q52)
Non-judge staff per 100 000 inh.

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

26,25

-

26,23

-

25,97

26,14

25,45

25,35

25,23

106,00

-

107,89

-

112,34

121,79

105,86

109,15

109,75

EU median 2020

3,30

4,04

-

4,11

-

4,33

4,66

4,16

4,31

4,35

4,04

4,11

4,33
4,66
4,16
4,31
4,35

2015

4,04

4,11

2012

2013

2014

4,66

4,33

4,31

4,35

4,16

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1155 / 1555

● Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff

Absolute number of public prosecutors by instance and gender (Q55)

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

3 759

1 605

88

5 843

Distribution by 
instance

64,3%

27,5%

1,5%

Male

1 608

878

61

2 787

Female

2 151

727

27

3 056

Male

42,8%

54,7%

69,3%

47,7%

Female

57,2%

45,3%

30,7%

52,3%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance

Poland

EU Median

64,3%

73,30%
EU Median

73,30%

21,28%

27,5%

21,28%

4,66%

1,5%

4,66%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance and gender

Female

Male

57,2%

42,8%

45,3%

54,7%

30,7%

69,3%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

52,3%

47,7%

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female prosecutors (all instances) is 3 056, which represents 52,3% of the total number of prosecutors.

The total number of prosecutors is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 3 759 in first instance (of which 2 151 are female); 1 605 are in second instance 
(of which 727 are female)  and 88 in final instance (of which 27 are female).  

As regards the distribution of the number of prosecutors among the different judicial instances, Poland presents some peculiarities which should be mentioned. Namely, the table under 
item 1 contains the number of district prosecutors and under item 2 the number of circuit prosecutors. Whereas under item 3 is the number of prosecutors in the position of a prosecutor of 
the National Prosecutor's Office. The total is higher than the sum of the subcategories because it takes into account the number of prosecutors employed in regional prosecutor's offices - 
a total of 391 prosecutors (151 women and 240 men), since according to Article 16 of the Law of 28 January 2016 - Law on Prosecutor's Office (Journal of Laws of 2021, item 66) the 
common organizational units of the prosecutor's office are: National Prosecutor's Office, regional prosecutor's offices, circuit prosecutor's offices and district prosecutor's offices. All items 
(1-3) include prosecutors for military matters, who at the level of the district prosecutor's office are employed by 85, including 22 women and 63 men; at the level of the regional 
prosecutor's office - 38 prosecutors for military matters, including 8 women and 30 men, and at the National Prosecutor's Office - 13 prosecutors for military matters (2 women and 11 
men). 

As regards the distribution male/female, it has to be specified that female prosecutors have the majority only at first instance.

Non-prosecutor staff by gender (Q60)

Non-prosecutor staff

2020

Total

9 073

Male

1 826

Female

7 247

Non-prosecutor staff by gender

20%

Male

Female

80%

Public prosecutors, non-prosecutor staff and their ratio (Q55, Q60)

Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Poland

EU median

Public prosecutors

15,28

Non-prosecutor staff

23,72

Non-prosecutor staff per 
prosecutor

1,55

9,91

15,22

1,11

Public prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per prosecutor

23,72

1,55

15,28

15,22

1,11

9,91

Poland

EU median

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1156 / 1555

● Salaries of professional judges and prosecutors at beginning of a career and at the highest instance (Q132, Q4)

Salaries of professional judges and 
prosecutors (Q132, Q4)

Average gross annual 
salary 
in €

Average net annual 
salary 
in €

Ratio with national 
average annual 
gross salary

Judge at the beginning of a career 

25 796 €

21 312 €

Judge of the highest court 

71 941 €

52 540 €

Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

25 796 €

21 312 €

Public prosecutor at highest instance

71 941 €

52 540 €

1,92

5,35

1,92

5,35

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual salary in the 
country

EU Median

5,35

2,02

2,02

1,92
4,09

1,71

Salaries of 
judges and 
prosecutors in 
Judge

4,09

5,35

at the beginning 
of a career

25796

3,61

1,92

at the highest 
1,71
instance

Prosecutor

at the beginning 
of a career

71941

25796

Judge at the beginning of
career

Judge on highest instance

3,61

Poland

Prosecutor at the
beginning of career

EU Median

at the highest 
instance

Prosecutor at highest
instance

71941

According to 2020 data, the absolute gross salary of a judge at the begining of a career in Poland of 25 796€ is quite below when compared to the EU median of 51 946€. As a ratio with 
the annual average salary of the country, the salary for a judge at the begining of career is: 1,92 compared with EU median of : 2,02.

The basic salary of a judge is determined in rates, the amount of which is determined using multipliers of the basis for determining basic salary, referred to in § 1c. The rates of basic 
salary in particular judge's positions and multipliers, used for determination of basic salary of judges in particular rates, are specified in the appendix to the Act.
A judge is entitled to a function-related allowance in connection with the performance of his duties.
Judges' remuneration is also differentiated by a long service bonus, amounting, beginning with the sixth year of service, to 5% of basic salary and increasing after each year by 1% until it 
reaches 20% of basic salary. No social security contributions are payable on judges' salaries. A judge taking up a position in a district court is entitled to basic salary at the first rate. The 
judge taking up the position in the circuit court is entitled to a basic salary at rate four, and if in a lower position he has already received a salary at rate four or five, he is entitled to a 
basic salary at rate five or six, respectively. A judge taking up a position in a court of appeal is entitled to the basic salary at the seventh rate, and if in a lower post he has already 
received the salary at the seventh or eighth rate, he is entitled to the basic salary at the eighth or ninth rate respectively.

Pursuant to Article 123 of the Act on the Public Prosecutor’s Office of 28 January 2016, the basis for determining the base salary of a public prosecutor in a given year is the so-called 
base amount, i.e. the average salary in the second quarter of the previous year, announced in the Official Journal of the Republic of Poland "Monitor Polski" by the President of the Main 
Statistical Office “Statistics Poland” [GUS]. Pursuant to Article 124 § 3 of the Act on Public Prosecutor's Office, a public prosecutor taking up a position in:

shall be entitled to the base salary in the fifth or sixth grade respectively;

grade, they shall be entitled to the base salary in the eighth or ninth grade respectively.
Pursuant to Article 124 § 1, the base salary of public prosecutors of the National Public Prosecutor’s Office is equal to the base salary of judges of the Supreme Court. Pursuant to Article 
48 of the Act on the Supreme Court of 2017, the remuneration of a judge of the Supreme Court is determined at either the basic rate or the promotion rate. The promotion rate is 115% of 
the base rate. Upon taking up his/her post, a judge of the Supreme Court receives base pay at the basic rate. After 7 years of service in the Supreme Court, the base salary of a judge of 
the Supreme Court shall be increased to the promotion rate.

At the same time, according to Article 124 § 11 of the quoted Act, a public prosecutor is entitled to an supplement for long-time service amounting to 5% of the base salary currently 
received by the public prosecutor, beginning from the 6th year of his/her employment, and increasing after each successive year of his/her employment by 1% of this salary, until reaching 
20% of the base salary. After 20 years of service the long-service supplement shall be paid, irrespective of the length of service beyond that period, at the rate of 20% of the public 
prosecutor's current base salary. In addition, in connection with the function performed, a public prosecutor is entitled to a functional supplement (table of functions and multipliers for 
determining the amount of functional supplements). Additionally, pursuant to Article 111 § 2 and 4 of the above mentioned Act, prosecutors of the National Public Prosecutor's Office, due 
to the nature of their work and the scope of their duties, may also be granted a special supplement not exceeding 40% of the total base salary and the functional supplement. The 
supplement is granted for a definite period of time, and in justified cases - also for an indefinite period of time

● Lawyers

Lawyers

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

43 974

-

52 760

-

48 315

51 227

53 081

55 178

57 365

114,12

-

137,05

-

125,71

133,29

138,19

143,65

150,00

Number of lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants

137,05

133,29

138,19

125,71

143,65

150,00

122,09

114,12

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median
2020

EU median 2020

122,09

In 2020, there are 57 365 lawyers, which is 4,0% more than in 2019.
Poland has 150,0 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants, which is above the EU median of 122,1 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants.

Within the total number of advocates 19954, 10513 are male, and 8845 are female.
The data is incomplete because no information has been provided on the sex of 596 advocates.
Within the total number of legal counsels 37411, 17746 are male and 19665 are female.

It is noteworthy that legal advisers have the same powers as advocates.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1157 / 1555

● Judicial professionals (summary)

Judicial professionals in absolute number and per 100 000 inhabitants (Q46, Q52, Q55, Q60, Q146)

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

EU Median

Professional judges

9 736

25,35

23,92

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Poland

EU Median

150,00

122,09

Non-judge staff

41 973

109,75

59,00

109,75

Prosecutors

5 843

15,28

9,91

59,00

Non-prosecutor staff

9 073

23,72

15,22

25,35

23,92

15,28

9,91

23,72

15,22

Lawyers

57 365

150,00

122,09

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

% Male

% Female

Professional judges

38,4%

61,6%

Non judge staff

15,6%

84,4%

Prosecutors

47,7%

52,3%

Non-prosecutor staff

20,1%

79,9%

Lawyers

49,3%

49,7%

Professional judges

Poland % Male Poland % Femalelabels

Judicial professionals: Gender balance
-38,4%

61,6%

Poland % Female

38,4%

Poland % Male
EU Median  % Male

EU Median  % Female

Professional judges

38,4%

39,0%

Non judge staff

Non judge staff

-39,0%

61,0%

39,0%

0,0%

61,6%

61,0%

-15,6%
15,6%

24,0%

-24,0%

84,4%

15,6%

76,0%

24,0%

84,4%

76,0%

Prosecutors

47,7%

Prosecutors

40,5%

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers
Lawyers

49,3%

52,3%

-47,7%
-40,5%

20,1%
-20,1%
-28,1%

28,1%

-49,3%
-52,3%

52,3%
59,5%

79,9%
71,9%

49,7%
47,7%

0,0%

52,3%

59,5%

79,9%

71,9%

47,7%
40,5%
0,0%
20,1%
28,1%
0,0%
49,3%
52,3%

49,7%

47,7%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1158 / 1555

3. Legal aid and court fees in Poland

0

0

In Poland, legal aid includes:

◦ Coverage of court fees: 

◦ Exemption from court fees: 

In Poland, legal aid is available for :

> Representation in court:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

> Legal advice, ADR and other legal services:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

>

>

Fees related to enforcement of judicial decisions as fees for enforcement agents (Q18) 

 Other costs than above (Q19) 

1

1

1

1

1

1

In respect of civil cases, each party may request that a professional attorney be appointed by the court. In order to do so, you must make a statement before the court that you are unable 
to pay the fees of an advocate or a legal advisor without the loss of the necessary support for yourself and your family. An application for a court-appointed attorney is independent of an 
application for exemption from court costs and may be filed at any stage of the proceedings (also prior to their commencement), until the case is finally resolved in the court having 
jurisdiction over the case. The court decides on the appointment of the attorney, taking into account the need for his/her participation in the case and the ability of the party to cover his/her 
remuneration. The appointed attorney represents the party in court and gives him/her appropriate legal advice in the case. 

In criminal proceedings, unless the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates otherwise, all expenses are temporarily lectured by the State Treasury.  

Concerning civil cases, exemption from court fees to which a party is entitled by virtue of the law or granted to a party in preliminary proceedings extends to enforcement proceedings. 
Additionally, it is possible to apply for exemption from court fees only at the stage of enforcement proceedings.
With regard to criminal cases, if the convicted person fails to comply with the obligation to pay the monetary performance or reparation to the injured party, the judgment together with the 
enforcement order is sent to the court executive officer who initiates the proceedings. The procedure for pursuing such claims is governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 
(claims based on Article 196 § 2 of the Executive Penal Code).

In accordance with the Law on court executive officer fees of 28 February 2018. (Journal of Laws of 2021, item 210), the exemption from court costs to which a party is entitled by virtue of 
the law or which has been granted to a party in the court proceedings extends to the bailiff's costs (Article 45(1) of the Act). If a party does not exercise this right, the party may apply to 
the district court by which the judicial officer acts for exemption in whole or in part from enforcement costs. The applicant must prove that he or she is unable to pay the bailiff's fees 
without prejudice to the necessary maintenance of themselves, or their family (Article 45(2) of the Act).

In civil proceedings, exemption from court costs may relate to fees and expenses. Expenses include in particular: travel costs of a party who is exempt from court costs related to a 
personal appearance ordered by a court; reimbursement of travel and accommodation costs as well as lost earnings or witness income; remuneration and reimbursement of costs 
incurred by experts, translators and probation officers established for a party in a given case; lump-sum costs of taking evidence from the opinion-giving opinion of a team of court 
specialists; remuneration due to other persons or institutions and reimbursement of costs incurred by them; costs of carrying out other evidence; the costs of transporting animals and 
goods, keeping them or storing them; advertising costs; costs of detention and custody; lump sums due to probation officers for conducting environmental interviews in cases of: 
annulment of marriage, for divorce and separation, as well as for participation in parents' contacts with children determined by the court; the cost of issuing a certificate by a forensic 
doctor; the cost of mediation conducted as a result of referral by the court.

In criminal proceedings, unless the Code of Criminal Procedure stipulates otherwise, all expenses are temporarily lectured by the State Treasury. A witness shall be entitled to 
reimbursement of travel expenses from his place of residence to the place where the court proceedings are to be conducted upon the order of the court or the authority conducting the pre-
trial proceedings. The witness shall be entitled to reimbursement of travel costs from his place of residence to the place where the procedural activities are to be performed at the request 
of the court or the authority conducting preparatory proceedings. The witness shall also be entitled to reimbursement of earnings or income lost in connection with appearance at the 
summons of the court or the authority conducting the pre-trial proceedings. A person summoned as a witness is also entitled to reimbursement of the costs of travel and accommodation 
on condition of appearance. *If a party to a notary's activity is not able to incur the remuneration required by a notary public for its own and for the family, it may apply to the district court 
competent for its place of residence to release in full or in part from this remuneration. This provision shall apply accordingly to a legal person that proves that he has insufficient funds to 
incur the remuneration demanded by a notary public. The court, after determining that there is a need to perform a notarial act, takes into account the application and appoints a notary to 
perform the requested notarial activity (Article 6 of the Act of 14 February 1991 on Notary Public Rights).

 Number of cases for which legal aid has been granted

Absolute number 
(in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

Per 100 000 inhabitants
 (in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

Total

Cases brought to court

Cases not brought to 
court

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

31 661

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

3166100,0% NA

Poland

EU Median

NA

NA

NA

734,2

330,9

402,7

The provided data refers to the number of cases in which a proxy was appointed ex officio (legal adviser, advocate).

Timeframes of the procedure for granting legal aid (in relation to the duration from the initial legal aid request to the final approval of the legal aid request)

◦ Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulations: 
◦ Actual average duration: 

NAP
NA

The provisions of the procedure do not specify a time limit for examining the application for appointing a legal representative. However, it should be considered without undue delay. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1159 / 1555

4. Performance of courts in Poland

● Efficiency indicators

◦ Clearance Rate (CR) and Disposition Time (DT)

The Clearance Rate shows the capacity of a judicial system to deal with the incoming cases. A Clearance Rate of 100% and higher does not generate backlog. 

The Disposition Time determines the estimated number of days necessary for a pending case to be solved in a court. 

First instance Total of other than criminal cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Evolution of number of all other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants
Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Incoming

26,07

-

,

7
0
6
2

,

1
2
6
2

,

6
9
5
2

,

4
4
6
2

,

4
0
8
2

,

6
0
6
2

,

6
2
0
3

,

3
4
0
3

,

9
5
8
2

,

1
3
8
2

,

1
6
5
3

7
5
3

,

8
9
3

,

0
1
6

,

5
0
6

,

4
3
6

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

25,96

,

1
1
2
3

0,00

28,04

30,26

8
7
9

,

28,59

26,21

-

26,44

,

8
7
8
2

,

0
6
7
2

0,00

26,06

30,43

3,57

-

3,98

0,00

6,10

6,05

28,31

7
6
8

,

2
8
6

,

0
6
6

,

6,34

6
6
2

,

9,78

8,67
EU median
2,66

35,61

27,60
2019

6,82

32,11

28,78

2020

6,60

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Poland (27,60 per 100 inhabitants) is well above the EU median (6,82 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Poland (28,78 per 100 inhabitants) is well above the EU median (6,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Poland (8,67 per 100 inhabitants) is well above the EU median (2,66 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Other than criminal cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Other than criminal 
cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

101%

-

102%

-

93%

101%

99%

90%

104%

50

-

55

-

85

73

82

111

110

EU median

99%

109

101%

102%

101%

99%

93%

90%

104%

99%

DT (days)

CR (%)

50

55

85

73

82

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

111

2019

110

109

2020

EU median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 104,3% in 2020 Poland seems to be able to deal with its other than criminal cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased by 14,1 points.

In 2020, other than criminal cases are solved in approximately 110 days, which is slightly above the EU median of 109 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a -1,1% decrease of the Disposition Time.

Compared to the previous periods (2018 and 2019), variations in the number of other than criminal law cases are mainly due to combination of two reasons. First - the 
COVID19 pandemic, which significantly reduced case inflow to the courts (in some type of cases even by several dozen of percent), reduced the number of resolved 
cases and pendig cases as well. The second factor, which in contrary - caused increase in the volume of cases registered in court system was the inflow of cases related 
with conversion of the right of perpetual use of built-up land for residential purposes into land ownership (non litigious land registry cases). In 2020, there were more than 
a million incoming cases of this type (in 2019 – more than 2,5 million), which also resulted in an increase in the number of resolved cases in this area, as well as pending 
cases for the next reporting period.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1160 / 1555

First instance Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of civil and commercial litigious cases per 100 inhabitants

9
1
3

,

6
1
3

,

6
7
1

,

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

1
1
3

,

8
0
3

,

2
5
3

,

0
3
3

,

5
4
3

,

8
1
3

,

7
2
3

,

4
2
3

,

9
8
1

,

0
1
2

,

8
3
2

,

7
7
2

,

5
4
2

,

1
3
1

,

2,77
-
3,19
0,00
3,11
3,52
3,45
3,27
2,47
1,56

0
4
2

,

0
6
2

,

7
4
2

,

6
2
2

,

2,45
-
3,16
0,00
3,08
3,30
3,18
3,24
2,60
1,50

6
5
1

,

1,31
-
1,76
0,00
1,89
2,10
2,38
2,40
2,26
1,05

0
5
1

,

5
0
1

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Poland (2,47 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly above the EU median (1,56 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Poland (2,60 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly above the EU median (1,50 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Poland (2,26 per 100 inhabitants) is well above the EU median (1,05 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

88,5%

-

99,3%

-

98,8%

93,8%

92,1%

99,3%

105,3%

195

-

203

-

225

232

273

270

317

EU Median

98%

221

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

DT (days)

CR (%)

88,5%

99,3%

98,8%

93,8%

92,1%

99,3%

105,3%

98%

195

2012

2013

203

2014

225

2016

232

2017

273

2018

270

2019

317

221

2020

EU Median

2015

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 105,3% in 2020, Poland seems dealing efficiently with its civil and commercial litigious cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased by 6,0 points.

In 2020, the civil and commercial litigious cases are solved in approximately 317 days, which is somewhat above the EU median of 221 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 17,6% increase of the Disposition Time.

The number of civil and commercial litigious cases older than 2 years is not available.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1161 / 1555

First instance Administrative cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

9
1
0

,

9
1
0

,

6
0
0

,

2
2
0

,

1
2
0

,

8
0
0

,

Evolution of number of administrative cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

0
2
0

,

1
2
0

,

0
2
0

,

9
1
0

,

8
1
0

,

7
1
0

,

8
1
0

,

0,19
-
0,22
0,00
0,20
0,19
0,17
0,18
0,18
0,30

8
1
0

,

8
0
0

,

7
0
0

,

6
0
0

,

6
0
0

,

0
3
0

,

0,19
-
0,21
0,00
0,21
0,20
0,18
0,18
0,17
0,26

7
0
0

,

8
1
0

,

7
1
0

,

6
2
0

,

0,06
-
0,08
0,00
0,08
0,07
0,06
0,06
0,07
0,21

1
2
0

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Poland (0,18 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below the EU median (0,30 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Poland (0,17 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below the EU median (0,26 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Poland (0,07 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below the EU median (0,21 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Administrative cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

99,6%

-

96,5%

-

103,0%

107,1%

105,1%

98,6%

95,0%

112

-

139

-

143

121

118

123

150

EU Median

100%

388

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Administrative cases

99,6%

96,5%

DT (days)

CR (%)

103,0%

107,1%

105,1%

98,6%

95,0%

100%

112

2012

2013

139

2014

2015

143

2016

121

2017

118

2018

123

2019

150

388

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 95,0% in 2020, Poland seems to face some difficulties in dealing with its administrative cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased for -3,6 points.

In 2020, the administrative cases are solved in approximately 150 days, which is significantly below the EU median of 388 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 22,0% increase of the Disposition Time.

The number of administrative law cases older than 2 years is not available.

Concerning administrative law cases, the main reason for the slight slowdown in casework was the pandemic.

Insolvency cases

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Insolvency cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Insolvency cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

95,7%

-

101,7%

-

96,6%

92,4%

94,5%

94,6%

99,0%

83

-

87

-

114

127

131

130

105

EU Median

105%

281

95,7%

101,7%

96,6%

92,4%

94,5%

94,6%

99,0%

105%

DT (days)

CR (%)

83

2012

87

2014

2013

114

2016

127

2017

131

2018

130

2019

105

281

2020

EU Median

2015

The Clearance Rate was calculated at 99,0% in 2020 for insolvency cases, Poland seems to be able to deal with its insolvency cases.
Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased by 4,4 points.
In 2020, insolvency cases are solved in a approximately 105 days, which is significantly below the EU median of 281 days.
The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a -19,4% decrease of the Disposition Time.
In respect of insolvency cases, a significant increase in number of cases of personal bankruptcy characterises 2020.  The amendment to the bankruptcy law made it 
much easier to obtain the right to bankruptcy for a natural person, therefore the number of such cases brought to court has been increasing for several last years.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1162 / 1555

● First instance Criminal Law Cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases Resolved casesPending 
Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

Incoming cases

Poland

4,87

4,78

1,07

7
8
4

,

8
7
4

,

Total

374 052

1 862 695

1 826 322

410 425

EU Median

1,60

1,48

0,46

Severe criminal cases 

173 746

351 326

333 815

191 257

Misdemeanour and/or 
minor cases

78 511

330 848

322 399

86 960

Other cases

121 795

1 180 521

1 170 108

132 208

Per 100 inhabitants

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 
Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

0,98

0,45

0,21

0,32

4,87

0,92

0,87

3,09

4,78

0,87

0,84

3,06

1,07

0,50

0,23

0,35

7
0
1

,

0
6
1

,

8
4
1

,

6
4
0

,

Poland

EU Median

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, and other 
criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases

Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

4,87
4,78

Total

Severe criminal
cases

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

1,07

0,92
0,87

0,50

0,87
0,84

0,23

Other cases

0,35

3,09
3,06

The number of total incoming criminal cases in 2020 in Poland (4,87 per 100 inhabitants) is well above the EU median (1,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total resolved criminal cases in 2020 in Poland (4,78 per 100 inhabitants) is well above the EU median (1,48 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total pending criminal cases at the end of 2020 in Poland (1,07 per 100 inhabitants) is well above the EU median (0,46 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT)

Total criminal law cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

DT (days)

CR (%)

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 

Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

98,0%

95,0%

97,4%

99,1%

82

209

98

41

Total Criminal law cases

98,0%

95,2%

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, 
and other criminal law cases 

95,0%

97,4%

99,1%

EU Median

95,2%

139

EU Median

82

Total

139

EU Median

209

98

Severe criminal
cases

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

41

Other cases

With the Clearance Rate calculated at 98,0% in 2020 for total criminal cases, Poland seems to be able to deal with its total criminal cases.

In 2020, criminal law cases were solved in approximately 82 days, which is somewhat below the EU median of 139 days.

Severe criminal cases include all offences under the Penal Code, Penal Fiscal Code and offences specified in other Acts. 

Misdemeanours are cases conducted under the Petty Offence Code. 

The category “Other cases” covers the rest of cases conducted in criminal courts which are not connected directly with the severe criminal cases or misdemeanours. 
Mainly these are cases conducted under the Code of Criminal Procedure and Petty Offences Procedure Code, e.g: complaints against the discontinuation of the 
proceedings, complaints against the application or extension of pre-trial detention, complaints against the ordering the execution of a substitute prison sentence, 
complaints against a failure to grant parole.

Compared to the previous period (2018), variations in the number of criminal cases are mainly due to two reasons. First, the COVID19 pandemic reduced the inflow of 
Misdemeanour and / or minor criminal cases. Second, the 2020 data encompasses "Other cases" which significantly increased the total number of criminal cases.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1163 / 1555

Overall efficiency by instance and by case matter

CR (%)

DT (days)

CR (%)

DT (days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases

105,3%

105,2%

126,5%

Administrative cases

95,0%

109,8%

NA

Total criminal law cases

98,0%

99,0%

110,7%

317

150

82

188

618

61

156

NA

151

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

2nd instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court
Supreme Court

1st instance

100%

,

%
3
5
0
1

Civil and 
commercial
Administrative
cases

,

%
2
5
0
1

1st instance
%
5
6
2
1

,

,

%
8
9
0
1

%
0
105,3%
5
9

,

%
0
105,2%
8
9

,

%
0
9
9

,

,

%
7
0
1
1

126,5%

95,0%

109,8% NA

Total criminal law cases

A
N

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

Administrative
cases

98,0%

Total criminal law
cases

99,0%

110,7%

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1

1

1

1
1

156

188

317

618

150

151

61
82

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

As concerns the Clearance Rate indicator, only first instance administrative courts seem to encounter difficulties in attending the 100% threshold in 2020. As explained 
above, the main reason for the slight slowdown in casework of administrative courts was the pandemic.

In respect of the Disposition Time indicator, in civil matters it is above the respective EU medians at first (221 days) and second instance (177 days). Compared to the 
previous period (2018), decreases in the numbers of incoming civil litigious cases before courts of appeal and resolved cases result from the COVID-19 pandemic. On 
the contrary, at third instance the Disposition Time is well below the EU median of 224 days. 

In administrative matters the Disposition Time is meaningfully below the EU median of 388 days at first instance. Conversely, at second instance the value is significantly 
above the EU median of 362 days. However, this situation should be construed against the background of the specificity of the Polish Supreme Administrative Court. 
Namely, it is at the same time the court of second and last instance and it is impossible for the Statistics Division to divide its cases statistics and identify the number of 
second instance cases on the one hand, and the number of third instance cases, on the other hand. The total number of administrative law cases dealt with by the 
Supreme Administrative Court is provided within the frame of Q97 (second instance cases), while Q99 is replied by NA. 

In criminal matters, the Disposition Time indicator is well below the EU median established with regard to first instance cases (139 days) and second instance cases (101 
days). Conversely, at the level of the Supreme Court this indicator is above the EU median of 120 days. However, it should be pointed out that the Disposition Time of 
the Supreme Court decreased significantly compared to 2018 data (242 days). In fact, positive dynamics of the movement of cases of 2020 in the work of the Criminal 
Chamber of the Supreme Court were due to changes of a personnel nature. In addition, some of the disciplinary cases of advocates were submitted for consideration to 
the Criminal Chamber on the basis of decisions of the First President of the Supreme Court made in the period until May 2020 or decisions of the President of the 
Supreme Court directing the work of the Criminal Chamber at a later date, as the Disciplinary Court of the Polish Bar Association refers files of disciplinary cases with 
cassation appeals to the Criminal Chamber, recognizing that the Disciplinary Chamber should refrain from examining them. At the same time, the standard involvement in 
the work of judges, assistants and all other employees of the Criminal Chamber allowed for an increase in the number of cases dealt with.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1164 / 1555

5. Public prosecution services in Poland

● Role and powers of the public prosecutor

In the criminal procedure, the public prosecutor in Poland has the following 9 out of 11 possible roles and powers:

To conduct or supervise police investigation

To appeal

To conduct investigations

To supervise the enforcement procedure

When necessary, to request investigation measures from the judge

To discontinue a case without needing a decision by a judge

To charge

To present the case in the court

To propose a sentence to the judge

To end the case by imposing or negotiating a penalty or measure 
without requiring a judicial decision

Other significant powers

The constitutional role of the Public Prosecution Office is to protect the rule of law in the State. In this respect, the most significant function is to investigate crimes and support the 
charges before criminal courts. A prosecutor cannot impose a penalty by own decision but can negotiate a penalty with the defendant who plead guilty. The court may accept the 
negotiated penalty and issue a judgment without formal proceeding on evidences.

Pursuant to Article 275a § 1 and § 2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the public prosecutor at the request of the police or ex officio may, as a preventive measure, order a 
defendant charged with a violent offence committed to the detriment of a cohabiting person to temporarily vacate the premises occupied jointly with the victim if there is a 
reasonable risk that the defendant will again commit a violent offence against that person, especially if they have threatened to commit such an offence.

The public prosecutor also has a role in civil, administrative and insolvency cases.

The position of the public prosecutor in civil proceedings is defined by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code (Article 7 and Articles 55-60 of the Code). Pursuant to them, the 
public prosecutor may request the initiation of civil proceedings, as well as may join ongoing proceedings, if, in his/her assessment, the protection of the rule of law, citizens' rights 
or the public interest so requires. In family law cases concerning non-property rights, a public prosecutor may bring an action only in cases indicated by law. 

The position of the public prosecutor in administrative proceedings is defined by the Code of Administrative Procedure in Articles 182-189. Pursuant to them, the public prosecutor 
has the right to request the competent public administration body to initiate proceedings to remove an unlawful condition, as well as to take part in ongoing administrative 
proceedings already in progress. The public prosecutor also has the right to file an objection against a final decision. The public rosecutor also has specific powers in 
administrative court proceedings in line with Article 8 of the Law on Administrative Court Proceedings [Prawo o postępowaniu przed sądami administracyjnymi]. It provides for the 
public prosecutor's right to lodge a complaint to an administrative court against various acts from the field of administrative law, as well as the right to participate in administrative 
court proceedings caused by the complaint of another entity.

The public prosecutor also has the power to initiate bankruptcy proceedings and to participate in such proceedings. The above quoted provisions of the Civil Procedure Code 
apply in this case, as bankruptcy proceedings are a part of civil proceedings in the broad sense. Particular attention should be paid to the right of the prosecutor to submit a motion 
to initiate proceedings for deprivation of the right to conduct business activity as a self-employed natural person or to act as a supervisory board member, a representative or an 
attorney in a commercial company, state-owned enterprise, cooperative, foundation or association.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1165 / 1555

● Public prosecutors: Number of first instance criminal cases

Type of cases

Absolute 
number

Per 100 
inhabitants

1. Pending cases on 1 Jan. ref. year 

124 866

0,33

2. Incoming/received cases

1 057 665

2,77

Public prosecutors: Total number of first instance criminal 
cases per 100 inhabitants
Incoming/rec
eived cases
2,85

Processed 
Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. Year
cases
2,84

Pendin
g cases 
on 31 

Processed cases

2,84

Incoming/received cases

2,77

3. Processed cases (3.1 + 3.2 + 3.3 + 3.4)

1 084 834

2,84

Poland

2,77 2,84

0,32

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year (3.1.1 + 3.1.2 + 3.1.3 
+ 3.1.4)

387 521

1,01

EU Median

2,85 2,84

0,84

0,84

3.1.1 Discontinued by the public prosecutor because the 
offender could not be identified 

128 486

0,34

0,32

3.1.2 Discontinued by the public prosecutor due to the lack 
of an established offence or a specific legal situation 

74 940

0,20

Poland

EU Median

3.1.3 Discontinued by the public prosecutor for reasons of 
opportunity

141 856

0,37

Processed cases per 100 inhabitants
EU Median

Poland

3.1.4 Discontinued for other reasons 

42 239

0,11

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

Processed cases

1,01
Poland

EU Median

1,05

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated 
by the public prosecutor

25 635

0,07

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed
or negotiated by the public prosecutor

-1,01

0,07

1,05
0,12

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons

398 037

1,04

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other
reasons

1,04

-0,07

0,12

0,30

3.4. Cases brought to court

273 641

0,72

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons
0,30

-1,04

3.4. Cases brought to court

0,72

0,53

4. Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. year

123 332

0,32

3.4. Cases brought to court

-0,72

0,53

The number of cases discontinued for any other reason consists of cases discontinued on the basis of: 
- art. 17 par. 1 point 3 to 11 of the Code of Criminal Procedure: the social harm of the act is negligible; the law provides that the perpetrator is not subject to punishment; the 
defendant has died; the criminal statute of limitations has run; criminal proceedings for the same act of the same person have been validly terminated or previously instituted 
proceedings are pending; the perpetrator is not subject to the jurisdiction of the Polish criminal courts; lack of complaint from an authorized prosecutor; absence of the required 
authorization for prosecution or request for prosecution from an authorized person, unless otherwise provided by law; there is another circumstance excluding prosecution.
- the Act on Counteracting Drug Addiction (Article 62a and 62b);
- other discontinuances - in addition to those described in report PK-P1K on activity of common organizational units of the Public Prosecutor's Office in criminal cases.

The number of cases closed by the prosecutor for other reasons consists of: - cases in which criminal prosecution was transferred (Article 591 para. 6 of the Code of Criminal 
Procedure), - refusal to start an investigation, - suspended cases, - cases finished with the transfer of the commander, - cases settled in another way (there is no data about the 
way of completion in the report).

The number of cases processed in 2018 was 1,076,123. The number of cases discontinued for this period is 397,471. This number is comparable to the 2019 data. (406,770 
cases discontinued) and for 2020. (387,521 cases discontinued). *The number of cases - "concluded by a penalty or measure imposed or negotiated by the prosecutor" for each 
year was as follows: 2018. – 43 348, in 2019. -36 167, in 2020. - 25 635.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1166 / 1555

 
6. Existence and use of alternative dispute resolution in Poland

Number of mediators

Mediators

Total

Per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NA

-

NA

-

NA

NA

NA

4120

4100

NA

-

NA

-

NA

NA

NA

10,7

10,7

EU Median
2020

2020

2019

Number of mediators per 100 000 inhabitants

14,4

10,7

10,7

EU Median 2020
In 2020, there are 4 100 accredited or registered mediators who practise court related mediation which represents 10,7 accredited or registered mediators per 100 
000 inhabitants.

EU median in 2019

14,4

The variation between  2019 and  2020 is about -0,5%.

Number of court related mediations

Type of cases

All Cases

Civil and commercial

Family cases

Administrative

Employment dismissal

Criminal cases

Consumer cases

Number of cases 
for which the parties
agreed to start 
mediation

Number of finished 
court-related
mediations

Number of cases 
in which there is a settlement 
agreement

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

12 384

6 119

NA

2 623

3 043

NA

NA

2 225

2 648

NA

931

1 937

NA

In accordance with the regulation which is contained in the Ordinance of the Council of Ministers of March 31, 2020 on the establishment of restrictions, orders 
and prohibitions in relation with the COVID19 epidemic, in the period from March 31, 2020, the performance of tasks by common courts was limited due to remote 
work and quarantine of employees of court departments. Mediation can be conducted in any case in the field of labour law, in which it is possible to sign a 
settlement, and most labour matters belong to this category. In the period 2019-2020 (at the time when an up-ward trend was observed), they mainly concerned 
conflicts that could have been influenced by remote work, e.g. lack of accurate, correct communication and direct contact between employees. That is why labour 
courts began to direct disputes towards an ADR methods, indicating that mediation may not only faster finish a case, but also be more financially attractive, which - 
as the data shows - resulted in a greater interest in this method of alternative dispute resolution in employee matters, as well as parties to conclude agreements.

In 2020 total impact of cases before common courts was lower by 21.1% compared to 2019. The reduced impact of cases was caused among others by the 
COVID19 epidemic and related limitations. Limitations related to the pandemic have also affected the prisons and custodies closings, where mediation takes 
place after the sentence, representing a large percentage of mediation in criminal cases. Courts, in order not to extend the proceedings, resigned from referring 
cases to mediation.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1167 / 1555

7. ICT tools of courts in Poland

●The ICT tools of courts and for court users

The use of ICT in courts in 2020 has been evaluated as  :

EU Median

Total 
(0 to 10)

Assistance tools (0 to 3)

Case management system (0 to 7)
Financial management tools (0 to 3)

Measurement tools to assess the workload (0 to 5)
Electronic communication (0 to 10)

6,4
1,9

6,3

2,0
3,5

4,2

6,6
2,0

5,2

1,3
2,5

6,9

The calculation of this values for each field is based on the answers for that question/s and weighted according the avaiability 
or deployment rate. The total value is normalised to max 10 points for readability and comparison.

The details of the calculation are given in Annex 5 - IT calculations

The result by area may be summarized in these graphics, where each field has been evaluated from 0 to 4 points.

Note: index is modified based on the available questions. This cycle the recalculation was made for the last three cycles to be 
able to follow the development.

Assistance 
tools

Year
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
EU Median 20202,00

0,83
0,33
1,94

0,33

0,83

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

Case 
management 
system

Financial 
management 
tools

Measurement 
2018
tools to assess 
the workload

2020

2019
Electronic 
communication

EU Median 2020

6,94

6,28

5,83

5,17

3,67

2,00

2,00

2,00

1,33

1,50

3,50

1,94

3,67
2,00
5,83

6,28

4,24

3,68

3,68

3,50

2,50

2,00

1,25

1,33

1,50

2,00

3,68

2,00

3,68

4,24

Assistance tools

5,17

1,25
Case management system

2,50

6,94
Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

As to the writing assistance tools, the so called e-Protocol system is financed from EU funds.

Exemples of writing assistance tools: registration form for notification of erroneous activities of IT systems, information from the National Court 
Register, Application form for access to public information, Civil complaint forms, Forms of bankruptcy complaints - "consumers", National Court 
Registry forms, formulas for reserve management services and forwarded to Central Information on Registered Pledges, Information request 
forms with the National Criminal Register, Application form for execution and reporting bailiff operations, inventory configuration list, toolkit form for 
central information on registered sets, formula for court and economic judgment.

It is difficult to assess it due to the different degree of computerization of litigation and non-litigious proceedings, as well as the uneven use of 
various tools, starting with ZEUS.

Concerning voice recording tools, a reference is made to the so called e-Protocol system in civil and commercial matters, financed from EU funds. 

The videoconference system used to conduct online hearings enables the recording of image and sound. The provisions of the act of August 30, 
2002 v- law on proceedings before administrative courts do not provide for electronic casebooks protocol.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1168 / 1555

Comments on CMS

1) Random Assignment System (SLPS) - for registering and assigning cases to judges (SLPS - case registration and allocation system)

2) Office systems in courts, differentiated in individual units and departments (e.g. in commercial litigation and bankruptcy departments - "Judge-
2", "Sawa", "Currenda", "Praetor", land and mortgage register departments - SOWKW and CI, in departments KRS - "Lotus" office and entry 
system - "SW", system in the Plots of the Register of Pledges) - Various computer office systems in individual courts. 

Comments on communication tools 

If the term "availability index" refers to the general availability of such service, then according to the Act of August 30, 2002 - Law on proceedings 
before administrative courts (the Act), any case may be brought before an administrative court by means of electronic communication, thus the 
availability index hits 100%. However, if this term refers to an actual and real availability of such service, unfortunately the Chancellery of the 
President of the Supreme Administrative Court does not provide data on the number of cases that were, in fact, brought by electronic means of 
communication after the amendment to the Act. 

Article 149(1) of the Civil Procedure Code provides for a simplified method of summoning parties, witnesses, experts or other persons to a 
hearing. As a rule, service, summonses and orders should be made in the manner provided for by the general provisions, i.e. Articles 131-147 of 
the Code of Civil Procedure. However, if it is necessary to expedite the examination of the case, the court may omit the means provided for by the 
general rules in favor of the means it deems most expedient. The effectiveness of such a summons is conditional on there being no doubt that the 
summons has reached the addressee. Simplified forms of service involve the use of methods of service other than through a postal carrier, bailiff, 
court staff or court delivery service, i.e. by telephone, e-mail, telegram or fax, or courier service.

Art. 137 (1) of Criminal Procedure Code In urgent cases, persons may be summoned or notified by telephone or by other means as appropriate, 
leaving a copy of the message transmitted with the signature of the person transmitting it on file.

Administrative cases - Summonses are sent to the parties to the proceedings electronically via the ePUAP platform when the party provides an 
address for electronic delivery. So the email option could actually be marked, with correspondence taking place via ePUAP. If the party does not 
provide an address for electronic delivery, letters are delivered in a traditional paper form (by post).

The Information Portal is a solution initiated by the Ministry of Justice, based on art. §90a of the Regulations of the Office of Common Courts of 
February 23, 2007. The electronic system allows direct access to court files for parties to the process and their legal representatives. The purpose 
of implementing the innovative Information Portal was primarily to relieve court secretariats from the time-consuming obligation to provide 
information to trial participants. It is mainly about searching for files for personal viewing, photocopying individual cards from files, sharing reports 
from hearings or recording e-reports. All these activities involve the necessity of personal arrival at the court office, submission of numerous 
applications, often also prior ordering of files for inspection in the reading room, as well as costs related to the possible desire to obtain 
photocopies of documents. Thanks to the Portal, the user can access his case from the computer screen. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1169 / 1555

8. Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and public prosecution services in Poland

In Poland, quality standards are determined for the judicial system at national level (e.g. quality systems for the judiciary and/or judicial quality policies). However, there is no 
specialised personnel within the courts or the public prosecution services entrusted with implementation of these national level quality standards.

The Ministry of Justice collects statistical data sent by common courts concerning their current activity, and also evaluates annual information on the activity of courts, prepared 
by presidents of courts of appeal about the activity of courts within the area of appeals, within the scope of tasks entrusted to them. In addition, the Minister of Justice convenes 
a meeting with presidents of courts of appeal at least once a year to discuss issues related to exercising supervision. Within the framework of that evaluation, a multifaceted 
analysis of collected statistical data is conducted, inter alia, an indicator of stability of jurisprudence, an indicator of control over the inflow of court cases or time of adjudication 
in incoming cases. However, no legal provision defines specific quality standards for individual indicators, concerning organisational quality and/or justice quality policy, to be 
formulated for the justice system as a whole.

Inspection departments operate in the appellate and regional courts. The task of the judges working in these departments is to perform on behalf of the president of the court 
activities in the scope of supervision over the administrative activity of the courts in the area of the operation of a given appellate or district court. Supervision consists in taking 
actions to improve the office of the courts or increase the efficiency and level of work organization culture in the courts. For this purpose, visits of departments in courts or 
surveys of recognized cases of a given category are carried out, the secretariats of departments in the courts are controlled.

Activities in the scope of administrative supervision can not enter the field in which judges and assessors are independent.

● Systems for measuring and evaluating courts' performance

A regular monitoring system of court activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

In Poland, there is a system to regularly evaluate the court performance based primarily on defined indicators and the reporting is more frequent than annual.

Annual information of the presidents of courts of appeal on the activity of courts operating within the area of appellate courts, containing statistical data from particular appellate 
courts and information on actions taken to ensure the best possible activity of courts within the area of appellate courts, is analyzed every year. The Minister of Justice 
evaluates annual information and either accepts it or refuses to accept it
The analysis of work of courts within the jurisdiction of particular appellate courts is also carried out on the basis of statistical data for the first half of each year. On the basis of 
statistical data collected, the Department of Administrative Supervision performs, according to the needs, an analysis of data concerning judicial units, in particular in the 
context of efficiency of proceedings and the need to undertake appropriate actions by presidents of courts in order to ensure the most efficient work of units subordinate to 
them.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each court.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

The evaluation of the courts' activities is used for the later allocation of means in the courts.

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1170 / 1555

● Systems for measuring and evaluating public prosecution services' performance

A regular monitoring system of public prosecution services activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases 

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs 

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecution) 

Costs of the judicial procedures 

Clearance rate 

Disposition time 

Percentage of convictions and aquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

In Poland, there is a system to evaluate regularly the activity of each public prosecution service and the reporting is more frequent than annual.

Pursuant to Article 30 of the Act on the Public Prosecutor's Office, the National Public Prosecutor, but also regional and circuit public prosecutors within the area of their 
activities, may order a visit to an organisational unit of the public prosecution services in order to control the performance of statutory tasks by this unit within a specified scope. 
Pursuant to § 77 item 1 of the Ordinance of the Minister of Justice - Rules of Procedure of the universal prosecutorial bodies of the public prosecution services, visitation and 
inspection shall be carried out as appropriate, in particular when there are signals of significant irregularities in the activities of a given body. Visitations should be carried out at 
least every 5 years.

An inspection may be carried out to check the correctness of practices in selected sections of the operation or when there is a need to investigate the causes of shortcomings 
in the operation or irregularities in the operation of the given body.

Visitation and inspection includes:
1) the control of the performance of the statutory tasks by the bodies, and in particular the examination of the correctness of the activities undertaken and the level of work;
2) assessing the performance of proffessional duties by prosecutors and administration staff and their professional qualifications and work culture;
3) an assessment of the way in which the body is managed, the organisation of work and the division of tasks.
4) In the course of visitations and inspections, instructions shall be given as necessary to improve the operation of the audited bodies and to help solve current problems.

Conclusions from the visitations and inspections of public prosecutor's offices are considered by the regional prosecutor's office board [kolegium prokuratury regionalnej] 
(Article 49 of the Act on the Public Prosecutor's Office).

Once a month, the head of the organizational unit of the prosecutor's office shall submit to his or her superior prosecutor a report containing the number of incoming cases and 
the number of cases disposed of .

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each public prosecution service.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecutors)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Percentage of convictions and acquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff

The evaluation of the public prosecution services' activities is used for the later allocation of means in the public prosecution services.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1171 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table General Data: Economic and demographic data, in absolute values (Q1, Q3, Q5)

Q1 Number of inhabitants

Q.3 GDP Per capita (in €) in current prices

Q5. Exchange rate of Nat currency to € on 1 Jan

38 533 000

10 126

4

-

-

-

38 496 000

10 538

4

-

-

-

38 433 000

38 433 558

38 412 000

38 411 000

38 244 000

-0,8%

11 370

12 365

12 960

13 289

12 953

27,9%

4

4

4

4

5

12,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

-0,1%

0,0%

-0,4%

8,8%

4,8%

2,5%

-2,5%

-5,6%

3,1%

0,0%

7,3%

Indicator 1: Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and prosecution services  (Indicator 4 in 2019)

Table 1.1 to Table 1.10 (Q66, Q67, Q77, Q78, Q77-1, Q78-1, Q73, Q73-0, Q73-1, Q73-2, Q73-3, Q73-4, Q73-5, Q73-6, Q70, Q70-1, Q71, Q72, Q83-2, Q83-3, Q120 
and Q120-1)

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

66 Qlty standards formulated_jud system

67 Specialised court staff entrusted_qlty standards

77 Performance and quality indicators of court activities

Yes

No

Yes

-

-

-

Yes

No

Yes

-

-

-

078.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078.1.5 Backlogs 

078.1.6 Productivity of judges and court staff

078.1.7 Satisfaction of court staff 

078.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts) 

078.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078.1.10 Number of appeals

078.1.11 Appeal ratio

078.1.12 Clearance rate 

078.1.13 Disposition time 

078.1.14 Other

077-1.1.1 Defined performance and quality indicators

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1172 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

078-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078-1.1.5 Backlogs 

078-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

078-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

078-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

078-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

078-1.1.11 Disposition time 

078-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

078-1.1.13 Other

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

73 Regular system_evaluation_performance_each court

Yes

-

Yes

073-0.1.1 Annual

073-0.1.2 Less frequent

073-0.1.3 More frequent

073-1.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
court

073-2.1.1 Courses of action taken in the evaluation is used for the 
allocation of resources

073-2.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-2.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-2.1.4 Other

073-3.1.1 Regular evaluation of the public prosecution services 
performance

Yes

-

-

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1173 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

073-4.1.1 Annual

073-4.1.2 Less frequent

073-4.1.3 More frequent

073-5.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
public prosecution services

073-6.1.1 Identifying the causes of improved or deteriorated 
performance

073-6.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-6.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-6.1.4 Other

070.1.1 number of incoming cases

070.1.2 length of proceedings (timeframes)

070.1.3 number of resolved cases

070.1.4 number of pending cases

070.1.5 backlogs

070.1.6 productivity of judges and court staff

070.1.7 satisfaction of court staff

070.1.8 satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts)

070.1.9 costs of the judicial procedures

070.1.10 number of appeals

070.1.11 appeal ratio

070.1.12 clearance rate

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

-

-

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1174 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

070-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases 

070-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

070-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

070-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

070-1.1.5 Backlogs 

070-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

070-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

070-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

070-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

070-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

070-1.1.11 Disposition time 

070-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

070-1.1.13 Other

071.1.1 Monitoring backlogs in Civil law cases

071.1.2 Monitoring backlogs in Criminal law cases

071.1.3 Monitoring backlogs in Administrative law cases

072.1.1 Monitoring timeframes Within the courts

072.1.2 Monitoring timeframes Within the public prosecution services

083-2.1.1 Quantitative performance tagets defined for each 
prosecutors

083-3.1.1 Body responsible - Executive power (for example the 
Ministry of Justice)

083-3.1.2 Body responsible - Prosecutor General /State public 
prosecutor

083-3.1.3 Body responsible - Public Prosecutorial Council

083-3.1.4 Body responsible - Head of the organisational unit or 
hierarchically superior public prosecutor

083-3.1.5 Body responsible - Other

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1175 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

120.1.1 Qualitative individual assessment of the public prosecutors' 
work

120-1.1.1 Feequency - Annual

120-1.1.2 Feequency - Less frequent

120-1.1.3 Feequency - More frequent

Q42.1.1Total number of all courts - legal entities 

Q42.1.2 Total number of courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

-

-

Q42.1.3 First instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

287

Q42.1.4 Second instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.5 Highest instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.6 Total number of specialised courts - legal entities

43.1.1 Total number of specialised courts of first instance

43.1.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.1.3 Insolvency courts

43.1.4 Labour courts

43.1.5 Family courts

43.1.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.1.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.1.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.1.9 Internet related disputes

43.1.10 Administrative courts

43.1.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.1.12 Military courts

43.1.13 Juvenile courts

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

26

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

17

NAP

9

-

False

-

-

-

Indicator 2: The judicial organisation

Tables 2.1a; 2.1b; 2.2a; 2.2b; 2.3a; 2.3b; 2.4 and 2.5(EC) (Q42, Q43 and Q44)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

287

-

-

-

26

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

17

NAP

9

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

402

376

-

-

363

363

363

363

364

26,8%

-

-

-

26

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

17

NAP

9

-

-

-

-

25

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

16

-

-

-

25

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

16

-

-

-

25

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

16

11

1

26

-

-

-

23

-11,5%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

16

-5,9%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

9

-

9

-

9

-

7

-22,2%

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-3,8%

0,0%

0,0%

-8,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-5,9%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-22,2%

-

-

-

-

1176 / 1555

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

43.1.14 Other specialised courts

NAP

43.2.1 Total number of specialised courts of higher instances

43.2.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.2.3 Insolvency courts

43.2.4 Labour courts

43.2.5 Family courts

43.2.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.2.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.2.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.2.9 Internet related disputes

43.2.10 Administrative courts

43.2.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.2.12 Military courts

43.2.13 Juvenile courts

43.2.14 Other specialised courts

44.1.1 First instance courts geographic locations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

44.1.2 All courts geographic locations

827

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

2

NAP

NAP

433

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

401

401

401

401

494

-40,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

23,2%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1177 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 3: The performance of courts at all stages of the proceedings

Tables 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.4 (all years) Number of other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 Variation of first instance other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants (Q1, Q91)

Table 3.13.7 (EC) to 3.13.12 (EC) First instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

91.1.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.1.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.1.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.1.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.1.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.1.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.1.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.1.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

91.1.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.1.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

91.1.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

91.2.1 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.2.2 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.2.3 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

1 431 356

382 664

-

718 309

-

204 376

20 595

-

-

21 837

83 575

10 045 154

1 066 935

-

91.2.4 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

4 800 084

91.2.5 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.2.6 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.2.7 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.2.8 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

91.2.9 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

-

3 194 947

610 397

-

-

91.2.10 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

72 160

91.2.11 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

300 631

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 721 758

667 984

910 148

667 530

242 618

203 662

38 956

NA

NA

20 070

115 556

9 991 816

1 226 470

8 395 454

4 408 257

3 987 197

3 245 962

741 235

NA

NA

84 161

285 731

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 579 497

2 390 468

2 324 337

2 414 543

3 763 652

162,9%

713 029

724 720

807 970

912 519

915 899

139,3%

725 695

1 534 191

1 404 323

1 367 290

2 682 304

-

371 152

1 030 834

780 007

657 899

684 051

-4,8%

354 543

503 357

624 316

709 391

1 998 253

-

298 505

388 192

470 502

589 726

1 884 456

822,1%

56 038

115 165

153 814

119 665

113 797

452,5%

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

33 167

30 867

25 726

22 374

23 363

7,0%

107 606

100 690

86 318

112 360

142 086

70,0%

10 778 246

11 628 150

10 983 338

13 677 355

10 556 712

5,1%

1 196 509

1 352 948

1 324 787

1 254 576

946 036

-11,3%

9 256 718

9 952 141

9 272 680

12 062 299

9 291 234

-

4 815 988

5 066 262

4 621 436

4 583 880

3 526 218

-26,5%

4 440 730

4 885 879

4 651 244

7 478 419

5 765 016

-

3 578 837

3 678 725

3 691 685

6 644 391

4 991 059

56,2%

861 893

1 207 154

959 559

834 028

773 957

26,8%

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

76 692

72 426

65 963

70 227

68 475

-5,1%

248 327

250 635

319 908

290 253

250 967

-16,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

51,3%

-2,8%

3,9%

55,9%

1,6%

11,5%

12,9%

0,4%

111,4%

-8,5%

-2,6%

96,2%

177,7%

-24,3%

-15,7%

4,0%

42,0%

24,0%

13,6%

181,7%

30,0%

21,2%

25,3%

219,5%

105,5%

33,6%

-22,2%

-4,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-6,9%

-16,7%

-13,0%

4,4%

-6,4%

-14,3%

30,2%

26,5%

7,9%

-5,5%

24,5%

-22,8%

13,1%

-2,1%

-5,3%

-24,6%

7,5%

-6,8%

30,1%

-23,0%

5,2%

-8,8%

-0,8%

-23,1%

10,0%

-4,8%

60,8%

-22,9%

2,8%

0,4%

80,0%

-24,9%

40,1%

-20,5%

-13,1%

-7,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-5,6%

-8,9%

6,5%

-2,5%

0,9%

27,6%

-9,3%

-13,5%

1178 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

91.3.1 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

10 100 564

91.3.2 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.3.3 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.3.4 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.3.5 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.3.6 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.3.7 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.3.8 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

91.3.9 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

944 559

-

4 944 396

-

3 240 327

603 887

-

-

91.3.10 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

71 865

91.3.11 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

91.4.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.4.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.4.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.4.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.4.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.4.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.4.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.4.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

91.4.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.4.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

91.4.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

295 530

1 375 396

505 040

-

573 450

-

158 992

27 106

-

-

22 132

88 676

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

10 177 708

1 217 579

8 598 250

4 620 175

3 987 075

3 248 343

729 732

NA

NA

81 240

280 639

1 533 930

676 875

707 352

455 612

251 740

201 281

50 459

NA

NA

30 991

118 712

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

10 015 117

11 693 624

10 873 270

12 333 858

11 005 552

9,0%

1 182 200

1 269 714

1 220 249

1 245 830

995 781

5,4%

8 491 429

10 081 986

9 305 584

10 747 291

9 692 030

-

4 156 304

5 317 072

4 743 532

4 557 728

3 639 200

-26,4%

4 335 125

4 764 914

4 562 052

6 189 563

6 052 830

-

3 489 148

3 596 416

3 572 462

5 349 662

5 271 833

62,7%

845 977

1 168 498

989 590

839 901

780 997

29,3%

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

78 992

77 567

69 315

69 238

65 053

-9,5%

262 496

264 357

278 122

271 499

252 688

-14,5%

2 342 626

2 324 994

2 434 405

3 758 040

3 314 812

141,0%

727 338

807 954

912 508

921 265

866 154

71,5%

1 490 984

1 404 346

1 371 419

2 682 298

2 281 508

-

1 030 836

780 024

657 911

684 051

571 069

-0,4%

460 148

624 322

713 508

1 998 247

1 710 439

-

388 194

470 501

589 725

1 884 455

1 603 682

908,7%

71 954

153 821

123 783

113 792

106 757

293,9%

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

30 867

25 726

22 374

23 363

26 785

21,0%

93 437

86 968

128 104

131 114

140 365

58,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

16,8%

-7,0%

13,4%

-10,8%

7,4%

-3,9%

2,1%

-20,1%

18,7%

-7,7%

15,5%

-9,8%

27,9%

-10,8%

-3,9%

-20,2%

9,9%

-4,3%

35,7%

-2,2%

3,1%

-0,7%

49,7%

-1,5%

38,1%

-15,3%

-15,1%

-7,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-1,8%

-10,6%

-0,1%

-6,0%

0,7%

5,2%

-2,4%

-6,9%

-0,8%

4,7%

54,4%

-11,8%

11,1%

12,9%

1,0%

-6,0%

-5,8%

-2,3%

95,6%

-14,9%

-24,3%

-15,7%

4,0%

-16,5%

35,7%

14,3%

180,1%

-14,4%

21,2%

25,3%

219,5%

-14,9%

113,8%

-19,5%

-8,1%

-6,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-16,7%

-13,0%

4,4%

14,6%

-6,9%

47,3%

2,3%

7,1%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1179 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.2 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.4 to 3.3.7 Variation of Clearence Rate and Disposition Time of first instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

Table 3.13.1 (EC) to 3.13.6 (EC) First instance courts: Disposition time and clearance rate for other than criminal cases  (Q91)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

100,6%

88,5%

-

103,0%

-

101,4%

98,9%

-

-

99,6%

98,3%

50

195

-

42

-

18

16

-

-

112

110

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

101,9%

99,3%

102,4%

104,8%

100,0%

100,1%

98,4%

NA

NA

96,5%

98,2%

55

203

30

36

23

23

25

NA

NA

139

154

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

92,9%

100,6%

99,0%

90,2%

104,3%

3,68

98,8%

93,8%

92,1%

99,3%

105,3%

18,90

91,7%

101,3%

100,4%

89,1%

104,3%

-

86,3%

105,0%

102,6%

99,4%

103,2%

0,19

97,6%

97,5%

98,1%

82,8%

105,0%

-

97,5%

97,8%

96,8%

80,5%

105,6%

4,15

98,2%

96,8%

103,1%

100,7%

100,9%

2,00

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

103,0%

107,1%

105,1%

98,6%

95,0%

(4,61)

105,7%

105,5%

86,9%

93,5%

100,7%

2,42

85

225

64

91

39

41

31

NAP

NA

143

130

73

232

51

54

48

48

48

NAP

NAP

121

120

82

273

54

51

57

60

46

NAP

NAP

118

168

111

270

91

55

118

129

49

NAP

NAP

123

176

110

121,2%

317

62,7%

86

57

-

35,3%

103

-

111

520,0%

50

204,5%

NAP

NAP

-

-

150

33,7%

203

85,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

8,23

(1,56)

(8,91)

15,61

(5,02)

(1,85)

7,81

6,00

10,43

(0,94)

(11,22)

17,08

21,61

(2,20)

(3,13)

3,80

(0,10)

0,57

(15,62)

26,86

0,28

(1,01)

(16,80)

31,19

(1,38)

6,54

(2,35)

0,20

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,98

(1,88)

(6,18)

(3,64)

(0,22)

(17,57)

7,59

7,64

-15,0%

12,6%

36,1%

-1,1%

3,4%

17,5%

-1,1%

17,6%

-20,7%

5,8%

69,3%

-5,7%

-40,9%

-5,5%

8,2%

4,6%

23,4%

19,4%

106,4%

-12,5%

17,6%

26,2%

113,4%

-13,6%

54,8%

-5,0%

8,3%

0,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-15,1%

-2,7%

4,5%

22,0%

-7,6%

40,0%

4,8%

15,0%

1180 / 1555

         
         
        
        
       
       
        
        
         
         
       
        
      
       
         
       
        
        
         
        
         
      
       
         
         
        
      
       
         
        
         
        
         
        
         
        
        
        
         
        
      
         
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

101.1.1 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Litigious divorce case

101.1.2 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Employment dismissal case

101.1.3 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Insolvency

101.2.1 Incoming cases_Litigious divorce case

101.2.2 Incoming cases_Employment dismissal case

101.2.3 Incoming cases_Insolvency

101.3.1 Resolved cases_Litigious divorce case

101.3.2 Resolved cases_Employment dismissal case

101.3.3 Resolved cases_Insolvency

101.4.1 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Litigious divorce case

101.4.2 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Employment dismissal case

101.4.3 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Insolvency

CR Litigious divorce cases

CR Employment dismissal cases

CR Insolvency cases

DT Litigious divorce cases

DT Employment dismissal cases

DT Insolvency cases

Table 3.4.1 (all years) First instance courts, number of cases for specific case categories (Q101)

42 786

11 102

794

90 933

22 070

4 589

89 217

20 924

4 390

44 750

12 249

993

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

47 162

7 201

1 166

89 791

9 727

4 469

88 752

11 024

4 546

48 539

5 904

1 089

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

46 315

47 334

49 485

53 202

53 276

24,5%

5 607

3 167

5 087

4 124

4 090

4 177

-62,4%

3 563

4 660

5 549

6 610

732,5%

89 135

88 361

89 156

85 975

76 369

-16,0%

8 266

6 082

5 479

5 595

6 968

-68,4%

11 797

14 468

16 309

19 596

24 105

425,3%

88 303

86 405

85 568

86 108

71 595

-19,8%

8 786

7 045

5 513

5 508

5 523

-73,6%

11 401

13 371

15 420

18 535

23 857

443,4%

47 334

49 290

53 202

53 275

58 173

30,0%

5 087

3 563

4 124

4 090

4 177

5 622

-54,1%

4 660

5 549

6 610

6 858

590,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Table 3.5.1 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for specific case categories (Q101)

Table 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 Variations of CR and DT for specific case categories of first instance cases (Q101)

98,1%

94,8%

95,7%

183

214

83

-

-

-

-

-

-

98,8%

113,3%

101,7%

200

195

87

-

-

-

-

-

-

99,1%

97,8%

96,0%

100,2%

93,7%

(4,45)

106,3%

115,8%

100,6%

98,4%

79,3%

(16,40)

96,6%

92,4%

94,5%

94,6%

99,0%

3,46

196

211

114

208

214

127

227

271

131

226

277

130

297

62,0%

372

73,9%

105

27,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,2%

4,5%

7,5%

0,1%

-9,3%

-18,9%

-0,8%

2,1%

12,5%

30,8%

19,1%

19,1%

-0,9%

0,9%

-3,6%

-11,2%

-26,4%

-9,9%

2,1%

24,5%

22,6%

12,7%

20,2%

23,0%

-2,1%

-1,0%

0,6%

-16,9%

-19,8%

-21,7%

-0,1%

0,3%

17,3%

15,3%

20,2%

28,7%

4,1%

7,9%

0,1%

9,2%

-18,9%

-0,8%

2,1%

34,6%

30,8%

19,1%

19,1%

3,8%

(1,29)

(1,85)

4,35

(6,40)

8,98

(13,13)

(2,16)

(19,49)

(4,37)

2,31

0,04

4,64

6,4%

9,0%

-0,5%

31,3%

1,1%

26,7%

2,2%

34,2%

11,5%

3,3%

-0,9%

-19,4%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1181 / 1555

        
        
        
         
        
      
         
      
        
      
         
        
         
         
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.7.1 to 3.7.5 (2019 and 2020) Second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Table 3.9.1 to 3.9.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.1.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.1.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.1.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.1.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.1.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.1.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.1.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.1.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

97.1.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.1.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

97.1.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases 

97.2.1 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.2.2 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.2.3 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.2.4 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.2.5 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.2.6 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.2.7 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.2.8 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

97.2.9 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.2.10 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

97.2.11 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases 

75 994

29 063

5 834

5 725

109

NAP

109

NAP

NAP

19 271

21 826

226 525

139 285

22 231

21 773

458

NAP

458

NAP

NAP

17 787

47 222

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

86 082

94 082

97 689

103 913

131 029

34 276

39 761

44 823

51 551

66 719

6 675

6 502

173

NAP

173

NAP

NAP

8 065

8 034

5 537

11 660

7 845

7 884

5 369

11 453

220

NAP

220

NAP

NAP

150

NAP

150

NAP

NAP

168

NAP

168

NAP

NAP

207

NAP

207

NAP

NAP

25 867

27 824

26 406

27 649

28 125

19 264

18 432

18 426

19 176

24 564

234 349

231 855

227 220

240 192

180 990

144 116

142 391

141 045

155 341

112 330

24 234

26 234

24 637

23 774

18 360

23 610

25 708

24 213

23 378

18 031

624

NAP

624

NAP

NAP

526

NAP

526

NAP

NAP

424

NAP

424

NAP

NAP

396

NAP

396

NAP

NAP

329

NAP

329

NAP

NAP

18 945

17 746

20 296

16 844

14 375

47 054

45 484

41 242

44 233

36 019

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9,3%

3,8%

6,4%

26,1%

16,0%

12,7%

15,0%

29,4%

20,8%

-0,4%

-31,1%

110,6%

20,7%

0,5%

-31,9%

113,3%

27,2%

-31,8%

12,0%

23,2%

-

-

-

-

27,2%

-31,8%

12,0%

23,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7,6%

-5,1%

4,7%

1,7%

-4,3%

0,0%

4,1%

28,1%

-1,1%

-2,0%

5,7%

-24,6%

-1,2%

-0,9%

10,1%

-27,7%

8,3%

-6,1%

-3,5%

-22,8%

8,9%

-5,8%

-3,4%

-22,9%

-15,7%

-19,4%

-6,6%

-16,9%

-

-

-

-

-15,7%

-19,4%

-6,6%

-16,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-6,3%

14,4%

-17,0%

-14,7%

-3,3%

-9,3%

7,3%

-18,6%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1182 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.3.1 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.3.2 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.3.3 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.3.4 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.3.5 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.3.6 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.3.7 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.3.8 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

97.3.9 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.3.10 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

97.3.11 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases 

97.4.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.4.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.4.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.4.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.4.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.4.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.4.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.4.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

97.4.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.4.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

97.4.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases

97.5.1 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.5.2 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.5.10 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

222 883

135 027

21 713

21 258

455

NAP

455

NAP

NAP

14 994

51 149

79 151

32 865

6 323

6 211

112

NAP

112

NAP

NAP

22 064

17 899

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

226 459

228 056

218 219

217 234

183 669

138 444

137 410

135 132

139 755

118 181

23 300

25 964

23 698

22 220

19 187

22 723

25 368

23 292

21 863

18 867

577

NAP

577

NAP

NAP

596

NAP

596

NAP

NAP

406

NAP

406

NAP

NAP

357

NAP

357

NAP

NAP

320

NAP

320

NAP

NAP

16 829

19 192

18 897

16 407

15 786

47 886

45 490

40 492

38 852

30 584

93 972

97 881

106 690

126 871

128 350

39 948

44 742

50 736

67 137

60 868

7 609

7 389

220

NAP

220

NAP

NAP

8 335

8 973

7 091

10 833

8 185

8 805

6 884

10 617

150

NAP

150

NAP

NAP

168

NAP

168

NAP

NAP

207

NAP

207

NAP

NAP

216

NAP

216

NAP

NAP

27 983

26 378

27 805

28 086

26 714

18 432

18 426

19 176

24 557

29 999

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

6 843

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,7%

-4,3%

-0,5%

-15,5%

-0,7%

-1,7%

3,4%

-15,4%

11,4%

-8,7%

-6,2%

-13,6%

11,6%

-8,2%

-6,1%

-13,7%

3,3%

-31,9%

-12,1%

-10,4%

-

-

-

-

3,3%

-31,9%

-12,1%

-10,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

14,0%

-1,5%

-13,2%

-3,8%

-5,0%

-11,0%

-4,1%

-21,3%

4,2%

9,0%

18,9%

1,2%

12,0%

13,4%

32,3%

-9,3%

9,5%

7,7%

-21,0%

52,8%

10,8%

7,6%

-21,8%

54,2%

-31,8%

12,0%

23,2%

4,3%

-

-

-

-

-31,8%

12,0%

23,2%

4,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-5,7%

5,4%

1,0%

-4,9%

0,0%

4,1%

28,1%

22,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1183 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 (2019 and 2020): Second instance clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.9.4 and 3.9.5 (2019 and 2020): Variation of second clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

98,4%

96,9%

97,7%

97,6%

99,3%

NAP

99,3%

NAP

NAP

84,3%

108,3%

130

89

106

107

90

NAP

90

NAP

NAP

537

128

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

96,6%

98,4%

96,0%

90,4%

101,5%

96,1%

96,5%

95,8%

90,0%

105,2%

96,1%

99,0%

96,2%

93,5%

104,5%

96,2%

98,7%

96,2%

93,5%

104,6%

92,5%

113,3%

95,8%

90,2%

97,3%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

92,5%

113,3%

95,8%

90,2%

97,3%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

88,8%

108,1%

93,1%

97,4%

109,8%

101,8%

100,0%

98,2%

87,8%

84,9%

151

105

119

119

139

NAP

139

NAP

NAP

607

140

157

119

117

118

92

NAP

92

NAP

NAP

502

148

178

137

138

138

151

NAP

151

NAP

NAP

537

173

213

175

116

115

212

NAP

212

NAP

NAP

625

231

255

188

206

205

246

NAP

246

NAP

NAP

618

358

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,79

(2,36)

(5,83)

12,20

0,46

(0,72)

(6,10)

16,94

2,94

(2,81)

(2,83)

11,81

2,53

(2,51)

(2,78)

11,89

22,54

(15,49)

(5,85)

7,89

-

-

-

-

22,54

(15,49)

(5,85)

7,89

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

21,75

(13,91)

4,62

12,74

(1,72)

(1,83)

(10,54)

(3,33)

3,4%

13,9%

19,5%

19,7%

12,8%

15,3%

27,9%

7,2%

-1,7%

17,9%

-15,7%

76,9%

-0,8%

17,2%

-16,7%

78,7%

-34,0%

64,4%

40,1%

16,4%

-

-

-

-

-34,0%

64,4%

40,1%

16,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-17,3%

7,1%

16,3%

-1,1%

5,2%

16,9%

33,5%

55,2%

1184 / 1555

         
        
        
       
         
        
        
       
         
        
        
       
         
        
        
       
       
      
        
         
       
      
        
         
       
      
         
       
        
        
      
        
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.10.1 to 3.10.5 (2019 and 2020) Supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Table 3.12.1 to 3.12.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of the supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.1.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.1.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.1.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.1.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.1.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.1.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.1.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.1.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

99.1.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.1.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

99.1.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.2.1 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.2.2 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.2.3 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.2.4 High inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.2.5 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.2.6 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.2.7 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.2.8 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

99.2.9 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.2.10 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

99.2.11 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

NA

3 565

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

8 410

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

30 527

32 161

30 034

NA

NA

4 660

4 294

3 655

4 596

4 757

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

25 867

27 867

26 379

NAP

NAP

NAP

27 302

25 585

27 869

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

332

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

254

NA

8 357

7 780

7 640

7 585

5 895

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

18 945

17 805

20 229

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 163

7 008

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5,4%

-6,6%

-

-

-7,9%

-14,9%

25,7%

3,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7,7%

-5,3%

-

-

-6,3%

8,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-23,5%

-

-6,9%

-1,8%

-0,7%

-22,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-6,0%

13,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

502,6%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1185 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.3.1 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.3.2 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.3.3 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.3.4 High inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.3.5 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.3.6 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.3.7 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.3.8 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

99.3.9 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.3.10 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

99.3.11 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.4.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.4.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.4.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.4.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.4.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.4.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.4.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.4.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry 
cases

99.4.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.4.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative 
law cases

99.4.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.5.1 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.5.2 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.5.10 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

7 926

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

4 052

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

25 552

27 611

25 596

NA

NA

8 723

8 419

6 699

7 424

7 456

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

16 829

19 192

18 897

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 236

7 105

32 277

30 135

32 307

NA

NA

4 294

3 655

4 596

4 757

3 196

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

27 983

26 480

27 711

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

259

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

157

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

8,1%

-7,3%

-

-

-3,5%

-20,4%

10,8%

0,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

14,0%

-1,5%

-

-

-6,6%

7,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

474,8%

-

-14,9%

25,7%

3,5%

-32,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-5,4%

4,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-39,4%

-

-

-

1186 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 Supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.12.4 and 3.12.5 Variation of the supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

94,2%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

187

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

93,6%

107,9%

91,8%

NA

NA

104,4%

108,2%

87,7%

97,9%

126,5%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

88,8%

107,8%

93,4%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

106,3%

101,4%

461

180

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

607

NAP

398

158

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

504

NAP

461

250

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

535

NAP

NA

234

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

76

NA

156

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

8

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

15,31

(14,90)

-

-

3,67

(18,97)

11,63

29,22

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

21,34

(13,34)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(4,60)

-13,6%

15,6%

-

-

-11,8%

58,0%

-6,6%

-33,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-17,0%

6,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-89,5%

1187 / 1555

       
      
         
      
       
       
       
      
        
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.14.1 to 3.14.5 First instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

094.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

094.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

094.2.1 Total -incoming

094.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

094.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

094.2.4 Other - incoming

094.3.1 Total - resolved

094.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

094.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

094.3.4 Other - resolved

094.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

094.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

094.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

094.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

374 052

173 746

78 511

121 795

1 862 695

351 326

330 848

1 180 521

1 826 322

333 815

322 399

1 170 108

410 425

191 257

86 960

132 208

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1188 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.15.1 to 3.10.2 CR and DT for first instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

098.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

098.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

098.2.1 Total -incoming

098.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

098.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

098.2.4 Other - incoming

098.3.1 Total - resolved

098.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

098.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

098.3.4 Other - resolved

Table 3.16.1 to 3.16.5 Second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

98,0%

95,0%

97,4%

99,1%

82

209

98

41

26 664

13 996

1 141

11 527

172 048

40 360

4 354

127 334

170 278

39 928

4 317

126 033

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1189 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

098.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

098.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

098.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

098.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

28 434

14 428

1 178

12 828

NA

NA

NA

NA

Table 3.17.1 to 3.17.2 CR and DT for second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

99,0%

98,9%

99,2%

99,0%

61

132

100

37

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1190 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.18.1 to 3.18.5 Supreme court criminal law cases (Q100)

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

100.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

100.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

100.2.1 Total -incoming

100.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

100.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

100.2.4 Other - incoming

100.3.1 Total - resolved

100.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

100.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

100.3.4 Other - resolved

100.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

100.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

100.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

100.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

1 819

NA

NA

NA

3 226

NA

NA

NA

3 570

NA

NA

NA

1 475

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1191 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.19.1 to 3.19.2 CR and DT for supreme court  criminal law cases (Q100)

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

110,7%

NA

NA

NA

151

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1192 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 5: Access to justice

Legal aid

Table 5.1 to Table 5.6 (Q12-2, Q16, Q18, Q19, Q20, Q20-1)

12-2.1.1 Coverage of court fees

12-2.1.2 Exemption from court fees

16.1.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (criminal cases)

16.1.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (criminal cases)

16.2.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (other than criminal 
cases)

16.2.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (other than criminal cases)

Yes

No

Yes

No

-

-

-

-

Yes

No

Yes

No

-

-

-

-

18.1.1 Legal aid for the enforcement of judicial decisions

19.1.1  Legal aid granted for other costs - criminal cases

19.1.2  Legal aid granted for other costs - other than criminal cases

020.1.1 Total

020.1.2 Total - criminal cases

020.1.3 Total - other than criminal cases

020.2.1 Total brought to court

020.2.2 Broight to court - criminal cases

020.2.3 Brought to court - other then criminal

020.3.1 Total not brought to court

020.3.2 Not broight to court - criminal cases

020.3.3 Not brought to court - other then criminal

020-1.1.1 Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulation

020-1.1.2 Average duration

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

31 661

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1193 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

System for compensating users

Table 5.7.1 and Table 5.7.2 (Q37)

037.1.1 Requests for compensation - Total

037.1.2 Requests for compensation - Excessive length of 
proceedings

037.1.3 Requests for compensation - Non-execution of court 
decisions

037.1.4 Requests for compensation - Wrongful arrest

037.1.5 Requests for compensation - Wrongful conviction

037.1.6 Requests for compensation - Other

037.2.1 Condemnations - Total

037.2.2 Condemnations - Excessive length of proceedings

037.2.3 Condemnations - Non-execution of court decisions

037.2.4 Condemnations - Wrongful arrest

037.2.5 Condemnations - Wrongful conviction

037.2.6 Condemnations - Other

037.3.1 Amount - Total

037.3.2 Amount - Excessive length of proceedings

037.3.3 Amount - Non-execution of court decisions

037.3.4 Amount - Wrongful arrest

037.3.5 Amount - Wrongful conviction

037.3.6 Amount - Other

NA

15 852

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1 706

NA

229

19

NA

NA

1 007 710 €

NA

3 217 799 €

629 105 €

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1194 / 1555

    
    
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 6.1 to Table 6.11 (Q62-7, Q62-7-1, Q62-8,  Q62-8-1, Q63-1, Q63-1-1, Q63-2 Q63-6, Q63-7, Q63-7-1, Q64-2,  Q64-4, Q64-6, Q64-3, Q64-3-1, Q64-7, Q64-7-1, 
Q64-9)

62-7 Writing assistance tools coordinated at national level

False

True

True

Indicator 6: The ICT tools of courts and for court users

62-7-1.1 Deployment rate in civil matter

62-7-1.2 Deployment rate in criminal matter

62-7-1.3 Deployment rate in administrative matter

62-8 Voice recording tools

62-8-1.1.1 Availability of simple dictation tools in civil matter

62-8-1.1.2 Availability of simple dictation tools in criminal matter

62-8-1.1.3 Availability of simple dictation tools in administrative 
matter

62-8-1.2.1 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in civil 
matter

62-8-1.2.2 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in criminal 
matter

62-8-1.2.3 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in 
administrative matter

62-8-1.3.1 Availability of voice recognition in civil matter

62-8-1.3.2 Availability of voice recognition in criminal matter

62-8-1.3.3 Availability of voice recognition in administrative matter

062-9 Availability of intranet site within the judicial system for 
distribution of news/novelties

63.1 Is there a case management system? 

63.1-1.1 CMS for civil matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for criminal matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for administrative matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.2 CMS for civil matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for criminal matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for administrative matter (status of case onlinee)

10-49%

50-99%

NA

NA

50-99%

NA

True

True

True

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

NA

NA

not available 
for this matter

in most of the 
courts
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases

in all courts

in all courts

in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases

in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases

NA

No

No

No

NA

in all courts

Yes

No

NA

Yes

Yes

No

-

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

NA

100%

100%

-

-

-

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Accessible to 
parties

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Accessible to 
parties

Not accessible 
at all

Both

Both

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1195 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63.1-1.3 CMS for civil matter (Centralised or interoperable database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for criminal matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for administrative matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.4 CMS for civil matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for criminal matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for administrative matter (Early warning signals)

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS civil matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS criminal matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS administrative matter

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - land registry

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - business registry

63-2.2 Data consolidated at national level for land registry

63-2.2  Data consolidated at national level for business registry

63-2.3 Service available online for land registry

63-2.3  Service available online for business registry

63-2.4 Statistical module integrated or connected for land registry

63-2.4  Statistical module integrated or connected for business 
registry

063-6.1.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (deployment 
rate)

063-6.1.2 Justice expenses management (deployment rate)

063-6.1.3 Other financial management tools (deployment rate)

063-6.2.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (Data 
consolidated at national level)

063-6.2.2 Justice expenses management (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.2.3 Other financial management tools (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.3.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (System 
communicating with other ministries)

063-6.3.2 Justice expenses management (System communicating 
with other ministries)

063-6.3.3 Other financial management tools (System communicating 
with other ministries)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

NA

True

True

False

False

NA

True

True

NA

True

False

False

False

NA

NA

True

True

NA

True

True

NA

1196 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63-7.1 Measurement tools to assess the workload

63-7-1.1.1 Deployment rate - workload of judges

63-7-1.1.2 Deployment rate - workload of prosecutors

63-7-1.1.3 Deployment rate - workload of non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.2.1 Monitoring on national level - judges

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - prosecutors

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.3.1 Monitoring on court level - judges

63-7-1.3.2 Monitoring on court level - prosecutors

63-7-1.3.3 Monitoring on court level - non-judge and non-prosecutor 
staff

064-2 - Possibility to submit a case to courts by electronic means

064-2 - Civil and/or commercial

064-2 - Criminal

064-2 - Administrative

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - civil

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - criminal

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory  - administrative

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - civil

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - criminal

064-2 - Specific legislative framework  - administrative

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - civil

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - criminal

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - administrative

True

True

True

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

100%

100%

100%

100%

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

10-49%

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

NA

NA

NA

False

True

True

True

True

1-9%

1-9%

10-49%

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

100%

100%

100%

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

False

False

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1197 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-3 - Is it possible to request for granting legal aid by electronic 
means? 

064-3-1.1 - Equipment rate

064-3-1.2 - Request in paper mandatory

064-3-1.3 - Specific legislative framework

064-3-1.4 - Granting LA is also electronic

064-3-1.5 - Information available in CMS

064-4 - Possibility to transmit summons to a judicial meeting or a 
hearing by electronic means

064-4-1.1.1 - Summons produced by CMS- civil

064-4-1.1.2 - Summons produced by CMS- criminal

064-4-1.1.3 - Summons produced by CMS- administrative

064-4-1.2.1 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- civil

064-4-1.2.2 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- criminal

064-4-1.2.3 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- administrative

064-4-1.3.1 - Consent of the user - civil

064-4-1.3.2 - Consent of the user - criminal

064-4-1.3.3 - Consent of the user - administrative

064-6.1.1 - Civil and/or commercial (deployment rate)

064-6.1.2 - Criminal (deployment rate)

064-6.1.3 - Administrative (deployment rate)

False

True

True

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

NA

NA

NA

NA

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

10-49%

10-49%

10-49%

NA

NA

NA

100%

100%

100%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1198 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-6.2.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.2 - Criminal (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.3 - Administrative (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.3.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Modalities)

064-6.3.2 - Criminal (Modalities)

064-6.3.3 - Administrative (Modalities)

064-6.4.1 - Civil and/or commercial (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.2 - Criminal (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.3 - Administrative (specific legal framework)

064-6.5.1 - Civil and/or commercial (availability for)

064-6.5.2 - Criminal (availability for)

064-6.5.3 - Administrative (availability for)

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 

phases    

phases    

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling  

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer

Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1199 / 1555

      
      
      
    
    
    
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-7.1.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (deployment rate)

064-7.1.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.2.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (Modalities)

064-7.2.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.3.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (specific legal framework)

064-7.32.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-7.3.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts (specific 
legal framework)

064-7.3.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-9 - Existance of online processing devices of specialised 
litigation

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

-

10-49%

10-49%

10-49%

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1200 / 1555

    
    
    
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Indicator 7: Professionals of justice  (Indicator 9 in 2019)

Table 7.1.1 to 7.5.6 for judges, non judge staff, prosecutors, non prosecutor staff and salaries

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

46.1.1 Total Number of professional judges

46.1.2 Number of 1st inst professional judges

46.1.3 Number of 2nd inst professional judges

46.1.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges

46.2.1 Number of professional judges_males

46.2.2 Number of 1st instance professional judges_males

46.2.3 Number of 2nd instance professional judges_males

46.2.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges_males

46.3.1  Number of professional judges_females

46.3.2  Number of 1st inst professional judges_females

46.3.3  Number of 2nd inst professional judges_females

46.3.4  Number of Supreme court professional judges_females

046-2.1.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Total

046-2.2.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Civil and commercial

046-2.2.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.3.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Criminal

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

10 114

9 441

497

86

3 701

3 371

221

NA

6 413

6 070

276

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

10 096

9 516

494

86

NA

3 451

229

NA

NA

6 065

265

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9 980

10 047

9 776

9 736

9 650

-4,6%

9 422

9 508

9 240

9 194

9 034

-4,3%

475

83

NA

458

81

3 677

426

110

NA

443

99

417

-16,1%

199

131,4%

3 673

3 702

0,0%

3 400

3 466

3 411

3 386

3 390

0,6%

221

NA

NA

211

NA

6 289

196

NA

NA

209

78

197

-10,9%

115

-

6 063

5 948

-7,3%

6 022

6 042

5 829

5 808

5 644

-7,0%

254

NA

247

NA

230

NA

234

21

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

220

-20,3%

84

NA

NA

NA

199

NA

NA

NA

25

NA

NA

NA

28

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,7%

-2,7%

-0,4%

-0,9%

0,9%

-2,8%

-0,5%

-1,7%

-3,6%

-7,0%

4,0%

-5,9%

-2,4%

35,8%

-10,0%

101,0%

-

-

-

0,8%

1,9%

-1,6%

-0,7%

0,1%

-4,5%

-7,1%

6,6%

-5,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

47,4%

-1,9%

0,3%

-3,5%

-0,4%

-2,8%

-2,8%

-6,9%

1,7%

-6,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

300,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1201 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

046-2.4.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - 
Administrative

046-2.4.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.5.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Other

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 52.1.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in courts 

40 844

52.1.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)

52.1.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges

52.1.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks

52.1.5 Number of Technical staff

52.1.6 Number of Other non judge staff

52.2.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(men)

52.2.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(men)

52.2.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(men)

52.2.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(men)

52.2.5 Number of Technical staff(men)

52.2.6 Number of Other non judge staff(men)

52.3.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(women)

52.3.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(women)

52.3.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(women)

52.3.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(women)

52.3.5 Number of Technical staff(women)

52.3.6 Number of Other non judge staff(women)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1 810

23 110

7 239

3 487

5 198

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

41 534

1 847

23 428

7 324

3 741

5 194

NA

537

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1 310

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

556

454

NA

102

NA

NA

NA

44

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

43 176

46 807

40 662

41 927

41 973

2,8%

2 138

1 941

2 201

2 618

2 669

47,5%

24 231

27 607

22 398

22 972

23 711

2,6%

7 687

3 261

5 859

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

8 226

7 663

8 077

7 801

7,8%

3 243

2 739

2 654

2 346

-32,7%

5 790

5 661

5 606

5 446

4,8%

NA

561

NA

NA

6 424

6 611

6 545

651

737

765

1 866

1 886

2 048

1 825

1 929

1 803

1 008

891

881

777

1 200

1 191

1 178

1 152

NA

34 238

35 316

35 428

1 380

1 550

1 881

1 904

NA

NA

20 532

21 086

21 663

5 838

6 148

5 998

2 235

1 848

1 773

1 569

4 590

4 470

4 428

4 294

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

8,4%

-13,1%

3,1%

0,1%

-9,2%

13,4%

18,9%

1,9%

13,9%

-18,9%

2,6%

3,2%

7,0%

-6,8%

5,4%

-3,4%

-0,6%

-15,5%

-3,1%

-11,6%

-1,2%

-2,2%

-1,0%

-2,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,9%

-1,0%

16,0%

13,2%

3,8%

-

-

1,1%

8,6%

5,7%

-6,5%

-11,6%

-1,1%

-11,8%

-0,8%

-1,1%

-2,2%

-

3,1%

0,3%

12,3%

21,4%

1,2%

-

-

2,7%

2,7%

5,3%

-2,4%

-17,3%

-4,1%

-11,5%

-2,6%

-0,9%

-3,0%

1202 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

052-1.1.1 Non-judge staff (Total)

052-1.1.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (total)

052-1.1.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (total)

052-1.1.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (total)

052-1.2.1 Non-judge staff  (Males)

052-1.2.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (males)

052-1.2.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (males)

052-1.2.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (males)

052-1.3.1 Non-judge staff  (females)

052-1.3.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (females)

052-1.3.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (females)

052-1.3.4 Non-judge staff  at supreme court (females)

055.1.1 Prosecutors (total)

055.1.2 Prosecutors (1st inst.)

055.1.3 Prosecutors (2nd inst.)

055.1.4 Prosecutors (Highest instance)

055.2.1 Prosecutors - Males -total

055.2.2 Prosecutors - Males, 1st inst.

055.2.3 Prosecutors - Males, 2nd inst.

055.2.4 Prosecutors - Males, Supreme courts

055.3.1 Prosecutors - Females, Total

055.3.2 Prosecutors - Females, 1st inst.

055.3.3 Prosecutors - Females, 2nd inst.

055.3.4 Prosecutors - Females, Supreme courts

41 973

NA

NA

663

6 545

NA

NA

219

35 428

NA

NA

444

5 843

3 759

1 605

88

2 787

1 608

878

61

3 056

2 151

727

27

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1203 / 1555

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

060.1.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Total

060.2.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Males

060.3.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Females

004 Annual average salary in the country

132.1.1 Gross annual salary, in €  - Professional judge at the 
beginning of career

132.1.2 Gross annual salary, in €  - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.1.3 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor at the beginning 
of career

132.1.4 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

132.2.1 Net annual salary, in € - Professional judge at the beginning 
of career

132.2.2 Net annual salary, in € - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.2.3 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor at the beginning of 
career

132.2.4 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

133.1.1.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Reduced taxation

133.1.2.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Special pension

133.1.3.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Housing

133.1.4.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Other financial benefit

133.2.1.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Reduced taxation

133.2.2.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Special pension

133.2.3.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Housing

133.2.4.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Other financial benefit

9 073

1 826

7 247

13 437 €

25 796 €

71 941 €

25 796 €

71 941 €

21 312 €

52 540 €

21 312 €

52 540 €

False

True

False

True

False

True

False

True

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1204 / 1555

         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

144.1.1 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - Total number (1+2+3+4)

144.1.2 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 1. Breach of professional 
ethics 

144.1.3 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.1.4 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 3. Criminal offence 

144.1.5 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 4. Other

144.2.1 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - Total number 
(1+2+3+4)

144.2.2 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 1. Breach of 
professional ethics 

144.2.3 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.2.4 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 3. Criminal offence

144.2.5 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 4. Other 

145.1.1 Sanctions against Judges - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.1.2 Sanctions against Judges - 1. Reprimand

145.1.3 Sanctions against Judges - 2. Suspension

145.1.4 Sanctions against Judges - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.1.5 Sanctions against Judges - 4. Fine

145.1.6 Sanctions against Judges - 5. Temporary reduction of salary

145.1.7 Sanctions against Judges - 6. Position downgrade

145.1.8 Sanctions against Judges - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.1.9 Sanctions against Judges - 8. Resignation

145.1.10 Sanctions against  Judges - 9. Other

145.1.11 Sanctions against  Judges - 10. Dismissal

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

27

11

14

2

0

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

22

5

NAP

NAP

0

3

NAP

0

NAP

14

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1205 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

145.2.1 Sanctions against Prosecutors - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.2.2 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 1. Reprimand

145.2.3 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 2. Suspension

145.2.4 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.2.5 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 4. Fine

145.2.6 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 5. Temporary reduction of 
salary

145.2.7 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 6. Position downgrade

145.2.8 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.2.9 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 8. Resignation

145.2.10 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 9. Other

145.2.11 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 10. Dismissal

31

2

18

NAP

0

11

NAP

0

NAP

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lawyers

Tables 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.7 and 7.8

146.1.1 Total number of lawyers practising

43 974

146.2.1 Practicing lawyers - man

146.3.1 Practicing lawyers - woman

-

-

147 Does this figure include “legal advisors” who cannot represent 
their clients in court (for example, some solicitors or in-house 
counsellors)? 

-

-

-

52 760

-

-

No

-

-

-

-

48 315

51 227

53 081

55 178

57 365

30,5%

-

-

-

-

26 635

27 593

28 259

26 446

27 585

28 510

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6,0%

3,6%

4,0%

4,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,6%

2,4%

4,3%

3,4%

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1206 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Poland (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

166 Number of accredited or registered mediators who practice 
judicial mediation: 

NA

-

NA

-

NA

NA

NA

4 120

4 100

Indicator 8: The existence and use of alternative dispute resolution methods

Table 8.1 8.2 and 8.3

167.1.1 Total number started

20 856

24 115

26 272

27 463

167. 1.2 Civil and commercial cases(cid:9) - started

12 986

13 403

13 297

12 518

167. 1.2 Family cases - started

167.1.4 Administrative cases - started

167.1.5 Labour cases including employment dismissal cases - started

167.1.6. Criminal cases - started

167.1.7 Consumer cases - started

5 151

7 720

6 933

7 869

8

1 536

1 175

-

1

6

1

1 869

2 178

2 746

1 122

3 858

4 329

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-0,5%

15,6%

8,9%

4,5%

3,2%

-0,8%

-5,9%

49,9%

-10,2%

13,5%

-87,5%

500,0%

-83,3%

21,7%

16,5%

26,1%

-4,5%

243,9%

12,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Key: Variation of more than (+ -) 20% 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1207 / 1555

Judiciary at a glance in Portugal

General data

Population:

10 295 909

GDP per capita: 19 638 €

Average annual 

salary:

18 044 €

Professionals

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Portugal

Portugal

EU Median

EU Median

Professional judges

Professional judges

19,42

23,92

19,42

23,92

Non-judge staff

56,13

59,00

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

13,75

56,13

59,00

9,91

16,09

15,22

13,75

9,91

16,09

15,22

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual 
salary in the country

Portugal
Portugal

EU Median

EU Median

Judge at the beginning of a career 

2,66

5,84

2,02

5,84

4,09

Judge of the highest court 5,84

4,09

2,66

2,66

2,02
Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 
1,71
1,71

2,66

3,61

Public prosecutor at highest instance

5,84

3,61

Lawyers

Lawyers

321,63

122,09

122,09

321,63

Judge at the
beginning of a career

Judge of the highest
court

Prosecutor at the
beginning of a career

Public prosecutor at
highest instance

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

Efficiency

1st instance

2nd instance

1st instance 2nd instance

Supreme Court
Supreme 
Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance 2nd instance Supreme Court

100%

,

,

%
6
Civil and
7
%
0
8
1
commercial
Administrativ
7
9
e
cases
Total 
criminal law 
cases

%
2
9
8

,

,

%
1
6
2
1

,

%
5
0
2
1

97,8%
%
4
2
9

,

126,1%

,

%
3
1
0
1

107,6%
%
5
3
9

,

92,4%

%
89,2%
2
8
9

,

120,5%

93,5%

101,3%

98,2%

1
1

1

1
1

Civil and commercial litigious cases
280
Administrative cases 847

291

Total criminal law cases280

877

99
877

142

126
99

280

847

126
291

67

67
142

280

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

Administrative
cases

Total criminal law
cases

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

Information and communication technology

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

Assistance toolsCase management system
2018

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the workload
2019

Electronic communication

EU Median 2020

2020

2018
2019
2020

2,33
2,33
2,00

6,17

6,17
6,67
6,17
6,17

6,67

2,00
2,00
1,50

5,17

4,50
3,00
3,33

7,78
7,78
8,22

EU Median 2020

2,00

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

2,33

2,33

2,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

1,50

1,25

4,50

3,33

3,00

2,50

7,78

7,78

8,22

6,94

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

*ICT calculations are described in more details in Annex 5 - IT Calculation methodology

1208

2020

Synthesis table for the main indicators for:

Portugal

Economic and demographic data

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Variations

Population

GDP per capita

Exchange rate (local currency needed to 
obtain 1€)

10 487 289

10 427 301

10 374 822

10 341 440

10 309 573

10 291 027

10 276 617

10 295 909

10 295 909

-1,8%

-0,6%

-0,3%

-0,1%

15 607

15 890

16 637

17 317

17 905

18 744

19 614

20 660

19 638

25,8%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

7,6%

NAP

3,1%

9,5%

NAP

4,3%

0,2%

5,3%

0,0%

-4,9%

4,6%

NAP NAP

NAP

2,7%

4,7%

Average annual salary

15 383

15 588

16 079

16 766

17 226

18 044

17,3%

Resources

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Professional judges per 100 000 inhab.

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhab.

19,2

58,3

19,4

57,6

19,2

54,9

19,2

56,1

19,3

54,8

20,0

56,3

19,3

56,6

19,4

56,6

19,4

56,1

1,4%

0,4%

-3,7%

-0,2%

Lawyers per 100 000 inh.

270,2

275,9

282,8

263,8

295,6

304,4

315,0

322,5

321,6

19,0%

4,5%

Mediators

2,4

2,4

1,9

2,1

5,0

6,0

NA

8,1

NA

7,8

NA

7,6

NA

163,9%

0,0%

3,3%

6,6%

NA

-3,8%

0,6%

3,5%

NA

0,8%

0,0%

2,4%

NA

0,0%

-0,9%

-0,3%

NA

-4,4%

-2,6%

ICT overall assesment

First instance incoming cases per 100 
inhab.

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Civil and commercial litigious cases

3,520

3,095

Administrative law cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

3,056

2,996

2,923

2,888

3,139

2,473

-29,8%

0,337

0,253

0,244

0,237

0,265

0,201

NA

NA

NA

-3,6%

-1,2%

8,7%

-21,2%

-6,1%

-2,7%

11,9%

-24,2%

Total criminal law cases

0,616

First instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

98%

103%

CR administrative law cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

116%

112%

113%

109%

105%

98%

80%

112%

105%

111%

106%

126%

0,11

NA

NA

NA

-3,12

-0,55

-3,87

5,97

-4,18

-4,81

-7,18

19,95

CR total criminal law cases

93%

First instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
cases (days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

First instance pending cases per 100 
inhab. on 31 dec.

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

 Supreme court 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Supreme court
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

369

NA

386

NA

NA

NA

315

989

289

911

250

988

229

928

200

846

-24,1%

NA

NA

NA

-20,6%

-8,2%

-12,5%

39,7%

1,8%

-6,1%

-8,8%

0,2%

280

847

280

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

3,47

NA

3,37

NA

NA

NA

3,07

0,73

2,66

0,70

2,26

0,69

1,98

0,67

1,81

0,65

-46,6%

NA

NA

NA

-25,6%

-12,5%

-4,9%

-3,5%

-8,5%

-2,4%

2,5%

-9,8%

1,85

0,59

0,44

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

NA

NA

95%

107%

97%

88%

99%

76%

102%

102%

108%

74%

90%

92%

NA

NA

4,72

-13,51

2,72

-2,17

0,02

15,80

5,82

2,56

101%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

NA

NA

106

573

114

714

111

842

107

1 016

104

849

99

877

142

NA

NA

-5,9%

-3,7%

-3,4%

-4,8%

42,4%

20,7%

-16,5%

3,4%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NA

NA

100%

89%

99%

96%

104%

98%

104%

100%

95%

88%

89%

120%

98%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

NA

NA

-0,92

3,37

-5,60

-4,66

-3,58

-12,10

-5,55

32,75

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

NA

NA

58

299

58

322

44

272

49

364

70

431

126

291

67

NA

NA

-15,4%

11,4%

41,1%

80,8%

13,1%

33,8%

18,6%

-32,6%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1209 / 1555

1. Judicial organisation in Portugal

Under the Portuguese Constitution, there are two set of courts: judicial courts, which have general jurisdiction in civil/commercial and criminal matters and encompass 
specialised courts, and administrative and tax courts, whose role is to settle disputes arising out of administrative and tax relations. These latter are specialised in this 
domain only. The ordinary justice administration in Portugal is organised on a three-level structure which includes: 145 first instance courts of general jurisdiction, 5 courts 
of appeal and the Supreme Court of Justice. The administrative justice which is autonomous, i.e. independent from the civil justice, is organised on a three-level structure 
which includes: 17 Administrative and Tax courts (first instance), the Central Administrative Court and the Supreme Administrative Court. 

Distribution of general courts in Portugal

Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Portugal - 1st instance
Portugal - Higher instances

EU Median - 1st instance

EU Median - Higher instances

PortugalDistribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Portugal - 1st instancePortugal - Higher instances

General courts - Portugal

96%

According to 2020 data, the distribution between 1st instance and higher instances courts of 
general jurisdiction in Portugal is 96% - 4% that is different from EU median of 87% - 13% 
that is the EU calculated tendency.

4%

General courts - Portugal
EU Median

96%
87%

4%
13%

EU Median

87%

13%

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Portugal

Geographic 
locations

Legal entities

General jurisdiction

Specialised 
jurisdiction

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Portugal

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

318

319

253

253

253

312

312

316

328

231

231

292

292

292

150

150

145

145

102

102

248

248

245

411

411

435

436

500

400

300

200

100

0

Geographic locations

Legal entities General jurisdiction

Legal entities Specialised jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

As regards geographic locations, the recent amendments to the Law of the Organisation of the Judiciary System (Law n.º 19/2019, 19th February) are intended to ensure 
the reciprocal proximity of justice and citizens in two key segments: criminal jurisdiction and family and minors jurisdiction. These new amendments aim to facilitate people's 
access to courts and combat the desertification of the interior regions of the country. The difference in the number of geographic locations between 2019 and 2020 is 
justified by the increase in new buildings. 

As regards legal entities, the decrease of the total number of first instance courts of general jurisdiction is accompanied by an increase of certain types of first instance 
courts. First instance administrative and tax courts have been included in the total (418 judicial courts + 17 administrative/tax courts). First instance courts of general 
jurisdiction are Courts of general jurisdiction and proximity divisions. Second instance courts of general jurisdiction are 2nd Instance Courts (Tribunal Relação de Lisboa, 
Coimbra, Porto, Évora e Guimarães). Highest instance courts of general jurisdiction is the Supreme Justice Court.

The differences registered in 2018 resulted from the changes to the judicial organisation (Law n. 40-A/2016, 22 December) in force since January 1, 2017.  In January 
2017, changes to the judicial organization were put in place and the number of 1st instance courts with general jurisdiction decreased due to the increase of specialised 
courts.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1210 / 1555

Distribution of first instance general jurisdiction and specialised courts

Portugal

Ratio general jurisdiction vs specialised

Portugal

General jurisdiction Specialised courts

25%

25%

75%

75%

25%

75%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

EU Median

25%

75%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

The distribution between number of general jurisdiction courts and specialised courts of 25,0% - 75,0% is quite different from the EU median 
(distribution tendency in EU: 75,5% - 24,5%).

Specialised courts
Total

Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

Insolvency courts

Labour courts

Family courts

Rent and tenancies courts

Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

Internet related disputes

Administrative courts

Insurance and / or social welfare courts

Military courts

Juvenile courts

Other specialised 1st instance courts

First instance

Higher instance

436

23

NAP

45

52

NAP

5

NAP

1

17

NAP

NAP

NAP

293

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

As regards specialised courts, the number provided for 2020 includes 17 first instance courts and 3 higher instance courts of administrative jurisdiction. Administrative 
courts are part of another jurisdiction and under our law cannot be considered specialized courts.

«Commercial courts»: deal with, inter alia, winding up of the company, insolvency and suspension and revocation of company resolutions.

«Internet related disputes»: only for Internet domain system (DNS) issues, which are under the jurisdiction of the Intelectual Property Court; for all other Internet related 
issues, general jurisdiction courts are competent. It should be noted that internet related disputes were not included in the number of specialised courts for previous cycles.

“Other specialised courts”: includes all other courts that are not listed in the categories above. This category includes Civil Central Judicial Divisions, Criminal Central 
Judicial Divisions, Civil Local Proximity Judicial Divisions, Criminal Local Proximity Judicial Divisions, Petty Criminality Local; Proximity Judicial Divisions, Criminal 
Examination Judicial Divisions, Enforcement Judicial Divisions, Central Criminal Examination Court, Competition Court and Maritime Court.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1211 / 1555

2. Professionals of justice in Portugal

● Professional judges and non-judge staff

Evolution of the number of professional judges since 2012 (Q46)

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Absolute 
number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

2 009

2 025

1 990

1 990

1 986

2 059

1 979

1 999

1 999

19,16

19,42

19,18

19,24

19,26

20,01

19,26

19,42

19,42

EU median

23,9

Professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants

19,16

19,42

19,18

19,24

19,26

20,01

19,26

19,42

19,42

23,9

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

According to 2020 data, the total number of professional judges sitting in courts (all instances) in Portugal is 1 999, which is 0,0% equal than in previous cycle.

More precisely, in Portugal, there are 19,42 professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants (this figure is below the EU median of 23,92 judges per 100 000 inhabitants) and about 2,89 non-
judge staff per judge.

There is no significant difference compared with previous cycle when this ratio was at 2,92 non-judge staff per judge.

It should be noticed that for all of the last four exercises, the total includes judges from courts of 1st, 2nd and 3rd instances, except the Constitutional Court.

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and gender

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

1 447

472

80

1 999

Distribution by 
instance

72,4%

23,6%

4,0%

Male

Female

% Male

% Female

459

246

54

759

988

226

26

1 240

31,7%

52,1%

67,5%

38,0%

68,3%

47,9%

32,5%

62,0%

Distribution of professional judges by instance

Portugal

EU Median

72,4%

72,39%

EU Median

72,39%

23,98%

4,03%

23,6%

23,98%

4,0%

4,03%

Distribution of professional judges by gender and by instance

% Female

68,3%

31,7%

47,9%

52,1%

32,5%

67,5%

% Male

62,0%

38,0%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female professional judges (all instances) is 1 240, which represents 62,0% of the total number of judges.

The total number of judges is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 1 447 are sitting in first instance courts (of which 988 are female); 472 are sitting in 
second instance courts (of which 226 are female)  and 80 are sitting in Supreme Court (of which 26 are female).  

As regards the distribution male/female, it has to be specified that the higher the instance, the lower the percentage of women. In the highest instance female judges are only one third. 
However, with time, female judges, that are the majority of judges, are getting to the top of their professional career.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1212 / 1555

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Total

Civil and commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

1 447

472

80

1 999

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

179

65

24

268

1 268

407

56

1 731

In Portugal, the distribution of judges per categories of cases is possible as presented in the graph below. 

Distribution of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Civil and 
commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

12,4%

13,8%

30,0%

13,4%

87,6%

86,2%

70,0%

86,6%

Distribution of the total number of professional judges by matter

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

0

NAP

NAP
13,4% Administrative

13%

86,6% Other
87%

0%

As regards the distribution of the number of judges among the different judicial instances, Portugal presents some peculiarities which should be mentioned. Namely, as there are judges 
who have civil and criminal competences at the same time, it is not possible to distinguish judges by civil and commercial matters. Therefore, all judges of the judicial courts were included 
in the column “other”.

Non-judge staff

Year

2012

Number of non-judge staff

6 110

Per 100 000 inhabitants

58,26

2013

6 005

57,59

2014

5 698

54,92

2015

5 799

56,08

2016

5 652

54,82

2017

5 789

56,25

2018

5 818

56,61

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants

58,26

57,59

54,92

56,08

54,82

56,25

56,61

56,61

56,13

59,00

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

2020

Total

Rechtspfleger

Non-judge staff assisting the judge

Staff in charge of administrative tasks

Technical staff

Other

2019

5 829

56,61

Absolute 
number

5 779

NAP

5 357

104

317

1

E
U 
m

2020

5 779

56,13

in %

NAP

92,7%

1,8%

5,5%

0,0%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1213 / 1555

In 2020, Portugal has 5 779 non-judge staff (of which 3 852 are females). The total number of non-judge staff in comparison with the previous cycle reveals a decrease of -0,9%.

In this cycle, the non-judge staff is broken down as follows:

◦ 5 357 non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges such as registrars (of which 3 577 are women);
◦ 104 staff in charge of different administrative tasks and of the court management (of which 44 are women);
◦ 317 technical staff (of which 231 are women);
◦ 1 other (of which 0 are women);

In 2020, the number of non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants has decreased (from 56,6 in 2019 to 56,1 in 2020).

During the same period, the number of judges per 100 000 inhabitants evolves from 19,4 judges per 100 000 inhabitants in 2019 to 19,4 in 2020.

Professional judges, non-judge staff and their ratio (Q46, Q52)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Portugal

EU median

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

19,42

56,13

Non-judge staff per judge

2,89

23,92

59,00

3,30

Professional judges and non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

56,13

2,89

Non-judge staff per judge

19,42

59,00

3,30

23,92

Portugal

EU median

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff  (Q46, Q52)

Judges 
per 100 000 inh.

Non-judge staff per
100 000 inh.

Ratio between professional judges and 
non-judge staff

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff 
Non-judge staff per 100 000 inh.
(Q46, Q52)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

19,16

19,42

19,18

19,24

19,26

20,01

19,26

19,42

19,42

58,26

57,59

54,92

56,08

54,82

56,25

56,61

56,61

56,13

EU median 2020

3,30

3,04

2,97

2,86

2,91

2,85

2,81

2,94

2,92

2,89

3,04

2,97

2,86

2012

2013

2014

3,04
2,97
2,86
2,91
2,85
2,81
2,94
2,92
2,89

2,91

2,85

2,81

2,94

2,92

2,89

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1214 / 1555

● Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff

Absolute number of public prosecutors by instance and gender (Q55)

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

1 325

75

16

1 416

Distribution by 
instance

Male

Female

93,6%

5,3%

1,1%

440

52

5

497

885

23

11

919

Male

33,2%

69,3%

31,3%

35,1%

Female

66,8%

30,7%

68,8%

64,9%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance

93,6%

Portugal

EU Median

EU Median

73,30%

73,30%

21,28%

4,66%
5,3%

21,28%

1,1%

4,66%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance and gender

Female

Male

66,8%

33,2%

30,7%

69,3%

68,8%

31,3%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

64,9%

35,1%

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female prosecutors (all instances) is 919, which represents 64,9% of the total number of prosecutors.

The total number of prosecutors is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 1 325 in first instance (of which 885 are female); 75 are in second instance (of 
which 23 are female)  and 16 in final instance (of which 11 are female).  

As regards the methodology of presentation of data in respect of the number of prosecutors, it should be noticed that the communicated data encompasses the number of magistrates of 
the Public Prosecution Service in courts of first instance, second instance and high superior courts, except the Constitutional Court.

Non-prosecutor staff by gender (Q60)

Non-prosecutor staff

2020

Total

1 657

Male

574

Female

1 083

Non-prosecutor staff by gender

35%

Male

Female

65%

Public prosecutors, non-prosecutor staff and their ratio (Q55, Q60)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Portugal

EU median

Public prosecutors

13,75

Non-prosecutor staff

16,09

Non-prosecutor staff per 
prosecutor

1,17

9,91

15,22

1,11

Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Public prosecutors

13,75

16,09

15,22

Non-prosecutor staff

1,17

9,91

1,11

Non-prosecutor staff per prosecutor

Portugal

EU median

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1215 / 1555

● Salaries of professional judges and prosecutors at beginning of a career and at the highest instance (Q132, Q4)

Salaries of professional judges and 
prosecutors (Q132, Q4)

Average gross annual 
salary 
in €

Average net annual 
salary 
in €

Ratio with national 
average annual 
gross salary

Judge at the beginning of a career 

48 055 €

Judge of the highest court 

105 345 €

Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

48 055 €

Public prosecutor at highest instance

105 345 €

NA

NA

NA

NA

2,66

5,84

2,66

5,84

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual salary in the 
country

EU Median

5,84

2,02

2,66

4,09

1,71

2,02

Salaries of 
judges and 
prosecutors in 
Judge

4,09

5,84

at the beginning 
of a career

2,66

at the highest 
instance
1,71

Prosecutor

at the beginning 
of a career

48055

3,61

105345

48055

Judge at the beginning of
career

Judge on highest instance

3,61

Portugal

Prosecutor at the
beginning of career

EU Median

at the highest 
instance

Prosecutor at highest
instance

105345

According to 2020 data, the absolute gross salary of a judge at the begining of a career in Portugal of 48 055€ is around the EU median when compared to the EU median of 51 946€. As 
a ratio with the annual average salary of the country, the salary for a judge at the begining of career is: 2,66 compared with EU median of : 2,02.

It should be noted that the net annual salary depends on various factors: personal tax situation; other personal revenues. It would not be accurate to provide a number under this category. 

The increase of salaries resulted from the revision of the statute of judges and prosecutors. It is noteworthy that the Source of data is the Directorate-General for the Administration of 
Justice and the High Council for the Judiciary.

● Lawyers

Lawyers

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

Number of lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

28 341

28 765

29 337

27 277

30 475

31 326

32 368

33 204

33 115

270,24

275,86

282,77

263,76

295,60

304,40

314,97

322,50

321,63

EU median 2020

122,09

In 2020, there are 33 115 lawyers, which is -0,3% less than in 2019.

270,24

275,86

282,77

263,76

295,60

304,40

314,97

322,50

321,63

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

122,09

EU median
2020

Portugal has 321,6 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants, which is above the EU median of 122,1 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1216 / 1555

● Judicial professionals (summary)

Judicial professionals in absolute number and per 100 000 inhabitants (Q46, Q52, Q55, Q60, Q146)

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

EU Median

Professional judges

1 999

19,42

Non-judge staff

5 779

56,13

Prosecutors

1 416

13,75

23,92

59,00

9,91

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Portugal

EU Median

321,63

122,09

Non-prosecutor staff

1 657

16,09

15,22

56,13

59,00

Lawyers

33 115

321,63

122,09

19,42

23,92

13,75

9,91

16,09

15,22

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

Portugal % Male Portugal % Femalelabels

Professional judges

-38,0%

62,0%

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

38,0%

% Male

% Female

Portugal % Male

-39,0%
EU Median  % Male

61,0%

Portugal % Female

EU Median  % Female

39,0%

Professional judges

38,0%

62,0%

Non judge staff

33,3%

66,7%

Prosecutors

35,1%

64,9%

Professional judges

38,0%

0,0%

Non judge staff

39,0%

-33,3%

66,7%

33,3%

62,0%

61,0%

Non judge staff

33,3%

-24,0%

76,0%

24,0%

66,7%

Non-prosecutor staff

34,6%

65,4%

24,0%

76,0%

Lawyers

45,0%

55,0%

Prosecutors

Prosecutors

35,1%

40,5%

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

34,6%

Lawyers

28,1%

-35,1%
-40,5%

-34,6%
-28,1%

-45,0%
-52,3%

64,9%
59,5%

65,4%
71,9%

55,0%
47,7%

Lawyers

45,0%

52,3%

0,0%

35,1%
40,5%
0,0%
34,6%
28,1%
0,0%
45,0%
52,3%

64,9%

59,5%

65,4%

71,9%

55,0%

47,7%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1217 / 1555

3. Legal aid and court fees in Portugal

In Portugal, legal aid includes:

◦ Coverage of court fees: 

◦ Exemption from court fees: 

1

1

It should be stressed that in Portugal, legal aid includes: 
- Total or partial exemption from court fees and other charges relating to the proceedings;
- Deferment of payment of court fees and other charges relating to the proceedings;
- Appointment and payment of the legal representative’s fees, or alternatively, payment of fees to the legal representative chosen by the applicant.

In Portugal, legal aid is available for :

> Representation in court:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

> Legal advice, ADR and other legal services:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

>

Fees related to enforcement of judicial decisions as fees for enforcement agents (Q18) 

>

 Other costs than above (Q19) 

1

1

1

1

1

1

The Portuguese law foresees the total or partial exemption from court fees and other expenses related to the case, such as fees for the enforcement of judicial decisions.

Legal aid may also include fees of technical advisors or experts, costs of other legal professionals (notaries) and travel costs. In addition, all applications, certificates and any 
other documents requested for legal protection purposes are exempt from taxes, fees and charges.

 Number of cases for which legal aid has been granted

Absolute number 
(in 2020)

Total

Cases brought to court

Cases not brought to 
court

Total

115 349

113 642

1 707

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Per 100 000 inhabitants
 (in 2020)

Portugal

EU Median

Total

1 120,3

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

NA

NA

734,2

330,9

402,7

98,5%

1,5%

NA

NA

NA

NA

Number of cases for which legal has been granted per 100 000 
inhabitants

Portugal

1 120,3

EU Median

734,2

Total

It should be pointed out that the reduction in the number of total legal aid cases may be the result of the measures taken during the COVID pandemic: on the one hand, the 
suspension of court deadlines and the expiry and prescription periods, and on the other hand, the reduction of conflicts as a result of the confinements. In any case, it should be 
emphasized that this is merely a perception, since there are no tools to perform a sociological analysis of the requests.

Timeframes of the procedure for granting legal aid (in relation to the duration from the initial legal aid request to the final approval of the legal aid request)

◦ Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulations: 

◦ Actual average duration: 

30

100

In Portugal, the maximum duration of the procedure for granting legal aid is 30 days (article 25 (1) of Law No. 34/2009, of 29 of July). Regarding the actual average duration, it 
should be noted that in the context of the COVID-19 Pandemic, procedural deadlines were suspended, which has influenced the duration of the procedural timeframes.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1218 / 1555

● Efficiency indicators

◦ Clearance Rate (CR) and Disposition Time (DT)

4. Performance of courts in Portugal

The Clearance Rate shows the capacity of a judicial system to deal with the incoming cases. A Clearance Rate of 100% and higher does not generate backlog. 

The Disposition Time determines the estimated number of days necessary for a pending case to be solved in a court. 

First instance Total of other than criminal cases

Total number on "other than criminal cases" is not available because the new regime for the enforcement action in Portugal foreseen by the new Code of civil 
Procedure that entered into force in 2013 is not implemented. 

It is noteworthy that before 2015, data concerning the total of “other than criminal law cases” did not include administrative law cases. Since 2015, administrative law 
cases are included in the total which explains the significant increase of cases.

First instance Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of civil and commercial litigious cases per 100 inhabitants

2
5
3

,

4
4
3

,

7
4
3

,

7
3
3

,

9
1
3

,

9
0
3

,

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

6
3
3

,

0
0
3

,

6
6
2

,

0
3
3

,

2
9
2

,

6
2
2

,

0
3
3

,

4
1
3

,

5
1
3

,

9
8
2

,

8
9
1

,

6
5
3

,

6
0
3

,

7
0
3

,

A
N

A
N

A
N

3,52
3,09
NA
3,06
3,00
2,92
2,89
3,14
2,47
1,56

1
8
1

,

7
4
2

,

2
4
2

,

5
8
1

,

3,44
3,19
NA
3,56
3,36
3,30
3,15
3,30
2,42
1,50

6
5
1

,

3,47
3,37
NA
3,07
2,66
2,26
1,98
1,81
1,85
1,05

0
5
1

,

5
0
1

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU Median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Portugal (2,47 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly above EU median (1,56 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Portugal (2,42 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly above EU median (1,50 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Portugal (1,85 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly above EU median (1,05 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

97,7%

103,2%

NA

116,3%

112,3%

113,0%

109,2%

105,0%

97,8%

369

386

NA

315

289

250

229

200

280

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97,7%

103,2%

DT (days)

CR (%)

116,3%

112,3%

113,0%

109,2%

105,0%

97,8%

98%

369

386

NA

315

289

250

229

200

280

221

EU Median
With a Clearance Rate calculated at 97,8% in 2020, Portugal seems to face some difficulties to deal with its civil and commercial litigious cases.

98%

221

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU Median

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -7,2 points.

In 2020, the civil and commercial litigious cases are solved in approximately 280 days, which is somewhat above EU median of 221 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 39,7% increase of the Disposition Time.

In Portugal, there are 33 923 civil and commercial litigious cases older than 2 years. This is 17,8% of the total number of pending cases at the end of the year

“Civil (and commercial) litigious cases”, includes the case-flow of civil justice, labour justice and juvenile justice. It does not include civil and labour enforcement cases

The decrease in the number of Civil (and commercial) litigious cases reflects the effects of the Covid 19 pandemic and the consequent lockdown, that had an impact 
on the functioning of the courts, considering that in certain periods face-to-face services have been interrupted or conditioned.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1219 / 1555

First instance Administrative cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of administrative cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

3
7
0

,

0
7
0

,

9
6
0

,

7
6
0

,

5
6
0

,

4
3
0

,

7
2
0

,

8
2
0

,

5
2
0

,

4
2
0

,

6
2
0

,

6
2
0

,

4
2
0

,

7
2
0

,

8
2
0

,

NA
NA
NA
0,34
0,25
0,24
0,24
0,27
0,20
0,30

0
2
0

,

9
5
0

,

5
2
0

,

NA
NA
NA
0,27
0,28
0,26
0,26
0,28
0,25
0,26

0
3
0

,

6
2
0

,

NA
NA
NA
0,73
0,70
0,69
0,67
0,65
0,59
0,21

1
2
0

,

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU Median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Portugal (0,20 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below EU median (0,30 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Portugal (0,25 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below EU median (0,26 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Portugal (0,59 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (0,21 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Administrative cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NA

NA

NA

79,8%

111,5%

105,0%

111,0%

106,2%

126,1%

NA

NA

NA

989

911

988

928

846

847

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Administrative cases

DT (days)

CR (%)

111,5%

105,0%

111,0%

106,2%

126,1%

100%

79,8%

EU Median
With a Clearance Rate calculated at 126,1% in 2020, Portugal seems to be well able to deal with its administrative cases.

100%

388

2015

2016

2017

2018

989

911

988

928

846

2019

847

2020

388

EU Median

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased for 20,0 points.

In 2020, the administrative cases are solved in approximately 847 days, which is well above EU median of 388 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 0,2% increase of the Disposition Time.

The number of administrative law cases older than 2 years is not available.

“Administrative law cases” includes administrative and tax cases. In respect of tax cases, the following information has been communucated: Pending cases on 1 
January: 44 542, Incoming cases: 44 329, Resolved cases: 48 704, Pending cases on 31 December : 40 167. 

In fact, in 2020 there were 68 467 incoming administrative cases and 73 880 resolved cases. However, of these totals, only 20 731 incoming cases and 26 144 
resolved cases corresponded to real movements of the beginning and end of cases. The remaining 47 736 cases refer to cases that were internally transferred 
between units, namely due to the establishment of specialised courts in September 2020 (which are not independent legal entities), or that were subject to changes in 
the subject matter. Considering that in 2020 the number of cases transferred between organizational units was very high in the first instance administrative and tax 
courts, for this cycle only the numbers of cases opened and closed are indicated, without including transferred cases. In previous editions, the figures included 
transferred cases, which could impair the comparative reading.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1220 / 1555

Insolvency cases

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Insolvency cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Insolvency cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

96,1%

100,0%

NA

105,1%

106,0%

102,1%

102,5%

101,2%

99,2%

80

79

NA

71

61

58

53

47

59

EU Median

105%

281

96,1%

100,0%

105,1%

106,0%

102,1%

102,5%

101,2%

99,2%

105%

DT (days)

CR (%)

80

2012

79

2013

NA

2014

71

2015

61

2016

58

2017

53

2018

47

2019

59

281

2020

EU Median

The Clearance Rate was calculated at 99,2% in 2020 for insolvency cases, Portugal seems to face some difficulties to deal with its insolvency cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -2,0 points.

In 2020, insolvency cases are solved in a approximately 59 days, which is significantly below the EU median of 281 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 26,1% increase of the Disposition Time.

Since 2007, statistical data concerning pending cases in 1st instance judicial courts are collected through the courts information systems. Being dynamic systems, 
allowing regular corrections and up-dating, the data collection may lead to oscillation data from previous years resulting in variations in pending cases.

The number of pending insolvency cases as of January 1, 2020 has decreased compared to the number of cases pending as of January 1, 2018, as the number of cases 
completed in 2018 and 2019 was relatively higher than the number of cases entered in those years.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1221 / 1555

● First instance Criminal Law Cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

41 395

Severe criminal cases 

38 178

Misdemeanour and/or 
minor cases

Other cases

1 654

1 563

63 435

51 701

4 416

7 318

59 309

48 078

3 952

7 279

45 521

41 801

2 118

1 602

Incoming cases

Portugal

EU Median

2
6
0

,

8
5
0

,

4
4
0

,

Total criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases Resolved casesPending 
Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

0,62

0,58

0,44

0
6
1

,

1,60

8
4
1

,

1,48

0,46

6
4
0

,

Per 100 inhabitants

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 
Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

0,40

0,37

0,02

0,02

0,62

0,50

0,04

0,07

0,58

0,47

0,04

0,07

0,44

0,41

0,02

0,02

Portugal

EU Median

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, and other 
criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases

Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

0,62

0,58

0,44

0,50

0,47

0,41

Total

Severe criminal
cases

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

Other cases

0,04
0,04
0,02

0,07
0,07

0,02

The number of total incoming criminal cases in 2020 in Portugal (0,62 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (1,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total resolved criminal cases in 2020 in Portugal (0,58 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (1,48 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total pending criminal cases at the end of 2020 in Portugal (0,44 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below EU median (0,46 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT)

Total criminal law cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

DT (days)

CR (%)

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 

Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

93,5%

93,0%

89,5%

99,5%

280

317

196

80

Total Criminal law cases

95,2%

93,5%

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, 
and other criminal law cases 

93,0%

89,5%

99,5%

EU Median

95,2%

139

EU Median

280

Total

139

EU Median

317

196

Severe criminal
cases

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

80

Other cases

With the Clearance Rate calculated at 93,5% in 2020 for total criminal cases, Portugal seems to encounter difficulties in dealing with its total criminal cases.

In 2020, criminal law cases were solved in approximately 280 days, which is well above EU median of 139 days.

Total criminal law cases: the number of resolved cases between 2018 and 2020 is justified by the decrease in court activity in the year 2020 due to the Covid-19 
pandemic situation.

Misdemeanour and / or minor criminal cases: the decrease in the number of incoming and resolved cases between 2018 and 2020 is justified by the decrease in court 
activity in the year 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic situation. Still, the number of cases pending on January 1, 2020 reduced compared to the number of cases 
pending on January 1, 2018, since the number of cases completed from 2018 to 2019 was relatively higher than the number of cases entered in those years. It is 
noteworthy that misdemeanour cases are never brought to high instance courts.

Other criminal cases: the increase in the number of pending cases older than 2 years in 2020 compared to 2018 may be related to reduced court activity in the year 2020 
due to the Covid-19 pandemic situation. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1222 / 1555

Overall efficiency by instance and by case matter

CR (%)

DT (days)

CR (%)

DT (days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases

97,8%

107,6%

89,2%

Administrative cases

126,1%

92,4%

120,5%

Total criminal law cases

93,5%

101,3%

98,2%

280

847

280

99

877

142

126

291

67

1st instance

1st instance

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)
2nd instance
%
1
6
2
1

2nd instance
%
5
0
2
1

,

,

,

,

Supreme Court
Supreme Court

%
3
1
0
1

%
2
8
9

,

89,2%

97,8%

%
2
9
8

,

126,1%

%
4
2
9

,

%
107,6%
5
3
9

,

92,4%

120,5%

%
6
7
0
1

%
8
7
9

,

100%

Civil and
commercial
Administrative
cases

Total criminal law cases

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1

1

1

126
99
280

291

877

847

67
142
280

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

Administrative
cases

Total criminal law
cases

1
1
Concerning the first instance and the Supreme Court, the Clearance rate is above the 100% threshold only in respect of administrative cases. As regard second instance, 
the Clearance rate is balow the 100% threshold only for administrative cases. 

101,3%

98,2%

93,5%

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

As to the Disposition Time indicator, in civil cases, the Portuguese value is above the EU median only for first instance (the EU median being 221 days). As regards 
administrative cases, this indicator is beyond the EU median at all instances. In criminal law cases, the Portuguese value is below the EU median only with regard to last 
instance (the EU median being 120 days). As a matter of fact, at second instance level in Portugal, the length of administrative proceedings is quite longer compared to 
the length of civil and criminal proceedings which Disposition Time indicators are respectively 99 days (the European median being of 177 days) and 142 days (the 
European median being of 101 days).

As regards administrative cases: the increase in the number of cases completed between 2018 and 2019 may be justified by the increase in the number of judicial 
magistrates working in these courts. Even so, despite this increase in cases completed, there was an increase in the number of cases pending on January 1, 2020 
compared to the number of cases pending on January 1, 2018, considering that the number of cases completed from 2018 to 2019 was still relatively lower than the 
number of cases entered in those years.

As regard second instance criminal cases, when courts handle appeal cases, it is not possible to separate appeals that had in their origin a criminal case or a 
misdemeanor case.

In respect of the Supreme Court of Justice, it should be noted that there was an increase in the number of cases pending from 2018 to 2020, considering that the number 
of cases that ended from 2018 to 2020 was relatively lower than the number of cases brought in those years. The rise in the number of pending cases in the year 2020 is 
also partly explained by the decrease in court activity in the year 2020 due to the Covid-19 pandemic situation.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1223 / 1555

5. Public prosecution services in Portugal

● Role and powers of the public prosecutor

In the criminal procedure, the public prosecutor in Portugal has the following 10 out of 11 possible roles and powers:

To conduct or supervise police investigation

To appeal

To conduct investigations

To supervise the enforcement procedure

When necessary, to request investigation measures from the judge

To discontinue a case without needing a decision by a judge

To charge

To present the case in the court

To propose a sentence to the judge

To end the case by imposing or negotiating a penalty or measure 
without requiring a judicial decision

Other significant powers

The Public Prosecution Service is the organ responsible for the penal action, intervening in all procedural stages in compliance with the principle of lawfulness. It is of its 
competence to receive denunciations/complaints/penal notifications and decide on their follow up; to lead the stage of inquest; to deduce accusation and to support it in trial; to 
present appeals; to promote the enforcement of the applied sentences. 

As to the possibility to close a case without a judicial decision, the management of the inquest is of its sole responsibility (the intervention of the judge, at this stage, is exceptional 
and is limited to certain actions concerning the rights, freedoms and guaranties of citizens). The case should be filed in the presence of enough proof that the crime was not 
committed nor the defendant has committed it, that the procedure is legally admissible (namely due to the prescription of the penal procedure), or in the cases where it was not 
possible to obtain enough evidence that the crime occurred or of who committed it. However, the decision to file is liable of being verified judicially whenever the defendant or the 
assistant request the opening of the stage of finding of facts (optional), which falls under the jurisdiction of the judge.

As for the impossibility of the Public Prosecution to close the case, without a court decision, due to the imposition of a penal measure, once the investigation has ended and once 
enough evidence has been collected as to the fact that a crime has been committed and as to who was the perpetrator, there are alternative mechanisms to the deduction of the 
accusation. Namely, the Public Prosecution Service may decide on the temporary suspension of the case (conditioned to the fulfillment by the defendant of several payment 
orders) but this always depends on the agreement of the defendant, of the assistant (in case there is one) and of the judge. 

The category "other significant powers" encompasses arrests of suspects in situations of flagrante crime and conduct of house and office searches.

The public prosecutor also has a role in civil, administrative and insolvency cases.

In general, it is particularly incumbent on the Public Prosecution Service (PPS): 
(i) to represent the State, the Autonomous Regions and the local authorities (at their request), minors, adults with incapacity/accompanied adults (persons under “guardianship”/ 
accompanying measures) and those whose whereabouts are unknown;
(ii) to defend the collective and diffuse interests in the cases falling within the law (such as public health, environment and cultural heritage);
(iii) to uphold the independence of the courts within its powers and to insure that the jurisdictional duties are carried out pursuant to the Constitution and the laws applying thereto; 
(iv) to promote the enforcement of court decisions within its powers.

Its intervention is subordinated to the defense of the public interest, whether it acts in representation or based on its powers and own initiative. 

In the civil area, the PPS intervenes actively in domains such as: proceedings regarding diffuse interests; claims and/or enforcement proceedings concerning civil non-contractual 
liability issues deriving from unlawful or lawful acts; proceedings in case of estate in abeyance; proceedings regarding the legality of statutes of non-profit legal persons; 
proceedings for nullity of horizontal property incorporation deeds; debt recovery proceedings.
In the area of family and children, the PPS intervenes in cases where the maternity and/or paternity of the minor is not established, being responsible for instructing unofficial 
investigation proceedings, proposing judicial actions and monitoring them in court.
In the field of civil measures, PPS proposes, on behalf of minors, actions to regulate the exercise of parental responsibilities, to amend regulations already established, in addition 
to deducting incidents of non-compliance in cases of non-compliance with the provisions regarding residence, maintenance or contacts/visits, among others. It also has an 
important role on adoption procedures. 
The current system for the protection of children and young people in danger gives the PPS the power to monitor and supervise the activities of protection commissions, assess 
the legality and adequacy of their decisions and promote adequate judicial procedures. 
In terms of educational protection, when a minor aged between 12 and 16 years practices a fact qualified by law as a crime, it is the responsibility of the PPS to initiate the 
investigation phase and direct it and, in the end, the case if justified, request the opening of the jurisdictional phase.

In insolvency proceedings, the PPS represents the State and the workers (regardless of their socioeconomic status and nationality and as an alternative to a lawyer). In the labour 
area, in addition to the representation of workers, it is also the responsibility of the PPS to control the legality of the constitution and statutes of trade union and employer 
associations and workers' committees.

With regard to administrative cases, the PPS represents the State in cases where property and non-property interests are at stake (e.g public health, environment, town and 
territorial planning).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1224 / 1555

● Public prosecutors: Number of first instance criminal cases

Type of cases

Absolute 
number

Per 100 
inhabitants

1. Pending cases on 1 Jan. ref. year 

217 314

2,11

2. Incoming/received cases

434 878

4,22

Incoming/rec
eived cases
Public prosecutors: Total number of first instance criminal 
cases per 100 inhabitants

Processed 
cases

Pendin
g cases 
on 31 

3. Processed cases (3.1 + 3.2 + 3.3 + 3.4)

402 243

3,91

Portugal

Incoming/received cases

Processed cases

4,22

EU Median

3,91

4,22 3,91
Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. Year

2,43

2,85 2,84

0,84

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year (3.1.1 + 3.1.2 + 3.1.3 
+ 3.1.4)

3.1.1 Discontinued by the public prosecutor because the 
offender could not be identified 

3.1.2 Discontinued by the public prosecutor due to the lack 
of an established offence or a specific legal situation 

3.1.3 Discontinued by the public prosecutor for reasons of 
opportunity

3.1.4 Discontinued for other reasons 

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated 
by the public prosecutor

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

2,85

2,84

2,43

0,84

Processed cases

Portugal

EU Median

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

Portugal

EU Median

0,00

1,05

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor

0,00

0,12

3.4. Cases brought to court

40 328

0,39

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons
0,30

0,00

4. Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. year

249 949

2,43

3.4. Cases brought to court

-0,39

0,53

It should be pointed out that the data indicated in the category "number of processed cases" corresponds to the total number of criminal cases at the investigation stage that have 
been closed.

The Public Prosecutor's Office closes the inquiry as soon as it has gathered sufficient evidence that no crime has been committed, that the defendant has not committed it or that 
the procedure is legally inadmissible.

The Public Prosecutor's Office also closes the inquiry if it has not been possible to obtain sufficient evidence that a crime has been committed or who the perpetrators were.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1225 / 1555

6. Existence and use of alternative dispute resolution in Portugal

Number of mediators

Mediators

Total

Per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

255

250

196

221

514

617

NA

NA

NA

2,4

2,4

1,9

2,1

5,0

6,0

NA

NA

NA

EU Median 2020

EU median in 2019

14,4

The variation between  2019 and  2020 cannot be calculated.

EU Median
2020

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

Number of mediators per 100 000 inhabitants

14,4

6,0

5,0

2,1

1,9

2,4

2,4

It should be noted that in Portugal, there is a national registry on private mediators and also a national registry on public mediators, but it is not possible to 
determine which of them practice court- related mediation. Besides, since the registration is not mandatory, there are also some mediators that are not registered 
and may practice court-related mediation.

Number of court related mediations

Type of cases

All Cases

Civil and commercial

Family cases

Administrative

Employment dismissal

Criminal cases

Consumer cases

Number of cases 
for which the parties
agreed to start 
mediation

Number of finished 
court-related
mediations

Number of cases 
in which there is a 
settlement agreement

NA

1677

214

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1677

214

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

649

73

NA

NA

NA

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1226 / 1555

7. ICT tools of courts in Portugal

●The ICT tools of courts and for court users

The use of ICT in courts in 2020 has been evaluated as  :

EU Median

Total 
(0 to 10)

Assistance tools (0 to 3)

Case management system (0 to 7)
Financial management tools (0 to 3)

Measurement tools to assess the workload (0 to 5)
Electronic communication (0 to 10)

7,6
2,0

6,2

1,5
3,3

8,2

6,6
2,0

5,2

1,3
2,5

6,9

The calculation of this values for each field is based on the answers for that question/s and weighted according the avaiability 
or deployment rate. The total value is normalised to max 10 points for readability and comparison.

The details of the calculation are given in Annex 5 - IT calculations

The result by area may be summarized in these graphics, where each field has been evaluated from 0 to 4 points.

Note: index is modified based on the available questions. This cycle the recalculation was made for the last three cycles to be 
able to follow the development.

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

2018

2019

2020

EU Median 2020

Assistance 
tools

Year
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
EU Median 20202,00

2,33

2,00

2,33

Case 
management 
system

Financial 
management 
tools

Measurement 
tools to assess 
the workload

Electronic 
communication

6,67

6,17

6,17

6,17

6,67

6,17

2,00

2,00

1,50

5,17

4,50

3,00

3,33

7,78

7,78

8,22

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

2,33

2,33

2,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

1,50

1,25

8,22

7,78

7,78

6,94

4,50

3,33

3,00

2,50

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

Comments on voice recording tools
Concerning the voice recognition feauture, there was a pilot projetct ongoing in the previous evaluation cycle, but it still wasn't implemented. 
Portugal is currently working to implement tools for Automatic Speech Recognition. 

Comments on CMS

In the previous cycle (2019 data) some SIEJ (BI) implementation may have been considered. However, regarding the Courts there is no BI 
involved, but rather an extraction process, defined by protocol with the Directorate-General of Justice Policy.

Comments on measurment tools on workload

There is no specific general management tool to access the workload of non-judge staff/non prosecutor staff. The information is collected 
directly from the case management system and then it is organized by the General Directorate of Administration of Justice/Ministry of Justice.

Comments on communication tools 
For the moment, in Portugal it is not foreseen to expand electronic communication to judicial experts. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1227 / 1555

8. Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and public prosecution services in Portugal

In Portugal, quality standards are determined for the judicial system at national level (e.g. quality systems for the judiciary and/or judicial quality policies). Specialised personnel 
within the public prosecution services is entrusted with implementation of these national level quality standards.

Law on the organisation of the judicial system (Law 62/2013 of 26 August) sets out that the High Council for the Judiciary and the Prosecutor-General, in liaison with the 
member of Government responsible for the justice, establish, within their respective competences, the strategic objectives for first instance courts for a three-year period. 
These entities are also responsible for setting, every year, the strategic objectives of first instance courts for the following judicial year. 

Taking into account the results obtained in the previous year and the strategic objectives formulated for the subsequently year, the president of the court and the public 
prosecutor coordinator, after hearing the judiciary administrator, articulate proposals for the procedural objectives for each court. This system, very recent, is currently being 
implemented, subject to improvements, and only covers civil and commercial cases.

In respect of quality standards determined for the judicial system at national level, for instance, the Prosecutor General's Directives and Instructions define good practices of 
functional performance at national level and their compliance may be viewed an indicator of the quality of the work developed (example, Directive 5/2019, on acting in cases of 
domestic violence (https://dre.pt/home/-/dre/126870404/details/maximized - text in Portuguese).
In addition to Directives and Instructions, the performance assessment system for prosecutors is based on quality criteria/performance parameters, as a rule, uniformly applied 
at national level.

As regards specialised personnel entrusted with implementation of these national level quality standards,  the High Council of the Public Prosecution Service has “inspectors” 
(“inspectores”) who assess the quality of the work carried out by the prosecutors, applying national quality criteria or standards.

● Systems for measuring and evaluating courts' performance

A regular monitoring system of court activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

In 2020, the option "satisfaction of users" has been included because one of the tasks of the president judge of the court is to monitor and evaluate the activity of the court, in 
particular the quality of the justice service provided to citizens, taking into account particular complaints or responses to satisfaction questionnaires (article 94 of Law 62/2013, 
26th August, on the judicial organization). 

In Portugal, there is a system to regularly evaluate the court performance based primarily on defined indicators and the frequency of the reporting is annual.

It should be mentioned that besides an annual report, there are also a trimestral and semestral statistics to evaluate judge’s performance. 
Furthermore, regarding the Administrative and Tax Courts, the reports are semestral. 

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each court.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

The evaluation of the courts' activities is used for the later allocation of means in the courts.

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1228 / 1555

● Systems for measuring and evaluating public prosecution services' performance

A regular monitoring system of public prosecution services activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases 

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs 

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecution) 

Costs of the judicial procedures 

Clearance rate 

Disposition time 

Percentage of convictions and aquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

For this cycle, the clearance rate and disposition time indicators were included because one of the tasks of the public prosecutor coordinator is to monitor and evaluate the 
activity of the public prosecutors services, including the efficiency of procedures (Article 101 of Law 62/2013, 26th August on judicial organization). 

In Portugal, there is a system to evaluate regularly the activity of each public prosecution service and the frequency of the reporting is annual.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each public prosecution service.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecutors)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Percentage of convictions and acquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff

The evaluation of the public prosecution services' activities is used for the later allocation of means in the public prosecution services.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1229 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table General Data: Economic and demographic data, in absolute values (Q1, Q3, Q5)

Q1 Number of inhabitants

10 487 289

10 427 301

10 374 822

10 341 440

10 309 573

10 291 027

10 276 617

10 295 909

10 295 909

-1,8%

-0,6%

-0,5%

-0,3%

-0,3%

-0,2%

-0,1%

0,2%

0,0%

Q.3 GDP Per capita (in €) in current prices

15 607

15 890

16 637

17 317

17 905

18 744

19 614

20 660

19 638

25,8%

1,8%

4,7%

4,1%

3,4%

4,7%

4,6%

5,3%

-4,9%

Q5. Exchange rate of Nat currency to € on 1 Jan

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Indicator 1: Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and prosecution services  (Indicator 4 in 2019)

Table 1.1 to Table 1.10 (Q66, Q67, Q77, Q78, Q77-1, Q78-1, Q73, Q73-0, Q73-1, Q73-2, Q73-3, Q73-4, Q73-5, Q73-6, Q70, Q70-1, Q71, Q72, Q83-2, Q83-3, Q120 
and Q120-1)

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

66 Qlty standards formulated_jud system

67 Specialised court staff entrusted_qlty standards

77 Performance and quality indicators of court activities

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

078.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078.1.5 Backlogs 

078.1.6 Productivity of judges and court staff

078.1.7 Satisfaction of court staff 

078.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts) 

078.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078.1.10 Number of appeals

078.1.11 Appeal ratio

078.1.12 Clearance rate 

078.1.13 Disposition time 

078.1.14 Other

077-1.1.1 Defined performance and quality indicators

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1230 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

078-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078-1.1.5 Backlogs 

078-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

078-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

078-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

078-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

078-1.1.11 Disposition time 

078-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

078-1.1.13 Other

73 Regular system_evaluation_performance_each court

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

073-0.1.1 Annual

073-0.1.2 Less frequent

073-0.1.3 More frequent

073-1.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
court

073-2.1.1 Courses of action taken in the evaluation is used for the 
allocation of resources

073-2.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-2.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-2.1.4 Other

073-3.1.1 Regular evaluation of the public prosecution services 
performance

Yes

Yes

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

False

True

False

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1231 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

073-4.1.1 Annual

073-4.1.2 Less frequent

073-4.1.3 More frequent

073-5.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
public prosecution services

073-6.1.1 Identifying the causes of improved or deteriorated 
performance

073-6.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-6.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-6.1.4 Other

070.1.1 number of incoming cases

070.1.2 length of proceedings (timeframes)

070.1.3 number of resolved cases

070.1.4 number of pending cases

070.1.5 backlogs

070.1.6 productivity of judges and court staff

070.1.7 satisfaction of court staff

070.1.8 satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts)

070.1.9 costs of the judicial procedures

070.1.10 number of appeals

070.1.11 appeal ratio

070.1.12 clearance rate

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1232 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

070-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases 

070-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

070-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

070-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

070-1.1.5 Backlogs 

070-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

070-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

070-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

070-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

070-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

070-1.1.11 Disposition time 

070-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

070-1.1.13 Other

071.1.1 Monitoring backlogs in Civil law cases

071.1.2 Monitoring backlogs in Criminal law cases

071.1.3 Monitoring backlogs in Administrative law cases

072.1.1 Monitoring timeframes Within the courts

072.1.2 Monitoring timeframes Within the public prosecution services

083-2.1.1 Quantitative performance tagets defined for each 
prosecutors

083-3.1.1 Body responsible - Executive power (for example the 
Ministry of Justice)

083-3.1.2 Body responsible - Prosecutor General /State public 
prosecutor

083-3.1.3 Body responsible - Public Prosecutorial Council

083-3.1.4 Body responsible - Head of the organisational unit or 
hierarchically superior public prosecutor

083-3.1.5 Body responsible - Other

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

True

True

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1233 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

120.1.1 Qualitative individual assessment of the public prosecutors' 
work

120-1.1.1 Feequency - Annual

120-1.1.2 Feequency - Less frequent

120-1.1.3 Feequency - More frequent

True

False

True

False

Indicator 2: The judicial organisation

Tables 2.1a; 2.1b; 2.2a; 2.2b; 2.3a; 2.3b; 2.4 and 2.5(EC) (Q42, Q43 and Q44)

Q42.1.1Total number of all courts - legal entities 

Q42.1.2 Total number of courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

591

151

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Q42.1.3 First instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

231

231

292

292

292

150

150

145

145

-37,2%

0,0%

26,4%

0,0%

0,0%

-48,6%

0,0%

-3,3%

0,0%

Q42.1.4 Second instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.5 Highest instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.6 Total number of specialised courts - legal entities

43.1.1 Total number of specialised courts of first instance

43.1.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.1.3 Insolvency courts

43.1.4 Labour courts

43.1.5 Family courts

43.1.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.1.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.1.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.1.9 Internet related disputes

43.1.10 Administrative courts

43.1.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.1.12 Military courts

43.1.13 Juvenile courts

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

102

4

-

47

19

-

NA

-

-

17

-

-

-

-

-

-

102

4

-

-

-

248

20

-

-

-

248

20

-

-

-

245

20

-

-

-

411

20

-

-

-

411

20

-

-

-

435

23

5

1

440

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

436

327,5%

0,0%

143,1%

0,0%

-1,2%

67,8%

0,0%

5,8%

0,2%

23

475,0%

0,0%

400,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

15,0%

0,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

47

19

44

45

44

45

44

45

44

49

44

49

44

51

45

-4,3%

0,0%

-6,4%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

2,3%

52

173,7%

0,0%

136,8%

0,0%

0,0%

8,9%

0,0%

4,1%

2,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

5

NAP

NAP

17

NAP

NAP

-

5

NAP

NAP

17

NAP

NAP

-

5

NAP

NAP

17

NAP

NAP

-

5

NAP

NAP

17

NAP

NAP

-

5

NAP

NAP

17

NAP

NAP

-

5

NAP

NAP

17

NAP

NAP

-

6

NAP

NAP

17

NAP

NAP

-

5

NAP

1

17

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

20,0%

-16,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1234 / 1555

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

43.1.14 Other specialised courts

12

7

114

114

114

276

276

293

293

2341,7%

-41,7% 1528,6%

0,0%

0,0%

142,1%

0,0%

6,2%

0,0%

43.2.1 Total number of specialised courts of higher instances

43.2.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.2.3 Insolvency courts

43.2.4 Labour courts

43.2.5 Family courts

43.2.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.2.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.2.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.2.9 Internet related disputes

43.2.10 Administrative courts

43.2.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.2.12 Military courts

43.2.13 Juvenile courts

43.2.14 Other specialised courts

44.1.1 First instance courts geographic locations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

319

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

44.1.2 All courts geographic locations

318

319

253

253

253

312

312

316

328

3,1%

0,3%

-20,7%

0,0%

0,0%

23,3%

0,0%

1,3%

3,8%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1235 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 3: The performance of courts at all stages of the proceedings

Tables 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.4 (all years) Number of other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 Variation of first instance other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants (Q1, Q91)

Table 3.13.7 (EC) to 3.13.12 (EC) First instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

1 595 259

NA

355 821

362 099

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

369 190

312 255

271 902

230 602

202 485

185 390

-47,9%

1,8%

91.1.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.1.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.1.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.1.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.1.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.1.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.1.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.1.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

91.1.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.1.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

91.1.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

-

NA

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NA

NA

-

NAP

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NA

NAP

NA

91.2.1 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

718 369

91.2.2 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.2.3 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.2.4 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.2.5 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.2.6 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.2.7 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.2.8 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

91.2.9 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

91.2.10 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

91.2.11 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

369 178

322 689

-

NA

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NA

NA

-

NAP

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NA

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

68 332

75 515

72 589

71 446

68 923

66 089

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

316 060

308 880

300 833

296 748

323 236

254 568

-31,0%

-12,6%

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

34 850

26 049

25 091

24 382

27 335

20 731

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-15,4%

-12,9%

-15,2%

-12,2%

-8,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

10,5%

-3,9%

-1,6%

-3,5%

-4,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,3%

-2,6%

-1,4%

8,9%

-21,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-25,3%

-3,7%

-2,8%

12,1%

-24,2%

-

-

-

-

-

1236 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

689 351

NA

360 694

332 948

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

367 725

346 863

340 071

323 967

339 370

248 992

-31,0%

-7,7%

91.3.1 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.3.2 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.3.3 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.3.4 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.3.5 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.3.6 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.3.7 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.3.8 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

91.3.9 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

91.3.10 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

91.3.11 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

-

NA

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NA

NA

-

NAP

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NA

NAP

NA

91.4.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

1 624 277

91.4.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

364 305

351 840

91.4.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.4.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.4.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.4.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.4.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.4.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

91.4.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.4.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

91.4.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

-

NA

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NA

NA

-

NAP

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

27 810

29 048

26 343

27 055

29 018

26 144

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

317 525

274 272

232 664

203 383

186 351

190 966

-47,6%

-3,4%

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

75 372

72 516

71 337

68 773

67 240

60 676

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-5,7%

-2,0%

-4,7%

4,8%

-26,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4,5%

-9,3%

2,7%

7,3%

-9,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-13,6%

-15,2%

-12,6%

-8,4%

2,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-3,8%

-1,6%

-3,6%

-2,2%

-9,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1237 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.2 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.4 to 3.3.7 Variation of Clearence Rate and Disposition Time of first instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

Table 3.13.1 (EC) to 3.13.6 (EC) First instance courts: Disposition time and clearance rate for other than criminal cases  (Q91)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

96,0%

NA

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

97,7%

103,2%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

NA

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NA

NA

860

369

-

NA

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NA

NA

-

NAP

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NA

NAP

NA

386

-

NAP

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

116,3%

112,3%

113,0%

109,2%

105,0%

97,8%

0,11

5,61

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

79,8%

111,5%

105,0%

111,0%

106,2%

126,1%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

315

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

989

NAP

NA

289

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

911

NAP

NA

250

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

988

NAP

NA

229

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

928

NAP

NA

200

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

846

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NAP

NA

280

-24,1%

4,6%

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

847

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(3,48)

0,66

(3,42)

(3,83)

(6,84)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

39,74

(5,85)

5,69

(4,33)

18,80

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-8,4%

-13,5%

-8,2%

-12,5%

39,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-7,9%

8,5%

-6,1%

-8,8%

0,2%

-

-

-

-

-

1238 / 1555

         
         
        
         
        
        
        
       
        
         
        
       
Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.4.1 (all years) First instance courts, number of cases for specific case categories (Q101)

101.1.1 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Litigious divorce case

101.1.2 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Employment dismissal case

101.1.3 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Insolvency

101.2.1 Incoming cases_Litigious divorce case

101.2.2 Incoming cases_Employment dismissal case

7 627

6 448

3 568

9 638

7 897

7 195

5 721

4 316

9 281

5 951

101.2.3 Incoming cases_Insolvency

20 776

20 068

101.3.1 Resolved cases_Litigious divorce case

101.3.2 Resolved cases_Employment dismissal case

9 975

8 659

9 590

7 662

101.3.3 Resolved cases_Insolvency

19 969

20 065

101.4.1 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Litigious divorce case

101.4.2 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Employment dismissal case

101.4.3 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Insolvency

7 290

5 686

4 375

6 886

4 010

4 319

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

7 801

3 533

4 527

9 167

4 498

5 294

2 493

3 482

9 131

3 663

4 408

3 871

3 560

3 427

-55,1%

-5,7%

1 733

1 462

1 327

1 286

-80,1%

-11,3%

2 562

2 175

1 726

1 537

-56,9%

21,0%

9 351

8 256

9 014

7 081

-26,5%

-3,7%

3 469

3 312

3 179

3 710

-53,0%

-24,6%

17 325

14 746

13 986

12 437

12 236

10 163

-51,1%

-3,4%

11 387

5 529

9 966

4 598

9 855

8 560

9 128

6 931

-30,5%

-3,9%

3 853

3 559

3 239

3 203

-63,0%

-11,5%

18 206

15 625

14 282

12 748

12 381

10 077

-49,5%

0,5%

5 581

2 502

3 556

4 459

1 558

2 603

3 904

3 567

3 446

3 577

-50,9%

-5,5%

1 349

1 215

1 267

1 793

-68,5%

-29,5%

2 266

1 864

1 581

1 623

-62,9%

-1,3%

Table 3.5.1 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for specific case categories (Q101)

Table 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 Variations of CR and DT for specific case categories of first instance cases (Q101)

CR Litigious divorce cases

103,5%

103,3%

CR Employment dismissal cases

109,6%

128,8%

CR Insolvency cases

96,1%

100,0%

DT Litigious divorce cases

DT Employment dismissal cases

DT Insolvency cases

267

240

80

262

191

79

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

124,2%

109,1%

105,4%

103,7%

101,3%

97,9%

(5,43)

(0,16)

122,9%

125,5%

111,1%

107,5%

101,9%

86,3%

(21,26)

17,42

105,1%

106,0%

102,1%

102,5%

101,2%

99,2%

3,16

4,03

179

165

71

163

124

61

145

128

58

152

125

53

138

143

47

188

-29,4%

-1,7%

204

-14,8%

-20,3%

59

-26,5%

-1,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-32,1%

-16,7%

-12,2%

-8,0%

-3,7%

-29,4%

-30,5%

-15,6%

-9,2%

-3,1%

-23,1%

-26,4%

-15,1%

-20,6%

-11,0%

-0,4%

2,4%

-11,7%

9,2%

-21,4%

-18,6%

-5,3%

-4,5%

-4,0%

16,7%

-14,9%

-5,2%

-11,1%

-1,6%

-16,9%

-12,5%

-1,1%

-13,1%

6,6%

-24,1%

-16,8%

-16,2%

-7,6%

-9,0%

-1,1%

-14,2%

-8,6%

-10,7%

-2,9%

-18,6%

-20,1%

-12,4%

-8,6%

-3,4%

3,8%

-37,7%

-13,4%

-9,9%

4,3%

41,5%

-26,8%

-12,9%

-17,7%

-15,2%

2,7%

(12,13)

(3,44)

(1,62)

(2,33)

(3,34)

2,12

(11,52)

(3,25)

(5,18)

(15,27)

0,83

(3,63)

0,38

(1,28)

(2,01)

-8,7%

-11,5%

5,2%

-9,4%

36,7%

-25,1%

3,3%

-2,5%

14,6%

43,1%

-14,7%

-4,8%

-7,8%

-12,7%

26,1%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1239 / 1555

        
        
      
        
        
        
        
      
       
         
      
        
        
      
         
         
         
        
         
        
        
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.1.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.1.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.1.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.1.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.1.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.1.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.1.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.1.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

97.1.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.1.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

97.1.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases 

97.2.1 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.2.2 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.2.3 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.2.4 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.2.5 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.2.6 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.2.7 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.2.8 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

97.2.9 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.2.10 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

97.2.11 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases 

Table 3.7.1 to 3.7.5 (2019 and 2020) Second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Table 3.9.1 to 3.9.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

5 031

11 039

11 776

12 864

14 087

14 803

14 881

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

4 731

5 733

6 346

6 547

6 175

5 811

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

6 308

6 043

6 518

7 540

8 628

9 070

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

18 220

24 269

24 755

25 963

24 849

24 466

20 067

NA

20 684

20 946

21 671

20 661

20 123

15 838

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

3 585

3 809

4 292

4 188

4 343

4 229

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

119,4%

6,7%

9,2%

9,5%

5,1%

0,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

21,2%

10,7%

3,2%

-5,7%

-5,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-4,2%

7,9%

15,7%

14,4%

5,1%

-

-

-

-

-

33,2%

2,0%

4,9%

-4,3%

-1,5%

-18,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,3%

3,5%

-4,7%

-2,6%

-21,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6,2%

12,7%

-2,4%

3,7%

-2,6%

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1240 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.3.1 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.3.2 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.3.3 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.3.4 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.3.5 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.3.6 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.3.7 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.3.8 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

97.3.9 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.3.10 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

97.3.11 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases 

97.4.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.4.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.4.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.4.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.4.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.4.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.4.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.4.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

97.4.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.4.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

97.4.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases

97.5.1 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.5.2 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.5.10 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

18 520

25 532

23 666

24 738

24 130

24 387

20 952

NA

19 682

20 332

21 468

21 030

20 486

17 045

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

3 850

3 334

3 270

3 100

3 901

3 907

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4 731

11 776

12 865

14 089

14 806

14 882

13 996

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

-

-

-

5 733

6 347

6 549

6 178

5 812

4 604

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

6 043

6 518

7 540

8 628

9 070

9 392

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

37,9%

-7,3%

4,5%

-2,5%

1,1%

-14,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,3%

5,6%

-2,0%

-2,6%

-16,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-13,4%

-1,9%

-5,2%

25,8%

0,2%

-

-

-

-

-

148,9%

9,2%

9,5%

5,1%

0,5%

-6,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

10,7%

3,2%

-5,7%

-5,9%

-20,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7,9%

15,7%

14,4%

5,1%

3,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1241 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 (2019 and 2020): Second instance clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.9.4 and 3.9.5 (2019 and 2020): Variation of second clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

101,6%

105,2%

95,6%

95,3%

97,1%

99,7%

104,4%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

NA

95,2%

97,1%

99,1%

101,8%

101,8%

107,6%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

107,4%

87,5%

76,2%

74,0%

89,8%

92,4%

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

93

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

168

106

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

573

NAP

198

114

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

714

NAP

208

111

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

842

NAP

224

107

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1016

NAP

223

104

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

849

NAP

244

99

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

877

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,50

(9,13)

(0,33)

1,92

2,65

4,75

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,01

2,05

2,75

0,02

5,71

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(18,50)

(12,96)

(2,84)

21,35

2,85

-

-

-

-

-

80,6%

17,9%

4,8%

7,7%

-0,5%

9,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7,2%

-2,3%

-3,7%

-3,4%

-4,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

24,6%

17,9%

20,7%

-16,5%

3,4%

-

-

-

-

-

1242 / 1555

         
        
        
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
      
      
        
       
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.10.1 to 3.10.5 (2019 and 2020) Supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Table 3.12.1 to 3.12.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of the supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.1.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.1.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.1.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.1.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.1.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.1.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.1.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.1.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

99.1.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.1.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

99.1.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.2.1 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.2.2 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.2.3 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.2.4 High inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.2.5 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.2.6 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.2.7 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.2.8 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

99.2.9 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.2.10 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

99.2.11 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

447

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

2 253

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

1 320

1 492

1 559

1 394

1 442

1 739

414

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

906

NAP

4 094

2 610

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

416

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

436

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

332

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

378

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

532

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 076

1 123

1 062

1 064

1 207

NAP

4 069

2 748

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

3 995

3 919

4 107

3 698

2 631

2 850

2 943

2 662

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 484

1 321

1 364

1 069

1 164

1 036

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

195,3%

13,0%

4,5%

-10,6%

3,4%

20,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,5%

4,8%

-23,9%

13,9%

40,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

18,8%

4,4%

-5,4%

0,2%

13,4%

-

-

-

-

-

81,7%

-0,6%

-1,8%

-1,9%

4,8%

-10,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5,3%

-4,3%

8,3%

3,3%

-9,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-11,0%

3,3%

-21,6%

8,9%

-11,0%

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1243 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.3.1 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.3.2 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.3.3 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.3.4 High inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.3.5 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.3.6 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.3.7 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.3.8 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

99.3.9 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.3.10 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

99.3.11 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.4.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.4.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.4.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.4.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.4.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.4.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.4.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.4.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry 
cases

99.4.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.4.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative 
law cases

99.4.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.5.1 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.5.2 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.5.10 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

2 285

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

415

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

-

-

-

3 922

2 608

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4 002

2 728

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4 160

3 870

3 810

3 623

2 735

2 803

2 789

2 375

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 314

1 274

1 425

1 067

1 021

1 248

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 492

1 559

1 394

1 443

1 739

1 814

416

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

436

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

332

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

379

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

532

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 076

1 123

1 062

1 064

1 207

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

819

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

995

NAP

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

71,6%

2,0%

3,9%

-7,0%

-1,6%

-4,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4,6%

0,3%

2,5%

-0,5%

-14,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-3,0%

11,9%

-25,1%

-4,3%

22,2%

-

-

-

-

-

259,5%

4,5%

-10,6%

3,5%

20,5%

4,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4,8%

-23,9%

14,2%

40,4%

53,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4,4%

-5,4%

0,2%

13,4%

-17,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1244 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 Supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.12.4 and 3.12.5 Variation of the supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

101,4%

95,8%

98,4%

104,1%

98,7%

92,8%

98,0%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

NA

99,9%

99,3%

104,0%

98,4%

94,8%

89,2%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

88,5%

96,4%

104,5%

99,8%

87,7%

120,5%

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

66

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

139

58

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

299

NAP

142

58

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

322

NAP

122

44

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

272

NAP

136

49

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

364

NAP

167

70

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

431

NAP

183

126

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

291

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(5,54)

2,67

5,87

(5,17)

(6,06)

5,61

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(0,65)

4,71

(5,39)

(3,64)

(5,85)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

8,92

8,33

(4,46)

(12,12)

37,34

-

-

-

-

-

109,5%

2,4%

-14,0%

11,3%

22,4%

9,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,2%

-24,0%

11,4%

41,1%

80,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7,6%

-15,5%

33,8%

18,6%

-32,6%

-

-

-

-

-

1245 / 1555

        
         
         
        
        
         
        
         
        
        
        
         
         
        
      
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.14.1 to 3.14.5 First instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

094.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

094.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

094.2.1 Total -incoming

094.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

094.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

094.2.4 Other - incoming

094.3.1 Total - resolved

094.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

094.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

094.3.4 Other - resolved

094.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

094.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

094.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

094.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

41 395

38 178

1 654

1 563

63 435

51 701

4 416

7 318

59 309

48 078

3 952

7 279

45 521

41 801

2 118

1 602

15 941

15 413

86

442

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1246 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.15.1 to 3.10.2 CR and DT for first instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

098.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

098.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

098.2.1 Total -incoming

098.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

098.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

098.2.4 Other - incoming

098.3.1 Total - resolved

098.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

098.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

098.3.4 Other - resolved

Table 3.16.1 to 3.16.5 Second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

93,5%

93,0%

89,5%

99,5%

280

317

196

80

3 577

NA

NA

NAP

8 778

NA

NA

NAP

8 894

NA

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1247 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

098.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

098.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

098.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

098.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

3 461

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

Table 3.17.1 to 3.17.2 CR and DT for second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

101,3%

NA

NA

NAP

142

NA

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1248 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.18.1 to 3.18.5 Supreme court criminal law cases (Q100)

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

100.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

100.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

100.2.1 Total -incoming

100.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

100.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

100.2.4 Other - incoming

100.3.1 Total - resolved

100.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

100.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

100.3.4 Other - resolved

100.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

100.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

100.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

100.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

156

156

NAP

NAP

959

959

NAP

NAP

942

942

NAP

NAP

173

173

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1249 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.19.1 to 3.19.2 CR and DT for supreme court  criminal law cases (Q100)

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

98,2%

98,2%

NAP

NAP

67

67

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1250 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 5: Access to justice

Legal aid

Table 5.1 to Table 5.6 (Q12-2, Q16, Q18, Q19, Q20, Q20-1)

12-2.1.1 Coverage of court fees

12-2.1.2 Exemption from court fees

16.1.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (criminal cases)

16.1.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (criminal cases)

16.2.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (other than criminal 
cases)

16.2.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (other than criminal cases)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

-

-

-

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

18.1.1 Legal aid for the enforcement of judicial decisions

19.1.1  Legal aid granted for other costs - criminal cases

19.1.2  Legal aid granted for other costs - other than criminal cases

020.1.1 Total

020.1.2 Total - criminal cases

020.1.3 Total - other than criminal cases

020.2.1 Total brought to court

020.2.2 Broight to court - criminal cases

020.2.3 Brought to court - other then criminal

020.3.1 Total not brought to court

020.3.2 Not broight to court - criminal cases

020.3.3 Not brought to court - other then criminal

020-1.1.1 Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulation

020-1.1.2 Average duration

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

115 349

NA

NA

113 642

NA

NA

1 707

NA

NA

30

100

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1251 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

System for compensating users

Table 5.7.1 and Table 5.7.2 (Q37)

037.1.1 Requests for compensation - Total

037.1.2 Requests for compensation - Excessive length of 
proceedings

037.1.3 Requests for compensation - Non-execution of court 
decisions

037.1.4 Requests for compensation - Wrongful arrest

037.1.5 Requests for compensation - Wrongful conviction

037.1.6 Requests for compensation - Other

037.2.1 Condemnations - Total

037.2.2 Condemnations - Excessive length of proceedings

037.2.3 Condemnations - Non-execution of court decisions

037.2.4 Condemnations - Wrongful arrest

037.2.5 Condemnations - Wrongful conviction

037.2.6 Condemnations - Other

037.3.1 Amount - Total

037.3.2 Amount - Excessive length of proceedings

037.3.3 Amount - Non-execution of court decisions

037.3.4 Amount - Wrongful arrest

037.3.5 Amount - Wrongful conviction

037.3.6 Amount - Other

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1252 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 6.1 to Table 6.11 (Q62-7, Q62-7-1, Q62-8,  Q62-8-1, Q63-1, Q63-1-1, Q63-2 Q63-6, Q63-7, Q63-7-1, Q64-2,  Q64-4, Q64-6, Q64-3, Q64-3-1, Q64-7, Q64-7-1, 
Q64-9)

Indicator 6: The ICT tools of courts and for court users

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

62-7 Writing assistance tools coordinated at national level

62-7-1.1 Deployment rate in civil matter

62-7-1.2 Deployment rate in criminal matter

62-7-1.3 Deployment rate in administrative matter

62-8 Voice recording tools

62-8-1.1.1 Availability of simple dictation tools in civil matter

62-8-1.1.2 Availability of simple dictation tools in criminal matter

62-8-1.1.3 Availability of simple dictation tools in administrative 
matter

62-8-1.2.1 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in civil 
matter

62-8-1.2.2 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in criminal 
matter

62-8-1.2.3 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in 
administrative matter

62-8-1.3.1 Availability of voice recognition in civil matter

62-8-1.3.2 Availability of voice recognition in criminal matter

62-8-1.3.3 Availability of voice recognition in administrative matter

062-9 Availability of intranet site within the judicial system for 
distribution of news/novelties

63.1 Is there a case management system? 

63.1-1.1 CMS for civil matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for criminal matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for administrative matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.2 CMS for civil matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for criminal matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for administrative matter (status of case onlinee)

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

Pilot testing

Pilot testing

Pilot testing

Pilot testing

No

No

No

No

No

-

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

-

-

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1253 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63.1-1.3 CMS for civil matter (Centralised or interoperable database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for criminal matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for administrative matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.4 CMS for civil matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for criminal matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for administrative matter (Early warning signals)

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS civil matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS criminal matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS administrative matter

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - land registry

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - business registry

63-2.2 Data consolidated at national level for land registry

63-2.2  Data consolidated at national level for business registry

63-2.3 Service available online for land registry

63-2.3  Service available online for business registry

63-2.4 Statistical module integrated or connected for land registry

63-2.4  Statistical module integrated or connected for business 
registry

063-6.1.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (deployment 
rate)

063-6.1.2 Justice expenses management (deployment rate)

063-6.1.3 Other financial management tools (deployment rate)

063-6.2.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (Data 
consolidated at national level)

063-6.2.2 Justice expenses management (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.2.3 Other financial management tools (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.3.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (System 
communicating with other ministries)

063-6.3.2 Justice expenses management (System communicating 
with other ministries)

063-6.3.3 Other financial management tools (System communicating 
with other ministries)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Integrated

Integrated

Integrated

100%

100%

0% (NAP)

100%

100%

0% (NAP)

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

1254 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63-7.1 Measurement tools to assess the workload

63-7-1.1.1 Deployment rate - workload of judges

63-7-1.1.2 Deployment rate - workload of prosecutors

63-7-1.1.3 Deployment rate - workload of non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.2.1 Monitoring on national level - judges

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - prosecutors

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.3.1 Monitoring on court level - judges

63-7-1.3.2 Monitoring on court level - prosecutors

63-7-1.3.3 Monitoring on court level - non-judge and non-prosecutor 
staff

064-2 - Possibility to submit a case to courts by electronic means

064-2 - Civil and/or commercial

064-2 - Criminal

064-2 - Administrative

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - civil

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - criminal

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory  - administrative

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - civil

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - criminal

064-2 - Specific legislative framework  - administrative

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - civil

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - criminal

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - administrative

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1255 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-3 - Is it possible to request for granting legal aid by electronic 
means? 

064-3-1.1 - Equipment rate

064-3-1.2 - Request in paper mandatory

064-3-1.3 - Specific legislative framework

064-3-1.4 - Granting LA is also electronic

064-3-1.5 - Information available in CMS

064-4 - Possibility to transmit summons to a judicial meeting or a 
hearing by electronic means

064-4-1.1.1 - Summons produced by CMS- civil

064-4-1.1.2 - Summons produced by CMS- criminal

064-4-1.1.3 - Summons produced by CMS- administrative

064-4-1.2.1 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- civil

064-4-1.2.2 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- criminal

064-4-1.2.3 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- administrative

064-4-1.3.1 - Consent of the user - civil

064-4-1.3.2 - Consent of the user - criminal

064-4-1.3.3 - Consent of the user - administrative

064-6.1.1 - Civil and/or commercial (deployment rate)

064-6.1.2 - Criminal (deployment rate)

064-6.1.3 - Administrative (deployment rate)

True

False

False

NA

NA

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1256 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-6.2.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.2 - Criminal (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.3 - Administrative (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.3.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Modalities)

064-6.3.2 - Criminal (Modalities)

064-6.3.3 - Administrative (Modalities)

064-6.4.1 - Civil and/or commercial (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.2 - Criminal (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.3 - Administrative (specific legal framework)

064-6.5.1 - Civil and/or commercial (availability for)

064-6.5.2 - Criminal (availability for)

064-6.5.3 - Administrative (availability for)

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

Lawyers

Lawyers

Lawyers

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1257 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-7.1.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (deployment rate)

064-7.1.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.2.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (Modalities)

064-7.2.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.3.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (specific legal framework)

064-7.32.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-7.3.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts (specific 
legal framework)

064-7.3.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-9 - Existance of online processing devices of specialised 
litigation

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

NA

NA

0% (NAP)

-

100%

100%

100%

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

    Other

    Other

    Other

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

True

False

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1258 / 1555

    
    
    
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

46.1.1 Total Number of professional judges

46.1.2 Number of 1st inst professional judges

46.1.3 Number of 2nd inst professional judges

46.1.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges

46.2.1 Number of professional judges_males

46.2.2 Number of 1st instance professional judges_males

46.2.3 Number of 2nd instance professional judges_males

46.2.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges_males

46.3.1  Number of professional judges_females

46.3.2  Number of 1st inst professional judges_females

46.3.3  Number of 2nd inst professional judges_females

46.3.4  Number of Supreme court professional judges_females

046-2.1.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Total

046-2.2.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Civil and commercial

046-2.2.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.3.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Criminal

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

Indicator 7: Professionals of justice  (Indicator 9 in 2019)

Table 7.1.1 to 7.5.6 for judges, non judge staff, prosecutors, non prosecutor staff and salaries

2 009

1 480

445

84

864

507

282

75

1 145

973

163

9

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 025

1 525

425

75

849

518

263

68

1 176

1 007

162

7

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 990

1 478

430

82

828

494

267

67

1 990

1 495

411

84

815

498

249

68

1 986

1 479

425

82

809

493

250

66

2 059

1 979

1 999

1 999

-0,5%

0,8%

-1,7%

0,0%

-0,2%

3,7%

-3,9%

1,0%

0,0%

1 486

1 456

1 443

1 447

-2,2%

3,0%

-3,1%

1,2%

-1,1%

0,5%

-2,0%

-0,9%

0,3%

493

80

792

479

253

60

452

71

767

463

253

51

479

77

761

455

254

52

472

6,1%

-4,5%

1,2%

-4,4%

3,4%

16,0%

-8,3%

6,0%

-1,5%

80

-4,8%

-10,7%

9,3%

2,4%

-2,4%

-2,4%

-11,3%

8,5%

3,9%

759

-12,2%

-1,7%

-2,5%

-1,6%

-0,7%

-2,1%

-3,2%

-0,8%

-0,3%

459

-9,5%

2,2%

-4,6%

0,8%

-1,0%

-2,8%

-3,3%

-1,7%

0,9%

246

-12,8%

-6,7%

1,5%

-6,7%

0,4%

1,2%

0,0%

0,4%

-3,1%

54

-28,0%

-9,3%

-1,5%

1,5%

-2,9%

-9,1%

-15,0%

2,0%

3,8%

1 162

1 175

1 177

1 213

1 212

1 238

1 240

8,3%

2,7%

-1,2%

1,1%

0,2%

3,1%

-0,1%

2,1%

0,2%

984

163

15

997

162

16

986

175

16

1 007

186

20

993

199

20

988

225

25

988

1,5%

3,5%

-2,3%

1,3%

-1,1%

2,1%

-1,4%

-0,5%

0,0%

226

38,7%

-0,6%

0,6%

-0,6%

8,0%

6,3%

7,0%

13,1%

0,4%

26

188,9%

-22,2%

114,3%

6,7%

0,0%

25,0%

0,0%

25,0%

4,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 999

1 447

472

80

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1259 / 1555

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

046-2.4.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - 
Administrative

046-2.4.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.5.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Other

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

268

179

65

24

1 731

1 268

407

56

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 52.1.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in courts 

6 110

6 005

5 698

5 799

5 652

5 789

5 818

5 829

5 779

-5,4%

-1,7%

-5,1%

1,8%

-2,5%

2,4%

0,5%

0,2%

-0,9%

52.1.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

52.1.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges

5 601

5 558

5 293

5 422

5 342

5 465

5 486

5 465

5 357

-4,4%

-0,8%

-4,8%

2,4%

-1,5%

2,3%

0,4%

-0,4%

-2,0%

52.1.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks

52.1.5 Number of Technical staff

52.1.6 Number of Other non judge staff

52.2.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(men)

52.2.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(men)

52.2.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(men)

52.2.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(men)

52.2.5 Number of Technical staff(men)

52.2.6 Number of Other non judge staff(men)

52.3.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(women)

256

251

2

-

-

-

-

-

-

217

230

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

101

227

77

88

225

64

92

210

8

78

246

-

94

238

-

103

261

-

1

-50,0%

104

-59,4%

-15,2%

-53,5%

-12,9%

4,5%

-15,2%

20,5%

9,6%

1,0%

317

26,3%

-8,4%

-1,3%

-0,9%

-6,7%

17,1%

-3,3%

9,7%

21,5%

2 024

1 994

1 916

1 959

1 959

1 938

1 927

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 860

1 844

1 805

1 846

1 836

1 807

1 780

62

58

44

57

57

36

57

53

1

48

65

-

63

60

-

63

68

-

60

86

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-16,9%

-87,5%

-

-

-

-

-1,5%

-3,9%

2,2%

0,0%

-1,1%

-0,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-0,9%

-2,1%

2,3%

-0,5%

-1,6%

-1,5%

-8,1%

0,0%

-15,8%

31,3%

0,0%

-4,8%

-1,7%

-7,0%

22,6%

-7,7%

13,3%

26,5%

-18,2%

-97,2%

-

-

-

-

3 910

3 856

3 674

3 805

3 736

3 830

3 859

3 891

3 852

-1,5%

-1,4%

-4,7%

3,6%

-1,8%

2,5%

0,8%

0,8%

-1,0%

52.3.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(women)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

52.3.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(women)

3 635

3 607

3 433

3 578

3 537

3 619

3 650

3 658

3 577

-1,6%

-0,8%

-4,8%

4,2%

-1,1%

2,3%

0,9%

0,2%

-2,2%

52.3.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(women)

52.3.5 Number of Technical staff(women)

52.3.6 Number of Other non judge staff(women)

96

179

-

83

166

-

39

169

33

31

168

28

35

157

7

30

181

-

31

178

-

40

193

-

44

-54,2%

-13,5%

-53,0%

-20,5%

12,9%

-14,3%

3,3%

29,0%

10,0%

231

29,1%

-7,3%

1,8%

-0,6%

-6,5%

15,3%

-1,7%

8,4%

19,7%

-

-

-

-

-15,2%

-75,0%

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1260 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

052-1.1.1 Non-judge staff (Total)

052-1.1.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (total)

052-1.1.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (total)

052-1.1.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (total)

052-1.2.1 Non-judge staff  (Males)

052-1.2.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (males)

052-1.2.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (males)

052-1.2.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (males)

052-1.3.1 Non-judge staff  (females)

052-1.3.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (females)

052-1.3.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (females)

052-1.3.4 Non-judge staff  at supreme court (females)

055.1.1 Prosecutors (total)

055.1.2 Prosecutors (1st inst.)

055.1.3 Prosecutors (2nd inst.)

055.1.4 Prosecutors (Highest instance)

055.2.1 Prosecutors - Males -total

055.2.2 Prosecutors - Males, 1st inst.

055.2.3 Prosecutors - Males, 2nd inst.

055.2.4 Prosecutors - Males, Supreme courts

055.3.1 Prosecutors - Females, Total

055.3.2 Prosecutors - Females, 1st inst.

055.3.3 Prosecutors - Females, 2nd inst.

055.3.4 Prosecutors - Females, Supreme courts

5 745

5 451

192

102

1 908

1 801

80

27

3 837

3 650

112

75

1 416

1 325

75

16

497

440

52

5

919

885

23

11

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1261 / 1555

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

060.1.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Total

060.2.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Males

060.3.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Females

004 Annual average salary in the country

132.1.1 Gross annual salary, in €  - Professional judge at the 
beginning of career

132.1.2 Gross annual salary, in €  - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.1.3 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor at the beginning 
of career

132.1.4 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

132.2.1 Net annual salary, in € - Professional judge at the beginning 
of career

132.2.2 Net annual salary, in € - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.2.3 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor at the beginning of 
career

132.2.4 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

133.1.1.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Reduced taxation

133.1.2.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Special pension

133.1.3.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Housing

133.1.4.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Other financial benefit

133.2.1.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Reduced taxation

133.2.2.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Special pension

133.2.3.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Housing

133.2.4.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Other financial benefit

1 657

574

1 083

18 044 €

48 055 €

105 345 €

48 055 €

105 345 €

NA

NA

NA

NA

False

False

True

True

False

False

True

True

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1262 / 1555

         
         
       
         
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

144.1.1 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - Total number (1+2+3+4)

144.1.2 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 1. Breach of professional 
ethics 

144.1.3 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.1.4 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 3. Criminal offence 

144.1.5 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 4. Other

144.2.1 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - Total number 
(1+2+3+4)

144.2.2 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 1. Breach of 
professional ethics 

144.2.3 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.2.4 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 3. Criminal offence

144.2.5 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 4. Other 

145.1.1 Sanctions against Judges - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.1.2 Sanctions against Judges - 1. Reprimand

145.1.3 Sanctions against Judges - 2. Suspension

145.1.4 Sanctions against Judges - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.1.5 Sanctions against Judges - 4. Fine

145.1.6 Sanctions against Judges - 5. Temporary reduction of salary

145.1.7 Sanctions against Judges - 6. Position downgrade

145.1.8 Sanctions against Judges - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.1.9 Sanctions against Judges - 8. Resignation

145.1.10 Sanctions against  Judges - 9. Other

145.1.11 Sanctions against  Judges - 10. Dismissal

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

26

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

9

2

6

1

0

14

3

2

0

7

0

0

2

0

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1263 / 1555

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

145.2.1 Sanctions against Prosecutors - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.2.2 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 1. Reprimand

145.2.3 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 2. Suspension

145.2.4 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.2.5 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 4. Fine

145.2.6 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 5. Temporary reduction of 
salary

145.2.7 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 6. Position downgrade

145.2.8 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.2.9 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 8. Resignation

145.2.10 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 9. Other

145.2.11 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 10. Dismissal

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

8

3

2

0

3

0

0

0

0

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lawyers

Tables 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.7 and 7.8

146.1.1 Total number of lawyers practising

28 341

28 765

29 337

27 277

30 475

31 326

32 368

33 204

33 115

16,8%

1,5%

2,0%

-7,0%

11,7%

2,8%

3,3%

2,6%

-0,3%

146.2.1 Practicing lawyers - man

146.3.1 Practicing lawyers - woman

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

14 617

14 912

14 891

17 751

18 292

18 224

147 Does this figure include “legal advisors” who cannot represent 
their clients in court (for example, some solicitors or in-house 
counsellors)? 

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,0%

-0,1%

3,0%

-0,4%

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1264 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Portugal (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

166 Number of accredited or registered mediators who practice 
judicial mediation: 

255

250

196

221

167.1.1 Total number started

Table 8.1 8.2 and 8.3

514

NA

617

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

167. 1.2 Civil and commercial cases(cid:9) - started

1 241

1 133

2 455

2 653

1 677

Indicator 8: The existence and use of alternative dispute resolution methods

167. 1.2 Family cases - started

167.1.4 Administrative cases - started

167.1.5 Labour cases including employment dismissal cases - started

167.1.6. Criminal cases - started

167.1.7 Consumer cases - started

434

NA

NA

4

-

300

NA

NA

-

-

221

300

214

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,0%

-21,6%

12,8%

132,6%

20,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-8,7%

116,7%

8,1%

-36,8%

-30,9%

-26,3%

35,7%

-28,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Key: Variation of more than (+ -) 20% 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1265 / 1555

Judiciary at a glance in Romania

General data

Population:

19 186 201

GDP per capita: 11 290 €

Average annual 

salary:

13 385 €

Professionals

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Romania

Romania

EU Median

EU Median

Professional judges

Professional judges

24,48

23,92

24,48

Non-judge staff

23,92

54,79

59,00

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

12,75

54,79

59,00

9,91

12,55

12,75

9,91

15,22

12,55

15,22

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual 
salary in the country

Romania
Romania

EU Median

EU Median

6,54

Judge at the beginning of a career 

3,23

2,02

4,09

3,23

Judge of the highest court 6,54

3,23

4,09

2,02
Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 
1,71
1,71

3,23

5,01

3,61

Public prosecutor at highest instance

5,01

3,61

Lawyers

Lawyers

122,09

122,09

122,09

122,09

Judge at the
beginning of a career

Judge of the highest
court

Prosecutor at the
beginning of a career

Public prosecutor at
highest instance

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

Efficiency

1st instance

2nd instance

1st instance 2nd instance

100%

,

,

%
1
%
0
9
0
Civil and
6
1
9
commercial
Administrativ
e
cases
Total 
criminal law 
cases

,

%
7
4
0
1

,

%
8
5
0
1

100,1%

48,4% NAP

%
4
100,2%
8
4

,

P
A
N

,

%
2
0
0
1

96,9%

Supreme Court
Supreme 
Court

%
2
9
9

,

,

%
1
3
0
1

104,7%

105,8%

99,2%

103,1%

1
1

1

1
1

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance 2nd instance Supreme Court

Civil and commercial litigious cases
Administrative cases 690 NAP

168

276

Total criminal law cases113

242

174

168

690

174

122

242
276

134

134

122

113

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

Administrative
cases

Total criminal law
cases

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

Information and communication technology

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

Assistance toolsCase management system
2018

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the workload
2019

Electronic communication

EU Median 2020

2020

2018
2019
2020

2,50
2,50
2,50

6,25

6,25

6,25
6,25
6,25
6,25

5,17

0,50
0,50
0,50

1,33
1,33
1,33

7,41
7,41
7,50

7,41

7,41

7,50

6,94

2,50

EU Median 2020
2,50
2,50

2,00

2,00

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

1,25

1,33

1,33

1,33

0,50

0,50

0,50

2,50

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

*ICT calculations are described in more details in Annex 5 - IT Calculation methodology

1266

2020

Synthesis table for the main indicators for:

Romania

Economic and demographic data

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Variations

Population

GDP per capita

Exchange rate (local currency needed to 
obtain 1€)

21 305 097

19 942 642

22 279 183

19 759 968

19 638 309

19 523 621

19 405 156

19 414 458

19 186 201

-9,9%

-11,9%

-1,2%

-0,6%

0,0%

6 660

7 217

7 533

8 100

8 600

9 600

10 400

11 500

11 290

69,5%

14,2%

20,9%

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

10,3%

1,3%

2,7%

Average annual salary

5 556

6 152

7 085

11 574

12 829

13 385

140,9%

15,2%

63,4%

8,3%

0,1%

10,6%

2,5%

10,8%

-1,2%

-1,8%

1,9%

4,3%

Resources

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Professional judges per 100 000 inhab.

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhab.

Lawyers per 100 000 inh.

Mediators

ICT overall assesment

20,2

43,6

98,2

19,4

22,6

48,3

20,5

45,5

23,3

51,9

23,6

52,4

23,9

54,5

24,1

54,9

24,5

55,1

24,0

54,8

18,5%

14,7%

25,7%

15,1%

117,0

104,3

119,6

118,2

117,9

117,9

121,3

122,1

24,3%

13,3%

54,4

30,7

59,2

25,9

24,3

23,6

6,4

57,9

6,4

58,7

202,3%

-15,7%

6,5

2,3%

4,8%

-0,2%

-8,7%

0,9%

0,8%

0,0%

1,6%

0,3%

2,9%

-2,7%

144,9%

0,0%

-2,1%

-0,6%

0,6%

1,4%

0,5%

First instance incoming cases per 100 
inhab.

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Civil and commercial litigious cases

5,176

4,158

6,852

6,848

6,800

6,554

6,393

6,678

6,123

18,3%

-0,7%

-6,0%

-2,5%

4,5%

-8,3%

Administrative law cases

1,078

1,0

0,4

0,331

0,598

0,748

0,432

0,426

0,412

-61,8%

69,9%

-27,8%

-42,3%

-1,2%

-3,4%

Total criminal law cases

1,782

First instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

First instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
cases (days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

First instance pending cases per 100 
inhab. on 31 dec.

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

 Supreme court 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

99%

78%

112%

109%

105%

102%

99%

103%

100%

100%

1,11

-6,63

0,64

3,49

-2,28

-0,29

130%

161%

133%

92%

102%

118%

100%

48%

-29,69

-69,26

26,24

15,76

-17,67

-51,93

100%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

193

272

187

106

146

179

154

170

153

170

167

114

157

117

152

138

-12,9%

5,0%

2,8%

-6,0%

-3,0%

10,5%

153,9%

-5,0%

-30,9%

2,5%

18,0%

398,2%

168

690

113

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

2,71

0,63

2,39

0,37

2,97

0,28

3,02

0,20

2,91

0,26

2,98

0,24

2,83

0,16

2,80

0,16

4,2%

-2,1%

-2,7%

-5,1%

-0,9%

1,0%

-39,9%

-8,1%

-35,8%

-31,8%

-0,9%

132,2%

2,83

0,38

0,55

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

67%

NAP

93%

NAP

106%

NAP

97%

NAP

105%

100%

NAP

NAP

97%

NAP

99%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

39,79

NAP

-0,93

NAP

7,95

NAP

-5,41

NAP

-3,10

NAP

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

299

NAP

185

NAP

131

NAP

152

NAP

128

NAP

139

NAP

174

NAP

122

-56,3%

-2,2%

-16,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

8,9%

NAP

25,0%

NAP

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

166%

190%

126%

109%

80%

101%

105%

-39,92

-46,23

-29,55

21,19

124%

126%

105%

83%

123%

100%

106%

-18,54

17,59

39,71

-23,28

103%

3,67

5,96

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

143

117

102

142

170

185

193

184

246

149

215

264

242

276

134

18,7%

44,6%

27,7%

-12,8%

12,8%

57,8%

-19,6%

-18,9%

77,4%

4,4%

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Supreme court
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1267 / 1555

1. Judicial organisation in Romania

In Romania there are 4-court levels: first instance courts (judecatorii), tribunals (tribunale), courts of appeal (curti de apel) and the High Court of Cassation and Justice (HCCJ). First 
instance courts (judecatorii) have a general jurisdiction and most of the cases start at this level. The appeals against the decisions of the first instance courts in civil matters are 
decided at the tribunals. The appeals in criminal matters against the decisions of the first instance courts are decided at the courts of appeal. More important cases may start at 
tribunals or at the courts of appeal and the appeals against the decisions of these courts are decided by higher courts. It is noteworthy that, according to the law, in Romania there are 
two types of appeal: first appeal which is an appeal on the merits and second appeal which is an appeal on the law /“recurs”). 

Distribution of general courts in Romania

Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Romania - 1st instance
Romania - Higher instances

EU Median - 1st instance

EU Median - Higher instances

RomaniaDistribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

According to 2020 data, the distribution between 1st instance and higher instances courts of general 
jurisdiction in Romania is similar to the EU median of 87% - 13%.

Romania - 1st instanceRomania - Higher instances

General courts - Romania

75%

25%

General courts - Romania
EU Median

75%
87%

25%
13%

EU Median

87%

13%

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Romania

Geographic 
locations

Legal entities

General jurisdiction

Specialised 
jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

244

244

244

243

243

243

243

243

242

233

233

233

232

233

233

233

233

175

10

10

10

9

9

9

9

9

8

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Romania

Geographic locations

Legal entities General jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

In Romania there are 175 judecatorii, first instance courts of general jurisdiction.

The number of "judecatorii" (geographic location) has decreased by one between 2019-2020 because the activity of Judecătoria Insuratei was suspended. 175 represent the first 
instance courts with general jurisdiction. Starting from 2020, the methodology of presentation of data changed and only "judecatorii" are counted as first instance courts of general 
jurisdiction, even if tribunals, courts of appeal and the High Court may also judge first instance cases.

It should also be mentioned that some of the first instance specialised courts share the location with "judecatorii".

Romania

Distribution of first instance general jurisdiction and specialised courts

Ratio general jurisdiction vs specialised

4%

Romania

EU Median

25%

General jurisdiction Specialised courts

96%

75%

4%

25%

96%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

75%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

The distribution between number of general jurisdiction courts and specialised courts of 95,6% - 4,4% is quite different from the EU median (distribution 
tendency in EU: 75,5% - 24,5%).

Specialised courts
Total

Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

Insolvency courts

Labour courts

Family courts

Rent and tenancies courts

Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

Internet related disputes

Administrative courts

Insurance and / or social welfare courts

Military courts

Juvenile courts

Other specialised 1st instance courts

First instance

Higher instance

8

3

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1268 / 1555

2. Professionals of justice in Romania

● Professional judges and non-judge staff

Evolution of the number of professional judges since 2012 (Q46)

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Absolute 
number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

4 310

4 511

4 577

4 608

4 628

4 664

4 677

4 753

4 600

20,23

22,62

20,54

23,32

23,57

23,89

24,10

24,48

23,98

EU median

23,9

Professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants

20,23

22,62

20,54

23,32

23,57

23,89

24,10

24,48

23,98

23,9

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

According to 2020 data, the total number of professional judges sitting in courts (all instances) in Romania is 4 600, which is -3,2% less than in the previous cycle.

More precisely, there are 23,98 professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants (this figure is above the EU median of 23,92 judges per 100 000 inhabitants) and about 2,29 non-judge staff 
per judge . The ratio non-judge staff per judge has slightly increased between 2019 and 2020 (in 2019, it was 2,25).

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and gender

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

2 103

2 387

110

4 600

Distribution by 
instance

45,7%

51,9%

2,4%

Male

563

634

26

1 223

Female

% Male

% Female

1 540

1 753

84

3 377

26,8%

26,6%

23,6%

26,6%

73,2%

73,4%

76,4%

73,4%

Distribution of professional judges by instance

Romania

EU Median

Distribution of professional judges by gender and by instance

% Female

% Male

72,39%

EU Median

45,7%

72,39%

23,98%

4,03%

51,9%

23,98%

73,2%

73,4%

76,4%

73,4%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

2,4%

4,03%

26,8%

26,6%

23,6%

26,6%

Total

Compared with the EU distribution of professional judges per instance, Romania has different distribution of judges among instances. While the percentage of first instance judges is well 
below the EU median (45,7% vs 72,29%): the percentage of second instance judges is more than twice the EU Median (51,9% vs 23,98%). Moreover, the percentage of Supreme court 
judges is 2,4% (vs the EU median of 4,03%).

In Romania, there are four levels of courts (first instance courts, tribunals, courts of appeal and the High Court of Cassation and Justice). Only judges of the "judecatorii" are counted as 
first instance judges. In line with our previous reports, judges from tribunals and courts of appeal shall be included in the category "second instance professional judges", even though 
they may judge at first instance court according to the procedural provisions in terms of competences  of tribunals and courts of appeal. Moreover even the High Court can judge in first 
instance for example in criminal cases according to the personal competence rules of procedure.

In this cycle, the total number of female professional judges (all instances) is 3 377, which represents 73,4% of the total number of judges.

The total number of judges is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 2 103 are sitting in first instance courts (of which 1 540 are female); 2 387 are sitting 
in second instance courts (of which 1 753 are female)  and 110 are sitting in Supreme Court (of which 84 are female).  

As regards the distribution of male/female judges, it should be noticed that in Romania there is very high percentage of female judges in all instances (73,2 % in first instance courts, 
73,4% in second instance courts and 76,4% in Supreme courts).

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Total

Civil and commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

2 103

2 387

110

4 600

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

In Romania, the distribution of judges per categories of cases is not possible since its statistical system does not collect information regarding a breakdown in the number of judges 
based on the different legal matters.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1269 / 1555

Non-judge staff

Year

2012

Number of non-judge staff

9 283

Per 100 000 inhabitants

43,57

2013

9 639

48,33

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

10 147

10 251

10 297

10 638

10 662

10 700

10 512

45,54

51,88

52,43

54,49

54,94

55,11

54,79

E
U 
m

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants

51,88

52,43

54,49

54,94

55,11

54,79

59,00

43,57

48,33

45,54

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

2020

Total

Rechtspfleger

Non-judge staff assisting the judge

Staff in charge of administrative tasks

Technical staff

Other

Absolute 
number

10 512

NAP

6 374

1 621

1 682

835

in %

NAP

60,6%

15,4%

16,0%

7,9%

In 2020, Romania has 10 512 non-judge staff. The total number of non-judge staff reveals a decrease of -1,8% in comparison with the previous cycle.

In this cycle, the non-judge staff is broken down as follows:

◦ 6 374 non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges such as registrars (of which NA are women);
◦ 1 621 staff in charge of different administrative tasks and of the court management (of which NA are women);
◦ 1 682 technical staff (of which NA are women);
◦ 835 other (of which NA are women);

In 2020, the number of non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants has slightly decreased from 55,1 in 2019 to 54,8 in 2020.

During the same period, the number of judges per 100 000 inhabitants increased from 24,5 judges per 100 000 inhabitants in 2019 to 24,0 in 2020.

The number indicated for the category “non-judge staff assisting judges” encompasses clerks with judicial tasks. The number indicated for “staff in charge of administrative tasks” concerns 
registering clerks, documentary clerks, statistician clerks, archivist clerks and public servants. Moreover, the number indicated for “technical staff” includes IT staff, contractual personnel 
and other personnel (drivers, ushers, procedural agents etc.). The category “other”includes assistance magistrates, judicial assistants and probation counselors.

The Assistance magistrates work only within the High Court of Cassation and Justice. They participate in the trial sessions, have a consultative vote in deliberations and write the minutes 
of the sessions, as well as the decisions. 

The Judicial assistants work only within tribunals and they are members of panels for first instance cases regarding labor and social insurances litigations. A panel is composed by 1 judge 
and 2 judicial assistants; the latter participate in the deliberations with a consultative vote and sign the decisions.

The probation counselors have, in principle, the following attributions: support the activity of judges by elaborating certain evaluation documents in criminal cases with juvenile offenders; 
support the activity of the judge delegated with enforcing decisions in criminal matters; cooperate with public institutions in order to execute the measure to force a minor to carry out an 
unpaid activity in an institution of public interest; initiate and carry on special programs of social reinsertion for persons convicted to prison and for minors who committed offences provided 
by the criminal law; carry out, at request, activities of individual counseling of offenders, with regard to the social, group and individual behavior; initiate and carry out special programmes 
of protection, social and judicial assistance of minors and youngsters who committed offences.

Professional judges, non-judge staff and their ratio (Q46, Q52)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Romania

EU median

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

23,98

54,79

Non-judge staff per judge

2,29

23,92

59,00

3,30

Professional judges and non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Non-judge staff per judge

54,79

2,29

23,98

59,00

3,30

23,92

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff  (Q46, Q52)

Romania

EU median

Judges 
per 100 000 inh.

Non-judge staff per
100 000 inh.

Ratio between professional judges and 
non-judge staff

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff 
Non-judge staff per 100 000 inh.
(Q46, Q52)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

20,23

22,62

20,54

23,32

23,57

23,89

24,10

24,48

23,98

43,57

48,33

45,54

51,88

52,43

54,49

54,94

55,11

54,79

EU median 2020

3,30

2,15

2,14

2,22

2,22

2,22

2,28

2,28

2,25

2,29

2,15

2,14

2,22

2012

2013

2014

2,15
2,14
2,22
2,22
2,22
2,28
2,28
2,25
2,29

2,22

2,22

2,28

2,28

2,25

2,29

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1270 / 1555

● Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff

Absolute number of public prosecutors by instance and gender (Q55)

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

1 144

788

514

2 446

Distribution by 
instance

46,8%

32,2%

21,0%

Male

545

364

265

1 174

Female

599

424

249

1 272

Male

47,6%

46,2%

51,6%

48,0%

Female

52,4%

53,8%

48,4%

52,0%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance

Romania

EU Median

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance and gender

Female

Male

46,8%

73,30%
EU Median

73,30%

32,2%

21,28%

4,66%

21,28%

21,0%

4,66%

52,4%

47,6%

53,8%

46,2%

48,4%

51,6%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

52,0%

48,0%

Total

Since there are four-level courts system in Romania, the prosecution office services reflect this organisation (first instance courts, tribunals, courts of appeal and the High Court of 
Cassation and Justice). In line with our previous reports, prosecutors from prosecution offices of the tribunals and of the courts of appeal are included in the category "second instance 
professional prosecutors".

As a result, the distribution of the number of public prosecutors among the different judicial instances diverges from the EU median. Indeed, the first instance public prosecutors represent 
46,8% of the total public prosecutors, which is significantly below the EU median of 73,3%, and the Supreme court prosecutors represent 21% of the total prosecutors (vs the EU median 
of 4,66%). Finally, the percentage of second instance public prosecutors might be considered close to the EU median (32,2% vs the EU median of 21,28%).

The total number of public prosecutors is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 1 144 in first instance (of which 599 are female); 788 are in second 
instance (of which 424 are female)  and 514 in final instance (of which 249 are female).  

In this cycle, the total number of female prosecutors (all instances) is 1 272, which represents 52,0% of the total number of prosecutors. In general, there exist gender balance in all 
instances in Romania. As shown in the graph above, female public prosecutors prevail in the first and second instances only by a slim majority (52,4% and 53,8%, respectively) and 
represent 48,4% of public prosecutors in Supreme courts. 

Non-prosecutor staff by gender (Q60)

Non-prosecutor staff

2020

Total

2 408

Male

NA

Female

NA

Public prosecutors, non-prosecutor staff and their ratio (Q55, Q60)

Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Romania

EU median

Public prosecutors

12,75

Non-prosecutor staff

12,55

Non-prosecutor staff per 
prosecutor

0,98

9,91

15,22

1,11

Public prosecutors

12,75

12,55

Non-prosecutor staff

0,98

Non-prosecutor staff per prosecutor

15,22

9,91

1,11

Romania

EU median

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1271 / 1555

● Salaries of professional judges and prosecutors at beginning of a career and at the highest instance (Q132, Q4)

Salaries of professional judges and 
prosecutors (Q132, Q4)

Average gross annual 
salary 
in €

Average net annual 
salary 
in €

Ratio with national 
average annual 
gross salary

Judge at the beginning of a career 

43 223 €

25 285 €

Judge of the highest court 

87 522 €

51 200 €

Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

43 223 €

25 285 €

Public prosecutor at highest instance

67 051 €

39 225 €

3,23

6,54

3,23

5,01

EU Median

6,54

2,02

3,23

4,09

1,71

2,02

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual salary in the 
country

Salaries of 
judges and 
prosecutors in 
Judge

4,09

at the beginning 
of a career

5,01

3,23

at the highest 
instance
1,71

43223

3,61

87522

43223

Prosecutor

at the beginning 
of a career

Judge at the beginning of
career

Judge on highest instance

3,61

Romania

Prosecutor at the
beginning of career

EU Median

at the highest 
instance

Prosecutor at highest
instance

67051

According to 2020 data, the absolute gross salary of a judge at the beginning of a career in Romania is 43 223€, which is slightly below the EU median of 51 946€. As a ratio between the 
salary for a judge at the beginning of career and the annual average salary of the country is 3,23 (above the EU median of 2,02).

At the end of the career, a judge earns 87 522€ on average and the ration between this salary and the average annual salary in Romania is 6,54, which is well above the EU median of 
At the beginning of the career, public prosecutors earn the same amount of judges whereas, at the end of career, their salary is much lower than the salary of judges at the end of the 
career (67 051€ vs 87 522€). Yet, the ratio between the public prosecutors' salary with the annual averag salary is well above the EU median both at the beginning and the end of the 
career. Indeed, it is 3,23 at the beginning of the career vs the EU median of 1,71 and it is 5,01 at the end of the career vs the EU median of 3,61.

● Lawyers

Lawyers

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

Number of lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

20 919

23 332

23 244

23 635

23 205

23 020

22 873

23 554

23 424

98,19

117,00

104,33

119,61

118,16

117,91

117,87

121,32

122,09

EU median 2020

122,09

117,00

119,61

118,16

117,91

117,87

121,32

122,09

122,09

98,19

104,33

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median
2020

In 2020, there are 23 424 lawyers in Romania. Compared to 2019, their number has decreased by -0,6%.

Romania has 122,1 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants, which is the EU median.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1272 / 1555

● Judicial professionals (summary)

Judicial professionals in absolute number and per 100 000 inhabitants (Q46, Q52, Q55, Q60, Q146)

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

EU Median

Professional judges

4 753

24,48

Non-judge staff

10 512

54,79

Prosecutors

2 446

12,75

23,92

59,00

9,91

Non-prosecutor staff

2 408

12,55

15,22

24,48

23,92

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Romania

EU Median

122,09

122,09

54,79

59,00

12,75

9,91

12,55

15,22

Lawyers

23 424

122,09

122,09

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

% Male

% Female

Professional judges

Romania % MaleRomania % Femalelabels

Judicial professionals: Gender balance
-26,6%

73,4%

Romania % Male
EU Median  % Male
-39,0%

26,6%

Romania % Female
EU Median  % Female

61,0%

39,0%

0,0%

Professional judges

26,6%

73,4%

Professional judges

26,6%

Non judge staff

NA

NA

Prosecutors

48,0%

52,0%

Non-prosecutor staff

NA

NA

Lawyers

42,1%

57,9%

39,0%

Non judge staff

#VALUE!

NA

#VALUE!

Prosecutors

48,0%

-24,0%

76,0%

24,0%

40,5%

Prosecutors

-48,0%
-40,5%

Lawyers

42,1%

Non-prosecutor staff #VALUE!

NA

52,3%

Lawyers

-28,1%

-42,1%
-52,3%

0,0%

48,0%
40,5%
0,0%

#VALUE!

28,1%
0,0%
42,1%
52,3%

52,0%
59,5%

71,9%

57,9%
47,7%

73,4%

61,0%

52,0%

59,5%

57,9%

47,7%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1273 / 1555

3. Legal aid and court fees in Romania

1

1

In Romania, legal aid includes:

◦ Coverage of court fees: 

◦ Exemption from court fees: 

In Romania, legal aid is available for :

> Representation in court:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

> Legal advice, ADR and other legal services:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

>

Fees related to enforcement of judicial decisions as fees for enforcement agents (Q18) 

>

 Other costs than above (Q19) 

1

1

1

1

1

1

For the enforcement phase, legal aid may be granted as facilities at the payment of judicial duties. Moreover, according to Article 6 letter c) of the Government Emergency 
Ordinance 51/2008, it can also be the payment of the bailiff’s fee.

According to Article 6 letter b) of the Government Emergency Ordinance 51/2008, public aid may also cover costs of the expert, translator or interpreter services during the trial, 
with the consent of the court or of the jurisdictional authority, if this payment is the obligation of the one requiring judicial public aid, according to law.

 Number of cases for which legal aid has been granted

Absolute number 
(in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

Total

Cases brought to court

Cases not brought to 
court

66 522

63 492

3 030

66 522

63 492

3 030

NAP

NAP

NAP

Ratio of number of cases brought to court for which legal aid 
has been granted

In criminal cases

100,0% NAP

In other than criminal
cases

100,0% NAP

100,0% NAP

Per 100 000 inhabitants
 (in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

Romania

EU Median

346,7

330,9

15,8

734,2

330,9

402,7

In criminal cases data also include ex officio layers.

Number of cases for which legal has been granted per 100 000 
inhabitants

Romania

EU Median

734,2

346,7

330,9

330,9

402,7

15,8

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

Timeframes of the procedure for granting legal aid (in relation to the duration from the initial legal aid request to the final approval of the legal aid request)

◦ Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulations: 

◦ Actual average duration: 

NAP

NA

There is no timeframe set for the procedure of granting legal aid by the court. The procedure is urgent as a general rule, being decided in chambers.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1274 / 1555

4. Performance of courts in Romania

● Efficiency indicators

◦ Clearance Rate (CR) and Disposition Time (DT)

The Clearance Rate shows the capacity of a judicial system to deal with the incoming cases. A Clearance Rate of 100% and higher does not generate backlog. 

The Disposition Time determines the estimated number of days necessary for a pending case to be solved in a court. 

First instance Total of other than criminal cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Evolution of number of all other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants
Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Incoming

3
6
8

,

5
2
8

,

3
8
8

,

2
0
8

,

4
1
8

,

3
3
7

,

5
7
7

,

1
3
7

,

3
5
7

,

2
6
7

,

6
4
7

,

2
4
7

,

8
9
6

,

3
2
7

,

7
2
7

,

5
6
3

,

9
0
3

,

1
3
3

,

7
2
3

,

1
2
3

,

7
2
3

,

5
0
3

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

8,63

8,02

7,33

8,25

8,83

8,14

3,65

3,09

3,31

8
6
6

,

7,31

8
2
7

,

3
0
3

,

7,53

7,46

6,98

7,27

6,68
2019
6,82

7,75

6
4
6

,

7,62

2
8
6

,

3,27

0
6
6

,

3,21

7,42

9
2
3

,

7,23

7,28

6,46

2020

6,60

3,27

3,05

6
6
2

,

3,03

3,29
EU median
2,66

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Romania (6,68 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below EU median (6,82 per 100 inhabitants). Moreover, the number of 
resolved cases in 2020 in Romania (6,46 per 100 inhabitants) is also slightly below EU median (6,60 per 100 inhabitants).

Yet, the number of pending cases at the end of 2020 in Romania (3,29 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat above EU median (2,66 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Other than criminal cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

96%

110%

111%

106%

101%

99%

104%

100%

97%

161

128

148

154

154

161

154

152

186

EU median

99%

109

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Other than criminal 
cases

110%

111%

106%

96%

101%

99%

104%

100%

97%

99%

DT (days)

CR (%)

161

2012

128

2013

148

2014

154

2015

154

2016

161

2017

154

2018

152

2019

186

109

2020

EU median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 96,7% in 2020 Romania seems to be able to deal with its other than criminal cases.

However, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -3,6 percentage points between 2019 and 2020.

In 2020, other than criminal cases are solved in approximately 186 days, which is significantly above EU median of 109 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 22,3% increase of the Disposition Time.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1275 / 1555

First instance Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of civil and commercial litigious cases per 100 inhabitants

4
4
7

,

5
8
6

,

7
1
7

,

5
8
6

,

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

0
8
6

,

4
9
6

,

5
5
6

,

0
5
6

,

6
5
6

,

9
3
6

,

8
6
6

,

0
7
6

,

8
1
5

,

2
1
5

,

6
6
4

,

6
1
4

,

1
7
2

,

9
3
2

,

7
9
2

,

2
0
3

,

1
9
2

,

8
9
2

,

3
8
2

,

5,18
4,16
6,85
6,85
6,80
6,55
6,39
6,68
6,12
1,56

0
8
2

,

5,12
4,66
7,44
7,17
6,94
6,50
6,56
6,70
6,13
1,50

2
1
6

,

3
1
6

,

3
8
2

,

2,71
2,39
2,97
3,02
2,91
2,98
2,83
2,80
2,83
1,05

6
5
1

,

0
5
1

,

5
0
1

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

In 2020, the number of incoming civil and commercial litigious cases (6,12 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (1,56 per 100 inhabitants).

Moreover, the number of resolved civil and commercial litigious cases (6,13 per 100 inhabitants) is also well above EU median (1,50 per 100 inhabitants) and the pending 
cases at the end of 2020 as well (2,83 per 100 inhabitants vs the EU median of 1,05 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

99,0%

112,2%

108,7%

104,7%

102,0%

99,2%

102,7%

100,4%

100,1%

193

187

146

154

153

167

157

152

168

EU Median

98%

221

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

112,2%

108,7%

99,0%

104,7%

102,0%

99,2%

102,7%

100,4%

100,1%

98%

DT (days)

CR (%)

193

2012

187

2013

146

2014

154

2015

153

2016

167

2017

157

2018

152

2019

168

221

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 100,1% in 2020, Romania seems to be able to deal with its civil and commercial litigious cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -0,3 points.

In 2020, the civil and commercial litigious cases are solved in approximately 168 days, which is below EU median of 221 days.

However, the analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 10,5% increase of the Disposition Time.

In Romania, there are 21 415 civil and commercial litigious cases older than 2 years. This is 3,9% of the total number of pending cases at the end of the year

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1276 / 1555

First instance Administrative cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of administrative cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

8
2
1

,

8
9
0

,

8
0
1

,

4
8
0

,

3
6
0

,

7
3
0

,

5
3
0

,

7
5
0

,

8
2
0

,

4
4
0

,

3
3
0

,

0
2
0

,

5
7
0

,

7
7
0

,

0
6
0

,

5
5
0

,

6
2
0

,

4
2
0

,

1,08
0,98
0,35
0,33
0,60
0,75
0,43
0,43
0,41
0,30

3
4
0

,

0,84
1,28
0,57
0,44
0,55
0,77
0,51
0,43
0,20
0,26

8
3
0

,

0,63
0,37
0,28
0,20
0,26
0,24
0,16
0,16
0,38
0,21

0
3
0

,

6
2
0

,

1
2
0

,

1
4
0

,

0
2
0

,

1
5
0

,

3
4
0

,

3
4
0

,

6
1
0

,

6
1
0

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Romania (0,41 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat above EU median (0,30 per 100 inhabitants).

Moreover, the number of resolved cases in 2020 in Romania (0,20 per 100 inhabitants) is also below EU median (0,26 per 100 inhabitants).

Yet, the number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Romania (0,38 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly above EU median (0,21 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Administrative cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

78,1%

130,2%

161,0%

132,7%

91,8%

102,2%

118,0%

100,3%

48,4%

272

106

179

170

170

114

117

138

690

EU Median

100%

388

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Administrative cases

DT (days)

CR (%)

161,0%

130,2%

132,7%

78,1%

91,8%

102,2%

118,0%

100,3%

100%

48,4%

272

2012

106

2013

179

2014

170

2015

170

2016

114

2017

117

2018

138

2019

690

388

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 48,4% in 2020, Romania seems to struggle in dealing with its administrative cases in 2020.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased for -51,9 percentage points.

In 2020, the administrative cases are solved in approximately 690 days, which is significantly above EU median of 388 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 398,2% increase of the Disposition Time.

In Romania, there are 2 465 administrative law cases older than 2 years. This is 3,4% of the total number of pending cases at the end of the year.

The decrease in the number of resolved cases in 2020 was caused by the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. The activity of al the courts was partially suspended 
between the 15-th of March until the end of May 2020 because a state of emergency was declared. During that period only few urgent cases were adjudicated. Some 
courts instituted preventive mesures even before the 15-th of March 2020 which included postponing non-urgent cases. After the state of emergency ended there were 
still in place measures that affected the normal activity of the courts like: the introduction of specific timeframes for each case, hearings through video conference, a strict 
limitation of human interaction at the auxiliary compartments of the courts that dealt directly with public like the Archive and the Registry office, so that requests and 
documents had to be submitted by post, fax or e-mail. These measures affected not only the court staff but all court users that had to adapt to the new circumstances 
and led to the postponement of many cases. There were also gaps in activity caused by cases of Covid-19 among the personnel of the courts. The same explanation is 
valid for the increased Disposition time which led to an increased numer of pending cases older than 3 years.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1277 / 1555

Insolvency cases

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Insolvency cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Insolvency cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

96,3%

89,5%

120,7%

129,0%

121,7%

106,4%

108,9%

115,0%

112,8%

332

385

334

328

353

400

379

331

399

EU Median

105%

281

DT (days)

CR (%)

120,7%

129,0%

121,7%

106,4%

108,9%

115,0%

112,8%

105%

96,3%

89,5%

332

2012

385

2013

334

2014

328

2015

353

2016

400

2017

379

2018

331

2019

399

281

2020

EU Median

The Clearance Rate for insolvency cases is 112,8%. Romania seems to be able to deal with this type of cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -2,1 points.

In 2020, insolvency cases are solved in a approximately 399 days, which is somewhat above EU median of 281 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 20,4% increase of the Disposition Time.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1278 / 1555

● First instance Criminal Law Cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

106 622

341 899

342 634

105 887

Severe criminal cases 

Misdemeanour and/or 
minor cases

Other cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

Incoming cases Resolved casesPending 

Romania

EU Median

1,78

1,60

1,79

0,55

1,48

0,46

Total criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases

Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

8
7
1

,

9
7
1

,

0
6
1

,

8
4
1

,

Per 100 inhabitants

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

5
5
0

,

6
4
0

,

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 
Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

0,56

NAP

NAP

NAP

1,78

NAP

NAP

NAP

1,79

NAP

NAP

NAP

0,55

NAP

NAP

NAP

Romania

EU Median

In 2020, the number of total incoming criminal cases is 1,78 per 100 inhabitants; which is slightly above EU median of 1,60 per 100 inhabitants.

Furthermore, the number of total resolved criminal cases (1,79 per 100 inhabitants) is also above EU median (1,48 per 100 inhabitants).

Likewise, the number of total pending criminal cases is slightly above EU median (0,55 per 100 inhabitants vs 0,46 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT)

Total criminal law cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

DT (days)

CR (%)

Total

100,2%

Severe criminal 
cases 

Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

113

NAP

NAP

NAP

Total Criminal law cases

100,2%

95,2%

EU Median

95,2%

139

EU Median

113

Total

139

EU Median

With the Clearance Rate calculated at 100,2% in 2020 for total criminal cases, Romania seems to be able to deal with its total criminal cases.

In 2020, criminal law cases were solved in approximately 113 days, which is slightly below EU median of 139 days.

There is no classification of severe and less severe offences in the Romanian statistics.

The context of the Covid-19 pandemic affected the activity of the courts which led to the decrease in the number of resolved cases in 2020 an increased Disposition time 
and an increased numer of pending cases older than 3 years. In criminal law cases postponements were reccurent in cases involving persons serving a prison 
senstence, because generaly they have to be brought to every court hearing which was not always possibile due to the curantine measures taken by the prison 
administrations.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1279 / 1555

Overall efficiency by instance and by case matter

CR (%)

DT (days)

CR (%)

DT (days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases

100,1%

96,9%

104,7%

Administrative cases

48,4%

NAP

105,8%

Total criminal law cases

100,2%

99,2%

103,1%

168

690

113

174

NAP

122

242

276

134

1st instance

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)
2nd instance
%
8
5
0
1

2nd instance

1st instance

%
7
4
0
1

,

,

,

,

,

Supreme Court

Supreme Court
%
1
3
0
1

,

104,7%

%
2
0
0
1

%
2
9
9

96,9%

,

%
1
0
0
1

%
9
6
9

100,1%

48,4% NAP
%
4
8
4

,

105,8%

100%

Civil and
commercial
Administrative
cases

Total criminal law cases

P
A
N

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1

1

1

242

174

168

276

690

134

122
113

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

Administrative
100,2%
cases

Total criminal law
99,2%
cases

103,1%

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

1
1

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

It is worth specifying that, even tough the Romanian judicial system is a 4-tier system, the cases are classified as per the CEPEJ methodology, irrespective of the level of 
the courts.

The context of the Covid-19 pandemic affected the activity of the courts which led to the decrease in the number of resolved cases in 2020 an increased Disposition time 
and an increased numer of pending cases older than 3 years.

Looking at the charts above, it is clear that the courts dealing with Criminal Law cases are the fastest in Romania, compared with those dealing with Civil and 
Commercial Litigious cases and Administrative cases. Indeed, in 2020 the Disposition Time (DT) for the Total Criminal Law cases is 113 days for the first instance 
(below the EU median of 139 days); 122 days for the second instance (above the EU median of 101 days); and 134 days for the Supreme courts (just above the EU 
median of 120 days). Also, the Clearance Rate (CR) for the Total Criminal Law cases is around the threshold of 100% for all instances. Thus, the Romanian courts 
seem to be efficient in dealing with the incoming cases.  

Moreover, it is worth to notice that in 2020 the Civil and Commercial Litigious cases in the first and second instances are resolved in a fastest way compared to the EU 
median. Namely, the DT is 168 days for the first instance cases (well below the EU median is 221) and 174 days for the second instance cases (slightly below the EU 
median is 177). The CR for this type of cases is also around the threshold of 100% in all instances.

As far as the Administrative cases are concerned, the Romanian courts seem to struggle to deal with the first instance cases in 2020. Indeed, the CR for this type of 
cases is 48,4% (significantly below the threshold of 100%) and their DT is 690 days (which is considerably above the EU median of 388 days). 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1280 / 1555

5. Public prosecution services in Romania

● Role and powers of the public prosecutor

In the criminal procedure, the public prosecutor in Romania has the following 10 out of 11 possible roles and powers:

To conduct or supervise police investigation

To appeal

To conduct investigations

To supervise the enforcement procedure

When necessary, to request investigation measures from the judge

To discontinue a case without needing a decision by a judge

To charge

To present the case in the court

To propose a sentence to the judge

To end the case by imposing or negotiating a penalty or measure 
without requiring a judicial decision

Other significant powers

The category “other” refers to the competence for: defending the legitimate rights and interests of minors, persons under interdiction, disappeared and other persons in the legal 
conditions; acting for the prevention and fight against criminality, under the coordination of the minister of Justice, for the unitary realization of the State criminal policy, studying the 
cases generating or favouring criminality; drawing up and submitting to the minister of Justice proposals in order to eliminate them, as well as in order to perfect the legislation in 
the field.

The public prosecutor also has a role in civil and administrative cases.

● Public prosecutors: Number of first instance criminal cases

Type of cases

Absolute 
number

Per 100 
inhabitants

1. Pending cases on 1 Jan. ref. year 

1 144 581

5,97

Public prosecutors: Total number of first instance criminal 
cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming/received cases

Processed cases

Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. Year

2. Incoming/received cases

571 501

2,98

6,05

Incoming/rec
eived cases

Processed 
cases

3. Processed cases (3.1 + 3.2 + 3.3 + 3.4)

564 155

2,94

2,98

2,94

Romania

2,98 2,94
2,84

2,85

Pendin
g cases 
on 31 

6,05

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year (3.1.1 + 3.1.2 + 3.1.3 
+ 3.1.4)

442 820

2,31

EU Median

2,85 2,84

0,84

0,84

3.1.1 Discontinued by the public prosecutor because the 
offender could not be identified 

3.1.2 Discontinued by the public prosecutor due to the lack 
of an established offence or a specific legal situation 

3.1.3 Discontinued by the public prosecutor for reasons of 
opportunity

3.1.4 Discontinued for other reasons 

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Romania

EU Median

Processed cases per 100 inhabitants
EU Median

Romania

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

2,31

1,05

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated 
by the public prosecutor

75 636

0,39

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed
or negotiated by the public prosecutor

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

0,39

0,12

Processed cases

Romania

EU Median

-2,31

1,05

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons

NAP

NAP

3.4. Cases brought to court

45 699

0,24

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other
reasons

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor

0,30

NAP

-0,39

0,12

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons
0,30

3.4. Cases brought to court

0,00

0,24

0,53

4. Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. year

1 161 346

6,05

3.4. Cases brought to court

-0,24

0,53

There are no available data on grounds on which a decision to discontinue a case is taken by the public prosecutor.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1281 / 1555

 
6. Existence and use of alternative dispute resolution in Romania

Number of mediators

Mediators

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Total

4136

10847

6833

11701

5080

4739

4585

11234

11259

Per 100 000 inhabitants

EU Median
2020

14,4

Number of mediators per 100 000 inhabitants

19,4

54,4

30,7

59,2

25,9

24,3

23,6

57,9

58,7

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

58,7

57,9

59,2

54,4

23,6

24,3

25,9

30,7

19,4

EU Median 2020

EU median in 2019

14,4

In 2020, there are 11 259 accredited or registered mediators who practise court related mediation which represents 58,7 accredited or registered mediators per 
100 000 inhabitants.
The variation between 2019 and 2020 is about 0,2%.

The data were communicated by the Mediation Council and reflect the pace of the authorization process as a mediator by the Mediation Council (which may 
register fluctuations from year to year).

Number of court related mediations

Type of cases

All Cases

Civil and commercial

Family cases

Administrative

Employment dismissal

Criminal cases

Consumer cases

Number of cases 
for which the parties
agreed to start 
mediation

Number of finished 
court-related
mediations

Number of cases 
in which there is a 
settlement agreement

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

Although it is not possible for Romania to provide the figures for the total cases of court-related mediation, divided into the categories above, there were 614 
mediation agreement authorized by the court in 2020.

The control of the state regarding the mediation is indirect and it concerns the agreement concluded by the parties after following the mediation procedure – such 
an agreement constitutes an act under private signature. In order to become an authentic act, it has to be authenticated by the notary public or authorized by the 
court. Thus, if the conflict has already been submitted to a court, the settlement by mediation of such a case can be possible at the initiative of the involved parties 
or at the recommendation of the court and accepted by the parties, concerning rights the parties can dispose over in accordance with the legal provisions. 
Mediation can deal with the total or partial settlement of the concerned litigation. The court shall, on the request of the parties, issue a decision in accordance with 
the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code regarding the expedient court decision.

According with the provisions of article 59 para. 2 of the Law no. 192/2006, the parties to the mediation agreement may go to court to request, in compliance with 
the legal proceedings, to give a decision to legalize their understanding. Competence shall lay with the court in whose jurisdiction any of the parties have their 
domicile or residence or, where appropriate, the head office or the court of first instance in whose jurisdiction is located the place where it has been signed 
mediation agreement. The decision whereby the court consents on the understanding between parties shall be delivered in the council room and shall be an 
enforcement order under the law. The provisions of articles 438 - 441 of the Law no 134/2010 (New Civil Procedure Code), republished, as amended, shall apply 
accordingly.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1282 / 1555

7. ICT tools of courts in Romania

●The ICT tools of courts and for court users

The use of ICT in courts in 2020 has been evaluated as  :

EU Median

Total 
(0 to 10)

Assistance tools (0 to 3)

Case management system (0 to 7)
Financial management tools (0 to 3)

Measurement tools to assess the workload (0 to 5)
Electronic communication (0 to 10)

6,5
2,5

6,3

0,5
1,3

7,5

6,6
2,0

5,2

1,3
2,5

6,9

The calculation of this values for each field is based on the answers for that question/s and weighted according the avaiability 
or deployment rate. The total value is normalised to max 10 points for readability and comparison.

The details of the calculation are given in Annex 5 - IT calculations

The result by area may be summarized in these graphics, where each field has been evaluated from 0 to 4 points.

Note: index is modified based on the available questions. This cycle the recalculation was made for the last three cycles to be 
able to follow the development.

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

2018

2019

2020

EU Median 2020

Assistance 
tools

Year
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
2,50
EU Median 20202,00

2,50

2,50

2,50

2,50

Case 
management 
system

Financial 
management 
tools

6,25

6,25

6,25

Measurement 
tools to assess 
the workload

Electronic 
communication

7,41

7,41

7,50

6,94

5,17

1,33

1,33

1,33

0,50

0,50

0,50

7,41

7,41

7,50

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

6,25

6,25

6,25

2,00

2,50

2,50

1,25

1,33

1,33

1,33

0,50

0,50

0,50

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

Comments on communication tools 

Transmitting summons by fax can be an other modality of sending summons.
In terms of specific legislation framework in this matter, there should be mentioned the Code of criminal procedure and the Code of civil procedure.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1283 / 1555

8. Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and public prosecution services in Romania

In Romania, quality standards are not detemined for the judicial system at the national level.

There are no formal standards for quality established for the whole judiciary. However, informal standards are being used (such as training, quality of the reasoning, assessment of 
the activity of the judges, assessment of the good reputation of the judges etc.).

More precisely, the activity of courts is evaluated and monitored periodically, on the basis of certain statistical data/performance indicators. The evaluation is achieved by 
verifications carried out by inspectors of the Judicial Inspection of the SCM, by elaborating periodical reports. The schedule and thematic of those verifications are approved every 
year by the SCM.

At organizational level, there are no quality standards established for courts. It may be considered that such standards exist at individual level, for each judge, by the indicators for 
the evaluation of professional activity. 

● Systems for measuring and evaluating courts' performance

A regular monitoring system of court activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

Since 2012, the category “other” subsumes the length of administrative procedures, the number of final convictions, legal aid, suspended cases etc.
ECRIS - case management and STATIS - is the statistics monitoring application including for court's efficiency assessment.

In Romania, there is a system to regularly evaluate the court performance based primarily on defined indicators and the reporting is twice a year.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each court.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

The evaluation of the courts' activities is used for the later allocation of means in the courts.

● Systems for measuring and evaluating public prosecution services' performance

A regular monitoring system of public prosecution services activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases 

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs 

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other (e.g. suspended cases)

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecution) 

Costs of the judicial procedures 

Clearance rate 

Disposition time 

Percentage of convictions and aquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

In Romania, there is a system to evaluate regularly the activity of each public prosecution service and the frequency of the reporting is annual.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each public prosecution service.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecutors)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Percentage of convictions and acquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff

The evaluation of the public prosecution services' activities is used for the later allocation of means in the public prosecution services.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1284 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table General Data: Economic and demographic data, in absolute values (Q1, Q3, Q5)

Q1 Number of inhabitants

21 305 097

19 942 642

22 279 183

19 759 968

19 638 309

19 523 621

19 405 156

19 414 458

19 186 201

-9,9%

-6,4%

11,7%

-11,3%

-0,6%

-0,6%

-0,6%

0,0%

-1,2%

Q.3 GDP Per capita (in €) in current prices

6 660

7 217

7 533

8 100

8 600

9 600

10 400

11 500

11 290

69,5%

8,4%

4,4%

7,5%

6,2%

11,6%

8,3%

10,6%

-1,8%

Q5. Exchange rate of Nat currency to € on 1 Jan

4

4

4

5

5

5

5

5

5

10,3%

1,6%

-0,1%

0,9%

0,4%

2,6%

0,1%

2,5%

1,9%

Indicator 1: Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and prosecution services  (Indicator 4 in 2019)

Table 1.1 to Table 1.10 (Q66, Q67, Q77, Q78, Q77-1, Q78-1, Q73, Q73-0, Q73-1, Q73-2, Q73-3, Q73-4, Q73-5, Q73-6, Q70, Q70-1, Q71, Q72, Q83-2, Q83-3, Q120 
and Q120-1)

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

66 Qlty standards formulated_jud system

67 Specialised court staff entrusted_qlty standards

77 Performance and quality indicators of court activities

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

False

False

True

078.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078.1.5 Backlogs 

078.1.6 Productivity of judges and court staff

078.1.7 Satisfaction of court staff 

078.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts) 

078.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078.1.10 Number of appeals

078.1.11 Appeal ratio

078.1.12 Clearance rate 

078.1.13 Disposition time 

078.1.14 Other

077-1.1.1 Defined performance and quality indicators

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1285 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

078-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078-1.1.5 Backlogs 

078-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

078-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

078-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

078-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

078-1.1.11 Disposition time 

078-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

078-1.1.13 Other

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

73 Regular system_evaluation_performance_each court

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

073-0.1.1 Annual

073-0.1.2 Less frequent

073-0.1.3 More frequent

073-1.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
court

073-2.1.1 Courses of action taken in the evaluation is used for the 
allocation of resources

073-2.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-2.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-2.1.4 Other

073-3.1.1 Regular evaluation of the public prosecution services 
performance

Yes

Yes

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1286 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

073-4.1.1 Annual

073-4.1.2 Less frequent

073-4.1.3 More frequent

073-5.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
public prosecution services

073-6.1.1 Identifying the causes of improved or deteriorated 
performance

073-6.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-6.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-6.1.4 Other

070.1.1 number of incoming cases

070.1.2 length of proceedings (timeframes)

070.1.3 number of resolved cases

070.1.4 number of pending cases

070.1.5 backlogs

070.1.6 productivity of judges and court staff

070.1.7 satisfaction of court staff

070.1.8 satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts)

070.1.9 costs of the judicial procedures

070.1.10 number of appeals

070.1.11 appeal ratio

070.1.12 clearance rate

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1287 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

070-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases 

070-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

070-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

070-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

070-1.1.5 Backlogs 

070-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

070-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

070-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

070-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

070-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

070-1.1.11 Disposition time 

070-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

070-1.1.13 Other

071.1.1 Monitoring backlogs in Civil law cases

071.1.2 Monitoring backlogs in Criminal law cases

071.1.3 Monitoring backlogs in Administrative law cases

072.1.1 Monitoring timeframes Within the courts

072.1.2 Monitoring timeframes Within the public prosecution services

083-2.1.1 Quantitative performance tagets defined for each 
prosecutors

083-3.1.1 Body responsible - Executive power (for example the 
Ministry of Justice)

083-3.1.2 Body responsible - Prosecutor General /State public 
prosecutor

083-3.1.3 Body responsible - Public Prosecutorial Council

083-3.1.4 Body responsible - Head of the organisational unit or 
hierarchically superior public prosecutor

083-3.1.5 Body responsible - Other

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

False

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1288 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

120.1.1 Qualitative individual assessment of the public prosecutors' 
work

120-1.1.1 Feequency - Annual

120-1.1.2 Feequency - Less frequent

120-1.1.3 Feequency - More frequent

True

False

True

False

Indicator 2: The judicial organisation

Tables 2.1a; 2.1b; 2.2a; 2.2b; 2.3a; 2.3b; 2.4 and 2.5(EC) (Q42, Q43 and Q44)

Q42.1.1Total number of all courts - legal entities 

Q42.1.2 Total number of courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

242

233

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Q42.1.3 First instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

233

233

233

232

233

233

233

233

175

-24,9%

0,0%

0,0%

-0,4%

0,4%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-24,9%

Q42.1.4 Second instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.5 Highest instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.6 Total number of specialised courts - legal entities

43.1.1 Total number of specialised courts of first instance

43.1.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.1.3 Insolvency courts

43.1.4 Labour courts

43.1.5 Family courts

43.1.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.1.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.1.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.1.9 Internet related disputes

43.1.10 Administrative courts

43.1.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.1.12 Military courts

43.1.13 Juvenile courts

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

10

3

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

6

-

-

-

-

10

3

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

6

-

-

-

-

10

3

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

6

-

-

-

-

9

3

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

5

-

-

-

-

9

3

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

5

-

-

-

-

9

3

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

5

-

-

-

-

9

3

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

5

-

-

-

-

9

3

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

5

-

57

1

9

8

3

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-20,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-10,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-11,1%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4

-33,3%

0,0%

0,0%

-16,7%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-20,0%

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1289 / 1555

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

43.1.14 Other specialised courts

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

43.2.1 Total number of specialised courts of higher instances

43.2.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.2.3 Insolvency courts

43.2.4 Labour courts

43.2.5 Family courts

43.2.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.2.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.2.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.2.9 Internet related disputes

43.2.10 Administrative courts

43.2.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.2.12 Military courts

43.2.13 Juvenile courts

43.2.14 Other specialised courts

44.1.1 First instance courts geographic locations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

182

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

44.1.2 All courts geographic locations

244

244

244

243

243

243

243

243

242

-0,8%

0,0%

0,0%

-0,4%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-0,4%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1290 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 3: The performance of courts at all stages of the proceedings

Tables 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.4 (all years) Number of other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 Variation of first instance other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants (Q1, Q91)

Table 3.13.7 (EC) to 3.13.12 (EC) First instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

91.1.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.1.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.1.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.1.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.1.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.1.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.1.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.1.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

91.1.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.1.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

91.1.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

91.2.1 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.2.2 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.2.3 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.2.4 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.2.5 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.2.6 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.2.7 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.2.8 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

91.2.9 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

698 506

777 991

918 286

733 382

649 920

630 979

639 082

591 192

587 819

-15,8%

11,4%

18,0%

-20,1%

-11,4%

-2,9%

1,3%

-7,5%

-0,6%

566 796

578 043

793 683

661 619

597 721

570 748

581 464

548 530

543 619

-4,1%

2,0%

37,3%

-16,6%

-9,7%

-4,5%

1,9%

-5,7%

-0,9%

-

-

14 940

13 356

11 750

10 112

10 770

10 887

12 698

-

-

-

-10,6%

-12,0%

-13,9%

6,5%

1,1%

16,6%

44 812

62 572

-

1 454

2 281

-

-

-

1 366

2 526

-

-

6 418

8 522

5 601

2 921

NAP

NAP

4 375

8 981

5 550

3 431

NAP

NAP

3 049

8 701

4 788

3 913

NAP

NAP

1 756

1 354

1 546

2 453

-94,5%

39,6%

-89,7%

-31,8%

-30,3%

-42,4%

-22,9%

14,2%

58,7%

8 356

9 416

9 341

10 245

-

-

-

5,4%

-3,1%

-4,0%

12,7%

-0,8%

9,7%

4 193

4 322

4 629

5 108

251,3%

-6,1%

310,0%

-0,9%

-13,7%

-12,4%

3,1%

7,1%

10,3%

4 163

5 094

4 712

5 137

125,2%

10,7%

15,6%

17,5%

14,0%

6,4%

22,4%

-7,5%

9,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

83 163

133 484

109 663

61 838

40 449

50 119

46 848

31 775

31 502

-62,1%

60,5%

-17,8%

-43,6%

-34,6%

23,9%

-6,5%

-32,2%

-0,9%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 837 799

1 599 815

1 632 597

1 443 850

1 477 959

1 455 782

1 354 351

1 410 632

1 282 448

-30,2%

-12,9%

2,0%

-11,6%

2,4%

-1,5%

-7,0%

4,2%

-9,1%

1 102 677

829 193

1 526 483

1 353 189

1 335 498

1 279 631

1 240 508

1 296 445

1 174 754

6,5%

-24,8%

84,1%

-11,4%

-1,3%

-4,2%

-3,1%

4,5%

-9,4%

-

-

27 733

26 313

25 099

30 051

30 103

31 416

28 673

-

-

-

-5,1%

-4,6%

19,7%

0,2%

4,4%

-8,7%

502 594

571 575

19 973

19 224

18 421

23 094

23 618

24 567

22 356

-95,6%

13,7%

-96,5%

-3,8%

-4,2%

25,4%

2,3%

4,0%

-9,0%

-

-

2 099

1 999

810

869

-

-

-

-

7 760

6 821

939

NAP

NAP

7 089

6 001

1 088

NAP

NAP

6 678

5 904

774

NAP

NAP

6 957

6 485

6 849

6 317

-

-

-

-8,6%

-5,8%

4,2%

-6,8%

5,6%

-7,8%

5 393

5 631

5 856

5 329

153,9%

-4,8%

241,2%

-12,0%

-1,6%

-8,7%

4,4%

4,0%

-9,0%

1 564

NAP

NAP

854

NAP

NAP

993

NAP

NAP

988

22,0%

7,3%

8,1%

15,9%

-28,9%

102,1%

-45,4%

16,3%

-0,5%

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

91.2.10 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

229 619

196 179

78 381

65 436

117 362

146 100

83 740

82 771

79 021

-65,6%

-14,6%

-60,0%

-16,5%

79,4%

24,5%

-42,7%

-1,2%

-4,5%

91.2.11 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1291 / 1555

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

91.3.1 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.3.2 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.3.3 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.3.4 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.3.5 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.3.6 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.3.7 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.3.8 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

91.3.9 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

1 758 314

1 760 885

1 814 070

1 531 225

1 496 900

1 447 679

1 402 241

1 414 005

1 239 954

-29,5%

0,1%

3,0%

-15,6%

-2,2%

-3,3%

-3,1%

0,8%

-12,3%

1 091 430

929 973

1 658 547

1 417 087

1 362 471

1 268 915

1 273 442

1 301 356

1 175 845

7,7%

-14,8%

78,3%

-14,6%

-3,9%

-6,9%

0,4%

2,2%

-9,6%

-

-

29 317

27 919

26 737

29 393

29 986

29 605

25 865

-

-

-

-4,8%

-4,2%

9,9%

2,0%

-1,3%

-12,6%

484 834

572 830

22 016

20 550

19 714

23 496

23 426

23 660

20 821

-95,7%

18,1%

-96,2%

-6,7%

-4,1%

19,2%

-0,3%

1,0%

-12,0%

-

-

2 187

2 199

565

474

-

-

-

-

7 301

6 872

429

NAP

NAP

7 369

6 763

606

NAP

NAP

7 023

6 499

524

NAP

NAP

5 897

6 560

5 945

5 044

-

-

-

0,9%

-4,7%

-16,0%

11,2%

-9,4%

-15,2%

5 264

5 324

5 377

4 372

99,9%

0,5%

212,5%

-1,6%

-3,9%

-19,0%

1,1%

1,0%

-18,7%

633

1 236

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

568

NAP

NAP

672

18,9%

-16,1%

-9,5%

41,3%

-13,5%

20,8%

95,3%

-54,0%

18,3%

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

91.3.10 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

179 298

255 409

126 206

86 825

107 692

149 371

98 813

83 044

38 244

-78,7%

42,4%

-50,6%

-31,2%

24,0%

38,7%

-33,8%

-16,0%

-53,9%

91.3.11 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

91.4.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.4.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.4.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

777 991

616 921

736 813

646 007

630 979

639 082

591 192

587 819

630 313

-19,0%

-20,7%

19,4%

-12,3%

-2,3%

1,3%

-7,5%

-0,6%

7,2%

578 043

477 263

661 619

597 721

570 748

581 464

548 530

543 619

542 528

-6,1%

-17,4%

38,6%

-9,7%

-4,5%

1,9%

-5,7%

-0,9%

-0,2%

-

-

13 356

11 750

10 112

10 770

10 887

12 698

15 506

-

-

-

-12,0%

-13,9%

6,5%

1,1%

16,6%

22,1%

91.4.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

62 572

61 317

91.4.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.4.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.4.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.4.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

91.4.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.4.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

91.4.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

-

1 366

2 526

-

-

-

1 166

2 921

-

-

4 375

8 981

5 550

3 431

NAP

NAP

3 049

8 701

4 788

3 913

NAP

NAP

1 756

8 356

4 193

4 163

NAP

NAP

1 354

1 546

2 453

3 988

-93,6%

-2,0%

-92,9%

-30,3%

-42,4%

-22,9%

14,2%

58,7%

62,6%

9 416

9 341

10 245

11 518

-

-

-

-3,1%

-4,0%

12,7%

-0,8%

9,7%

12,4%

4 322

4 629

5 108

6 065

344,0%

-14,6%

376,0%

-13,7%

-12,4%

3,1%

7,1%

10,3%

18,7%

5 094

4 712

5 137

5 453

115,9%

15,6%

17,5%

14,0%

6,4%

22,4%

-7,5%

9,0%

6,2%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

133 484

74 254

61 838

40 449

50 119

46 848

31 775

31 502

72 279

-45,9%

-44,4%

-16,7%

-34,6%

23,9%

-6,5%

-32,2%

-0,9%

129,4%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1292 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.2 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.4 to 3.3.7 Variation of Clearence Rate and Disposition Time of first instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

Table 3.13.1 (EC) to 3.13.6 (EC) First instance courts: Disposition time and clearance rate for other than criminal cases  (Q91)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

95,7%

110,1%

111,1%

106,1%

101,3%

99,4%

103,5%

100,2%

96,7%

1,06

15,04

0,95

(4,56)

(4,50)

(1,81)

4,12

(3,18)

(3,54)

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

99,0%

112,2%

108,7%

104,7%

102,0%

99,2%

102,7%

100,4%

100,1%

1,12

13,31

(3,12)

(3,62)

(2,58)

(2,80)

3,52

(2,22)

(0,28)

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

-

-

105,7%

106,1%

106,5%

97,8%

99,6%

94,2%

90,2%

-

-

-

0,37

0,40

(8,18)

1,84

(5,40)

(4,28)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

96,5%

100,2%

110,2%

106,9%

107,0%

101,7%

99,2%

96,3%

93,1%

(3,45)

3,89

9,99

(3,02)

0,11

(4,93)

(2,51)

(2,90)

(3,30)

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

-

-

94,1%

103,9%

105,2%

84,8%

101,2%

86,8%

79,8%

-

-

-

10,48

1,17

(19,40)

19,34

(14,19)

(8,01)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

104,2%

110,0%

100,7%

112,7%

110,1%

97,6%

94,5%

91,8%

82,0%

(21,26)

5,58

(8,42)

11,86

(2,32)

(11,33)

(3,13)

(2,88)

(10,65)

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

69,8%

54,5%

45,7%

55,7%

67,7%

40,5%

144,7%

57,2%

68,0%

(2,49)

(21,80)

(16,24)

21,91

21,55

(40,22)

257,60

(60,48)

18,91

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

-

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CR Administrative law cases

78,1%

130,2%

161,0%

132,7%

91,8%

102,2%

118,0%

100,3%

48,4%

(38,02)

66,73

23,68

(17,59)

(30,84)

11,42

15,42

(14,97)

(51,76)

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

161

193

-

47

-

228

1632

-

-

272

NAP

128

187

-

39

-

194

2249

-

-

106

NAP

148

146

166

73

449

295

154

154

154

54

431

258

154

153

138

33

434

235

161

167

134

21

583

300

154

157

133

24

520

317

152

152

157

38

629

347

186

14,9%

-20,8%

15,9%

3,9%

-0,1%

4,7%

-4,5%

-1,4%

22,3%

168

-12,9%

-3,1%

-22,3%

5,7%

-0,7%

9,4%

-6,0%

-3,0%

10,5%

219

-

-

-

-7,6%

-10,1%

-3,1%

-0,9%

18,1%

39,8%

70

48,4%

-17,1%

85,6%

-25,3%

-40,0%

-35,3%

14,5%

57,1%

84,7%

833

-

-

-

-4,0%

0,8%

34,2%

-10,8%

21,0%

32,5%

506

122,1%

-15,1%

52,3%

-12,3%

-8,9%

27,3%

5,9%

9,3%

46,0%

2919

2357

2900

2937

1391

3301

2962

81,5%

37,8%

29,8%

-19,3%

23,0%

1,3%

-52,6%

137,2%

-10,3%

NAP

NAP

179

NAP

NAP

NAP

170

NAP

NAP

NAP

170

NAP

NAP

NAP

114

NAP

NAP

NAP

117

NAP

NAP

NAP

138

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

690

153,9%

-60,9%

68,5%

-4,9%

-0,1%

-32,6%

2,5%

18,0%

398,2%

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1293 / 1555

         
       
         
        
        
        
         
        
        
         
       
        
        
        
        
         
        
        
         
         
        
         
        
        
        
         
         
        
         
        
        
        
        
       
         
      
       
      
        
      
         
        
       
        
      
        
        
      
        
      
      
       
       
      
     
      
       
      
       
       
      
      
       
       
      
      
Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.4.1 (all years) First instance courts, number of cases for specific case categories (Q101)

101.1.1 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Litigious divorce case

20 926

19 247

16 334

16 814

15 912

15 753

16 646

16 816

15 599

-25,5%

-8,0%

-15,1%

2,9%

-5,4%

-1,0%

5,7%

1,0%

-7,2%

101.1.2 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Employment dismissal case

3 041

2 734

3 277

3 212

2 257

1 802

1 498

1 399

1 339

-56,0%

-10,1%

19,9%

-2,0%

-29,7%

-20,2%

-16,9%

-6,6%

-4,3%

101.1.3 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Insolvency

48 643

50 774

60 239

50 739

41 701

35 215

33 373

30 928

27 048

-44,4%

4,4%

18,6%

-15,8%

-17,8%

-15,6%

-5,2%

-7,3%

-12,5%

101.2.1 Incoming cases_Litigious divorce case

42 582

35 422

34 125

36 435

36 041

35 709

34 609

32 562

27 892

-34,5%

-16,8%

-3,7%

6,8%

-1,1%

-0,9%

-3,1%

-5,9%

-14,3%

101.2.2 Incoming cases_Employment dismissal case

3 274

3 789

3 075

2 413

2 030

1 732

1 661

1 621

2 074

-36,7%

15,7%

-18,8%

-21,5%

-15,9%

-14,7%

-4,1%

-2,4%

27,9%

101.2.3 Incoming cases_Insolvency

57 956

60 536

45 896

34 981

29 883

28 623

27 374

25 921

19 859

-65,7%

4,5%

-24,2%

-23,8%

-14,6%

-4,2%

-4,4%

-5,3%

-23,4%

101.3.1 Resolved cases_Litigious divorce case

44 261

37 508

33 645

37 337

36 200

34 816

34 439

33 779

26 863

-39,3%

-15,3%

-10,3%

11,0%

-3,0%

-3,8%

-1,1%

-1,9%

-20,5%

101.3.2 Resolved cases_Employment dismissal case

3 581

3 246

3 140

3 372

2 485

2 036

1 760

1 681

1 638

-54,3%

-9,4%

-3,3%

7,4%

-26,3%

-18,1%

-13,6%

-4,5%

-2,6%

101.3.3 Resolved cases_Insolvency

55 825

54 184

55 396

45 121

36 369

30 465

29 819

29 801

22 409

-59,9%

-2,9%

2,2%

-18,5%

-19,4%

-16,2%

-2,1%

-0,1%

-24,8%

101.4.1 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Litigious divorce case

19 247

17 161

16 814

15 912

15 753

16 646

16 816

15 599

16 628

-13,6%

-10,8%

-2,0%

-5,4%

-1,0%

5,7%

1,0%

-7,2%

6,6%

101.4.2 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Employment dismissal case

2 734

3 277

3 212

2 253

1 802

1 498

1 399

1 339

1 775

-35,1%

19,9%

-2,0%

-29,9%

-20,0%

-16,9%

-6,6%

-4,3%

32,6%

101.4.3 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Insolvency

50 774

57 126

50 739

40 599

35 215

33 373

30 928

27 048

24 498

-51,8%

12,5%

-11,2%

-20,0%

-13,3%

-5,2%

-7,3%

-12,5%

-9,4%

Table 3.5.1 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for specific case categories (Q101)

Table 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 Variations of CR and DT for specific case categories of first instance cases (Q101)

CR Litigious divorce cases

103,9%

105,9%

98,6%

102,5%

100,4%

97,5%

99,5%

103,7%

96,3%

(7,34)

1,87

(6,89)

3,94

(1,99)

(2,93)

2,06

4,25

(7,16)

CR Employment dismissal cases

109,4%

85,7%

102,1%

139,7%

122,4%

117,6%

106,0%

103,7%

79,0%

(27,79)

(21,68)

19,20

36,85

(12,40)

(3,97)

(9,86)

(2,13)

(23,84)

CR Insolvency cases

96,3%

89,5%

120,7%

129,0%

121,7%

106,4%

108,9%

115,0%

112,8%

17,15

(7,08)

34,85

6,87

(5,65)

(12,55)

2,35

5,54

(1,85)

DT Litigious divorce cases

DT Employment dismissal cases

DT Insolvency cases

159

279

332

167

368

385

182

373

334

156

244

328

159

265

353

175

269

400

178

290

379

169

291

331

226

42,3%

5,2%

9,2%

-14,7%

2,1%

9,9%

2,1%

-5,4%

34,0%

396

41,9%

32,2%

1,3%

-34,7%

8,5%

1,5%

8,0%

0,2%

36,0%

399

20,2%

15,9%

-13,1%

-1,8%

7,6%

13,1%

-5,3%

-12,5%

20,4%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1294 / 1555

        
         
        
         
        
        
         
         
        
      
      
       
       
      
        
        
        
      
       
        
       
         
        
      
         
         
        
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.7.1 to 3.7.5 (2019 and 2020) Second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Table 3.9.1 to 3.9.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.1.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.1.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.1.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.1.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.1.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.1.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.1.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.1.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

97.1.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.1.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

97.1.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases 

97.2.1 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.2.2 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.2.3 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.2.4 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.2.5 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.2.6 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.2.7 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.2.8 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

97.2.9 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.2.10 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

97.2.11 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases 

30 794

77 399

91 360

78 426

83 741

73 019

72 979

29 428

76 099

89 983

77 180

82 344

71 851

71 874

1 366

1 300

1 377

1 246

1 397

1 168

1 105

294

1 072

1 072

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

295

1 005

1 005

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

310

1 067

1 067

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

297

949

949

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

383

1 014

1 014

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

339

829

829

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

364

741

741

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

141 636

194 760

204 986

205 729

197 330

191 115

169 147

139 457

192 335

202 441

202 444

194 375

188 249

166 596

2 179

2 425

2 545

3 285

2 955

2 866

2 551

631

1 548

1 548

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

785

1 640

1 640

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

824

1 468

1 312

1 272

1 132

1 721

1 721

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 817

1 643

1 594

1 419

1 817

1 643

1 594

1 419

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

151,3%

18,0%

-14,2%

6,8%

-12,8%

-0,1%

158,6%

18,2%

-14,2%

6,7%

-12,7%

0,0%

-4,8%

5,9%

-9,5%

12,1%

-16,4%

-5,4%

0,3%

5,1%

-4,2%

29,0%

-11,5%

7,4%

-6,3%

6,2%

-11,1%

6,8%

-18,2%

-10,6%

-6,3%

6,2%

-11,1%

6,8%

-18,2%

-10,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

37,5%

5,3%

0,4%

-4,1%

-3,1%

-11,5%

37,9%

5,3%

0,0%

-4,0%

-3,2%

-11,5%

11,3%

4,9%

29,1%

-10,0%

-3,0%

-11,0%

24,4%

5,0%

78,2%

-10,6%

-3,0%

-11,0%

5,9%

4,9%

5,6%

-9,6%

-3,0%

-11,0%

5,9%

4,9%

5,6%

-9,6%

-3,0%

-11,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1295 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.3.1 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.3.2 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.3.3 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.3.4 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.3.5 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.3.6 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.3.7 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.3.8 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

97.3.9 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.3.10 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

97.3.11 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases 

97.4.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.4.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.4.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.4.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.4.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.4.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.4.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.4.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

97.4.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.4.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

97.4.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases

97.5.1 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.5.2 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.5.10 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

95 031

180 799

217 920

200 414

208 052

191 155

163 922

92 786

178 259

215 244

197 280

204 868

188 226

161 403

2 245

2 540

2 676

3 134

3 184

2 929

2 519

630

1 615

1 615

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

795

1 745

1 745

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

837

1 382

1 356

1 247

1 072

1 839

1 839

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 752

1 828

1 682

1 447

1 752

1 828

1 682

1 447

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

77 399

91 360

78 426

83 741

73 019

72 979

78 204

76 099

90 175

77 180

82 344

71 851

71 874

77 067

1 300

1 185

1 246

1 397

1 168

1 105

1 137

295

1 005

1 005

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

285

900

900

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

297

949

949

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

467

460

383

1 014

1 014

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

662

650

339

829

829

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

679

671

364

741

741

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

672

665

424

713

713

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 765

1 740

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

90,3%

20,5%

-8,0%

3,8%

-8,1%

-14,2%

92,1%

20,7%

-8,3%

3,8%

-8,1%

-14,3%

13,1%

5,4%

17,1%

1,6%

-8,0%

-14,0%

26,2%

5,3%

65,1%

-1,9%

-8,0%

-14,0%

8,0%

5,4%

-4,7%

4,3%

-8,0%

-14,0%

8,0%

5,4%

-4,7%

4,3%

-8,0%

-14,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

18,0%

-14,2%

6,8%

-12,8%

-0,1%

7,2%

18,5%

-14,4%

6,7%

-12,7%

0,0%

7,2%

-8,8%

5,1%

12,1%

-16,4%

-5,4%

2,9%

-3,4%

4,2%

29,0%

-11,5%

7,4%

16,5%

-10,4%

5,4%

6,8%

-18,2%

-10,6%

-3,8%

-10,4%

5,4%

6,8%

-18,2%

-10,6%

-3,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

41,8%

2,6%

-1,0%

162,6%

41,3%

3,2%

-0,9%

161,7%

-

-

-

-

1296 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 (2019 and 2020): Second instance clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.9.4 and 3.9.5 (2019 and 2020): Variation of second clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

67,1%

92,8%

106,3%

97,4%

105,4%

100,0%

96,9%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

66,5%

92,7%

106,3%

97,4%

105,4%

100,0%

96,9%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

103,0%

104,7%

105,1%

95,4%

107,7%

102,2%

98,7%

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

99,8%

101,3%

101,6%

94,1%

103,4%

98,0%

94,7%

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

104,3%

106,4%

106,9%

96,4%

111,3%

105,5%

102,0%

CR Non litigious land registry cases

104,3%

106,4%

106,9%

96,4%

111,3%

105,5%

102,0%

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

297

299

211

171

227

227

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

184

185

170

131

188

188

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

131

131

170

130

188

188

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

153

152

163

101

211

211

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

128

128

134

91

166

166

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

139

139

138

107

161

161

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

174

174

165

144

180

180

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

38,36

14,52

(8,37)

8,23

(5,13)

(3,11)

39,30

14,72

(8,35)

8,16

(5,13)

(3,11)

1,66

0,39

(9,27)

12,94

(5,15)

(3,38)

1,43

0,30

(7,32)

9,79

(5,15)

(3,40)

1,99

0,43

(9,76)

15,39

(5,16)

(3,36)

1,99

0,43

(9,76)

15,39

(5,16)

(3,36)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-38,0%

-28,8%

16,1%

-16,0%

8,8%

25,0%

-38,3%

-29,1%

16,4%

-16,0%

8,9%

25,0%

-19,4%

-0,2%

-4,3%

-17,7%

2,8%

19,6%

-23,4%

-1,0%

-21,9%

-9,8%

16,8%

35,5%

-17,1%

0,1%

12,2%

-21,6%

-2,9%

11,8%

-17,1%

0,1%

12,2%

-21,6%

-2,9%

11,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1297 / 1555

       
       
        
         
        
        
       
       
        
         
        
        
         
         
        
       
        
        
         
         
        
         
        
        
         
         
        
       
        
        
         
         
        
       
        
        
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.10.1 to 3.10.5 (2019 and 2020) Supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Table 3.12.1 to 3.12.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of the supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.1.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.1.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.1.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.1.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.1.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.1.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.1.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.1.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

99.1.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.1.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

99.1.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.2.1 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.2.2 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.2.3 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.2.4 High inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.2.5 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.2.6 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.2.7 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.2.8 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

99.2.9 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

153 873

83 098

40 023

32 226

42 944

39 695

39 454

101 691

50 537

18 743

12 986

11 172

17 884

17 586

695

137

558

558

NA

NA

NA

424

65

359

359

NAP

NAP

NAP

215

34

181

181

NAP

NAP

NAP

130

13

117

117

NAP

NAP

NAP

114

5

109

109

NAP

NAP

NAP

116

-

116

116

NAP

NAP

NAP

111

1

110

110

NAP

NAP

NAP

51 487

32 137

21 065

19 110

31 658

21 695

21 757

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

159 055

78 841

58 015

95 123

76 786

59 978

49 338

77 548

35 265

22 103

19 364

33 252

29 625

23 746

938

89

849

849

NA

NA

NA

438

70

368

368

NAP

NAP

NAP

221

37

184

184

NAP

NAP

NAP

333

120

213

213

NAP

NAP

NAP

351

53

298

298

NAP

NAP

NAP

253

41

212

212

NAP

NAP

NAP

208

34

174

174

NAP

NAP

NAP

99.2.10 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

80 569

43 138

35 691

75 426

43 183

30 100

25 384

99.2.11 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-46,0%

-51,8%

-19,5%

33,3%

-7,6%

-0,6%

-50,3%

-62,9%

-30,7%

-14,0%

60,1%

-1,7%

-39,0%

-49,3%

-39,5%

-12,3%

1,8%

-4,3%

-52,6%

-47,7%

-61,8%

-61,5%

-

-

-35,7%

-49,6%

-35,4%

-6,8%

6,4%

-5,2%

-35,7%

-49,6%

-35,4%

-6,8%

6,4%

-5,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-37,6%

-34,5%

-9,3%

65,7%

-31,5%

0,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-50,4%

-26,4%

64,0%

-19,3%

-21,9%

-17,7%

-54,5%

-37,3%

-12,4%

71,7%

-10,9%

-19,8%

-53,3%

-49,5%

50,7%

5,4%

-27,9%

-17,8%

-21,3%

-47,1%

224,3%

-55,8%

-22,6%

-17,1%

-56,7%

-50,0%

15,8%

39,9%

-28,9%

-17,9%

-56,7%

-50,0%

15,8%

39,9%

-28,9%

-17,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-46,5%

-17,3%

111,3%

-42,7%

-30,3%

-15,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1298 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.3.1 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.3.2 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.3.3 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.3.4 High inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.3.5 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.3.6 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.3.7 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.3.8 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

99.3.9 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

229 830

121 916

65 812

84 405

80 035

60 219

51 922

128 702

67 100

27 860

21 178

26 540

29 923

24 856

1 209

161

1 048

1 048

NA

NA

NA

606

106

500

500

NAP

NAP

NAP

306

58

248

248

NAP

NAP

NAP

349

128

221

221

NAP

NAP

NAP

349

58

291

291

NAP

NAP

NAP

258

40

218

218

NAP

NAP

NAP

221

34

187

187

NAP

NAP

NAP

99.3.10 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

99 919

54 210

37 646

62 878

53 146

30 038

26 845

99.3.11 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.4.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.4.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.4.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.4.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.4.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.4.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.4.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.4.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry 
cases

99.4.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.4.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative 
law cases

99.4.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.5.1 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.5.2 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.5.10 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

83 098

40 023

32 226

42 944

39 695

39 454

36 870

50 537

18 702

12 986

11 172

17 884

17 586

16 476

424

65

359

359

NA

NA

NA

256

29

227

227

NAP

NAP

NAP

130

13

117

117

NAP

NAP

NAP

114

5

109

109

NAP

NAP

NAP

116

-

116

116

NAP

NAP

NAP

111

1

110

110

NAP

NAP

NAP

98

1

97

97

NAP

NAP

NAP

32 137

21 065

19 110

31 658

21 695

21 757

20 296

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

NAP

1 514

1 135

373

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 450

1 079

360

954

452

499

944

448

494

882

421

460

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-47,0%

-46,0%

28,3%

-5,2%

-24,8%

-13,8%

-47,9%

-58,5%

-24,0%

25,3%

12,7%

-16,9%

-49,9%

-49,5%

14,1%

0,0%

-26,1%

-14,3%

-34,2%

-45,3%

120,7%

-54,7%

-31,0%

-15,0%

-52,3%

-50,4%

-10,9%

31,7%

-25,1%

-14,2%

-52,3%

-50,4%

-10,9%

31,7%

-25,1%

-14,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-45,7%

-30,6%

67,0%

-15,5%

-43,5%

-10,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-51,8%

-19,5%

33,3%

-7,6%

-0,6%

-6,5%

-63,0%

-30,6%

-14,0%

60,1%

-1,7%

-6,3%

-39,6%

-49,2%

-12,3%

1,8%

-4,3%

-11,7%

-55,4%

-55,2%

-61,5%

-

-

0,0%

-36,8%

-48,5%

-6,8%

6,4%

-5,2%

-11,8%

-36,8%

-48,5%

-6,8%

6,4%

-5,2%

-11,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-34,5%

-9,3%

65,7%

-31,5%

0,3%

-6,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-4,2%

-34,2%

-1,0%

-6,6%

-4,9%

-58,1%

-0,9%

-6,0%

-3,5%

38,6%

-1,0%

-6,9%

1299 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 Supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.12.4 and 3.12.5 Variation of the supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

144,5%

154,6%

113,4%

88,7%

104,2%

100,4%

105,2%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

166,0%

190,3%

126,0%

109,4%

79,8%

101,0%

104,7%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

128,9%

138,4%

138,5%

104,8%

99,4%

102,0%

106,3%

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

180,9%

151,4%

156,8%

106,7%

109,4%

97,6%

100,0%

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

123,4%

135,9%

134,8%

103,8%

97,7%

102,8%

107,5%

CR Non litigious land registry cases

123,4%

135,9%

134,8%

103,8%

97,7%

102,8%

107,5%

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

124,0%

125,7%

105,5%

83,4%

123,1%

99,8%

105,8%

NA

132

143

128

147

125

125

NA

NA

NA

117

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

120

102

154

100

166

166

NAP

NAP

NAP

142

NAP

179

170

155

82

172

172

NAP

NAP

NAP

185

NAP

186

193

119

14

180

180

NAP

NAP

NAP

184

NAP

181

246

121

-

145

145

NAP

NAP

NAP

149

NAP

239

215

157

9

184

184

NAP

NAP

NAP

264

NAP

259

242

162

11

189

189

NAP

NAP

NAP

276

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7,02

(26,64)

(21,78)

17,47

(3,67)

4,82

14,65

(33,76)

(13,23)

(27,02)

26,55

3,63

7,34

0,08

(24,31)

(5,13)

2,56

4,19

(16,29)

3,52

(31,95)

2,59

(10,85)

2,50

10,07

(0,80)

(23,02)

(5,88)

5,30

4,51

10,07

(0,80)

(23,02)

(5,88)

5,30

4,51

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,33

(16,07)

(20,97)

47,63

(18,91)

5,97

-

-

-

-

-

-

-9,2%

49,2%

3,9%

-2,5%

32,1%

8,4%

-29,0%

67,2%

13,2%

27,7%

-12,8%

12,8%

20,5%

0,6%

-23,1%

1,8%

29,4%

3,1%

-32,2%

-18,1%

-82,6%

-

-

17,6%

32,5%

3,9%

4,5%

-19,2%

26,6%

2,8%

32,5%

3,9%

4,5%

-19,2%

26,6%

2,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

20,8%

30,6%

-0,8%

-18,9%

77,4%

4,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

1300 / 1555

         
      
      
       
        
         
       
      
      
      
       
         
         
         
      
        
         
         
      
         
      
         
      
         
       
        
      
        
         
         
       
        
      
        
         
         
         
      
      
       
      
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.14.1 to 3.14.5 First instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

094.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

094.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

094.2.1 Total -incoming

094.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

094.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

094.2.4 Other - incoming

094.3.1 Total - resolved

094.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

094.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

094.3.4 Other - resolved

094.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

094.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

094.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

094.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

106 622

NAP

NAP

NAP

341 899

NAP

NAP

NAP

342 634

NAP

NAP

NAP

105 887

NAP

NAP

NAP

4 316

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1301 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.15.1 to 3.10.2 CR and DT for first instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

098.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

098.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

098.2.1 Total -incoming

098.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

098.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

098.2.4 Other - incoming

098.3.1 Total - resolved

098.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

098.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

098.3.4 Other - resolved

Table 3.16.1 to 3.16.5 Second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

100,2%

NAP

NAP

NAP

113

NAP

NAP

NAP

7 166

NAP

NAP

NAP

22 243

NAP

NAP

NAP

22 061

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1302 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

098.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

098.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

098.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

098.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

7 348

NAP

NAP

NAP

107

NAP

NAP

NAP

Table 3.17.1 to 3.17.2 CR and DT for second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

99,2%

NAP

NAP

NAP

122

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1303 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.18.1 to 3.18.5 Supreme court criminal law cases (Q100)

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

100.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

100.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

100.2.1 Total -incoming

100.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

100.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

100.2.4 Other - incoming

100.3.1 Total - resolved

100.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

100.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

100.3.4 Other - resolved

100.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

100.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

100.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

100.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

145

NAP

NAP

NAP

353

NAP

NAP

NAP

364

NAP

NAP

NAP

134

NAP

NAP

NAP

4

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1304 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.19.1 to 3.19.2 CR and DT for supreme court  criminal law cases (Q100)

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

103,1%

NAP

NAP

NAP

134

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1305 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 5: Access to justice

Legal aid

Table 5.1 to Table 5.6 (Q12-2, Q16, Q18, Q19, Q20, Q20-1)

12-2.1.1 Coverage of court fees

12-2.1.2 Exemption from court fees

16.1.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (criminal cases)

16.1.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (criminal cases)

16.2.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (other than criminal 
cases)

16.2.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (other than criminal cases)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

-

-

-

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

18.1.1 Legal aid for the enforcement of judicial decisions

19.1.1  Legal aid granted for other costs - criminal cases

19.1.2  Legal aid granted for other costs - other than criminal cases

020.1.1 Total

020.1.2 Total - criminal cases

020.1.3 Total - other than criminal cases

020.2.1 Total brought to court

020.2.2 Broight to court - criminal cases

020.2.3 Brought to court - other then criminal

020.3.1 Total not brought to court

020.3.2 Not broight to court - criminal cases

020.3.3 Not brought to court - other then criminal

020-1.1.1 Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulation

020-1.1.2 Average duration

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

66 522

63 492

3 030

66 522

63 492

3 030

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1306 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

System for compensating users

Table 5.7.1 and Table 5.7.2 (Q37)

037.1.1 Requests for compensation - Total

037.1.2 Requests for compensation - Excessive length of 
proceedings

037.1.3 Requests for compensation - Non-execution of court 
decisions

037.1.4 Requests for compensation - Wrongful arrest

037.1.5 Requests for compensation - Wrongful conviction

037.1.6 Requests for compensation - Other

037.2.1 Condemnations - Total

037.2.2 Condemnations - Excessive length of proceedings

037.2.3 Condemnations - Non-execution of court decisions

037.2.4 Condemnations - Wrongful arrest

037.2.5 Condemnations - Wrongful conviction

037.2.6 Condemnations - Other

037.3.1 Amount - Total

037.3.2 Amount - Excessive length of proceedings

037.3.3 Amount - Non-execution of court decisions

037.3.4 Amount - Wrongful arrest

037.3.5 Amount - Wrongful conviction

037.3.6 Amount - Other

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1307 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 6.1 to Table 6.11 (Q62-7, Q62-7-1, Q62-8,  Q62-8-1, Q63-1, Q63-1-1, Q63-2 Q63-6, Q63-7, Q63-7-1, Q64-2,  Q64-4, Q64-6, Q64-3, Q64-3-1, Q64-7, Q64-7-1, 
Q64-9)

Indicator 6: The ICT tools of courts and for court users

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

62-7 Writing assistance tools coordinated at national level

62-7-1.1 Deployment rate in civil matter

62-7-1.2 Deployment rate in criminal matter

62-7-1.3 Deployment rate in administrative matter

62-8 Voice recording tools

62-8-1.1.1 Availability of simple dictation tools in civil matter

62-8-1.1.2 Availability of simple dictation tools in criminal matter

62-8-1.1.3 Availability of simple dictation tools in administrative 
matter

62-8-1.2.1 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in civil 
matter

62-8-1.2.2 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in criminal 
matter

62-8-1.2.3 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in 
administrative matter

62-8-1.3.1 Availability of voice recognition in civil matter

62-8-1.3.2 Availability of voice recognition in criminal matter

62-8-1.3.3 Availability of voice recognition in administrative matter

062-9 Availability of intranet site within the judicial system for 
distribution of news/novelties

63.1 Is there a case management system? 

63.1-1.1 CMS for civil matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for criminal matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for administrative matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.2 CMS for civil matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for criminal matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for administrative matter (status of case onlinee)

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

Pilot testing

Pilot testing

Pilot testing

Pilot testing

Pilot testing

Pilot testing

Pilot testing

Pilot testing

Pilot testing

-

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

-

-

Both

Both

Both

Both

Both

Both

Both

Both

Both

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1308 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63.1-1.3 CMS for civil matter (Centralised or interoperable database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for criminal matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for administrative matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.4 CMS for civil matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for criminal matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for administrative matter (Early warning signals)

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS civil matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS criminal matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS administrative matter

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - land registry

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - business registry

63-2.2 Data consolidated at national level for land registry

63-2.2  Data consolidated at national level for business registry

63-2.3 Service available online for land registry

63-2.3  Service available online for business registry

63-2.4 Statistical module integrated or connected for land registry

63-2.4  Statistical module integrated or connected for business 
registry

063-6.1.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (deployment 
rate)

063-6.1.2 Justice expenses management (deployment rate)

063-6.1.3 Other financial management tools (deployment rate)

063-6.2.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (Data 
consolidated at national level)

063-6.2.2 Justice expenses management (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.2.3 Other financial management tools (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.3.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (System 
communicating with other ministries)

063-6.3.2 Justice expenses management (System communicating 
with other ministries)

063-6.3.3 Other financial management tools (System communicating 
with other ministries)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

1-9%

1-9%

NA

True

True

True

True

1-9%

1-9%

NA

True

True

True

True

1-9%

1-9%

NA

True

True

False

NA

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

NA

False

1309 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63-7.1 Measurement tools to assess the workload

63-7-1.1.1 Deployment rate - workload of judges

63-7-1.1.2 Deployment rate - workload of prosecutors

63-7-1.1.3 Deployment rate - workload of non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.2.1 Monitoring on national level - judges

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - prosecutors

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.3.1 Monitoring on court level - judges

63-7-1.3.2 Monitoring on court level - prosecutors

63-7-1.3.3 Monitoring on court level - non-judge and non-prosecutor 
staff

064-2 - Possibility to submit a case to courts by electronic means

064-2 - Civil and/or commercial

064-2 - Criminal

064-2 - Administrative

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - civil

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - criminal

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory  - administrative

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - civil

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - criminal

064-2 - Specific legislative framework  - administrative

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - civil

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - criminal

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - administrative

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

NA

NA

NA

100%

100%

100%

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1310 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-3 - Is it possible to request for granting legal aid by electronic 
means? 

064-3-1.1 - Equipment rate

064-3-1.2 - Request in paper mandatory

064-3-1.3 - Specific legislative framework

064-3-1.4 - Granting LA is also electronic

064-3-1.5 - Information available in CMS

064-4 - Possibility to transmit summons to a judicial meeting or a 
hearing by electronic means

064-4-1.1.1 - Summons produced by CMS- civil

064-4-1.1.2 - Summons produced by CMS- criminal

064-4-1.1.3 - Summons produced by CMS- administrative

064-4-1.2.1 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- civil

064-4-1.2.2 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- criminal

064-4-1.2.3 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- administrative

064-4-1.3.1 - Consent of the user - civil

064-4-1.3.2 - Consent of the user - criminal

064-4-1.3.3 - Consent of the user - administrative

064-6.1.1 - Civil and/or commercial (deployment rate)

064-6.1.2 - Criminal (deployment rate)

064-6.1.3 - Administrative (deployment rate)

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1311 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-6.2.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.2 - Criminal (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.3 - Administrative (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.3.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Modalities)

064-6.3.2 - Criminal (Modalities)

064-6.3.3 - Administrative (Modalities)

064-6.4.1 - Civil and/or commercial (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.2 - Criminal (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.3 - Administrative (specific legal framework)

064-6.5.1 - Civil and/or commercial (availability for)

064-6.5.2 - Criminal (availability for)

064-6.5.3 - Administrative (availability for)

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling  
Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling  
E-mail  
Specific 
application  

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling  
Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling  
E-mail  
Specific 
application  

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
E-mail  
Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1312 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-7.1.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (deployment rate)

064-7.1.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.2.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (Modalities)

064-7.2.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.3.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (specific legal framework)

064-7.32.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-7.3.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts (specific 
legal framework)

064-7.3.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-9 - Existance of online processing devices of specialised 
litigation

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

100%

100%

100%

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1313 / 1555

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Indicator 7: Professionals of justice  (Indicator 9 in 2019)

Table 7.1.1 to 7.5.6 for judges, non judge staff, prosecutors, non prosecutor staff and salaries

46.1.1 Total Number of professional judges

46.1.2 Number of 1st inst professional judges

46.1.3 Number of 2nd inst professional judges

46.1.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges

4 310

1 998

2 217

95

4 511

3 571

825

115

4 577

2 101

2 360

116

4 608

2 097

2 404

107

4 628

2 055

2 463

110

4 664

4 677

4 753

4 600

6,7%

4,7%

1,5%

0,7%

0,4%

0,8%

0,3%

1,6%

-3,2%

2 008

2 029

2 180

2 103

5,3%

78,7%

-41,2%

-0,2%

-2,0%

-2,3%

1,0%

7,4%

-3,5%

2 540

2 540

2 465

2 387

7,7%

-62,8%

186,1%

1,9%

2,5%

3,1%

0,0%

-3,0%

-3,2%

116

108

108

110

15,8%

21,1%

0,9%

-7,8%

2,8%

5,5%

-6,9%

0,0%

1,9%

46.2.1 Number of professional judges_males

1 187

1 213

1 195

1 204

1 220

1 223

1 272

1 262

1 223

3,0%

2,2%

-1,5%

0,8%

1,3%

0,2%

4,0%

-0,8%

-3,1%

46.2.2 Number of 1st instance professional judges_males

46.2.3 Number of 2nd instance professional judges_males

46.2.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges_males

46.3.1  Number of professional judges_females

46.3.2  Number of 1st inst professional judges_females

46.3.3  Number of 2nd inst professional judges_females

46.3.4  Number of Supreme court professional judges_females

046-2.1.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Total

046-2.2.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Civil and commercial

046-2.2.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.3.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Criminal

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

619

554

14

3 123

1 379

1 663

81

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

985

210

18

3 298

2 586

615

97

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

569

608

18

3 382

1 532

1 752

98

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

573

613

18

3 404

1 524

1 791

89

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

568

633

19

3 408

1 487

1 830

91

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

552

649

22

586

663

23

594

645

23

563

-9,0%

59,1%

-42,2%

0,7%

-0,9%

-2,8%

6,2%

1,4%

-5,2%

634

14,4%

-62,1%

189,5%

0,8%

3,3%

2,5%

2,2%

-2,7%

-1,7%

26

85,7%

28,6%

0,0%

0,0%

5,6%

15,8%

4,5%

0,0%

13,0%

3 441

3 405

3 491

3 377

8,1%

5,6%

2,5%

0,7%

0,1%

1,0%

-1,0%

2,5%

-3,3%

1 456

1 443

1 586

1 540

11,7%

87,5%

-40,8%

-0,5%

-2,4%

-2,1%

-0,9%

9,9%

-2,9%

1 891

1 877

1 820

1 753

5,4%

-63,0%

184,9%

2,2%

2,2%

3,3%

-0,7%

-3,0%

-3,7%

94

85

85

84

3,7%

19,8%

1,0%

-9,2%

2,2%

3,3%

-9,6%

0,0%

-1,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4 600

2 103

2 387

110

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1314 / 1555

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

046-2.4.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - 
Administrative

046-2.4.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.5.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Other

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 52.1.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in courts 

9 283

9 639

10 147

10 251

10 297

10 638

10 662

10 700

10 512

13,2%

3,8%

5,3%

1,0%

0,4%

3,3%

0,2%

0,4%

-1,8%

52.1.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)

52.1.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges

52.1.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks

52.1.5 Number of Technical staff

52.1.6 Number of Other non judge staff

52.2.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(men)

52.2.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(men)

52.2.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(men)

52.2.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(men)

52.2.5 Number of Technical staff(men)

52.2.6 Number of Other non judge staff(men)

52.3.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(women)

NAP

5 489

1 486

1 762

546

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NAP

5 743

1 563

1 784

549

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NAP

6 072

1 585

1 854

636

NA

NAP

6 149

1 615

1 844

643

NA

NAP

6 191

1 621

1 822

663

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6 358

6 402

6 437

6 374

16,1%

4,6%

5,7%

1,3%

0,7%

2,7%

0,7%

0,5%

-1,0%

1 697

1 645

1 646

1 621

9,1%

5,2%

1,4%

1,9%

0,4%

4,7%

-3,1%

0,1%

-1,5%

1 731

1 772

1 750

1 682

-4,5%

1,2%

3,9%

-0,5%

-1,2%

-5,0%

2,4%

-1,2%

-3,9%

835

52,9%

0,5%

15,8%

1,1%

3,1%

28,5%

-1,1%

2,8%

-3,7%

852

NA

843

NA

867

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

52.3.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(women)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

52.3.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(women)

52.3.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(women)

52.3.5 Number of Technical staff(women)

52.3.6 Number of Other non judge staff(women)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1315 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

052-1.1.1 Non-judge staff (Total)

052-1.1.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (total)

052-1.1.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (total)

052-1.1.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (total)

052-1.2.1 Non-judge staff  (Males)

052-1.2.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (males)

052-1.2.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (males)

052-1.2.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (males)

052-1.3.1 Non-judge staff  (females)

052-1.3.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (females)

052-1.3.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (females)

052-1.3.4 Non-judge staff  at supreme court (females)

055.1.1 Prosecutors (total)

055.1.2 Prosecutors (1st inst.)

055.1.3 Prosecutors (2nd inst.)

055.1.4 Prosecutors (Highest instance)

055.2.1 Prosecutors - Males -total

055.2.2 Prosecutors - Males, 1st inst.

055.2.3 Prosecutors - Males, 2nd inst.

055.2.4 Prosecutors - Males, Supreme courts

055.3.1 Prosecutors - Females, Total

055.3.2 Prosecutors - Females, 1st inst.

055.3.3 Prosecutors - Females, 2nd inst.

055.3.4 Prosecutors - Females, Supreme courts

10 512

4 686

5 487

339

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

2 446

1 144

788

514

1 174

545

364

265

1 272

599

424

249

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1316 / 1555

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

060.1.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Total

060.2.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Males

060.3.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Females

004 Annual average salary in the country

132.1.1 Gross annual salary, in €  - Professional judge at the 
beginning of career

132.1.2 Gross annual salary, in €  - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.1.3 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor at the beginning 
of career

132.1.4 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

132.2.1 Net annual salary, in € - Professional judge at the beginning 
of career

132.2.2 Net annual salary, in € - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.2.3 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor at the beginning of 
career

132.2.4 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

133.1.1.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Reduced taxation

133.1.2.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Special pension

133.1.3.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Housing

133.1.4.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Other financial benefit

133.2.1.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Reduced taxation

133.2.2.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Special pension

133.2.3.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Housing

133.2.4.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Other financial benefit

2 408

NA

NA

13 385 €

43 223 €

87 522 €

43 223 €

67 051 €

25 285 €

51 200 €

25 285 €

39 225 €

False

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1317 / 1555

         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

144.1.1 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - Total number (1+2+3+4)

144.1.2 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 1. Breach of professional 
ethics 

144.1.3 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.1.4 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 3. Criminal offence 

144.1.5 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 4. Other

144.2.1 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - Total number 
(1+2+3+4)

144.2.2 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 1. Breach of 
professional ethics 

144.2.3 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.2.4 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 3. Criminal offence

144.2.5 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 4. Other 

145.1.1 Sanctions against Judges - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.1.2 Sanctions against Judges - 1. Reprimand

145.1.3 Sanctions against Judges - 2. Suspension

145.1.4 Sanctions against Judges - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.1.5 Sanctions against Judges - 4. Fine

145.1.6 Sanctions against Judges - 5. Temporary reduction of salary

145.1.7 Sanctions against Judges - 6. Position downgrade

145.1.8 Sanctions against Judges - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.1.9 Sanctions against Judges - 8. Resignation

145.1.10 Sanctions against  Judges - 9. Other

145.1.11 Sanctions against  Judges - 10. Dismissal

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9

3

12

NAP

NAP

9

6

13

NAP

NAP

11

1

3

NAP

NAP

4

0

0

NAP

NAP

3

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1318 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

145.2.1 Sanctions against Prosecutors - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.2.2 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 1. Reprimand

145.2.3 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 2. Suspension

145.2.4 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.2.5 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 4. Fine

145.2.6 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 5. Temporary reduction of 
salary

145.2.7 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 6. Position downgrade

145.2.8 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.2.9 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 8. Resignation

145.2.10 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 9. Other

145.2.11 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 10. Dismissal

2

0

0

NAP

NAP

0

2

0

NAP

NAP

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lawyers

Tables 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.7 and 7.8

146.1.1 Total number of lawyers practising

20 919

23 332

23 244

23 635

23 205

23 020

22 873

23 554

23 424

12,0%

11,5%

-0,4%

1,7%

-1,8%

-0,8%

-0,6%

3,0%

-0,6%

146.2.1 Practicing lawyers - man

146.3.1 Practicing lawyers - woman

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

13 085

NA

9 855

9 788

NA

13 569

147 Does this figure include “legal advisors” who cannot represent 
their clients in court (for example, some solicitors or in-house 
counsellors)? 

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1319 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Romania (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

166 Number of accredited or registered mediators who practice 
judicial mediation: 

167.1.1 Total number started

167. 1.2 Civil and commercial cases(cid:9) - started

167. 1.2 Family cases - started

167.1.4 Administrative cases - started

167.1.5 Labour cases including employment dismissal cases - started

167.1.6. Criminal cases - started

167.1.7 Consumer cases - started

Indicator 8: The existence and use of alternative dispute resolution methods

Table 8.1 8.2 and 8.3

4 136

10 847

6 833

11 701

5 080

4 739

4 585

11 234

11 259

172,2%

162,3%

-37,0%

71,2%

-56,6%

-6,7%

-3,2%

145,0%

0,2%

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

-

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

-

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Key: Variation of more than (+ -) 20% 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1320 / 1555

Judiciary at a glance in Slovak Republic

General data

GDP 

per capita:

16 770 €

Professionals

Average annual 

salary:

15 275 €

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual 
salary in the country

Slovak Republic

EU Median

4,09

3,90

3,90

3,61

2,70

2,02

2,55

1,71

Population:

5 459 781

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Slovak Republic

EU Median

89,97

59,00

Professional judges

25,10

23,92

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

16,89

9,91

17,89

15,22

114,77

122,09

Judge at the
beginning of career

Judge on highest
instance

Prosecutor at the
beginning of career

Prosecutor at highest
instance

Efficiency

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

,

%
6
5
1
1

%
7
9
9

,

%
7
9
8

,

%
8
6
8

,

%
2
9
9

,

%
9
9
9

,

%
7
9
9

,

%
0
9
9

,

100%

388

585

249

177

204

101
45
125

Civil and commercial
litigious cases

Administrative cases

Total criminal law
cases

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

Information and communication technology

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

2018

2019

2020

EU Median 2020

9,40

8,66

8,89

6,94

5,00

5,00

5,00

5,17

1,75

1,75

2,08

2,00

2,00

2,00

1,50

1,25

2,50

2,50

2,00

1,67

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

*ICT calculations are described in more details in Annex 5 - IT Calculation methodology

1321

2020

Synthesis table for the main indicators for:

Slovak Republic

Economic and demographic data

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Variations

Population

GDP per capita

Exchange rate (local currency needed to 
obtain 1€)

5 410 836

5 415 949

5 421 349

5 426 252

5 435 343

5 443 120

5 450 421

5 457 873

5 459 781

0,9%

13 207

13 319

13 880

14 400

14 910

15 620

16 550

17 254

16 770

27,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

Average annual salary

9 660

10 296

10 944

12 156

13 198

15 275

58,1%

0,3%

7,4%

NAP

6,3%

0,3%

11,0%

0,1%

6,0%

0,1%

4,3%

0,0%

-2,8%

NAP

NAP NAP

NAP

11,1%

8,6%

15,7%

Resources

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Professional judges per 100 000 inhab.

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhab.

Lawyers per 100 000 inh.

Mediators

ICT overall assesment

24,2

82,8

96,3

11,7

24,8

83,0

24,4

82,4

23,8

80,9

24,1

82,5

25,3

84,8

25,3

86,4

25,1

86,7

23,9

90,0

8,6%

102,3

107,5

110,4

113,0

110,9

112,1

113,3

114,8

19,2%

-1,0%

-1,1%

-0,7%

-4,7%

4,8%

4,8%

-0,8%

0,0%

1,9%

1,1%

0,1%

5,1%

0,3%

1,1%

15,6

19,7

23,0

26,7

30,6

16,8

6,9

14,6

6,9

16,1

7,3

37,3%

35,4%

-37,2%

-45,2%

-12,7%

-0,5%

3,8%

1,3%

9,9%

6,1%

First instance incoming cases per 100 
inhab.

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Civil and commercial litigious cases

2,987

3,013

2,791

2,055

3,705

3,540

2,330

2,138

1,975

-33,9%

32,7%

-37,1%

-34,2%

-8,2%

-7,6%

Administrative law cases

0,347

0,2

0,2

0,198

0,163

0,093

0,093

0,101

0,093

-73,3%

-23,9%

-43,0%

0,4%

9,0%

-8,2%

Total criminal law cases

1,206

First instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

First instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
cases (days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

First instance pending cases per 100 
inhab. on 31 dec.

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

82%

47%

81%

85%

92%

133%

132%

129%

131%

110%

100%

18,14

40,23

-1,39

1,36

-20,71

-10,15

125%

124%

112%

118%

96%

81%

87%

39,61

-12,81

-15,92

-22,04

-14,73

5,39

100%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

437

733

505

746

524

397

401

374

130

203

171

317

157

401

170

518

-53,3%

-75,3%

21,3%

-7,9%

8,5%

19,9%

-20,2%

-49,0%

98,2%

26,7%

29,0%

12,9%

204

585

125

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

2,92

0,33

3,36

0,36

3,67

0,29

3,00

0,25

1,74

0,10

2,14

0,09

1,31

0,10

1,10

0,12

-62,2%

-52,8%

-24,5%

-38,8%

-16,2%

0,5%

-60,8%

-65,2%

-3,1%

3,5%

19,1%

10,5%

1,10

0,13

0,41

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

NA

NA

125%

116%

105%

111%

116%

NA

-20,75

-11,25

6,19

4,85

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

 Supreme court 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Supreme court
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases

111%

90%

92%

500%

250%

-

-

-19,44

158,33

-250,00

100%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

NA

110

NA

154

121

299

168

292

186

73

175

177

NA

54,0%

10,9%

-5,8%

1,3%

-

0

45

172,7%

-75,6%

-75,0%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NA

79%

NA

NA

122%

117%

106%

84%

108%

162%

120%

111%

90%

99%

99%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

NA

NA

-4,78

-10,93

-16,26

28,87

12,06

-42,21

-8,34

-12,16

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

NA

311

NA

371

NA

354

104

275

127

297

172

314

249

388

101

NA

NA

22,9%

35,1%

44,6%

14,0%

-16,2%

8,1%

5,7%

23,5%

1322

The entire court system of the Slovak republic consists of 54 District Courts, 8 Regional Courts, The Specialized Criminal
Court and the Supreme Court of the Slovak republic.

1. Judicial organisation in Slovak Republic

Distribution of general courts in Slovak Republic

Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Slovak Republic - 1st instance

EU Median - 1st instance

Slovak Republic

Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

EU Median - Higher instances

Slovak Republic - 1st instance

Slovak Republic - Higher instances

General courts - Slovak Republic

86%

General courts - Slovak Republic
EU Median

86%
87%

14%
13%

EU Median

87%

According to 2020 data, the distribution between 1st instance and higher instances courts of 
general jurisdiction in Slovak Republic is 86% - 14%, that is around the EU median of 87% - 
13%.

14%

13%

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Slovak Republic

Geographic 
locations

Legal entities

General jurisdiction

Specialised 
jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

64

64

64

64

64

64

63

64

64

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

54

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

9

1

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Slovak Republic

Geographic locations

Legal entities General jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

The Constitutional Court is not included. In Slovak republic the Constitutional Court can deal with some rare individual cases.
In 2020 the provided number of specialised courts changed from 9 to 1 because of a better understanding of the question. In Slovak Republic there are 8 administrative 
courts in fact, but they cannot be considered as legal entities as they are part of the regional courts, and they are already counted in the number of general jurisdiction 
courts.

1323

Slovak Republic

Ratio general jurisdiction vs specialised

Slovak Republic
2%

General jurisdiction Specialised courts

98%

75%

2%

25%

98%

Distribution of first instance general jurisdiction and specialised courts

EU Median

25%

75%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

The distribution between number of general jurisdiction courts and specialised courts of 98,2% - 1,8% is very different from the EU median 
(distribution tendency in EU: 75,5% - 24,5%).

Specialised courts
Total

Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

Insolvency courts

Labour courts

Family courts

Rent and tenancies courts

Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

Internet related disputes

Administrative courts

Insurance and / or social welfare courts

Military courts

Juvenile courts

Other specialised 1st instance courts

First instance

Higher instance

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

In the Slovak court system there are 8 Regional courts which are courts with dual competence. The Regional courts are the courts of appeal with the general jurisdiction in 
the civil, commercial and criminal cases. In the appellate procedure they decide the appeals lodged against the decisions of all 54 District courts within their local 
jurisdiction. At the same time, the Regional courts have the jurisdiction as the courts of first instance in administrative matters. They act as administrative courts.
The Specialized Criminal court is competent to judge the grave criminal matters enumerated in the § 14 of the Criminal procedure Code (e. g. premeditated murder, 
corruption, terrorism, organised crime, severe economic crimes, damaging the financial interests of the EU etc.). Highest instance courts are the Supreme Court and the 
Constitutional Court (this latter is not counted here).

1324

2. Professionals of justice in Slovak Republic

● Professional judges and non-judge staff

Evolution of the number of professional judges since 2012 (Q46)

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Absolute 
number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

1 307

1 342

1 322

1 292

1 311

1 376

1 378

1 370

1 306

24,16

24,78

24,39

23,81

24,12

25,28

25,28

25,10

23,92

EU median

23,9

Professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants

24,16

24,78

24,39

23,81

24,12

25,28

25,28

25,10

23,92

23,9

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

According to 2020 data, the total number of professional judges sitting in courts (all instances) in Slovak Republic is 1 306, which is -4,7% less than in previous cycle.

More precisely, in Slovak Republic, there are 23,92 professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants (this figure is the same than the EU median of 23,92 judges per 100 000 inhabitants) and 
about 3,76 non-judge staff per judge.

There has been a significant increase compared with previous cycle when this ratio was at 3,45 non-judge staff per judge.

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and gender

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

862

367

77

1 306

Distribution by 
instance

66,0%

28,1%

5,9%

Male

Female

% Male

% Female

319

143

30

492

543

224

47

814

37,0%

39,0%

39,0%

37,7%

63,0%

61,0%

61,0%

62,3%

Distribution of professional judges by instance

Slovak Republic

EU Median

66,0%

72,39%

EU Median

72,39%

23,98%

4,03%

28,1%

23,98%

Distribution of professional judges by gender and by instance

% Female
% Male

63,0%

61,0%

61,0%

62,3%

5,9%

4,03%

37,0%

39,0%

39,0%

37,7%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female professional judges (all instances) is 814, which represents 62,3% of the total number of judges.

The total number of judges is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 862 are sitting in first instance courts (of which 543 are female); 367 are sitting in 
second instance courts (of which 224 are female)  and 77 are sitting in Supreme Court (of which 47 are female).  

1325

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Total

Civil and commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

852

366

77

1 295

654

228

36

918

176

84

15

275

0

54

26

80

22

0

0

22

In Slovak Republic, the distribution of judges per categories of cases is possible as presented in the graph below. 

Distribution of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Civil and 
commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

76,8%

62,3%

46,8%

70,9%

Non-judge staff

Year

2012

Number of non-judge staff

4 482

Per 100 000 inhabitants

82,83

20,7%

23,0%

19,5%

21,2%

2013

4 497

83,03

0,0%

14,8%

33,8%

6,2%

2014

4 468

82,41

2,6%

0,0%

0,0%

1,7%

2015

4 390

80,90

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants

82,83

83,03

82,41

80,90

82,46

84,80

86,42

86,68

89,97

Distribution of the total number of professional judges by matter

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

70,9% Civil and commercial

0

1,7% Other
71%

6,2% Administrative

21%

6%

2%

0%

21,2% Criminal

2016

4 482

82,46

2017

4 616

84,80

2018

4 710

86,42

2020

Total

59,00

Rechtspfleger

2019

4 731

86,68

Absolute 
number

4 912

1 210

2 237

1 465

NA

NA

E
U 
m

2020

4 912

89,97

in %

24,6%

45,5%

29,8%

NA

NA

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

Non-judge staff assisting the judge

Staff in charge of administrative tasks

Technical staff

Other

In 2020, Slovak Republic has 4 912 non-judge staff (of which 3 993 are females). The total number of non-judge staff in comparison with the previous cycle reveals an increase of 3,8%.

1326

In this cycle, the non-judge staff is broken down as follows:

◦ 1 210 Rechtspfleger (or similar bodies) with judicial or quasi-judicial tasks having autonomous competence and whose decisions could be subject to appeal (among which 
◦ 2 237 non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges such as registrars (of which 2 125 are women);
◦ 1 465 staff in charge of different administrative tasks and of the court management (of which 1 060 are women);

In 2020, the number of non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants has increased (from 86,7 in 2019 to 90,0 in 2020).

During the same period, the number of judges per 100 000 inhabitants evolves from 25,1 judges per 100 000 inhabitants in 2019 to 23,9 in 2020.

The number of technical staff and other non-judge staff are included in the category "staff in charge of administrative tasks"

Professional judges, non-judge staff and their ratio (Q46, Q52)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Slovak Republic

EU median

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

23,92

89,97

Non-judge staff per judge

3,76

23,92

59,00

3,30

Professional judges and non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

89,97

3,76

3,30

59,00

Non-judge staff per judge

23,92

23,92

Slovak Republic

EU median

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff  (Q46, Q52)

Judges 
per 100 000 inh.

Non-judge staff per
100 000 inh.

Ratio between professional judges and 
non-judge staff

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff 
Non-judge staff per 100 000 inh.
(Q46, Q52)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

24,16

24,78

24,39

23,81

24,12

25,28

25,28

25,10

23,92

82,83

83,03

82,41

80,90

82,46

84,80

86,42

86,68

89,97

EU median 2020

3,30

3,43

3,35

3,38

3,40

3,42

3,35

3,42

3,45

3,76

3,43

3,35

3,38

2012

2013

2014

3,43
3,35
3,38
3,40
3,42
3,35
3,42
3,45
3,76

2015

3,40

3,42

3,35

3,42

3,45

3,76

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

1327

● Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff

Absolute number of public prosecutors by instance and gender (Q55)

2020

Total

Distribution by 
instance

Male

Female

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

607

200

115

922

65,8%

21,7%

12,5%

282

108

69

459

325

92

46

463

Male

46,5%

54,0%

60,0%

49,8%

Female

53,5%

46,0%

40,0%

50,2%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance
Slovak Republic

EU Median

65,8%

73,30%

EU Median

73,30%

23,98%
21,7%

4,66%

23,98%

12,5%

4,66%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance and gender

Female

Male

53,5%

46,5%

46,0%

54,0%

40,0%

60,0%

50,2%

49,8%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female prosecutors (all instances) is 463, which represents 50,2% of the total number of prosecutors.

The total number of prosecutors is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 607 in first instance (of which 325 are female); 200 are in second instance (of 
which 92 are female) and 115 in final instance (of which 46 are female).  

The number of prosecutors at the Supreme Court level also includes prosecutors of the Special Prosecution Bureau. The latter deals with crimes of corruption and the most severe 
offences including organized crime. It intervenes in first instance, but acts as an organizational part of the General Prosecutor’s Office.

Non-prosecutor staff by gender (Q60)

Non-prosecutor staff

Total

2020

977

Male

286

Female

691

Non-prosecutor staff by gender

29%

Male

Female

71%

Public prosecutors, non-prosecutor staff and their ratio (Q55, Q60)

Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Slovak Republic

EU median

Public prosecutors

16,89

Non-prosecutor staff

17,89

Non-prosecutor staff per 
prosecutor

1,06

9,91

15,22

1,11

Public prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per prosecutor

16,89

17,89

15,22

1,06

9,91

1,11

Slovak Republic

EU median

1328

● Salaries of professional judges and prosecutors at beginning of a career and at the highest instance (Q132, Q4)

Salaries of professional judges and 
prosecutors (Q132, Q4)

Average gross annual 
salary 
in €

Average net annual 
salary 
in €

Ratio with national 
average annual 
gross salary

Judge at the beginning of a career 

41 278 €

Judge of the highest court 

59 623 €

NA

NA

Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

38 984 €

27 654 €

Public prosecutor at highest instance

59 623 €

44 479 €

2,70

3,90

2,55

3,90

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual salary in the 
country

Salaries of 
judges and 
prosecutors in 
Judge

4,09

EU Median

3,90

2,02
2,70

4,09

1,71

2,02

2,55

Prosecutor

at the beginning 
of a career

at the highest 
1,71
instance

at the beginning 
of a career

3,90

3,61

41278

59623

38984

Judge at the beginning of
career

Judge on highest instance

3,61

Slovak Republic

Prosecutor at the
beginning of career

at the highest 
instance

EU Median

Prosecutor at highest
instance

59623

According to 2020 data, the absolute gross salary of a judge at the beginning of a career in Slovak Republic of 41 278 € is somewhat below when compared to the EU median of 51 946 
€. As a ratio with the annual average salary of the country, the salary for a judge at the beginning of career is: 2,70 compared with EU median of: 2,02.

The stated sums represent the basic gross salary of judges/prosecutors without bonuses and supplements. According to the Act on Judges (No. 385/2000 Coll.) the average monthly 
salary of the judge equals the monthly salary of the Member of Parliament. The monthly salary of the judge at the beginning of the career is 90% of this salary. The monthly salary of the 
judge of the Supreme Court is 130 % of the monthly salary of the Member of Parliament. The judge is entitled to have 2 additional monthly salaries (in May and in November) unless 
he/she do not meet the conditions stipulated in law. The sum of annual average salary stated in this questionnaire counts 14 months salaries.
All bonuses and supplements are stipulated by law. Specific supplement belongs to the judges of the Specialized Criminal court and to the judges of the Supreme court deciding on the 
remedies against the decisions of that court. The value of the net salary depends on several individual criteria, e. g. the number of children, the voluntary pension security scheme etc. 
Similar rules govern the salaries of prosecutors (Act on Prosecutors and Trainee Prosecutors No.154/2001 Coll.). The average salary of the prosecutor equals the average salary of the 
judge. The salary of the beginning prosecutor is 85% of this salary, the salary of the prosecutor at the General Prosecutors office is equal to the salary of the Supreme Court judge. 
Prosecutors are also entitled to 2 additional monthly salaries. Supplements for the heads of the prosecutor offices are similar to supplements of the court presidents at the same level.The 
prosecutors of the Special Prosecutor´s Office are entitled to same supplement as the judges of the Specialized Criminal Court.

● Lawyers

Lawyers

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

Number of lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

5 210

5 541

5 827

5 993

6 142

6 037

6 112

6 186

6 266

96,29

102,31

107,48

110,44

113,00

110,91

112,14

113,34

114,77

EU median 2020

122,09

In 2020, there are 6 266 lawyers, which is 1,3% more than in 2019.

102,31

107,48

96,29

110,44

113,00

110,91

112,14

113,34

114,77

122,09

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median
2020

Slovak Republic has 114,8 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants, which is around the EU median of 122,1 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants.

1329

● Judicial professionals (summary)

Judicial professionals in absolute number and per 100 000 inhabitants (Q46, Q52, Q146)

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

EU Median

Professional judges

1 370

25,10

Non-judge staff

4 912

89,97

23,92

59,00

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Slovak Republic

EU Median

122,09

114,77

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

922

977

16,89

9,91

89,97

59,00

17,89

15,22

25,10

23,92

16,89

9,91

17,89

15,22

Lawyers

6 266

114,77

122,09

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

% Male

% Female

Professional judges

37,7%

62,3%

Professional judges

Professional judges

Slovak Republic % Male
Slovak Republic % Female
Judicial professionals: Gender balance
-37,7%
62,3%
Slovak Republic % Male

labels

Slovak Republic % Female

37,7%

EU Median  % Male

-39,0%

EU Median  % Female
39,0%

61,0%

37,7%

39,0%

0,0%

62,3%

61,0%

Non judge staff

18,7%

81,3%

Prosecutors

49,8%

50,2%

Non-prosecutor staff

29,3%

70,7%

Lawyers

57,4%

42,6%

Non judge staff

-18,7%

81,3%

18,7%

Non judge staff

18,7%

-24,0%

24,0%

76,0%

24,0%

81,3%

76,0%

Prosecutors

49,8%

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Lawyers

57,4%

52,3%

40,5%

-49,8%
-40,5%

29,3%
-29,3%
-28,1%
28,1%

-57,4%
-52,3%

50,2%
59,5%

70,7%
71,9%

42,6%
47,7%

0,0%

49,8%
40,5%
0,0%
29,3%
28,1%
0,0%
57,4%
52,3%

50,2%

59,5%

70,7%

71,9%

42,6%

47,7%

1330

3. Legal aid and court fees in Slovak Republic

In Slovak Republic, legal aid includes:

◦ Coverage of court fees: 

◦ Exemption from court fees: 

1

1

The beneficiaries of legal aid are freed from obligation to pay court fees, when their income is below a certain level.

In Slovak Republic, legal aid is available for:

> Representation in court:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

> Legal advice, ADR and other legal services:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

>

Fees related to enforcement of judicial decisions as fees for enforcement agents (Q18) 

>

 Other costs than above (Q19) 

1

1

1

1

0

1

Other costs provided by Centre for Legal Aid are costs for lawyers who represent the client at courts and these lawyers has been provided by Centre for Legal Aid. All costs paid 
by Centre are established in law no. 655/2004 Z. z.
Legal aid shall also include: appointment of an interpreter and translation of documents necessary for decision on merits.

 Number of cases for which legal aid has been granted

Absolute number 
(in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

11 432

Per 100 000 inhabitants
 (in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

209,4

NA

NA

NA

NA

Total

Cases brought to court

Cases not brought to 
court

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Slovak Republic

EU Median

Number of cases for which legal has been granted per 100 000 
inhabitants

Slovak Republic

EU Median

734,2

330,9

402,7

402,7

209,4

In other than criminal cases

In 2020,  because of the COVID 19 pandemic situation, there was a smaller amount of requests for legal aid.

Timeframes of the procedure for granting legal aid (in relation to the duration from the initial legal aid request to the final approval of the legal aid request)

◦ Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulations: 

◦ Actual average duration: 

30

30

If the application for legal aid contains all the documents needed to issue a decision for granting legal aid, then a decision is issued within 30 days. The applicant must meet the 
requirements for granting legal aid established by Act no. 327/2005 Z. z.. If the application is not complete, then the proceeding is suspended for min. 8 days max. 30 days till 
the application is not complete. When the application is complete, according to Act no. 327/2005 Z. z., the proceeding continues and the decision is issued if the legal aid will or 
will not be granted. 

1331

4. Performance of courts in Slovak Republic

● Efficiency indicators

◦ Clearance Rate (CR) and Disposition Time (DT)

The Clearance Rate shows the capacity of a judicial system to deal with the incoming cases. A Clearance Rate of 100% and higher does not generate backlog. 

The Disposition Time determines the estimated number of days necessary for a pending case to be solved in a court. 

First instance Total of other than criminal cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Evolution of number of all other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants
Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Incoming

,

0
8
1
1

,

3
7
0
1

1
4
6

,

,

5
7
2
1

,

7
5
1
1

,

3
3
1
1

,

5
5
1
1

6
4
7

,

0
3
7

,

,

7
3
0
1

7
8
9

,

0
8
6

,

,

2
0
8
1

,

8
9
6
1

,

8
0
7
1

,

2
7
5
1

6
8
4

,

2
0
5

,

,

1
7
4
1

,

2
1
2
1

,

8
8
0
1

0
7
3

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

11,80

12,75

11,33

9,87

,

0
4
3
1

16,98

15,72

10,88

5
9
4

,

14,71

12,42
2019

6,82

10,73

11,57

11,55

10,37

18,02

17,08

,

3
0
4
1

,

2
4
2
1

12,12

4
3
3

,

13,40

6,41

7,46

7,30

6,80

4,86

5,02

3,70

2
8
6

,

0
6
6

,

6
6
2

,

4,95

2020

14,03

6,60

3,34

EU median

2,66

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Slovak Republic (12,42 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly above EU median (6,82 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Slovak Republic (14,03 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (6,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Slovak Republic (3,34 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat above EU median (2,66 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Other than criminal cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

91%

91%

102%

105%

106%

109%

111%

91%

113%

218

235

231

240

98

107

111

135

87

EU median

99%

109

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Other than criminal 
cases

91%

91%

102%

105%

106%

109%

111%

113%

91%

99%

DT (days)

CR (%)

218

2012

235

2013

231

2014

240

2015

98

2016

107

2017

111

2018

135

2019

87

109

2020

EU median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 113,0% in 2020 Slovak Republic seems to be able to deal with its other than criminal cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased by 22,0 points.

In 2020, other than criminal cases are solved in approximately 87 days, which is somewhat below EU median of 109 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a -35,6% decrease of the Disposition Time.

1332

First instance Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of civil and commercial litigious cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

9
9
2

,

2
9
2

,

4
4
2

,

6
3
3

,

1
0
3

,

3
4
2

,

7
6
3

,

9
7
2

,

6
5
2

,

0
0
3

,

3
7
2

,

5
0
2

,

9
8
4

,

0
7
3

,

7
5
4

,

4
5
3

,

4
7
1

,

4
0
3

,

3
3
2

,

4
1
2

,

5
3
2

,

4
1
2

,

0
1
1

,

1
3
1

,

2,99
3,01
2,79
2,05
3,70
3,54
2,33
2,14
1,97
1,56

2,44
2,43
2,56
2,73
4,89
4,57
3,04
2,35
1,97
1,50

2,92
3,36
3,67
3,00
1,74
2,14
1,31
1,10
1,10
1,05

7
9
1

,

7
9
1

,

0
1
1

,

6
5
1

,

0
5
1

,

5
0
1

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Slovak Republic (1,97 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat above EU median (1,56 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Slovak Republic (1,97 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat above EU median (1,50 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Slovak Republic (1,10 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly above EU median (1,05 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

81,6%

80,6%

91,7%

132,8%

132,0%

129,2%

130,6%

109,9%

99,7%

437

505

524

401

130

171

157

170

204

EU Median

98%

221

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

132,8%

DT (days)
132,0%

CR (%)

129,2%

130,6%

81,6%

80,6%

91,7%

109,9%

99,7%

98%

437

2012

505

2013

524

2014

401

2015

130

2016

171

2017

157

2018

170

2019

204

221

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 99,7% in 2020, Slovak Republic seems to be quite able to deal with its civil and commercial litigious cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -10,2 points.

In 2020, the civil and commercial litigious cases are solved in approximately 204 days, which is slightly below EU median of 221 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 19,9% increase of the Disposition Time.

In Slovak Republic, there are 18 593 civil and commercial litigious cases older than 2 years. This is 30,9% of the total number of pending cases at the end of the year

1333

First instance Administrative cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of administrative cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

5
3
0

,

3
3
0

,

6
3
0

,

1
2
0

,

8
1
0

,

6
1
0

,

9
2
0

,

7
2
0

,

1
2
0

,

5
2
0

,

5
2
0

,

0
2
0

,

8
1
0

,

6
1
0

,

0
1
0

,

1
1
0

,

9
0
0

,

9
0
0

,

0,35
0,21
0,21
0,20
0,16
0,09
0,09
0,10
0,09
0,30

0,16
0,18
0,27
0,25
0,18
0,11
0,09
0,08
0,08
0,26

3
1
0

,

0
3
0

,

0,33
0,36
0,29
0,25
0,10
0,09
0,10
0,12
0,13
0,21

1
2
0

,

6
2
0

,

9
0
0

,

8
0
0

,

9
0
0

,

9
0
0

,

0
1
0

,

0
1
0

,

8
0
0

,

2
1
0

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Slovak Republic (0,09 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (0,30 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Slovak Republic (0,08 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below EU median (0,26 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Slovak Republic (0,13 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below EU median (0,21 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Administrative cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

47,2%

84,6%

124,8%

124,1%

112,0%

118,1%

96,1%

81,4%

86,8%

733

746

397

374

203

317

401

518

585

EU Median

100%

388

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Administrative cases

124,8%

124,1%

DT (days)

CR (%)

112,0%

118,1%

96,1%

81,4%

86,8%

100%

84,6%

47,2%

733

2012

746

2013

397

2014

374

2015

203

2016

317

2017

401

2018

518

2019

585

388

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 86,8% in 2020, Slovak Republic seems to face some difficulties to deal with its administrative cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased for 5,4 points.

In 2020, the administrative cases are solved in approximately 585 days, which is significantly above EU median of 388 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 12,9% increase of the Disposition Time.

In Slovak Republic, there are 1 412 administrative law cases older than 2 years. This is 20,0% of the total number of pending cases at the end of the year.

Since 2016, a new methodology was implemented based on the working group’s conclusions and CEPEJ mission’s recommendation (06/2016). Former reporting 
structure was not consistent with the methodology of CEPEJ, which could lead to inappropriate comparison of Slovak Republic (SR) with other countries. Also, the 
Ministry of Justice (MoJ) realized that evaluation of courts’ performance by disposed and unresolved (decided and undecided) cases is discriminating SR in 
comparison with other countries in European Union (EU) as this methodology is not counting a decision of first instance court as disposed until the case becomes 
valid. This results into reporting such case as unresolved despite respective court has already made a decision and it is no longer in its disposition how - and more 
importantly when - the case will be resolved (disposed) by the second instance court. This is the nature of reporting of many “unresolved” cases on courts despite 
court already decided, in fact. 
The new way of reporting extracts the numbers of decided cases in respective court instances from “unresolved” and allocates these numbers to those court instances 
that made an actual decision in respective time. This means that decision validity state is not being awaited for as it could potentially contain an appeal and thus also a 
time that a case spends on second instance court. Upon decision’s validity the case would become „disposed/resolved“ at the first instance court but most probably it 
would not be disposed in the same period when it was decided by the (first instance) court.

1334

As regards "other than criminal cases" in first instance, there were many discrepancies from 2019 to 2020. Most of the discrepancies are mainly are due to Covid-19 
pandemic situation.
The emergency situation due to COVID 19 has been ongoing since March 2020. Since then, hearings have been held to the necessary extent, which is determined by 
a decree of the Ministry of Justice. The decree was amended 4 times according to the development of the epidemic situation. Thus, the courts were not closed in 
2020, but operated in a restricted regime, and that restricted regime depended on the development of the epidemic situation. There were situations where hearings 
were organised to the absolute minimum, for example in April 2020, almost no hearings were held. Since May 2020, it has been up to the courts to ensure hearings to 
the extent necessary and in accordance with other regulations related to the pandemic situation. In several measures in 2020, the Ministry of Justice recommended 
that courts organise work so that court staff and judges work from home. As for an access to the file for lawyers, it was provided.

Other discrepancies are due to the following reasons: 
In the category “Other registry cases”, it was added register "RPVS" - Register of public sector partners. The Register of public sector partners has the character of a 
register of legal and natural persons, which receives from the state, local-government and other public sector entities public financing or property above the limit specified 
by law. The persons who conclude a contract, framework agreement or concession contract pursuant to public procurement regulations, healthcare providers and so on. 
The classification of the registry in category 2.2.3. was consulted with CEPEJ organization.
In the category “Non-litigious business registry cases”, at the end of year 2019, the number of incoming cases into the business register increased enormously because 
of the new applied legislation, which caused a high number of pending cases at the beginning of the year 2020. In particular, the Commercial Code (Act No. 513/1991 
Coll) was amended by the Act No. 390/2019 Coll, which became effective from the 1st of October 2020. This amendment brought following changes (also changes to the 
Commercial register):
1.(cid:9)From October 1, 2020, it is possible to submit an application for registration of data in the Commercial Register only in electronic form (including objections to the 
refusal of registration)
2.(cid:9)Obligation of the company´s founders to submit the consent of the real-estate owner to setting up a registered seat of the company with verified signature of the owner.
3.(cid:9)The list of the information is being expanded in order to identify these persons more precisely. In the case of natural persons, a date of birth and a birth number must 
be given, if it was assigned. In the case of legal persons, their registration number must be given. The existing companies are required to complete this information by 
September 30, 2021.
4.(cid:9)The amendment also covers one of the reasons why the court is entitled to dissolve a company without liquidation. It is a breach of the obligation filing the financial 
statement into the collection of deeds within the specified period of 9 months from its preparation. This means, that if a company doesn’t deposit this financial statement 
in the collection of documents within 15 months from its preparation, the registry court will decide on its dissolution without a proposal.

The category "civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases" includes all cases arisen from legal relationships regulated by family law (maintenance cases, custody of the 
child, visiting rights, guardianship, divorce cases with the ruling on rights and obligations towards the minor child etc.), cases related to assessment of the legal capacity 
of natural persons, reminder procedure (electronic payment orders).

Insolvency cases

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Insolvency cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Insolvency cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

92,7%

94,8%

89,2%

86,2%

81,3%

95,8%

99,8%

101,6%

103,4%

118

125

166

217

489

154

60

33

36

EU Median

105%

281

DT (days)

CR (%)

92,7%

94,8%

89,2%

86,2%

81,3%

95,8%

99,8%

101,6%

103,4%

105%

118

2012

125

2013

166

2014

217

2015

489

2016

154

2017

60

2018

33

2019

36

281

2020

EU Median

The Clearance Rate was calculated at 103,4% in 2020 for insolvency cases, Slovak Republic seems to be able to deal with its insolvency cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased by 1,8 points.

In 2020, insolvency cases are solved in a approximately 36 days, which is significantly below the EU median of 281 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 9,0% increase of the Disposition Time.

More significant decline of incoming cases and resolved cases as well in the courts as a result of a pandemic situation.

1335

● First instance Criminal Law Cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

22 452

65 860

65 808

22 504

Severe criminal cases 

Misdemeanour and/or 
minor cases

Other cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Per 100 inhabitants

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

0,41

1,21

1,21

0,41

Severe criminal 
cases 
Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Incoming cases Resolved casesPending 

Slovak Republic

1,21

1,21

0,41

EU Median

Total criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

1,60

1,48

0,46

Incoming cases

Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

1
2
1

,

1
2
1

,

0
6
1

,

8
4
1

,

1
4
0

,

6
4
0

,

Slovak Republic

EU Median

The number of total incoming criminal cases in 2020 in Slovak Republic (1,21 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below EU median (1,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total resolved criminal cases in 2020 in Slovak Republic (1,21 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below EU median (1,48 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total pending criminal cases at the end of 2020 in Slovak Republic (0,41 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below EU median (0,46 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Total criminal law cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Total

99,9%

Severe criminal 
cases 

Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

NA

NA

NA

125

NA

NA

NA

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT)

DT (days)

CR (%)

Total Criminal law cases

99,9%

95,2%

EU Median

95,2%

139

EU Median

125

Total

139

EU Median

With the Clearance Rate calculated at 99,9% in 2020 for total criminal cases, Slovak Republic seems to be able to deal with its total criminal cases.

In 2020, criminal law cases were solved in approximately 125 days, which is slightly below EU median of 139 days.

The statistical data collected by the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak republic does not allow the categorization of the criminal matters according to the types of criminal 
offences as defined in explanatory note.

1336

Overall efficiency by instance and by case matter

CR (%)

DT (days)

CR (%)

DT (days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases

99,7%

115,6%

89,7%

Administrative cases

86,8%

99,2%

Total criminal law cases

99,9%

99,7%

99,0%

204

585

125

177

0

45

249

388

101

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)
2nd instance

2nd instance

1st instance

1st instance

Supreme Court

Supreme Court

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and commercial 
%
7
litigious cases
9
9
Administrative cases

,

100%

,

%
6
5
1
1

%
7
9
8

,

99,7%
%
8
86,8%
6
8

,

%
2
9
9

,

%
115,6%
7
9
9

%
9
9
9

,

,

%
0
9
9

,

89,7%
99,2%

1

1
1

249

177

204

388

0

585

101
45
125

Total criminal law cases

Civil and commercial
litigious cases

Administrative cases Total criminal law

99,9%

99,7%
cases

99,0%

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

1
1

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

In Slovak Republic, in first instance, civil and commercial litigious cases are resolved faster than the EU median (204 days vs 221) while the DT in second instance 
coincides with the median. As regards administrative cases, the disposition time is significantly higher than the median in first and third instance (585 days vs 388, and 
388 days vs 281). Criminal law cases are resolved faster than the EU median. In 2020, Slovak judges resolved less cases than received (Clearance rate is below 
100%) except for civil and commercial litigious cases in second instance.
As regards second instance conrts, a significant decline of incoming cases and resolved cases is a result of a pandemic situation. 
As regards administrative law cases, in second instance there was only one pending case on 1 January 2020, which was resolved during the year and no case came into 
the Second instance courts in the year 2020.
The number of non-litigious business registry cases is included in "general civil and commercial non-litigious cases".

As regards third instance, the collected statistical data for the Supreme Court do not distinguish the litigious and non-litigious cases. In the civil and commercial matters 
the Supreme court decides primarily on the applications for appellate review on legal questions. In the commercial cases it decides also in the appellate procedure 
against the decisions of the Regional courts as the courts of first instance. The administrative cases at the Supreme Court level includes the remedy procedures against 
the decisions of the Regional courts as the courts of first instance. Depending on the type of the administrative procedure it might be appeal procedure or the cassation 
review procedure.

Decline of incoming cases and resolved cases as well in the Supreme court is a result of the pandemic situation.

1337

5. Public prosecution services in Slovak Republic

● Role and powers of the public prosecutor

In the criminal procedure, the public prosecutor in Slovak Republic has the following 10 out of 11 possible roles and powers:

To conduct or supervise police investigation

To appeal

To conduct investigations

To supervise the enforcement procedure

When necessary, to request investigation measures from the judge

To discontinue a case without needing a decision by a judge

To charge

To present the case in the court

To propose a sentence to the judge

To end the case by imposing or negotiating a penalty or measure 
without requiring a judicial decision

Other significant powers

Prosecutors have significant tasks within the pre-trial proceedings. They supervise police investigations or may conduct/perform investigations by themselves. They are the 
authority that receives possible complaints against police decisions. On the other hand, only a court may give approval to carry out investigating acts affecting rights and 
fundamental freedoms. Pre-trial proceedings may be terminated by: transfer of the case (e.g. for hearing of administrative infraction) by decision issued either by the Police (if a 
specific person was not accused) or a prosecutor (if criminal prosecution was conducted against a specific person); discontinuance of criminal prosecution (if a specific person 
was not accused, criminal prosecution may be discontinued by the Police; in the opposite case by prosecutor only); suspension of criminal prosecution (decision issued by the 
Police or a prosecutor if he/she moved for commencement of proceedings regarding an issue that law enforcement bodies are not able to deal with); conditional discontinuance of 
criminal prosecution (decision adopted by a prosecutor); conditional discontinuance of criminal prosecution of an accused person assisting justice (decision adopted by a 
prosecutor); approval of conciliation between the accused and the injured (the approval is given by a prosecutor) without which the prosecutor will forward the case to the court for 
further proceedings (incrimination or agreement on guilt and punishment).
Besides, public prosecutors are entitled to carry out plea bargaining proceedings resulting in negotiating penalty that must be confirmed by the judicial decision, to order 
exhumation of the corpse, to propose detention on remand to the court, to repeal unlawful or unjustified decision.

The public prosecutor also has a role in civil, administrative and insolvency cases.

The scope of powers of the Prosecutor in the civil proceedings results from the provisions of the Section 19 of the Act No. 153/2001 Coll. on Prosecution Office as amended.
The Prosecutor performs this scope of powers in the civil proceedings within the extent appointed by the special regulations as Procedure of civil controversy and Procedure of 
civil non-controversy.
If so, it is being provided by the designated legal regulations, the Prosecutor is entitled to submit a proposal or a complaint to the court, or is entitled to step into the legal 
proceedings that had already begun.

Prosecutor´s authorization under the Procedure of civil controversy:
-(cid:9)the powers of the General Prosecutor of the Slovak Republic to submit a statement before the decision of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic in 
the matter,
-(cid:9)the powers of the General Prosecutor of the Slovak Republic to submit an appeal on the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic,
-(cid:9)the powers of the Prosecutor to submit the complaint in respect of the exercise of the State´s right to issue unjust enrichment, in case of a determination of ownership, if the 
provisions of a generally binding legal regulation have been violated, or if a special regulation so provides,
-(cid:9)the power of the Prosecutor to step into disputes that had already begun, in which one of the parties is represented by the state, a legal entity established by the state, a state 
enterprise, a legal entity with state ownership, a municipality or a higher territorial unit, in disputes concerning liability for damage caused while performing of the public power.
Prosecutor´s authorization under the Procedure of civil non-controversy:
-(cid:9)the Prosecutor is entitled to step into the proceedings that had already begun except the proceedings on the divorce of the marriage
-(cid:9)the Prosecutor is entitled to submit a proposal for initiation of the proceedings, if the proceedings is possible to begun also without proposal or if this is being established by the 
Procedure of civil non-controversy or other special legal regulation.
The Prosecutor is entitled to act in the administrative proceedings before the authorities of the public administration as well as in proceedings before the administrative court.
The protest of the Prosecutor and the warning of the Prosecutor are the legal means by which the Prosecutor supervises the observance of laws and other generally binding legal 
regulations by public administration bodies in administrative proceedings.
The powers of the Prosecutor in proceedings before the administrative court are the administrative complaint, complaint to the administrative court under the Administrative Court 
Order, stepping into proceedings before an administrative court under the Administrative Court Order. According to the Administrative Procedure Code the General Prosecutor is 
also entitled to:
- submit an action for dissolution of a political party,
- submit the cassation appeal against the decision of the administrative court issued in proceedings in which the prosecutor was entitled to step into but did not intervene,
- to propose in the cassation appeal that it would have been decided by the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court of the Slovak Republic,
- submit the complaint to reopen the proceedings in which the prosecutor was entitled to step into but did not intervene.
Depending on the stage of the bankruptcy proceedings and the person of the debtor (for example a legal entity established by the state, a state enterprise, a legal entity with state 
ownership) the Prosecutor may exercise the right to step into such proceedings.

1338

● Public prosecutors: Number of first instance criminal cases

Type of cases

Absolute 
number

Per 100 
inhabitants

1. Pending cases on 1 Jan. ref. year 

20 692

0,38

2. Incoming/received cases

57 244

1,05

Incoming/rec
eived cases

Processed 
cases

Pendin
g cases 
on 31 

3. Processed cases (3.1 + 3.2 + 3.3 + 3.4)

NA

NA

Slovak Republic

1,05 NA

0,37

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year (3.1.1 + 3.1.2 + 3.1.3 
+ 3.1.4)

10 236

0,19

EU Median

2,85 2,84

0,84

3.1.1 Discontinued by the public prosecutor because the 
offender could not be identified 

3.1.2 Discontinued by the public prosecutor due to the lack 
of an established offence or a specific legal situation 

3.1.3 Discontinued by the public prosecutor for reasons of 
opportunity

3.1.4 Discontinued for other reasons 

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated 
by the public prosecutor

1 556

0,03

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

-0,19

1,05

Processed cases

Slovak RepublicEU Median

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons

NA

NA

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor

-0,03

0,12

3.4. Cases brought to court

22 978

0,42

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons
0,30

0,00

4. Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. year

20 390

0,37

3.4. Cases brought to court

-0,42

0,53

1339

 
6. Existence and use of alternative dispute resolution in Slovak Republic

Number of mediators

Mediators

Total

Per 100 000 inhabitants

EU Median
2020

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

633

846

1068

1248

1450

1664

913

798

877

11,7

15,6

19,7

23,0

26,7

30,6

16,8

14,6

16,1

EU Median 2020

EU median in 2019

14,4

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

Number of mediators per 100 000 inhabitants

14,4

16,1

14,6

16,8

15,6

11,7

30,6

26,7

23,0

19,7

In 2020, there are 877 accredited or registered mediators who practise court related mediation which represents 16,1 accredited or registered mediators per 100 

The variation between 2019 and 2020 is about 9,9%.

In criminal matters mediation is provided by the 81 Probation officers located on District Courts.

Number of court related mediations

Type of cases

Total of all cases

Civil and commercial

Family cases

Administrative

Employment dismissal

Criminal cases

Consumer cases

Number of cases 
for which the parties
agreed to start 
mediation

Number of finished 
court-related
mediations

Number of cases 
in which there is a 
settlement 
agreement

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

924

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

803

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1340

7. ICT tools of courts in Slovak Republic

●The ICT tools of courts and for court users

The use of ICT in courts in 2020 has been evaluated as  :

EU Median

Total 
(0 to 10)

Assistance tools (0 to 3)

Case management system (0 to 7)
Financial management tools (0 to 3)

Measurement tools to assess the workload (0 to 5)
Electronic communication (0 to 10)

7,3
2,1

5,0

2,0
2,0

9,4

6,6
2,0

5,2

1,3
2,5

6,9

The calculation of this values for each field is based on the answers for that question/s and weighted according the avaiability 
or deployment rate. The total value is normalised to max 10 points for readability and comparison.

The details of the calculation are given in Annex 5 - IT calculations

The result by area may be summarized in these graphics, where each field has been evaluated from 0 to 4 points.

Note: index is modified based on the available questions. This cycle the recalculation was made for the last three cycles to be 
able to follow the development.

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

2018

2019

2020

EU Median 2020

Case 
management 
system

Financial 
management 
tools

Measurement 
tools to assess 
the workload

Electronic 
communication

9,40

8,89

8,66

6,94

5,00

5,00

5,00

5,00

1,50
5,00
2,00

2,00

5,00

5,17

2,50

1,67

2,00

8,66

8,89

9,40

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

Assistance 
tools

Year
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
EU Median 20202,00

2,08

1,75

1,75

1,75

1,75

2,08

2,00

2,00

2,00

1,50

1,25

2,50

2,50

2,00

1,67

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

Comments on writing assistance tools
As regards writing assistance tools, there are different types of templates when creating documents in the CMS, which can be also pre-filled 
with data from databases.

Comments on financial management tools and on measurment tools on workload
Application/tool collecting the time information about the activities of the judges, can be used for senior judicial officials in the future as well. 
The tool is part of the project Case weighting analyses (CWA) and the result should be used to assess the workload of the judges in the 
future. In 2020 the cellecting data for the CWA project was stopped becuase of covid pandemic situation.

Comments on communication tools 
In the criminal area the deployment rate changed from 50-99% to 100%, since all the courts were involved.
Certain professionals are obliged to communicate only electronically with courts (advocates, notaries, enforcement agents). 
They have to use a centralized (governmental) system of posting and delivering document to public institutions (courts, governmental 
organizations).

1341

8. Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and public prosecution services in Slovak Republic

In Slovak Republic, quality standards are determined for the judicial system at national level (e.g. quality systems for the judiciary and/or judicial quality policies). Specialised 
personnel within the courts is entrusted with implementation of these national level quality standards.

Internal revision of the court is a type of control of the court and judges, which aims to check the current state of the judiciary, to identify the causes of shortcomings in the 
performance of the judiciary and to propose measures to eliminate them.

Judicial Council, Council of Prosecutors and disciplinary commissions are entrusted with the implementation of national level quality standards

● Systems for measuring and evaluating courts' performance

A regular monitoring system of court activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

The category “other” encompasses: the number of cases according to types of disputes, the result of the case (reconciliation, dismissals, full satisfaction, partial satisfaction, 
etc.). 
Statistical data of the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic are detailed and regularly collected and published in a yearbook which is publicly accessible at the website of 
the Analytical centre of MoJ
https://www.justice.gov.sk/Stranky/Informacie/Analyticke-centrum.aspx
http://web.ac-mssr.sk/statisticka-rocenka-2018/. 
Data on the activity of the courts are published every month in interactive Dashboard on the http://web.ac-mssr.sk/dashboard/.

In Slovak Republic, there is a system to regularly evaluate the court performance based primarily on defined indicators and the frequency of the reporting is annual.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each court.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

The main performance and quality indicators that have been defined for courts and used in the self-evaluation reports of some pilot courts involved Number of appeals as well. 
The self-evaluation reports of the courts were not repeated with 2019. The other indicators are used and made public in dashboards and statistical reports. The number of the 
appeals is published but not as a indicator of quality, only as a statistical number.
The evaluation of the courts' activities is not used for the later allocation of means in the courts.

1342

● Systems for measuring and evaluating public prosecution services' performance

A regular monitoring system of public prosecution services activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases 

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs 

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecution) 

Costs of the judicial procedures 

Clearance rate 

Disposition time 

Percentage of convictions and aquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

In Slovak Republic, there is no system to evaluate regularly the activity of each public prosection service.

Performance and quality indicators are not defined for the activity of each public prosecution service.

None of the following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecutors)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Percentage of convictions and acquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff

The evaluation of the public prosecution services' activities is not used for the later allocation of means in the public prosecution services.

1343

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table General Data: Economic and demographic data, in absolute values (Q1, Q3, Q5)

Q1 Number of inhabitants

5 410 836

5 415 949

5 421 349

5 426 252

5 435 343

5 443 120

5 450 421

5 457 873

5 459 781

0,9%

0,1%

0,1%

0,1%

0,2%

0,1%

0,1%

0,1%

0,0%

Q.3 GDP Per capita (in €) in current prices

13 207

13 319

13 880

14 400

14 910

15 620

16 550

17 254

16 770

27,0%

0,8%

4,2%

3,7%

3,5%

4,8%

6,0%

4,3%

-2,8%

Q5. Exchange rate of Nat currency to € on 1 Jan

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Indicator 1: Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and prosecution services  (Indicator 4 in 2019)

Table 1.1 to Table 1.10 (Q66, Q67, Q77, Q78, Q77-1, Q78-1, Q73, Q73-0, Q73-1, Q73-2, Q73-3, Q73-4, Q73-5, Q73-6, Q70, Q70-1, Q71, Q72, Q83-2, Q83-3, Q120 
and Q120-1)

66 Qlty standards formulated_jud system

67 Specialised court staff entrusted_qlty standards

77 Performance and quality indicators of court activities

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

078.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078.1.5 Backlogs 

078.1.6 Productivity of judges and court staff

078.1.7 Satisfaction of court staff 

078.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts) 

078.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078.1.10 Number of appeals

078.1.11 Appeal ratio

078.1.12 Clearance rate 

078.1.13 Disposition time 

078.1.14 Other

077-1.1.1 Defined performance and quality indicators

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

 Page 1344 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

078-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078-1.1.5 Backlogs 

078-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

078-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

078-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

078-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

078-1.1.11 Disposition time 

078-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

078-1.1.13 Other

73 Regular system_evaluation_performance_each court

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

073-0.1.1 Annual

073-0.1.2 Less frequent

073-0.1.3 More frequent

073-1.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
court

073-2.1.1 Courses of action taken in the evaluation is used for the 
allocation of resources

073-2.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-2.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-2.1.4 Other

073-3.1.1 Regular evaluation of the public prosecution services 
performance

No

No

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

False

 Page 1345 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

073-4.1.1 Annual

073-4.1.2 Less frequent

073-4.1.3 More frequent

073-5.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
public prosecution services

073-6.1.1 Identifying the causes of improved or deteriorated 
performance

073-6.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-6.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-6.1.4 Other

070.1.1 number of incoming cases

070.1.2 length of proceedings (timeframes)

070.1.3 number of resolved cases

070.1.4 number of pending cases

070.1.5 backlogs

070.1.6 productivity of judges and court staff

070.1.7 satisfaction of court staff

070.1.8 satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts)

070.1.9 costs of the judicial procedures

070.1.10 number of appeals

070.1.11 appeal ratio

070.1.12 clearance rate

-

-

-

False

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

 Page 1346 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

070-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases 

070-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

070-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

070-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

070-1.1.5 Backlogs 

070-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

070-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

070-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

070-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

070-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

070-1.1.11 Disposition time 

070-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

070-1.1.13 Other

071.1.1 Monitoring backlogs in Civil law cases

071.1.2 Monitoring backlogs in Criminal law cases

071.1.3 Monitoring backlogs in Administrative law cases

072.1.1 Monitoring timeframes Within the courts

072.1.2 Monitoring timeframes Within the public prosecution services

083-2.1.1 Quantitative performance tagets defined for each 
prosecutors

083-3.1.1 Body responsible - Executive power (for example the 
Ministry of Justice)

083-3.1.2 Body responsible - Prosecutor General /State public 
prosecutor

083-3.1.3 Body responsible - Public Prosecutorial Council

083-3.1.4 Body responsible - Head of the organisational unit or 
hierarchically superior public prosecutor

083-3.1.5 Body responsible - Other

True

True

True

True

False

True

False

False

False

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

 Page 1347 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

120.1.1 Qualitative individual assessment of the public prosecutors' 
work

120-1.1.1 Feequency - Annual

120-1.1.2 Feequency - Less frequent

120-1.1.3 Feequency - More frequent

Indicator 2: The judicial organisation

Tables 2.1a; 2.1b; 2.2a; 2.2b; 2.3a; 2.3b; 2.4 and 2.5(EC) (Q42, Q43 and Q44)

Q42.1.1Total number of all courts - legal entities 

Q42.1.2 Total number of courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.3 First instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.4 Second instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.5 Highest instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.6 Total number of specialised courts - legal entities

43.1.1 Total number of specialised courts of first instance

43.1.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.1.3 Insolvency courts

43.1.4 Labour courts

43.1.5 Family courts

43.1.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.1.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.1.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

-

-

54

-

-

-

9

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

-

-

54

-

-

-

9

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

-

-

54

-

-

-

9

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

-

-

54

-

-

-

9

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

-

-

54

-

-

-

9

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

-

-

54

-

-

-

9

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

-

-

54

-

-

-

9

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

-

-

54

-

-

-

9

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

43.1.9 Internet related disputes

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

43.1.10 Administrative courts

43.1.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.1.12 Military courts

43.1.13 Juvenile courts

8

NAP

NAP

-

8

NAP

NAP

-

8

NAP

NAP

-

8

NAP

NAP

-

8

NAP

NAP

-

8

NAP

NAP

-

8

NAP

NAP

-

8

NAP

NAP

-

 Page 1348 / 1555

False

-

-

-

64

63

54

8

1

1

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-88,9%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-88,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

43.1.14 Other specialised courts

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

43.2.1 Total number of specialised courts of higher instances

43.2.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.2.3 Insolvency courts

43.2.4 Labour courts

43.2.5 Family courts

43.2.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.2.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.2.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.2.9 Internet related disputes

43.2.10 Administrative courts

43.2.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.2.12 Military courts

43.2.13 Juvenile courts

43.2.14 Other specialised courts

44.1.1 First instance courts geographic locations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

44.1.2 All courts geographic locations

64

64

64

64

64

64

63

64

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

55

64

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-1,6%

1,6%

0,0%

 Page 1349 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 3: The performance of courts at all stages of the proceedings

Tables 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.4 (all years) Number of other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 Variation of first instance other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants (Q1, Q91)

Table 3.13.7 (EC) to 3.13.12 (EC) First instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

91.1.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.1.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.1.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.1.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.1.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.1.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.1.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.1.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

91.1.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.1.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

91.1.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

91.2.1 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.2.2 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.2.3 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.2.4 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.2.5 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.2.6 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.2.7 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.2.8 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

91.2.9 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

289 064

339 930

407 586

396 248

320 952

264 068

269 114

198 434

270 433

-6,4%

17,6%

19,9%

-2,8%

-19,0%

-17,7%

1,9%

-26,3%

36,3%

128 073

150 579

186 707

199 203

158 706

94 328

110 221

71 384

59 870

-53,3%

17,6%

24,0%

6,7%

-20,3%

-40,6%

16,8%

-35,2%

-16,1%

-

-

74 501

71 696

71 485

81 504

89 392

84 730

175 807

-

-

-

-3,8%

-0,3%

14,0%

9,7%

-5,2%

107,5%

69 073

71 944

66 370

65 066

24 605

28 850

31 105

32 557

32 340

-53,2%

4,2%

-7,7%

-2,0%

-62,2%

17,3%

7,8%

4,7%

-0,7%

-

-

8 131

6 630

6 946

8 442

9 390

7 719

100 710

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-18,5%

4,8%

21,5%

11,2%

-17,8% 1204,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

6 224

6 510

8 131

6 630

6 946

8 442

9 390

7 719

100 462

1514,1%

4,6%

24,9%

-18,5%

4,8%

21,5%

11,2%

-17,8% 1201,5%

-

-

-

-

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

NAP

248

NA

39 934

44 212

48 897

44 454

42 757

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

10,7%

10,6%

-9,1%

-3,8%

7 883

17 815

18 656

16 271

6 575

5 509

5 155

5 352

6 381

-19,1%

126,0%

4,7%

-12,8%

-59,6%

-16,2%

-6,4%

3,8%

19,2%

77 811

93 082

127 722

109 078

84 186

82 727

64 346

36 968

28 375

-63,5%

19,6%

37,2%

-14,6%

-22,8%

-1,7%

-22,2%

-42,5%

-23,2%

638 571

690 648

614 273

535 414

922 805

855 880

592 842

802 886

677 851

6,2%

8,2%

-11,1%

-12,8%

72,4%

-7,3%

-30,7%

35,4%

-15,6%

161 645

163 200

151 315

111 489

201 368

192 663

126 997

116 709

107 829

-33,3%

1,0%

-7,3%

-26,3%

80,6%

-4,3%

-34,1%

-8,1%

-7,6%

-

-

225 116

222 348

256 154

278 475

278 255

464 061

375 489

-

-

-

-1,2%

15,2%

8,7%

-0,1%

66,8%

-19,1%

139 784

124 144

119 088

115 467

61 557

67 178

93 784

121 067

129 278

-7,5%

-11,2%

-4,1%

-3,0%

-46,7%

9,1%

39,6%

29,1%

6,8%

-

-

106 028

106 881

114 075

132 197

110 402

269 255

170 357

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,8%

6,7%

15,9%

-16,5%

143,9%

-36,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

96 186

111 931

106 028

106 881

114 075

132 197

110 323

269 255

157 881

64,1%

16,4%

-5,3%

0,8%

6,7%

15,9%

-16,5%

144,1%

-41,4%

-

-

-

-

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

79

NAP

12 476

NA

80 522

79 100

74 069

73 739

75 854

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-1,8%

-6,4%

-0,4%

2,9%

91.2.10 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

18 797

11 296

11 612

10 764

8 861

5 036

5 063

5 525

5 071

-73,0%

-39,9%

2,8%

-7,3%

-17,7%

-43,2%

0,5%

9,1%

-8,2%

91.2.11 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

222 159

280 077

226 230

190 813

456 422

379 706

182 527

216 591

189 462

-14,7%

26,1%

-19,2%

-15,7%

139,2%

-16,8%

-51,9%

18,7%

-12,5%

 Page 1350 / 1555

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

91.3.1 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.3.2 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.3.3 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.3.4 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.3.5 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.3.6 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.3.7 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.3.8 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

91.3.9 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

580 653

626 660

626 110

562 478

979 689

929 579

660 330

731 135

766 088

31,9%

7,9%

-0,1%

-10,2%

74,2%

-5,1%

-29,0%

10,7%

4,8%

131 856

131 609

138 819

148 107

265 746

248 958

165 833

128 223

107 522

-18,5%

-0,2%

5,5%

6,7%

79,4%

-6,3%

-33,4%

-22,7%

-16,1%

-

-

227 921

221 995

246 135

274 229

280 349

373 232

455 624

-

-

-

-2,6%

10,9%

11,4%

2,2%

33,1%

22,1%

137 139

128 210

120 392

116 136

57 312

65 911

91 943

121 284

132 594

-3,3%

-6,5%

-6,1%

-3,5%

-50,7%

15,0%

39,5%

31,9%

9,3%

-

-

107 529

105 859

112 579

131 932

112 073

176 512

253 977

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-1,6%

6,3%

17,2%

-15,1%

57,5%

43,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

95 900

110 331

107 529

105 859

112 579

131 932

111 994

176 512

241 469

151,8%

15,0%

-2,5%

-1,6%

6,3%

17,2%

-15,1%

57,6%

36,8%

-

-

-

-

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

79

NAP

12 508

NA

76 244

76 386

76 333

75 436

69 053

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,2%

-0,1%

-1,2%

-8,5%

91.3.10 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

8 865

9 560

14 496

13 361

9 927

5 950

4 866

4 496

4 400

-50,4%

7,8%

51,6%

-7,8%

-25,7%

-40,1%

-18,2%

-7,6%

-2,1%

91.3.11 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

91.4.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.4.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.4.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.4.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.4.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.4.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.4.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.4.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

91.4.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.4.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

91.4.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

206 893

246 950

244 874

179 015

457 881

400 442

209 282

225 184

198 542

-4,0%

19,4%

-0,8%

-26,9%

155,8%

-12,5%

-47,7%

7,6%

-11,8%

346 982

403 918

395 749

369 184

264 068

273 420

201 626

270 185

182 196

-47,5%

16,4%

-2,0%

-6,7%

-28,5%

3,5%

-26,3%

34,0%

-32,6%

157 862

182 170

199 203

162 585

94 328

116 418

71 385

59 870

60 177

-61,9%

15,4%

9,4%

-18,4%

-42,0%

23,4%

-38,7%

-16,1%

0,5%

-

-

71 696

72 049

81 504

89 567

87 298

175 559

95 672

-

-

-

0,5%

13,1%

9,9%

-2,5%

101,1%

-45,5%

71 718

67 878

65 066

64 397

28 850

31 780

32 946

32 340

29 024

-59,5%

-5,4%

-4,1%

-1,0%

-55,2%

10,2%

3,7%

-1,8%

-10,3%

-

-

6 630

7 652

8 442

9 391

7 719

100 462

17 090

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

15,4%

10,3%

11,2%

-17,8% 1201,5%

-83,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

6 510

8 110

6 630

7 652

8 442

9 391

7 719

100 462

16 874

159,2%

24,6%

-18,2%

15,4%

10,3%

11,2%

-17,8% 1201,5%

-83,2%

-

-

-

-

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

NAP

216

NA

44 212

48 396

46 633

42 757

49 558

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9,5%

-3,6%

-8,3%

15,9%

17 815

19 551

15 772

13 674

5 509

5 166

5 352

6 381

7 052

-60,4%

9,7%

-19,3%

-13,3%

-59,7%

-6,2%

3,6%

19,2%

10,5%

93 077

126 209

109 078

120 876

82 727

62 269

37 591

28 375

19 295

-79,3%

35,6%

-13,6%

10,8%

-31,6%

-24,7%

-39,6%

-24,5%

-32,0%

 Page 1351 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.2 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.4 to 3.3.7 Variation of Clearence Rate and Disposition Time of first instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

Table 3.13.1 (EC) to 3.13.6 (EC) First instance courts: Disposition time and clearance rate for other than criminal cases  (Q91)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

90,9%

90,7%

101,9%

105,1%

106,2%

108,6%

111,4%

91,1%

113,0%

24,29

(0,21)

12,33

3,07

1,06

2,30

2,55

(18,24)

24,11

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

81,6%

80,6%

91,7%

132,8%

132,0%

129,2%

130,6%

109,9%

99,7%

22,24

(1,14)

13,76

44,80

(0,66)

(2,08)

1,05

(15,86)

(9,24)

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

-

-

101,2%

99,8%

96,1%

98,5%

100,8%

80,4%

121,3%

-

-

-

(1,39)

(3,76)

2,48

2,31

(20,17)

50,87

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

98,1%

103,3%

101,1%

100,6%

93,1%

98,1%

98,0%

100,2%

102,6%

4,54

5,27

(2,11)

(0,51)

(7,43)

5,38

(0,08)

2,19

2,38

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

-

-

101,4%

99,0%

98,7%

99,8%

101,5%

65,6%

149,1%

CR Non litigious land registry cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

(2,34)

(0,36)

1,13

1,72

(35,42)

127,42

-

-

-

-

-

-

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

99,7%

98,6%

101,4%

99,0%

98,7%

99,8%

101,5%

65,6%

152,9%

53,40

(1,14)

2,89

(2,34)

(0,36)

1,13

1,72

(35,42)

133,30

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

-

-

-

-

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

100,0%

NAP

100,3%

NA

94,7%

96,6%

103,1%

102,3%

91,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,99

6,72

(0,73)

(11,01)

CR Administrative law cases

47,2%

84,6%

124,8%

124,1%

112,0%

118,1%

96,1%

81,4%

86,8%

83,98

79,45

47,51

(0,57)

(9,75)

5,46

(18,65)

(15,33)

6,63

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

93,1%

88,2%

108,2%

93,8%

100,3%

105,5%

114,7%

104,0%

104,8%

12,52

(5,32)

22,76

(13,33)

6,93

5,13

8,72

(9,32)

0,79

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

218

437

-

191

-

NAP

25

-

-

733

164

235

505

-

193

-

NAP

27

-

-

746

187

231

524

115

197

23

NAP

23

NAP

NA

397

163

240

401

118

202

26

NAP

26

NAP

NA

374

246

98

130

121

184

27

NAP

27

NAP

212

203

66

107

171

119

176

26

111

157

114

131

25

NAP

NAP

26

NAP

231

317

57

25

-

223

401

66

135

170

172

97

208

NAP

208

NAP

207

518

46

87

-60,2%

7,9%

-1,9%

3,8%

-58,9%

9,1%

3,8%

21,0%

-35,6%

204

-53,3%

15,6%

3,7%

-23,5%

-67,7%

31,7%

-7,9%

8,5%

19,9%

77

-

-

-

3,2%

2,0%

-1,4%

-4,7%

51,1%

-55,4%

80

-58,1%

1,2%

2,1%

2,6%

-9,2%

-4,2%

-25,7%

-25,6%

-17,9%

25

NAP

26

6

262

-

-

-

-

-

-

17,2%

3,7%

-5,1%

-3,2%

726,4%

-88,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,9%

8,3%

-16,1%

17,2%

3,7%

-5,1%

-3,2%

725,8%

-87,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

9,3%

-3,6%

-7,2%

26,6%

585

-20,2%

1,8%

-46,8%

-5,9%

-45,8%

56,5%

26,7%

29,0%

12,9%

35

-78,4%

13,6%

-12,8%

51,6%

-73,2%

-13,9%

15,5%

-29,8%

-22,9%

 Page 1352 / 1555

       
        
       
         
         
         
         
      
       
       
        
       
       
        
        
         
      
        
        
        
         
         
      
       
         
         
        
        
        
         
        
         
         
        
        
         
         
      
     
       
        
         
        
        
         
         
      
     
         
         
        
      
       
       
       
        
        
         
      
      
         
       
        
       
      
         
         
         
        
         
Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.4.1 (all years) First instance courts, number of cases for specific case categories (Q101)

101.1.1 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Litigious divorce case

7 181

7 283

7 403

101.1.2 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Employment dismissal case

101.1.3 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Insolvency

NA

341

NA

456

NA

544

7 338

2 331

740

3 063

1 965

1 926

5 598

5 188

4 922

4 515

-37,1%

1,4%

1,6%

-0,9%

-58,3%

82,8%

-7,3%

-5,1%

-8,3%

1 770

1 645

1 310

1 184

-

-

-

-

-15,7%

-9,9%

-7,1%

-20,4%

-9,6%

2 324

2 529

1 898

1 621

375,4%

33,7%

19,3%

36,0%

160,3%

20,7%

8,8%

-25,0%

-14,6%

101.2.1 Incoming cases_Litigious divorce case

13 749

14 096

13 529

12 562

12 335

11 440

11 819

11 622

10 395

-24,4%

2,5%

-4,0%

-7,1%

-1,8%

-7,3%

3,3%

-1,7%

-10,6%

101.2.2 Incoming cases_Employment dismissal case

101.2.3 Incoming cases_Insolvency

1 616

1 505

1 684

1 668

1 600

1 819

1 725

1 977

1 632

2 134

1 539

1 282

1 094

1 404

-13,1%

4,2%

-5,0%

7,8%

-5,4%

-5,7%

-16,7%

-14,7%

28,3%

6 880

15 599

17 682

11 944

693,6%

10,8%

9,1%

8,7%

7,9%

222,4%

126,7%

13,4%

-32,5%

101.3.1 Resolved cases_Litigious divorce case

13 647

13 977

13 594

12 583

9 800

11 707

12 085

12 029

10 654

-21,9%

2,4%

-2,7%

-7,4%

-22,1%

19,5%

3,2%

-0,5%

-11,4%

101.3.2 Resolved cases_Employment dismissal case

101.3.3 Resolved cases_Insolvency

101.4.1 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Litigious divorce case

101.4.2 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Employment dismissal case

101.4.3 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Insolvency

1 317

1 395

7 283

NA

451

1 127

1 581

7 402

NA

543

1 254

1 623

7 338

NA

740

1 415

1 705

7 317

2 641

1 012

1 827

1 736

5 598

1 770

2 324

1 797

1 617

1 220

1 153

-12,5%

-14,4%

11,3%

12,8%

29,1%

-1,6%

-10,0%

-24,6%

-5,5%

6 593

15 561

17 959

12 350

785,3%

13,3%

2,7%

5,1%

1,8%

279,8%

136,0%

15,4%

-31,2%

5 331

4 922

4 515

4 256

-41,6%

1,6%

-0,9%

-0,3%

-23,5%

-4,8%

-7,7%

-8,3%

-5,7%

1 732

1 310

1 184

1 435

-

-

-

-

-33,0%

-2,1%

-24,4%

-9,6%

21,2%

2 783

2 567

1 621

1 215

169,4%

20,4%

36,3%

36,8%

129,6%

19,8%

-7,8%

-36,9%

-25,0%

Table 3.5.1 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for specific case categories (Q101)

Table 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 Variations of CR and DT for specific case categories of first instance cases (Q101)

CR Litigious divorce cases

99,3%

99,2%

100,5%

100,2%

79,4%

102,3%

102,3%

103,5%

102,5%

3,26

(0,10)

1,34

(0,31)

(20,68)

28,80

(0,08)

1,22

(0,98)

CR Employment dismissal cases

81,5%

66,9%

78,4%

82,0%

111,9%

116,8%

126,1%

111,5%

82,1%

0,77

(17,88)

17,11

4,66

36,47

4,30

8,02

(11,59)

(26,36)

CR Insolvency cases

92,7%

94,8%

89,2%

86,2%

81,3%

95,8%

99,8%

101,6%

103,4%

11,55

2,26

(5,87)

(3,34)

(5,67)

17,80

4,10

1,81

1,80

DT Litigious divorce cases

DT Employment dismissal cases

DT Insolvency cases

195

NA

118

193

NA

125

197

NA

166

212

681

217

208

354

489

166

352

154

149

296

60

137

354

33

146

-25,1%

-0,8%

1,9%

7,7%

-1,8%

-20,3%

-10,6%

-7,8%

6,4%

454

-

-

-

-

-48,1%

-0,5%

-15,9%

19,8%

28,2%

36

-69,6%

6,2%

32,8%

30,2%

125,5%

-68,5%

-60,9%

-45,3%

9,0%

 Page 1353 / 1555

         
        
         
        
      
       
        
         
        
         
      
       
         
       
         
         
      
      
       
         
        
        
        
       
         
         
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.1.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.1.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.1.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.1.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.1.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.1.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.1.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.1.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

97.1.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.1.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

97.1.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases 

97.2.1 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.2.2 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.2.3 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.2.4 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.2.5 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.2.6 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.2.7 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.2.8 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

97.2.9 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.2.10 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

97.2.11 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases 

Table 3.7.1 to 3.7.5 (2019 and 2020) Second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Table 3.9.1 to 3.9.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

26 041

36 764

31 216

21 695

19 217

17 427

13 616

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

8

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

6

NA

23 367

14 498

14 703

13 533

11 248

NA

7 188

4 510

3 893

2 367

7 841

7 188

4 510

3 893

2 367

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

8

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

9

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

4

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

1

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

87 676

87 688

68 142

46 920

42 583

34 411

27 048

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

18

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

21

NA

34 974

27 564

25 407

21 167

15 658

NA

19 355

17 174

13 244

11 390

33 156

19 355

17 174

13 244

11 390

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

12

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

1

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

2

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

-

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

 Page 1354 / 1555

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

41,2%

-15,1%

-30,5%

-11,4%

-9,3%

-21,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-38,0%

1,4%

-8,0%

-16,9%

-

-37,3%

-13,7%

-39,2%

-8,3%

-37,3%

-13,7%

-39,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-25,0%

33,3%

12,5%

-55,6%

-75,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

-22,3%

-31,1%

-9,2%

-19,2%

-21,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-21,2%

-7,8%

-16,7%

-26,0%

-

-11,3%

-22,9%

-14,0%

-41,6%

-11,3%

-22,9%

-14,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

16,7%

-42,9%

-91,7%

100,0%

-

-

-

-

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.3.1 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.3.2 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.3.3 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.3.4 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.3.5 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.3.6 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.3.7 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.3.8 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

97.3.9 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.3.10 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

97.3.11 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases 

97.4.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.4.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.4.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.4.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.4.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.4.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.4.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.4.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

97.4.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.4.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

97.4.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases

97.5.1 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.5.2 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.5.10 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

76 953

86 002

77 663

56 800

44 373

38 222

29 114

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

20

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

19

NA

43 843

31 935

26 577

23 452

18 108

NA

24 860

17 791

14 770

11 005

33 809

24 860

17 791

14 770

11 005

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

11

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

5

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

5

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

-

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

36 764

38 450

21 695

19 219

17 427

13 616

11 550

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

6

NA

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

8

NA

-

-

-

14 498

14 667

13 533

11 248

8 798

NA

4 548

3 893

2 367

2 752

7 188

4 548

3 893

2 367

2 752

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

9

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

4

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

1

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

1

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

600

588

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Page 1355 / 1555

11,8%

-9,7%

-26,9%

-21,9%

-13,9%

-23,8%

-5,0%

-42,1%

-54,5%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

4,6%

-43,6%

-11,4%

-9,3%

-21,9%

-15,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-27,2%

-16,8%

-11,8%

-22,8%

-

-28,4%

-17,0%

-25,5%

-26,5%

-28,4%

-17,0%

-25,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,2%

-7,7%

-16,9%

-21,8%

-

-14,4%

-39,2%

16,3%

-36,7%

-14,4%

-39,2%

16,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

33,3%

12,5%

-55,6%

-75,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 (2019 and 2020): Second instance clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.9.4 and 3.9.5 (2019 and 2020): Variation of second clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

87,8%

98,1%

114,0%

121,1%

104,2%

111,1%

107,6%

11,74

16,21

6,22

(13,92)

6,59

(3,09)

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

125,4%

115,9%

104,6%

110,8%

115,6%

NA

128,4%

103,6%

111,5%

96,6%

102,0%

128,4%

103,6%

111,5%

96,6%

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

-

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

-

111,1%

90,5%

91,7%

500,0%

250,0%

NA

174

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

110

NA

NA

163

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NA

154

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

102

121

NA

78

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

299

NAP

124

168

67

67

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

292

NAP

143

186

80

80

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

73

130

175

58

58

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

-

145

177

91

91

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

 Page 1356 / 1555

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(7,58)

(9,71)

5,92

4,38

-

(19,35)

7,65

(13,36)

25,96

(19,35)

7,65

(13,36)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(18,57)

1,32

445,45

(50,00)

-

-

-

-

-6,4%

-37,5%

21,1%

16,1%

-9,3%

11,4%

38,9%

10,9%

-5,8%

1,3%

-

19,6%

-26,8%

56,0%

-14,0%

19,6%

-26,8%

56,0%

40,4%

94,3%

-2,2%

-75,0%

-

-

-

-

       
       
         
      
         
        
        
        
         
         
      
         
      
       
      
         
      
      
         
     
      
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.10.1 to 3.10.5 (2019 and 2020) Supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Table 3.12.1 to 3.12.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of the supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.1.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.1.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.1.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.1.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.1.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.1.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.1.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.1.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

99.1.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.1.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

99.1.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.2.1 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.2.2 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.2.3 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.2.4 High inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.2.5 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.2.6 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.2.7 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.2.8 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

99.2.9 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

9 240

11 948

12 799

7 992

5 575

4 257

3 804

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4 185

3 050

2 157

1 927

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2 280

3 333

4 086

3 807

2 525

2 100

1 877

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

17 941

20 477

13 460

9 515

7 442

5 816

5 583

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

7 445

5 287

3 857

3 789

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

99.2.10 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

4 966

4 800

3 641

2 070

2 155

1 959

1 794

99.2.11 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

29,3%

7,1%

-37,6%

-30,2%

-23,6%

-10,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-27,1%

-29,3%

-10,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

46,2%

22,6%

-6,8%

-33,7%

-16,8%

-10,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

14,1%

-34,3%

-29,3%

-21,8%

-21,8%

-4,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-29,0%

-27,0%

-1,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-3,3%

-24,1%

-43,1%

4,1%

-9,1%

-8,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Page 1357 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.3.1 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.3.2 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.3.3 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.3.4 High inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.3.5 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.3.6 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.3.7 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.3.8 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

99.3.9 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

15 233

19 301

18 267

12 410

8 760

6 269

5 179

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

9 058

6 180

4 087

3 399

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

99.3.10 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

3 913

4 031

3 920

3 352

2 580

2 182

1 780

99.3.11 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.4.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.4.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.4.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.4.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.4.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.4.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.4.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.4.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry 
cases

99.4.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.4.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative 
law cases

99.4.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.5.1 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.5.2 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.5.10 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

11 948

13 124

7 992

5 097

4 257

3 804

4 208

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2 572

2 157

1 927

2 317

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

3 333

4 102

3 807

2 525

2 100

1 877

1 891

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

221

83

138

 Page 1358 / 1555

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

26,7%

-5,4%

-32,1%

-29,4%

-28,4%

-17,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-31,8%

-33,9%

-16,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,0%

-2,8%

-14,5%

-23,0%

-15,4%

-18,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

9,8%

-39,1%

-36,2%

-16,5%

-10,6%

10,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-16,1%

-10,7%

20,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

23,1%

-7,2%

-33,7%

-16,8%

-10,6%

0,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 Supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.12.4 and 3.12.5 Variation of the supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

84,9%

94,3%

135,7%

130,4%

117,7%

107,8%

92,8%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

121,7%

116,9%

106,0%

89,7%

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

78,8%

84,0%

107,7%

161,9%

119,7%

111,4%

99,2%

NAP

286

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

311

NAP

NAP

248

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

371

NAP

NAP

160

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

354

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

150

104

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

275

NAP

177

127

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

297

NAP

221

172

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

314

NAP

297

249

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

388

NAP

 Page 1359 / 1555

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

11,01

43,98

(3,90)

(9,75)

(8,43)

(13,94)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(3,92)

(9,35)

(15,34)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6,58

28,20

50,41

(26,07)

(6,96)

(10,92)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-13,3%

-35,7%

-6,1%

18,3%

24,9%

33,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

22,9%

35,1%

44,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

19,5%

-4,6%

-22,4%

8,1%

5,7%

23,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

       
       
        
        
        
      
        
        
      
         
       
       
      
        
      
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.14.1 to 3.14.5 First instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

094.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

094.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

094.2.1 Total -incoming

094.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

094.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

094.2.4 Other - incoming

094.3.1 Total - resolved

094.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

094.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

094.3.4 Other - resolved

094.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

094.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

094.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

094.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

22 452

NA

NA

NA

65 860

NA

NA

NA

65 808

NA

NA

NA

22 504

NA

NA

NA

2 511

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Page 1360 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.15.1 to 3.10.2 CR and DT for first instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

098.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

098.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

098.2.1 Total -incoming

098.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

098.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

098.2.4 Other - incoming

098.3.1 Total - resolved

098.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

098.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

098.3.4 Other - resolved

99,9%

NA

NA

NA

125

NA

NA

NA

1 085

1 085

NA

NA

9 080

9 080

NA

NA

9 054

9 054

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Table 3.16.1 to 3.16.5 Second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

 Page 1361 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

098.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

098.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

098.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

098.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

1 111

1 111

NA

NA

7

7

NA

NA

Table 3.17.1 to 3.17.2 CR and DT for second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

99,7%

99,7%

NA

NA

45

45

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Page 1362 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.18.1 to 3.18.5 Supreme court criminal law cases (Q100)

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

100.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

100.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

100.2.1 Total -incoming

100.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

100.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

100.2.4 Other - incoming

100.3.1 Total - resolved

100.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

100.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

100.3.4 Other - resolved

100.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

100.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

100.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

100.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

268

268

NA

NAP

1 016

1 016

NA

NAP

1 006

1 006

NA

NAP

278

278

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Page 1363 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.19.1 to 3.19.2 CR and DT for supreme court  criminal law cases (Q100)

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

99,0%

99,0%

NA

NAP

101

101

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Page 1364 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 5: Access to justice

Legal aid

Table 5.1 to Table 5.6 (Q12-2, Q16, Q18, Q19, Q20, Q20-1)

12-2.1.1 Coverage of court fees

12-2.1.2 Exemption from court fees

16.1.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (criminal cases)

16.1.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (criminal cases)

16.2.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (other than criminal 
cases)

16.2.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (other than criminal cases)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

-

-

-

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

18.1.1 Legal aid for the enforcement of judicial decisions

False

False

False

False

False

19.1.1  Legal aid granted for other costs - criminal cases

19.1.2  Legal aid granted for other costs - other than criminal cases

020.1.1 Total

020.1.2 Total - criminal cases

020.1.3 Total - other than criminal cases

020.2.1 Total brought to court

020.2.2 Broight to court - criminal cases

020.2.3 Brought to court - other then criminal

020.3.1 Total not brought to court

020.3.2 Not broight to court - criminal cases

020.3.3 Not brought to court - other then criminal

020-1.1.1 Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulation

020-1.1.2 Average duration

False

True

NA

NA

11 432

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

30

30

 Page 1365 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

System for compensating users

Table 5.7.1 and Table 5.7.2 (Q37)

037.1.1 Requests for compensation - Total

037.1.2 Requests for compensation - Excessive length of 
proceedings

037.1.3 Requests for compensation - Non-execution of court 
decisions

037.1.4 Requests for compensation - Wrongful arrest

037.1.5 Requests for compensation - Wrongful conviction

037.1.6 Requests for compensation - Other

037.2.1 Condemnations - Total

037.2.2 Condemnations - Excessive length of proceedings

037.2.3 Condemnations - Non-execution of court decisions

037.2.4 Condemnations - Wrongful arrest

037.2.5 Condemnations - Wrongful conviction

037.2.6 Condemnations - Other

037.3.1 Amount - Total

037.3.2 Amount - Excessive length of proceedings

037.3.3 Amount - Non-execution of court decisions

037.3.4 Amount - Wrongful arrest

037.3.5 Amount - Wrongful conviction

037.3.6 Amount - Other

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

 Page 1366 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 6.1 to Table 6.11 (Q62-7, Q62-7-1, Q62-8,  Q62-8-1, Q63-1, Q63-1-1, Q63-2 Q63-6, Q63-7, Q63-7-1, Q64-2,  Q64-4, Q64-6, Q64-3, Q64-3-1, Q64-7, Q64-7-1, 
Q64-9)

Indicator 6: The ICT tools of courts and for court users

62-7 Writing assistance tools coordinated at national level

62-7-1.1 Deployment rate in civil matter

62-7-1.2 Deployment rate in criminal matter

62-7-1.3 Deployment rate in administrative matter

62-8 Voice recording tools

62-8-1.1.1 Availability of simple dictation tools in civil matter

62-8-1.1.2 Availability of simple dictation tools in criminal matter

62-8-1.1.3 Availability of simple dictation tools in administrative 
matter

62-8-1.2.1 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in civil 
matter

62-8-1.2.2 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in criminal 
matter

62-8-1.2.3 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in 
administrative matter

62-8-1.3.1 Availability of voice recognition in civil matter

62-8-1.3.2 Availability of voice recognition in criminal matter

62-8-1.3.3 Availability of voice recognition in administrative matter

062-9 Availability of intranet site within the judicial system for 
distribution of news/novelties

63.1 Is there a case management system? 

63.1-1.1 CMS for civil matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for criminal matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for administrative matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.2 CMS for civil matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for criminal matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for administrative matter (status of case onlinee)

True

True

True

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

50-99%

True

True

True

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

Yes

-

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

-

-

Both

Both

Both

Both

Both

Both

Both

Both

Both

 Page 1367 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63.1-1.3 CMS for civil matter (Centralised or interoperable database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for criminal matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for administrative matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.4 CMS for civil matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for criminal matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for administrative matter (Early warning signals)

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS civil matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS criminal matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS administrative matter

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - land registry

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - business registry

63-2.2 Data consolidated at national level for land registry

63-2.2  Data consolidated at national level for business registry

63-2.3 Service available online for land registry

63-2.3  Service available online for business registry

63-2.4 Statistical module integrated or connected for land registry

63-2.4  Statistical module integrated or connected for business 
registry

063-6.1.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (deployment 
rate)

063-6.1.2 Justice expenses management (deployment rate)

063-6.1.3 Other financial management tools (deployment rate)

063-6.2.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (Data 
consolidated at national level)

063-6.2.2 Justice expenses management (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.2.3 Other financial management tools (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.3.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (System 
communicating with other ministries)

063-6.3.2 Justice expenses management (System communicating 
with other ministries)

063-6.3.3 Other financial management tools (System communicating 
with other ministries)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

Not connected 
at all

Not connected 
at all

Not connected 
at all

Not connected 
at all

Not connected 
at all

Not connected 
at all

Not connected 
at all

Not connected 
at all

Not connected 
at all

NA

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

100%

100%

100%

False

True

False

True

False

True

NAP

True

NAP

True

NAP

True

NAP

True

NAP

True

NAP

True

50-99%

100%

100%

50-99%

100%

100%

NA

True

True

False

True

True

False

NA

0% (NAP)

True

True

NAP

True

True

NAP

True

True

NAP

True

True

NAP

 Page 1368 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63-7.1 Measurement tools to assess the workload

63-7-1.1.1 Deployment rate - workload of judges

63-7-1.1.2 Deployment rate - workload of prosecutors

63-7-1.1.3 Deployment rate - workload of non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.2.1 Monitoring on national level - judges

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - prosecutors

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.3.1 Monitoring on court level - judges

63-7-1.3.2 Monitoring on court level - prosecutors

63-7-1.3.3 Monitoring on court level - non-judge and non-prosecutor 
staff

064-2 - Possibility to submit a case to courts by electronic means

064-2 - Civil and/or commercial

064-2 - Criminal

064-2 - Administrative

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - civil

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - criminal

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory  - administrative

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - civil

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - criminal

064-2 - Specific legislative framework  - administrative

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - civil

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - criminal

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - administrative

True

True

True

50-99%

50-99%

100%

NA

NA

NA

10-49%

10-49%

10-49%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

50-99%

100%

100%

100%

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

 Page 1369 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-3 - Is it possible to request for granting legal aid by electronic 
means? 

064-3-1.1 - Equipment rate

064-3-1.2 - Request in paper mandatory

064-3-1.3 - Specific legislative framework

064-3-1.4 - Granting LA is also electronic

064-3-1.5 - Information available in CMS

064-4 - Possibility to transmit summons to a judicial meeting or a 
hearing by electronic means

064-4-1.1.1 - Summons produced by CMS- civil

064-4-1.1.2 - Summons produced by CMS- criminal

064-4-1.1.3 - Summons produced by CMS- administrative

064-4-1.2.1 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- civil

064-4-1.2.2 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- criminal

064-4-1.2.3 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- administrative

064-4-1.3.1 - Consent of the user - civil

064-4-1.3.2 - Consent of the user - criminal

064-4-1.3.3 - Consent of the user - administrative

064-6.1.1 - Civil and/or commercial (deployment rate)

064-6.1.2 - Criminal (deployment rate)

064-6.1.3 - Administrative (deployment rate)

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

100%

100%

100%

50-99%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

 Page 1370 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-6.2.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.2 - Criminal (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.3 - Administrative (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.3.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Modalities)

064-6.3.2 - Criminal (Modalities)

064-6.3.3 - Administrative (Modalities)

064-6.4.1 - Civil and/or commercial (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.2 - Criminal (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.3 - Administrative (specific legal framework)

064-6.5.1 - Civil and/or commercial (availability for)

064-6.5.2 - Criminal (availability for)

064-6.5.3 - Administrative (availability for)

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
E-mail  
Specific 
application  

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
E-mail  
Specific 
application  

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer
Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer
Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer

 Page 1371 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-7.1.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (deployment rate)

064-7.1.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.2.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (Modalities)

064-7.2.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.3.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (specific legal framework)

064-7.32.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-7.3.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts (specific 
legal framework)

064-7.3.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-9 - Existance of online processing devices of specialised 
litigation

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

100%

100%

100%

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

E-mail    

E-mail    

E-mail    

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

 Page 1372 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 7: Professionals of justice  (Indicator 9 in 2019)

Table 7.1.1 to 7.5.6 for judges, non judge staff, prosecutors, non prosecutor staff and salaries

46.1.1 Total Number of professional judges

1 307

1 342

1 322

1 292

1 311

1 376

1 378

1 370

1 306

-0,1%

2,7%

-1,5%

-2,3%

1,5%

5,0%

0,1%

-0,6%

-4,7%

46.1.2 Number of 1st inst professional judges

46.1.3 Number of 2nd inst professional judges

46.1.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges

46.2.1 Number of professional judges_males

46.2.2 Number of 1st instance professional judges_males

46.2.3 Number of 2nd instance professional judges_males

46.2.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges_males

46.3.1  Number of professional judges_females

46.3.2  Number of 1st inst professional judges_females

46.3.3  Number of 2nd inst professional judges_females

46.3.4  Number of Supreme court professional judges_females

046-2.1.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Total

046-2.2.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Civil and commercial

046-2.2.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.3.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Criminal

871

352

84

489

310

140

39

818

561

212

45

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

888

370

84

503

319

145

39

839

569

225

45

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

877

369

76

496

318

146

32

826

559

223

44

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

846

369

77

493

313

151

29

799

533

218

48

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

859

374

78

501

322

147

32

810

537

227

46

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

905

392

79

506

326

148

32

870

579

244

47

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

907

393

78

513

336

147

31

865

571

246

47

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

895

398

77

552

347

175

30

818

548

223

47

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

862

-1,0%

2,0%

-1,2%

-3,5%

1,5%

5,4%

0,2%

-1,3%

-3,7%

367

4,3%

5,1%

-0,3%

0,0%

1,4%

4,8%

0,3%

1,3%

-7,8%

77

-8,3%

0,0%

-9,5%

1,3%

1,3%

1,3%

-1,3%

-1,3%

0,0%

492

0,6%

2,9%

-1,4%

-0,6%

1,6%

1,0%

1,4%

7,6%

-10,9%

319

2,9%

2,9%

-0,3%

-1,6%

2,9%

1,2%

3,1%

3,3%

-8,1%

143

2,1%

3,6%

0,7%

3,4%

-2,6%

0,7%

-0,7%

19,0%

-18,3%

30

-23,1%

0,0%

-17,9%

-9,4%

10,3%

0,0%

-3,1%

-3,2%

0,0%

814

-0,5%

2,6%

-1,5%

-3,3%

1,4%

7,4%

-0,6%

-5,4%

-0,5%

543

-3,2%

1,4%

-1,8%

-4,7%

0,8%

7,8%

-1,4%

-4,0%

-0,9%

224

5,7%

6,1%

-0,9%

-2,2%

4,1%

7,5%

0,8%

-9,3%

0,4%

47

4,4%

0,0%

-2,2%

9,1%

-4,2%

2,2%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

1 295

852

366

77

918

654

228

36

275

176

84

15

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Page 1373 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

046-2.4.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - 
Administrative

046-2.4.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.5.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Other

 52.1.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in courts 

52.1.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)

52.1.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges

52.1.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks

52.1.5 Number of Technical staff

52.1.6 Number of Other non judge staff

52.2.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(men)

52.2.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(men)

52.2.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(men)

52.2.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(men)

52.2.5 Number of Technical staff(men)

52.2.6 Number of Other non judge staff(men)

52.3.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(women)

52.3.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(women)

52.3.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(women)

52.3.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(women)

52.3.5 Number of Technical staff(women)

52.3.6 Number of Other non judge staff(women)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4 482

1 046

2 079

1 357

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

80

-

54

26

22

22

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4 482

4 616

4 710

4 731

4 912

9,6%

0,3%

-0,6%

-1,7%

2,1%

3,0%

2,0%

0,4%

3,8%

937

1 015

1 067

1 171

1 210

15,7%

3,5%

-4,9%

-2,8%

-6,4%

8,3%

5,1%

9,7%

3,3%

2 143

2 169

2 185

2 108

2 237

7,6%

-1,2%

2,4%

-4,5%

6,6%

1,2%

0,7%

-3,5%

6,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4 497

1 083

2 055

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4 468

1 030

2 105

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4 390

1 001

2 011

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1 452

1 465

8,0%

1 359

1 333

1 378

1 402

1 432

1 458

-

-

-

-

-

-

693

316

42

NA

NA

335

714

292

30

NA

NA

392

699

272

50

NA

NA

377

762

308

65

NA

NA

389

868

353

115

NA

NA

400

NA

NA

955

389

131

435

NA

NA

NA

NA

919

402

112

405

NA

NA

3 801

3 775

3 676

3 783

3 854

3 842

3 776

3 993

751

714

709

665

707

714

782

808

2 044

2 063

1 981

2 093

2 104

2 070

1 977

2 125

NA

NA

1 006

NA

NA

998

NA

NA

986

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1 025

1 043

1 058

1 017

1 060

NA

NA

NA

NA

 Page 1374 / 1555

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-1,9%

3,4%

1,7%

2,1%

1,8%

-

-

-

0,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,0%

-2,1%

9,0%

13,9%

10,0%

-3,8%

-7,6%

-6,8%

13,2%

14,6%

10,2%

3,3%

-28,6%

66,7%

30,0%

76,9%

13,9%

-14,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

17,0%

-3,8%

3,2%

2,8%

-

-

-

-6,9%

-

-

-0,7%

-2,6%

2,9%

1,9%

-0,3%

-1,7%

5,7%

-4,9%

-0,7%

-6,2%

6,3%

1,0%

9,5%

3,3%

0,9%

-4,0%

5,7%

0,5%

-1,6%

-4,5%

7,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-0,8%

-1,2%

4,0%

1,8%

1,4%

-

-

-

4,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

052-1.1.1 Non-judge staff (Total)

052-1.1.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (total)

052-1.1.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (total)

052-1.1.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (total)

052-1.2.1 Non-judge staff  (Males)

052-1.2.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (males)

052-1.2.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (males)

052-1.2.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (males)

052-1.3.1 Non-judge staff  (females)

052-1.3.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (females)

052-1.3.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (females)

052-1.3.4 Non-judge staff  at supreme court (females)

055.1.1 Prosecutors (total)

055.1.2 Prosecutors (1st inst.)

055.1.3 Prosecutors (2nd inst.)

055.1.4 Prosecutors (Highest instance)

055.2.1 Prosecutors - Males -total

055.2.2 Prosecutors - Males, 1st inst.

055.2.3 Prosecutors - Males, 2nd inst.

055.2.4 Prosecutors - Males, Supreme courts

055.3.1 Prosecutors - Females, Total

055.3.2 Prosecutors - Females, 1st inst.

055.3.3 Prosecutors - Females, 2nd inst.

055.3.4 Prosecutors - Females, Supreme courts

4 912

3 690

1 022

200

919

630

234

55

3 993

3 060

788

145

922

607

200

115

459

282

108

69

463

325

92

46

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Page 1375 / 1555

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

060.1.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Total

060.2.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Males

060.3.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Females

004 Annual average salary in the country

132.1.1 Gross annual salary, in €  - Professional judge at the 
beginning of career

132.1.2 Gross annual salary, in €  - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.1.3 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor at the beginning 
of career

132.1.4 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

132.2.1 Net annual salary, in € - Professional judge at the beginning 
of career

132.2.2 Net annual salary, in € - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.2.3 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor at the beginning of 
career

132.2.4 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

133.1.1.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Reduced taxation

133.1.2.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Special pension

133.1.3.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Housing

133.1.4.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Other financial benefit

133.2.1.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Reduced taxation

133.2.2.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Special pension

133.2.3.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Housing

133.2.4.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Other financial benefit

977

286

691

15 275 €

41 278 €

59 623 €

38 984 €

59 623 €

NA

NA

27 654 €

44 479 €

False

True

True

True

False

True

False

True

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Page 1376 / 1555

         
         
         
         
         
         
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

144.1.1 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - Total number (1+2+3+4)

144.1.2 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 1. Breach of professional 
ethics 

144.1.3 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.1.4 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 3. Criminal offence 

144.1.5 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 4. Other

144.2.1 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - Total number 
(1+2+3+4)

144.2.2 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 1. Breach of 
professional ethics 

144.2.3 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.2.4 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 3. Criminal offence

144.2.5 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 4. Other 

145.1.1 Sanctions against Judges - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.1.2 Sanctions against Judges - 1. Reprimand

145.1.3 Sanctions against Judges - 2. Suspension

145.1.4 Sanctions against Judges - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.1.5 Sanctions against Judges - 4. Fine

145.1.6 Sanctions against Judges - 5. Temporary reduction of salary

145.1.7 Sanctions against Judges - 6. Position downgrade

145.1.8 Sanctions against Judges - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.1.9 Sanctions against Judges - 8. Resignation

145.1.10 Sanctions against  Judges - 9. Other

145.1.11 Sanctions against  Judges - 10. Dismissal

40

7

16

15

2

5

0

5

0

0

40

3

18

0

0

1

0

0

0

18

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 Page 1377 / 1555

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

145.2.1 Sanctions against Prosecutors - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.2.2 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 1. Reprimand

145.2.3 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 2. Suspension

145.2.4 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.2.5 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 4. Fine

145.2.6 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 5. Temporary reduction of 
salary

145.2.7 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 6. Position downgrade

145.2.8 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.2.9 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 8. Resignation

145.2.10 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 9. Other

145.2.11 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 10. Dismissal

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lawyers

Tables 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.7 and 7.8

146.1.1 Total number of lawyers practising

5 210

5 541

5 827

5 993

6 142

6 037

6 112

6 186

6 266

20,3%

6,4%

5,2%

2,8%

2,5%

-1,7%

1,2%

1,2%

1,3%

146.2.1 Practicing lawyers - man

146.3.1 Practicing lawyers - woman

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3 537

3 561

3 594

2 575

2 625

2 672

147 Does this figure include “legal advisors” who cannot represent 
their clients in court (for example, some solicitors or in-house 
counsellors)? 

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,7%

0,9%

1,9%

1,8%

-

-

 Page 1378 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovak Republic (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 8: The existence and use of alternative dispute resolution methods

Table 8.1 8.2 and 8.3

166 Number of accredited or registered mediators who practice 
judicial mediation: 

633

846

1 068

1 248

1 450

1 664

167.1.1 Total number started

167. 1.2 Civil and commercial cases(cid:9) - started

167. 1.2 Family cases - started

167.1.4 Administrative cases - started

167.1.5 Labour cases including employment dismissal cases - started

167.1.6. Criminal cases - started

167.1.7 Consumer cases - started

798

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

1 118

NA

877

38,5%

33,6%

26,2%

16,9%

16,2%

14,8%

-45,1%

-12,6%

9,9%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

924

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-17,4%

-

Key: Variation of more than (+ -) 20% 

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

913

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

-

NA

NA

-

NA

NA

NA

 Page 1379 / 1555

Judiciary at a glance in Slovenia

General data

Population:

2 108 977

GDP per capita: 22 014 €

Average annual 

salary:

22 300 €

Professionals

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Slovenia

Slovenia

EU Median

EU Median

Professional judges

Professional judges

41,65

23,92

41,65

23,92

Non-judge staff

59,00

162,50

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

9,77

162,50

59,00

9,91

15,22

15,22

9,77

9,91

15,22

15,22

Lawyers

Lawyers

86,96

86,96
122,09

122,09

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual 
salary in the country

Slovenia
Slovenia

EU Median

EU Median

Judge at the beginning of a career 

1,46

4,09

2,02

2,85

Judge of the highest court 2,85
2,02

4,09

3,61

2,85

1,46

1,71
Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 
1,71

1,46

1,46

Public prosecutor at highest instance

2,85

3,61

Judge at the
beginning of a career

Judge of the highest
court

Prosecutor at the
beginning of a career

Public prosecutor at
highest instance

Efficiency

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

100%

,

%
4
2
1
1

,

%
5
0
0
Civil and
1
commercial
Administrativ
e
cases
Total 
criminal law 
cases

1st instance 2nd instance
%
9
0
1
1

,

,

%
7
6
0
1

,

%
3
0
0
1

100,5%

112,4%

%
0
6
9

,

106,7% NAP

Supreme Court
Supreme 
Court

,

%
5
5
0
1

,

%
8
3
0
1

110,9%

100,3%

96,0%

105,5%

103,8%

P
A
N

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

Administrative
cases

Total criminal law
cases

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance 2nd instance Supreme Court

1
1

1

1
1

Civil and commercial litigious cases
Administrative cases 443 NAP
59

350

122

40
Total criminal law cases165

350

443

40

26

59
122

147

147

26

165

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

Information and communication technology

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

Assistance toolsCase management system
2018

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the workload
2019

Electronic communication

EU Median 2020

2020

2018
2019
2020

2,00
2,00
2,00

5,97

5,97
5,97
5,97
5,97

5,97

5,17

2,00
2,00
2,00

5,00
5,00
5,00

4,35
4,35
4,35

6,94

5,00

5,00

5,00

4,35

4,35

4,35

EU Median 2020

2,00

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

2,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

1,25

2,50

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

*ICT calculations are described in more details in Annex 5 - IT Calculation methodology

1380

2020

Synthesis table for the main indicators for:

Slovenia

Economic and demographic data

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Variations

Population

GDP per capita

Exchange rate (local currency needed to 
obtain 1€)

2 058 821

2 061 085

2 061 085

2 064 188

2 065 895

2 066 880

2 080 908

2 095 861

2 108 977

2,4%

17 172

17 128

18 065

18 680

19 262

20 951

22 182

22 983

22 014

28,2%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

Average annual salary

18 300

18 483

19 020

20 179

21 043

22 300

21,9%

0,2%

6,6%

NAP

2,9%

0,7%

15,2%

NAP

6,1%

0,7%

5,9%

0,7%

3,6%

0,6%

-4,2%

NAP NAP

NAP

4,3%

6,0%

Resources

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Professional judges per 100 000 inhab.

47,1

46,1

44,8

43,5

42,6

41,6

41,7

41,7

41,5

-11,9%

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhab.

161,7

157,2

162,8

159,9

161,2

161,0

163,0

163,5

162,5

0,5%

68,8

16,9

74,2

16,5

79,0

15,1

80,9

14,1

82,8

13,6

84,0

13,2

85,0

13,3

6,9

86,5

12,7

6,9

87,0

12,2

6,9

26,4%

-27,4%

-9,9%

-2,5%

-5,0%

-1,0%

4,9%

-2,2%

1,1%

2,6%

0,3%

1,2%

1,1%

0,8%

0,0%

0,3%

1,8%

-0,4%

-0,6%

0,5%

-4,0%

-4,0%

0,0%

0,0%

Lawyers per 100 000 inh.

Mediators

ICT overall assesment

First instance incoming cases per 100 
inhab.

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Civil and commercial litigious cases

3,048

3,088

2,911

2,775

2,501

2,166

1,956

1,764

1,522

-50,1%

-14,1%

-21,8%

-9,7%

-9,8%

-13,7%

Administrative law cases

0,239

0,3

0,3

0,233

0,144

0,192

0,170

0,150

0,137

-42,7%

-44,5%

18,3%

-11,6%

-12,0%

-8,4%

Total criminal law cases

3,479

First instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

101%

102%

109%

105%

106%

108%

110%

109%

101%

CR administrative law cases

110%

102%

103%

101%

87%

67%

91%

89%

107%

CR total criminal law cases

96%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

-0,96

-3,28

-2,63

-15,86

3,34

4,21

1,77

23,87

-0,40

-2,38

-8,86

17,79

First instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
cases (days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

First instance pending cases per 100 
inhab. on 31 dec.

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

318

130

301

126

270

112

277

122

280

282

292

448

283

406

281

516

10,1%

3,9%

1,0%

-2,9%

-0,6%

24,4%

240,3%

152,8%

44,1%

-9,4%

27,0%

-14,1%

350

443

165

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

2,70

0,09

2,61

0,09

2,35

0,08

2,21

0,08

2,04

0,10

1,87

0,16

1,66

0,17

1,49

0,19

-45,5%

-12,9%

-18,5%

-10,9%

-10,6%

89,1%

18,6%

78,7%

8,5%

8,9%

-1,4%

-5,6%

1,47

0,18

1,51

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

106%

102%

100%

105%

105%

105%

112%

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

106%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

-5,89

NAP

4,41

NAP

-0,55

NAP

0,41

NAP

7,37

NAP

Second instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

84

86

97

89

82

73

40

15,6%

-15,7%

-8,0%

-10,0%

-45,5%

DT administrative law cases (days)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

DT total criminal law cases (days)

 Supreme court 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

26

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

111%

106%

102%

97%

106%

111%

111%

79%

98%

101%

115%

139%

126%

100%

104%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

-8,39

21,72

0,00

3,62

8,32

5,54

-0,46

37,69

23,47

-12,65

-25,66

0,00

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

167

220

146

220

150

188

164

159

119

152

78

103

59

122

147

-10,3%

-20,9%

-27,5%

-34,4%

-24,0%

-14,4%

-19,1%

-4,1%

-32,6%

18,4%

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Supreme court
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1381 / 1555

1. Judicial organisation in Slovenia

In 2020 in Slovenia, the number of courts considered as legal entities is 66. Namely, there are 60 courts of general jurisdiction and 6 specialised courts. 

Among the 60 legal entities of general jurisdiction, 44 Local courts and 11 District courts act at first instance, while 4 Higher courts constitute the second instance courts of general jurisdiction. 
The Supreme Court is the highest instance court of general jurisdiction, as well as in respect of specialised courts. 

Among the 6 legal entities of specialised jurisdiction, 5 are of first instance while the Higher Labour and Social Court constitutes the sole higher specialised court. 

In terms of geographic locations, there are 70 courts of first instance encompassing the 55 first instance courts of general jurisdiction (44 Local courts and 11 District courts) and the first instance 
specialised courts (4 labour courts and social court + 7 branch offices of labour and social courts + 1 administrative court + 3 branch offices of the Administrative court). The number of all courts 
as geographic locations is 76, including the 70 first instance courts, the 4 Higher courts of general jurisdiction, the Higher Labour and Social Court, and the Supreme Court. 

Distribution of general courts in Slovenia

Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Slovenia - 1st instance
Slovenia - Higher instances

EU Median - 1st instance

EU Median - Higher instances

SloveniaDistribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Slovenia - 1st instance

General courts - Slovenia

Slovenia - Higher instances

92%

General courts - Slovenia
EU Median

92%
87%

8%
13%

EU Median

87%

8%

13%

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Slovenia

According to 2020 data, the distribution between 1st instance and higher instances courts of general 
jurisdiction in Slovenia is somewhat different from the EU median of 87% - 13%.

Geographic 
locations

Legal entities

General jurisdiction

Specialised 
jurisdiction

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

76

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

55

6

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

5

100

80

60

40

20

0

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Slovenia

Geographic locations
Legal entities General jurisdiction
Legal entities Specialised jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Distribution of first instance general jurisdiction and specialised courts

Slovenia

Ratio general jurisdiction vs specialised

Slovenia
8%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

92%

75%

8%

25%

92%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

EU Median

25%

75%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

The distribution between number of general jurisdiction courts and specialised courts of 91,7% - 8,3% is quite different from the EU median (distribution tendency in EU: 
75,5% - 24,5%).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1382 / 1555

Specialised courts
Total

Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

Insolvency courts

Labour courts

Family courts

Rent and tenancies courts

Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

Internet related disputes

Administrative courts

Insurance and / or social welfare courts

Military courts

Juvenile courts

Other specialised 1st instance courts

First instance

Higher instance

5

NAP

NAP

4

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

The 6 specialsied courts refer to 3 labour courts (1st instance), the labour and social court (1st instance), the Administrative court (1st instance) and the Higher Labour and Social Court (2nd 
instance) 

Although the given answer for 'labour courts' is 4 and 'insurance and/ or social welfare courts' at first instance is 1, the total number of these courts is 4, as one of the labour courts and the social 
court form a single legal entity – the Labour and social court in Ljubljana.

Concerning specialised courts – higher instances, although the given answer for 'labour courts' is 1 and 'insurance and/ or social welfare courts' is 1, the total number of these courts is 1, as they 
form a single legal entity – the Higher Labour and Social Court.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1383 / 1555

2. Professionals of justice in Slovenia

● Professional judges and non-judge staff

Evolution of the number of professional judges since 2012 (Q46)

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Absolute 
number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

970

951

924

897

880

859

867

873

875

47,11

46,14

44,83

43,46

42,60

41,56

41,66

41,65

41,49

47,11

46,14

44,83

43,46

42,60

41,56

41,66

41,65

41,49

Professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants

23,9

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

EU median
According to 2020 data, the total number of professional judges sitting in courts (all instances) in Slovenia is 875, which is 0,2% more than in previous cycle.

23,9

More precisely, in Slovenia, there are 41,49 professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants (this figure is above the EU median of 23,92 judges per 100 000 inhabitants) and about 3,92 non-
judge staff per judge .

There is no significant difference compared with previous cycle when this ratio was at 3,93 non-judge staff per judge.

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and gender

2020

Total

Distribution by 
instance

Male

Female

% Male

% Female

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

638

208

29

875

72,9%

23,8%

3,3%

110

48

18

176

528

160

11

699

17,2%

23,1%

62,1%

20,1%

82,8%

76,9%

37,9%

79,9%

Distribution of professional judges by instance

72,9%

EU Median

72,39%
72,39%

23,98%

4,03%

Slovenia

EU Median

23,8%

23,98%

3,3%

4,03%

Distribution of professional judges by gender and by instance

% Female
% Male

82,8%

17,2%

76,9%

23,1%

37,9%

62,1%

79,9%

20,1%

Total

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

In this cycle, the total number of female professional judges (all instances) is 699, which represents 79,9% of the total number of judges.
The total number of judges is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 638 are sitting in first instance courts (of which 528 are female); 208 are sitting in 
second instance courts (of which 160 are female)  and 29 are sitting in Supreme Court (of which 11 are female).  

Compared with the EU distribution of professional judges per instance, the trend in Slovenia is quite similar.

As regards the methodology of presentation of data in respect of the number of judges, it should be noticed that the provided total number of judges corresponds to the number of de 
facto occupied judicial posts performing their functions. Some judges are assigned to other duties (eg. to the Judicial council, Ministry of Justice, Supreme court) and are not included in 
the reported numbers. The information on actual presence (excluding the maternity or sick leave, but including the annual leave) is also available.

At the end of 2020, 890 judicial posts were formally occupied (FTE), although some posts were de facto vacant (e.g. judge absent due to maternity leave). Nevertheless, we report that 
875 professional judges sit in courts (perform judicial function), since the rest of the judges (15 judges - difference to the total of 890 judges) were assigned to other duties (e.g. the 
Ministry of Justice, the Supreme Court, the Judicial Council) and do not sit in courts. The actual presence is also calculated, based on number of hours judges are actually present in 
court (excluding the maternity or sick leave, but including the annual leave).

The number of judges in the Slovenian judicial system in 2020 was 805,5 according to actual presence calculations.

As regards the distribution male/female, it has to be specified that female judges do not have the majority only at the level of the Supreme Court.

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and matter

In Slovenia, the distribution of judges per categories of cases in not possible.

Distribution of professional judges by instance and matter

There is no data for 2020. In 2021, the data on judges by legal fields was collected for the first time (by approximating the time and workload an individual judge is working on a certain 
type of cases). Since the metodology of reporting is yet to be revised and elaborated, we can only report approximate numbers. 

First instance judges: Civil and/or commercial: 62% (approx. 396 judges); Criminal: 33% (approx. 214 judges); Administrative: 4% (approx. 28 judges), Other: 1% (approx. 5 judges)

Please note: the judges at the Administrative Court that resolve administative cases at first instance have the rank of a higher judge.

Second instance judges: Civil and/or commercial: 66% (approx. 77 judges); Criminal: 34% (approx. 39 judges); Administrative: /, Other: /

Supreme court judges: Civil and/or commercial: 57% (approx. 16 judges); Criminal: 18% (approx. 5 judges); Administrative: 25% (approx. 9 judges), Other: /

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1384 / 1555

Non-judge staff

Year

2012

Number of non-judge staff

3 330

2013

3 239

2014

3 355

2015

3 300

2016

3 330

2017

3 328

2018

3 391

2019

3 427

2020

3 427

Per 100 000 inhabitants

161,74

157,15

162,78

159,87

161,19

161,02

162,96

163,51

162,50

E
U 
m

161,74

157,15

162,78

159,87

161,19

161,02

162,96

163,51

162,50

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants

2020

Total

Rechtspfleger

59,00

Non-judge staff assisting the judge

Staff in charge of administrative tasks

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

Technical staff

Other

Absolute 
number

3 427

497

1 005

1 734

191

NAP

in %

14,5%

29,3%

50,6%

5,6%

NAP

In 2020, Slovenia has 3 427 non-judge staff (of which 2 992 are females). The total number of non-judge staff in comparison with the previous cycle reveals a stable rate of 0,0%.

In this cycle, the non-judge staff is broken down as follows:

◦ 497 Rechtspfleger (or similar bodies) with judicial or quasi-judicial tasks having autonomous competence and whose decisions could be subject to appeal (among which 
453 are women);

◦ 1 005 non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges such as registrars (of which 874 are women);

◦ 1 734 staff in charge of different administrative tasks and of the court management (of which 1 575 are women);

◦ 191 technical staff (of which 90 are women);

In 2020, the number of non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants has decreased (from 163,5 in 2019 to 162,5 in 2020).

During the same period, the number of judges per 100 000 inhabitants evolves from 41,7 judges per 100 000 inhabitants in 2019 to 41,5 in 2020.

The definitions of categories are as follows: 
1. “Rechtspfleger” category includes only the staff (judicial assistants and judicial advisers) with autonomous competence to adopt final decisions (decisions on the merits of the case), set 
explicitly in procedural laws - currently the Claim Enforcement and Security Act, the Financial Operations, Insolvency Proceedings and Compulsory Windingup Act, the Court Register of 
Legal Entities Act and the Land Register Act.

2. “Non-judge staff” category includes staff, whose tasks are generally set by the Courts Act. These are judicial assistants (filing applications and statements by parties for the record and, 
by order of a judge, perform less demanding tasks related to preparation for trial proceedings or other procedural acts, making calculations of costs, preparing drafts of decisions and 
performing other tasks in judicial proceedings under the orders of a judge), judicial advisers (performing work connected with the examination of parties, witnesses and experts (outside the 
main hearings), performing more complex preparatory work for hearings, reporting at panel meetings, drafting decisions, conducting hearings under the guidance of a judge and performing 
other work by order of a judge) and judicial trainees (typically do not perform significant amount of work as their role is to learn; however they can participate in hearings and drafting of 
court decisions in some cases).

3. All the other staff, not mentioned above and not corresponding to 4. “Technical staff” is included in 3. “Administrative staff”. The latter includes, along with the court management staff, 
the office support staff, whose tasks are not specifically set by the law and include case registering, administrative case preparation, court fees, typing and/or recording of court sessions 
etc.

Approx. 3% of all court staff (109 persons) are judicial trainees (counted under “2. Non-judge (judicial staff”).

Professional judges, non-judge staff and their ratio (Q46, Q52)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Slovenia

EU median

Professional judges and non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Professional judges

41,49

Non-judge staff

162,50

Non-judge staff per judge

3,92

23,92

59,00

3,30

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Non-judge staff per judge

41,49

162,50

3,92

3,30

59,00

23,92

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff  (Q46, Q52)

Slovenia

EU median

Judges 
per 100 000 inh.

Non-judge staff per
100 000 inh.

Ratio between professional judges and 
non-judge staff

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff 
Non-judge staff per 100 000 inh.
(Q46, Q52)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

47,11

46,14

44,83

43,46

42,60

41,56

41,66

41,65

41,49

161,74

157,15

162,78

159,87

161,19

161,02

162,96

163,51

162,50

EU median 2020

3,30

3,43

3,41

3,63

3,68

3,78

3,87

3,91

3,93

3,92

3,63

3,43

3,41

2012

2013

2014

3,43
3,41
3,63
3,68
3,78
3,87
3,91
3,93
3,92

3,87

3,78

3,68

3,91

3,93

3,92

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1385 / 1555

● Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff

Absolute number of public prosecutors by instance and gender (Q55)

2020

Total

Distribution by 
instance

Male

Female

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

151

43

12

206

73,3%

20,9%

5,8%

43

15

7

65

108

28

5

141

Male

28,5%

34,9%

58,3%

31,6%

Female

71,5%

65,1%

41,7%

68,4%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance

Slovenia

EU Median

73,3%

73,30%
EU Median

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance and gender

Female

Male

73,30%

21,28%

20,9%

21,28%

4,66%

5,8%

4,66%

71,5%

28,5%

65,1%

34,9%

41,7%

58,3%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

68,4%

31,6%

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female prosecutors (all instances) is 141, which represents 68,4% of the total number of prosecutors.

The total number of prosecutors is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 151 in first instance (of which 108 are female); 43 are in second instance (of 
which 28 are female)  and 12 in final instance (of which 5 are female).  

As regards the methodology of presentation of data in respect of the number of prosecutors, it should be noticed that the information is in form of gross data. According to the 
methodology used for reporting judges and court staff (FTE) – by which part-time employees are converted to full-time time by the calculation of working hours, the number amounts to 
193, as a number of prosecutors are not working full time.

As regards the distribution of the number of prosecutors among the different judicial instances, Slovenia presents some peculiarities which should be mentioned. Namely, Slovenian state 
prosecutors perform their function in 13 organizational units – prosecution offices. There are 11 District State Prosecutor’s Offices and one Specialized State Prosecutor's Office of the 
Republic of Slovenia, where local, district and senior state prosecutors are positioned. At the Office of the Prosecutor General of the Republic of Slovenia supreme state prosecutors and 
State Prosecutor General perform their functions. Here are also some state prosecutors of lower ranks assigned to perform demanding professional tasks.

There are no higher state prosecutor’s offices as the proceedings before the courts of appeal are governed by the district prosecutor’s offices. According to the State Prosecution Service 
Act prosecutors with the rank of at least local state prosecutor may represent a case before local courts, prosecutors with the rank of at least district state prosecutor may represent a 
case before district courts, prosecutors with the rank of at least senior state prosecutor may represent a case before higher courts and only supreme state prosecutors may represent a 
case before the supreme court. Local state prosecutors may also appear before district courts if authorized by the head of state prosecutor’s office for certain categories of matters, for a 
particular matter, for certain categories of procedural acts or for a particular procedural act. Local and district prosecutors may in their cases appear along with a senior prosecutor before 
the courts of appeal if authorized by the head of an appellate division of the state prosecutor’s office for a particular case. Senior and supreme state prosecutors are competent to 
represent a case also before first instance courts.

In the context of question 55 we counted local and district prosecutors as prosecutors at first instance level, senior prosecutors as prosecutors at second instance level and supreme 
prosecutors as prosecutors at Supreme Court level without regard of the rang of court before they perform their function in fact or if they are assigned to other institution for a limited 
period of time (e.g for the administration of State Prosecutorial Council).

As regards the distribution male/female, it has to be specified that female prosecutors do not have the majority only at the Supreme Court level.

Non-prosecutor staff by gender (Q60)

Non-prosecutor staff

Total

2020

321

Male

64

Female

257

Non-prosecutor staff by gender

20%

Male

Female

80%

Public prosecutors, non-prosecutor staff and their ratio (Q55, Q60)

Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Slovenia

EU median

Public prosecutors

9,77

Non-prosecutor staff

15,22

Non-prosecutor staff per 
prosecutor

1,56

9,91

15,22

1,11

Public prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per prosecutor

15,22

15,22

1,56

9,77

9,91

1,11

Slovenia

EU median

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1386 / 1555

● Salaries of professional judges and prosecutors at beginning of a career and at the highest instance (Q132, Q4)

Salaries of professional judges and 
prosecutors (Q132, Q4)

Average gross annual 
salary 
in €

Average net annual 
salary 
in €

Ratio with national 
average annual 
gross salary

Judge at the beginning of a career 

32 628 €

20 568 €

Judge of the highest court 

63 660 €

36 984 €

Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

32 628 €

20 568 €

Public prosecutor at highest instance

63 660 €

36 984 €

1,46

2,85

1,46

2,85

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual salary in the 
country

Salaries of 
judges and 
prosecutors in 
Judge

4,09

2,85

2,02

EU Median

2,02

1,46
4,09

1,71

at the beginning 
of a career

2,85

3,61

32628

1,46

at the highest 
1,71
instance

Prosecutor

at the beginning 
of a career

63660

32628

Judge at the beginning of
career

Judge on highest instance

3,61

Slovenia

Prosecutor at the
beginning of career

EU Median

at the highest 
instance

Prosecutor at highest
instance

63660

According to 2020 data, the absolute gross salary of a judge at the begining of a career in Slovenia of 32 628€ is somewhat below when compared to the EU median of 51 946€. As a 
ratio with the annual average salary of the country, the salary for a judge at the begining of career is: 1,46 compared with EU median of : 2,02.

The basic salary for judges and prosecutors is regulated by law, as well as promotion. The salary of the prosecutor is determined on the same basis, with the same supplements and in the 
same way as the salary of the judge. All employees in the country (including judges and public prosecutors) are also entitled to the supplement for the period of employment. As the 
calculation of the average pay would be too complicated, we report figures calculated from above criteria.

It is noteworthy that all figures reported include the supplement for the period of employment.

Judge/prosecutor at the beginning of the career: starting salary for local court judge and for local state prosecutor (without promotion), including the supplement for the period of 
employment (5 years) - approx. 1-2% of the reported amount.

Judge/Prosecutor at the highest instance: starting salary of a supreme court judge and supreme state prosecutor – counselor (not president of the Supreme Court or State Prosecutor 
General) including the supplement for the period of employment (44 years) - approx 15% of the reported amount.

● Lawyers

Lawyers

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

Number of lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

1 417

1 529

1 628

1 669

1 711

1 737

1 768

1 813

1 834

68,83

74,18

78,99

80,86

82,82

84,04

84,96

86,50

86,96

EU median 2020

122,09

In 2020, there are 1 834 lawyers, which is 1,2% more than in 2019.

68,83

74,18

78,99

80,86

82,82

84,04

84,96

86,50

86,96

122,09

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median
2020

Slovenia has 87,0 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants, which is below the EU median of 122,1 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1387 / 1555

● Judicial professionals (summary)

Judicial professionals in absolute number and per 100 000 inhabitants (Q46, Q52, Q55, Q60, Q146)

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

EU Median

Professional judges

873

41,65

23,92

Non-judge staff

3 427

162,50

59,00

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

206

321

9,77

9,91

15,22

15,22

41,65

23,92

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Slovenia

EU Median

162,50

59,00

9,77

9,91

15,22

15,22

122,09

86,96

Lawyers

1 834

86,96

122,09

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

Slovenia % Male Slovenia % Femalelabels

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

% Male

% Female

Professional judges

20,1%

79,9%

Professional judges

-39,0%

20,1%

39,0%

Professional judges

Slovenia % Male
-20,1%
EU Median  % Male

79,9%

Slovenia % Female

20,1%
EU Median  % Female

61,0%

39,0%

Non judge staff

12,7%

87,3%

Prosecutors

31,6%

68,4%

Non-prosecutor staff

19,9%

80,1%

Lawyers

53,2%

46,8%

0,0%

12,7%

Non judge staff

Non judge staff

-12,7%

12,7%

87,3%

24,0%

-24,0%

76,0%

24,0%

Prosecutors

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Lawyers

53,2%

52,3%

31,6%

40,5%

-31,6%
-40,5%

19,9%

-19,9%
28,1%
-28,1%

-53,2%
-52,3%

68,4%
59,5%

80,1%
71,9%

46,8%
47,7%

0,0%

31,6%
40,5%
0,0%
19,9%
28,1%
0,0%
53,2%
52,3%

46,8%

47,7%

79,9%

61,0%

87,3%

76,0%

68,4%

59,5%

80,1%

71,9%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1388 / 1555

In Slovenia, legal aid includes:
◦ Coverage of court fees: 

◦ Exemption from court fees: 

0

1

3. Legal aid and court fees in Slovenia

Exemption from court fees is regulated outside the free legal aid system by the Court Fees Act.
The situation did not change. In previous years, the answer at Exemption from court fees was NO, as exemption from court fees was (is) regulated outside the free legal aid system by 
another law. However, it was (is) still possible (as was explained in the general comment). This year, in line with the updated explanatory note, the answer is changed.

In Slovenia, legal aid is available for :

> Representation in court:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

> Legal advice, ADR and other legal services:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

>

>

Fees related to enforcement of judicial decisions as fees for enforcement agents (Q18) 

 Other costs than above (Q19) 

1

1

1

1

1

1

The Free Legal Aid Act (FLAA) prescribes that legal aid shall mean the right of the eligible person to the entire or partial provision of funds necessary to cover the costs of legal assistance 
and the right to exemption of payment of the costs of the judicial proceeding. Further on the law defines that legal aid may be approved for legal advice, legal representation and other 
legal services, for all forms of judicial protection before all courts of general jurisdiction and specialised courts based in the Republic of Slovenia, before the Constitutional Court of the 
Republic of Slovenia, and before all authorities, institutions or persons in the Republic of Slovenia authorised for out-of-court settlement, as well as in the form of exemption from payment 
of the costs of the judicial proceeding.

The law specifically lists the costs that can be covered by the approved legal aid: for legal advice; for the formulation, verification and certification of documents on legal relations, facts 
and statements; for legal advice and representation in cases of out-of-court settlement; for legal advice and representation before courts in the first and second instances; for legal advice 
and representation involving extraordinary appeals; for legal advice and representation involving constitutional action; for legal advice and representation before international courts; for 
legal advice and representation involving the filing of a petition for the assessment of constitutionality; in the form of exemption from payment of the costs of the judicial or extrajudicial 
proceeding.

Legal aid may also be granted in the form of an exemption from payment of the costs of proceedings before courts, particularly in the form of an exemption from payment of: costs of 
experts, witnesses, interpreters, servicing orders and translations, costs of external operations of the court or other authority in the Republic of Slovenia, and other justified costs; security 
deposits for the costs or of the costs, of the implementation of the proceeding (advance payments); costs of public documents and receipts required for the proceeding before a court; 
other costs of the proceeding. The legal aid system does not cover the costs of the proceeding and actual expenditure of and remuneration for the person representing the opposing 
party.

In the proceeding of enforcement of judicial decisions the exemption from court fees (according to the Court Fees Act) and legal aid in the form of legal advice, legal representation and 
the exemption from payment of the procedural costs (the Free Legal Aid Act) is possible.

 Number of cases for which legal aid has been granted

Absolute number 
(in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

Total

Cases brought to court

Cases not brought to 
court

9 876

NA

NA

9 138

NA

NA

738

NA

NA

Per 100 000 inhabitants
 (in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

Slovenia

EU Median

468,3

NA

NA

734,2

330,9

402,7

92,5%

7,5%

NA

NA

NA

NA

Number of cases for which legal has been granted per 100 000 inhabitants

Slovenia

468,3

EU Median

734,2

Total

The reported values use the categorisation by forms of legal aid granted. In a single legal aid case, the request can be granted for multiple forms of legal aid, therefore the reported 
numbers here can be higher than the number of resolved legal aid cases. The data on the number of resolved legal cases is not reported, since one or more forms of legal aid can be 
granted in a single resolved case, making impossible the distinction to “cases brought to court” or “cases not brought to court”. Cases brought to court include: 1) legal advice and 
representation before courts in the first and second instances and 2) involving extraordinary appeals. Cases not brought to court include: 1) legal advice; 2) legal advice and 
representation in cases of out-of-court settlement; 3) formulation, verification and certification of documents on legal relations, facts and statements.

The following forms of legal aid are not included in the figures : 1) legal advice and representation involving constitutional action; 2) legal advice and representation before international 
courts; 3) legal advice and representation involving the filing of a petition for the assessment of constitutionality and 4) exemption from payment of the costs of the judicial or extrajudicial 
proceedings.

Timeframes of the procedure for granting legal aid (in relation to the duration from the initial legal aid request to the final approval of the legal aid request)

◦ Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulations: 
◦ Actual average duration: 

NAP
30

If the applicant would miss the deadline or would loose a right in the time it takes to process the application for free legal aid, the court can approve an "urgent" free legal aid, without 
taking in regard the material criteria for eligibility (however, the lack of merits is still checked). The material criteria are subsequently checked at a later time.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1389 / 1555

4. Performance of courts in Slovenia

● Efficiency indicators

◦ Clearance Rate (CR) and Disposition Time (DT)

The Clearance Rate shows the capacity of a judicial system to deal with the incoming cases. A Clearance Rate of 100% and higher does not generate backlog. 

The Disposition Time determines the estimated number of days necessary for a pending case to be solved in a court. 

First instance Total of other than criminal cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Evolution of number of all other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants
Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Incoming

45,14

44,70

,

7
6
7
4

,

4
1
5
4

,

0
7
4
4

,

6
5
5
4

,

1
9
3
4

,

0
3
2
4

,

5
6
1
4

,

7
7
8
3

,

8
4
6
3

,

9
3
4
3

,

6
1
2
3

,

1
4
3
3

,

6
6
0
3

,

8
2
1
3

,

3
7
4
1

,

3
8
3
1

,

2
2
2
1

1
3
9

,

0
2
7

,

3
9
5

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

47,67

45,56

43,91

41,65

36,48

,

7
1
6
2

,

9
8
5
2

33,41

14,73

13,83

12,22

9,31

7,20

5,93

,

0
6
0
3

42,30

38,77

34,39

,

7
0
0
3

32,16

6
2
5

,

30,66

30,07

9
6
4

,

26,17

2019

6,82

3
9
4

,

31,28

30,60

25,89
2020
6,60

5,26

2
8
6

,

4,69

0
6
6

,

6
6
2

,

4,93
EU median
2,66

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Slovenia (26,17 per 100 inhabitants) is well above the EU median (6,82 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Slovenia (25,89 per 100 inhabitants) is well above the EU median (6,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Slovenia (4,93 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly above the EU median (2,66 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Other than criminal cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Other than criminal 
cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

106%

102%

104%

107%

106%

104%

102%

102%

99%

113

111

102

82

72

65

61

56

69

EU median

99%

109

106%

102%

104%

107%

106%

104%

102%

102%

99%

99%

DT (days)

CR (%)

113

2012

111

2013

102

2014

82

72

65

61

56

69

109

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 98,9% in 2020 Slovenia seems to be able to deal with its other than criminal cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -2,8 points.

In 2020, other than criminal cases are solved in approximately 69 days, which is somewhat below the EU median of 109 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 24,3% increase of the Disposition Time.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1390 / 1555

First instance Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of civil and commercial litigious cases per 100 inhabitants

5
0
3

,

9
0
3

,

0
7
2

,

6
1
3

,

9
0
3

,

1
6
2

,

7
1
3

,

1
9
2

,

5
3
2

,

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

1
9
2

,

7
7
2

,

1
2
2

,

6
6
2

,

0
5
2

,

4
0
2

,

4
3
2

,

7
1
2

,

7
8
1

,

5
1
2

,

6
9
1

,

6
6
1

,

6
7
1

,

3,05
3,09
2,91
2,77
2,50
2,17
1,96
1,76
1,52
1,56

3
9
1

,

9
4
1

,

3,09
3,16
3,17
2,91
2,66
2,34
2,15
1,93
1,53
1,50

7
4
1

,

2,70
2,61
2,35
2,21
2,04
1,87
1,66
1,49
1,47
1,05

5
0
1

,

6
5
1

,

0
5
1

,

2
5
1

,

3
5
1

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

Civil (and commercial) litigious cases' at first instance include: civil litigious cases at local and district courts, various civil cases at local and district courts, legal aid at 
local and district courts, international legal aid at district courts, commercial litigious cases at district courts, labour law cases at labour courts, social law cases at social 
court, various labour and social law at labour and social courts, legal aid at labour and social courts. insolvency cases including compulsory composition, bankruptcy of 
legal person, bankruptcy of physical person, bankruptcy of inheritance, compulsory dissolution, simplified compulsory composition and preventive restructuring at district 
courts. The number includes the labour law and social law cases (before specialised labour and social law courts) due to their similarity to litigious cases in material and 
procedural aspects.

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Slovenia (1,52 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly belowthe  EU median (1,56 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Slovenia (1,53 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly above the EU median (1,50 per 100 inhabitants).

The decrease in the number of resolved civil and commercial litigious cases is due to the limitation of operation of courts due to Covid-19 pandemics.

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Slovenia (1,47 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat above the EU median (1,05 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

101,5%

102,4%

109,1%

104,9%

106,4%

108,0%

109,8%

109,4%

100,5%

318

301

270

277

280

292

283

281

350

EU Median

98%

221

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

101,5%

102,4%

109,1%

104,9%

106,4%

108,0%

109,8%

109,4%

100,5%

98%

DT (days)

CR (%)

318

2012

301

2013

270

2014

277

2015

280

2016

292

2017

283

2018

281

2019

350

221

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 100,5% in 2020, Slovenia seems to deal efficiently with its civil and commercial litigious cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -8,9 points.

In 2020, the civil and commercial litigious cases are solved in approximately 350 days, which is significantly above the EU median of 221 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 24,4% increase of the Disposition Time.

In Slovenia, there are 8 338 civil and commercial litigious cases older than 2 years. This is 26,9% of the total number of pending cases at the end of the year

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1391 / 1555

First instance Administrative cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of administrative cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

6
2
0

,

4
2
0

,

5
2
0

,

6
2
0

,

7
2
0

,

6
2
0

,

3
2
0

,

4
2
0

,

9
0
0

,

9
0
0

,

8
0
0

,

8
0
0

,

9
1
0

,

6
1
0

,

3
1
0

,

7
1
0

,

6
1
0

,

7
1
0

,

5
1
0

,

4
1
0

,

3
1
0

,

0
1
0

,

0,24
0,25
0,26
0,23
0,14
0,19
0,17
0,15
0,14
0,30

3
1
0

,

9
1
0

,

0
3
0

,

0,26
0,26
0,27
0,24
0,13
0,13
0,16
0,13
0,15
0,26

8
1
0

,

5
1
0

,

4
1
0

,

0,09
0,09
0,08
0,08
0,10
0,16
0,17
0,19
0,18
0,21

1
2
0

,

6
2
0

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Slovenia (0,14 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below the EU median (0,30 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Slovenia (0,15 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below the EU median (0,26 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Slovenia (0,18 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below the EU median (0,21 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Administrative cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

110,0%

101,8%

103,0%

101,0%

87,1%

67,5%

91,3%

88,9%

106,7%

130

126

112

122

282

448

406

516

443

EU Median

100%

388

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Administrative cases

110,0%

101,8%

103,0%

101,0%

106,7%

100%

DT (days)

CR (%)

87,1%

91,3%

88,9%

67,5%

130

2012

126

2013

112

2014

122

2015

282

2016

448

2017

406

2018

516

2019

443

388

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 106,7% in 2020, Slovenia seems to deal efficiently with its administrative cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased for 17,8 points.

In 2020, the administrative cases are solved in approximately 443 days, which is slightly above the EU median of 388 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a -14,1% decrease of the Disposition Time.

In Slovenia, there are 379 administrative law cases older than 2 years. This is 10,1% of the total number of pending cases at the end of the year.

Regarding the increase in Administrative law cases - Pending cases older than 2 years: In previous years, the Administrative court was faced with the influx of new 
cases, due to the implementation of the ECHR judgement 60642/08 (e.g. 24,5 % of incoming cases in 2017), as well as some new competences. This caused an 
increase in the number of pending and resolved cases. In the aforementioned cases, the court was also faced with new legal and factual issues, as well as administrative 
difficulties. In recent years, the Administrative court is also dealing with a considerable number of priority or urgent cases (e.g. asylum seekers), which means a longer 
waiting line for “regular” cases. Though administrative and managerial actions have been taken, the number of (older) pending cases has increased due to the 
aforementioned difficulties and the overburdening of the court.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1392 / 1555

Insolvency cases

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Insolvency cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Insolvency cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

66,6%

74,1%

41,2%

54,6%

81,9%

131,0%

153,2%

140,7%

138,1%

936

924

1231

1288

1050

754

541

545

589

EU Median

105%

281

DT (days)

CR (%)

153,2%

131,0%

140,7%

138,1%

105%

66,6%

74,1%

81,9%

41,2%

1231

2014

54,6%

1288

2015

936

2012

924

2013

1050

2016

754

2017

541

2018

545

2019

589

281

2020

EU Median

The Clearance Rate was calculated at 138,1% in 2020 for insolvency cases, Slovenia seems to deal efficiently with its insolvency cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -2,5 points.

In 2020, insolvency cases are solved in a approximately 589 days, which is well above the EU median of 281 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 7,9% increase of the Disposition Time.

It should be noted that the number of incoming cases is decreasing (personal bankruptcy from 2014 on and bankruptcy of legal persons from 2018 on), therefore the 
number of resolved and pending cases is also decreasing.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1393 / 1555

● First instance Criminal Law Cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

28 879

73 368

70 425

Severe criminal cases 

9 170

Misdemeanour and/or 
minor cases

Other cases

12 393

7 316

9 550

27 970

35 848

7 546

28 237

34 642

31 823

11 174

12 126

8 523

Per 100 inhabitants

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 
Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

1,37

0,43

0,59

0,35

3,48

0,45

1,33

1,70

3,34

0,36

1,34

1,64

1,51

0,53

0,57

0,40

Total criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases Resolved casesPending 
Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

Incoming cases

Slovenia

3,48

3,34

1,51

8
4
3

,

4
3
3

,

EU Median

1
5
1

,

1,48

0,46

1,60

0
6
1

,

8
4
1

,

6
4
0

,

Slovenia

EU Median

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, and other 
criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases

Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

Total

Severe criminal
cases

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

Other cases

0,45

0,36

0,53

0,57

0,40

3,48

3,34

1,51

1,33
1,34

1,70
1,64

The number of total incoming criminal cases in 2020 in Slovenia (3,48 per 100 inhabitants) is well above the EU median (1,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total resolved criminal cases in 2020 in Slovenia (3,34 per 100 inhabitants) is well above the EU median (1,48 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total pending criminal cases at the end of 2020 in Slovenia (1,51 per 100 inhabitants) is well above the EU median (0,46 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT)

Total criminal law cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

DT (days)

CR (%)

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 

Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

96,0%

79,0%

101,0%

Other cases

96,6%

165

540

157

90

Total Criminal law cases

96,0%

95,2%

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, 
and other criminal law cases 

79,0%

101,0%

96,6%

EU Median

95,2%

139

EU Median

165

Total

139

EU Median

540

157

Severe criminal
cases

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

90

Other cases

With the Clearance Rate calculated at 96,0% in 2020 for total criminal cases, Slovenia seems to face some difficulties in dealing with its total criminal cases.

In 2020, criminal law cases were solved in approximately 165 days, which is slightly above the EU median of 139 days.

Are counted as severe criminal cases criminal cases at local and district courts, criminal cases against juveniles at district courts. 

Are counted as misdemenour cases minor offences in regular court procedure – request for judicial protection, minor offences in regular court procedure – accusation 
proposals, cancellation of validity of the driver’s licence according to the legal limit of punitive points.

The category "Other criminal cases" encompasses: criminal investigations at district courts, criminal cases against juveniles in preparatory proceedings, execution of the 
sanction of prison, execution of criminal sanctions of foreign courts, criminal investigation actions at local and district courts, various criminal matters at local and district 
courts, cases of the out-of-hearing senate, clemency procedures at local and district courts, legal aid in criminal matters, international legal aid in criminal matters, cases 
of decisions to permit interventions within human rights and freedoms, legal aid in minor offences, international legal aid in minor offences, search of premises, setting a 
task for the good of the community or the local community, various cases in minor offences, compliance detention.
Regarding criminal investigations at district courts: Slovenia has a system where the state public prosecutor can request a (first instance) court to perform a criminal 
investigation (or individual investigatory acts). When this procedure at court is finished, the case is returned to the state prosecutor, who can decide whether to dismiss a 
case or file an accusatory act at the (same) court. When the accusatroy act is filed, a criminal trial (i.e. deliberating on the responsibility and sanctioning of the offender) 
begins.

The number of incoming Severe criminal cases decreased by 1% in 2019 and the number of resolved cases decreased by 2% in 2019. However, in 2020 the number of 
incoming cases decreased by 1%, and the number of resolved cases decreased by 23%, mostly due to limitations of operations of courts due to the Covid-19 pandemics. 
Consequently, the number of pending cases has also increased by 22%.

The number of pending Severe criminal cases, older than 2 years increased in 2019 (by 15%) and stayed roughly the same in 2020, while the number of Misdemeanour 
cases stayed roughly the same in 2019 and increased significantly (by 128%) in 2020. No specific explanation can be given for any of the mentioned changes. This two 
factors resulted in increase in total number of pending cases older than 2 years. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1394 / 1555

Overall efficiency by instance and by case matter

CR (%)

DT (days)

CR (%)

DT (days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases

100,5%

112,4%

110,9%

Administrative cases

106,7%

NAP

100,3%

Total criminal law cases

96,0%

105,5%

103,8%

350

443

165

40

NAP

26

59

122

147

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)
2nd instance

1st instance

,

1st instance
%
%
4
9
2
0
1
1
1
1

,

,

%
7
6
0
1

2nd instance
%
3
0
0
1

,

%
0
6
9

,

112,4%

100,5%
106,7% NAP

Supreme Court
Supreme Court
%
%
5
8
5
3
0
0
1
1

,

,

110,9%
100,3%

,

%
5
0
0
1

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases
Administrative cases

100%

Total criminal law cases

P
A
N

Civil and commercial
litigious cases

Administrative cases Total criminal law
105,5%

96,0%

103,8%

cases

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1

1
1

59
40

350

122

443

147

26

165

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

1
1

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

The Clearance Rate indicator appears above the 100% for all matters at all instances, except with regard to first instance criminal cases where it is slightly below the 
efficiency threshold. 

As to the Disposition Time, it is considerably above the EU medians established in respect of all legal matters at first instance (civil - 221 days; administrative - 388 days, 
criminal - 139 days). As already explained above, on the one hand the decrease in the number of resolved civil litigious and criminal cases was due in 2020 to the 
limitation of operation of courts due to Covid-19 pandemics. On the other hand, the difficulties faced by the first instance administrative court have various causes, 
namely the occurrence of new legal and factual issues, administrative difficulties, the priority given in the recent years to urgent cases (e.g. asylum seekers), leading to a 
longer waiting line for “regular” cases.

In contrast with the first instance, at second instance the Disposition Time is meaningfully below the respective EU medians in civil and criminal matters (177 days and 
101 days). It is noteworthy that the decrease in pending cases at the beginning and the end of the year is due to the fact that higher courts are successfully reducing the 
number of pending civil and criminal cases. Thus, in 2020, the decrease in incoming and resolved such cases was partially due to the national trend observed in general, 
and partially due to the limitation of operation of courts due to Covid-19 pandemics.

Concerning the Supreme Court, only in the criminal legal field the Disposition Time is above the EU median of 120 days, while in civil and administrative matters it is well 
below the respective EU medians (224 days and 281 days). It is to be highlighted that the decrease in the number of all pending cases is due to the efficient work of the 
Supreme Court in 2019 and 2020 in the different legal fields.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1395 / 1555

5. Public prosecution services in Slovenia

● Role and powers of the public prosecutor

In the criminal procedure, the public prosecutor in Slovenia has the following 8 out of 11 possible roles and powers:

To conduct or supervise police investigation

To appeal

To conduct investigations

To supervise the enforcement procedure

When necessary, to request investigation measures from the judge

To discontinue a case without needing a decision by a judge

To charge

To present the case in the court

To propose a sentence to the judge

To end the case by imposing or negotiating a penalty or measure 
without requiring a judicial decision

Other significant powers

 In Slovenian criminal justice system state prosecutors are exclusively authorized to conduct public prosecution in criminal matters on behalf of society and in the public interest. 
The Constitution and law guarantee autonomy in status and functioning of state prosecutors. Decisions made by the state prosecutor shall not be interfered with, except by way of 
general instructions and assigning of a case in the manner determined by the law. 

The primary function of Slovenian prosecutors is to decide whether or not to initiate or continue a prosecution of the alleged perpetrator of criminal offence before a court. The role 
of investigating crimes is attributed to the police, but the prosecutors can set guidelines for police work by giving directions, expert opinions and proposals. They can also 
coordinate national or international joint investigation teams.

Prosecutors cannot impose or negotiate a penalty without the judicial approval. They can divert the prosecution of cases that meet statutory conditions by imposing a measure 
(elimination of or compensation for damage, payment of a contribution to a public institution or a charity or fund for compensation for damage to victims of criminal offences, 
performance of community service,
fulfillment of a maintenance obligation) or transfer the case to a settlement procedure – both only upon consent of the injured party and a suspect.

"Other": Prosecutors can file extraordinary legal remedies against final judicial decisions and file a lawsuit against the defendant to forfeit the assets of illegal origin.

The public prosecutor also has a role in civil, administrative and insolvency cases.

Supreme state prosecutors can file an extraordinary legal remedy - the petition for protection of legality against final judicial decisions in civil, administrative and minor offences 
cases, when there was a violation of material or procedural law.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1396 / 1555

● Public prosecutors: Number of first instance criminal cases

Type of cases

Absolute 
number

Per 100 
inhabitants

1. Pending cases on 1 Jan. ref. year 

275 591

13,07

Public prosecutors: Total number of first instance criminal 
cases per 100 inhabitants

2. Incoming/received cases

61 789

2,93

13,34

Incoming/received cases

Processed cases

Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. Year

Incoming/rec
eived cases

Processed 
cases

Pendin
g cases 
on 31 

3. Processed cases (3.1 + 3.2 + 3.3 + 3.4)

28 472

1,35

Slovenia

2,93 1,35

13,34

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year (3.1.1 + 3.1.2 + 3.1.3 
+ 3.1.4)

38 743

1,84

2,93

EU Median

2,85 2,84
2,84

2,85

0,84

3.1.1 Discontinued by the public prosecutor because the 
offender could not be identified 

NAP

NAP

3.1.2 Discontinued by the public prosecutor due to the lack 
of an established offence or a specific legal situation 

35 984

1,71

1,35

Slovenia

0,84

EU Median

3.1.3 Discontinued by the public prosecutor for reasons of 
opportunity

2 759

0,13

Processed cases per 100 inhabitants
EU Median

Slovenia

3.1.4 Discontinued for other reasons 

NAP

NAP

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

Processed cases

1,84
Slovenia

EU Median

1,05

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated 
by the public prosecutor

1 298

0,06

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons

NAP

NAP

3.4. Cases brought to court

9 130

0,43

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed
or negotiated by the public prosecutor

-1,84

0,06

1,05

0,12

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other
reasons

-0,06

NAP

0,12

0,30

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons
0,30

0,00

3.4. Cases brought to court

0,43

0,53

4. Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. year

281 332

13,34

3.4. Cases brought to court

-0,43

0,53

Methodology used - statistical data are kept on the accused, accused or convicted persons, and the data is related to the main crime per defendant (methodology as used in the 
Joint Annual Report on the Work of State Prosecutor's Offices). Data also includes unfinished criminal complaintes against unknown perpetrators (on average, between 30.000 
and 60,000 complaints a year against unknown perpetrators). These are included in statistical data as unresolved cases until they are completed (for example, statute of 
limitations and no legal signs of a crime).

1.Pending cases on 1 Jan. ref. Year - the data represent transferred unresolved criminal complaints against known perpetrators and include adults, minors and legal entities. As 
mentioned above, data on transferred unresolved complaints against unknown perpetrators are also provided.  

2. Incoming/received cases: Criminal denunciations against known and unknown offenders including cases that were received by the prosecution office as cases with unknown 
offenders whose identity was discovered during the reporting period. Cases against known offenders are counted by the number of persons involved, while cases against unknown 
offenders are counted by files.

3. Processed cases: all resolved criminal complaints in the reporting year. There can be multiple criminal complaints in one case file, however the resolution is only one – hence 
the difference between the sum of subcategories (3.1, 3.2, 3.3 and 3.4) and the actual number of resolved criminal complaints. 

3.1.2 Discontinued by the public prosecutor due to the lack of an established offence or a specific legal situation: dismissed denunciations for other reasons than opportunity and 
accomplishing some tasks imposed or negotiated by state prosecutor; cases where prosecutor refrains from prosecution after the finish of judicial investigation. The great majority 
of cases against unknown offenders are dismissed because the pending time exceeds limitation period for criminal prosecution. In the case of proposed criminal offenses, the 
motion of the injured party is a procedural precondition for conducting criminal proceedings. If this presumption does not exist (it is no longer due to withdrawal), the legal 
consequence is rejection. For the most part, public prosecutors rejected complaints for other reasons, including cases in which it was not possible to continue the proceedings due 
to a lack of procedural or material preconditions (the act is not a criminal offense, there is no reasonable suspicion that the suspect committed a criminal offense). 

3.1.3 Discontinued by the public prosecutor for reasons of opportunity: cases where denunciations were dismissed because the consequences of criminal prosecution would prove 
disproportionate to the weight of criminal offence and dismissed denunciations against minors because the proceedings against him/her would not be appropriate in view of the 
nature of the offence and circumstances in which it was committed, as well as in view of the past conduct of the minor and his personal traits.

3.2.Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor: dismissed denunciations due to concluded settlement between an offender and the 
aggrieved person or due to the offender accomplishing some tasks imposed by public prosecutor.

3.4.Cases brought to court: natural persons and legal entities charged before district and local courts and motions for punishment or educational measure for minors.

4. Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. year: unresolved criminal complaints as at 31 December of the previous year for all categories (adults, minors and legal entities).

Inconsistencies within the table are possible due to the peculiarity of the IT system - it is a "live" system (dynamic reporting), meaning that the reported figures for a specific date or 
period of time inevitably vary for different reasons (e.g. the data was not promptly entered into the CMS; in some instances, the decision, in which category some specific new 
cases should be included, may be subsequently changed and when data are unified some figures change; there is also the possibility that a mistake was done when entering the 
data and was later detected in the quality check and corrected.). Every category (row in the table) is calculated (counted) separately.

In 2020, pending cases on 1 Jan. ref. year includes 12.452 cases against known perpetrators and 263.139 cases against unknown perpetrators. Incoming/received cases includes 
27.770 cases against known offenders and 34.019 cases against unknown offenders. Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. year includes 12.072 cases against known offenders and 
269.260 cases against unknown offenders.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1397 / 1555

 
6. Existence and use of alternative dispute resolution in Slovenia

Number of mediators

Mediators

Total

Per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

347

341

311

292

281

272

276

267

258

16,9

16,5

15,1

14,1

13,6

13,2

13,3

12,7

12,2

EU Median 2020

EU median in 2019

14,4

EU Median
2020

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

Number of mediators per 100 000 inhabitants

14,4

12,2

12,7

13,3

13,2

13,6

14,1

15,1

16,5

16,9

In 2020, there are 258 accredited or registered mediators who practise court related mediation which represents 12,2 accredited or registered mediators per 100 000 
inhabitants.

The variation between  2019 and  2020 is about -3,4%.

Number of court related mediations

Type of cases

All cases

Civil and commercial

Family cases

Administrative

Employment dismissal

Criminal cases

Consumer cases

Number of cases 
for which the parties
agreed to start 
mediation

Number of finished 
court-related
mediations

Number of cases 
in which there is a 
settlement agreement

2437

2076

NA

NAP

361

NAP

NA

2164

1814

NA

NAP

350

NAP

NA

922

756

NA

NAP

166

NAP

NA

It is noteworthy that under category “1. Civil and commercial cases”, all mediation cases at local and district courts are reported (including family cases and consumer 
cases).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1398 / 1555

7. ICT tools of courts in Slovenia

●The ICT tools of courts and for court users

The use of ICT in courts in 2020 has been evaluated as  :

EU Median

Total 
(0 to 10)

Assistance tools (0 to 3)

Case management system (0 to 7)
Financial management tools (0 to 3)

Measurement tools to assess the workload (0 to 5)
Electronic communication (0 to 10)

6,9
2,0

6,0

2,0
5,0

4,4

6,6
2,0

5,2

1,3
2,5

6,9

The calculation of this values for each field is based on the answers for that question/s and weighted according the avaiability 
or deployment rate. The total value is normalised to max 10 points for readability and comparison.

The details of the calculation are given in Annex 5 - IT calculations

The result by area may be summarized in these graphics, where each field has been evaluated from 0 to 4 points.

Note: index is modified based on the available questions. This cycle the recalculation was made for the last three cycles to be 
able to follow the development.

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

2018

2019

2020

EU Median 2020

Assistance 
tools

Year
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
EU Median 20202,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

Case 
management 

Financial 
management 

Measurement 
tools to assess 

Electronic 
communication

5,97

5,97

5,97

2,00

5,97
2,00
5,97

5,97

2,00

2,00

2,00

5,17

5,00

5,00

5,00

5,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

4,35

2,00

2,00

4,35

2,00

4,35

1,25

2,50

6,94

5,00

5,00

5,00

4,35

4,35

4,35

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

The writing assistance tools are included in the CMSs, provided by the Project mamagement Service at the Supreme Court. The templates 
(including pre-written texts) are verified by the judges. Writing assistance tools also exist in respect of civil enforcement on the basis of the 
authentic document procedure.

All courts are equipped by voice recording tools, maintained by courts and the Ministry of Justice.

Civil enforcement on the basis of the authentic document is another informatised procedure where status of case is available on-line. Approx. 21% 
of all incoming cases is civil enforcement on the basis of the authentic document.

Electronic communication concerns civil and/or Commercial: insolvency cases (eINS) and civil enforcement cases (eIzvršba), where all courts are 
equipped with CMS which enable electronic submission. The electronic submission in civil and commercial litigious cases is not yet possible. 
Electronic submission in family matters became available for social services in 2020. All courts are also equipped with CMS which enable 
electronic submission in registry cases (eZK) and business registry cases (iSRG).

Criminal, Administrative (and civil and commercial litigous): currently, efforts are taking place to upgrade the informatised CMS to allow the 
submission in electronic forms.

Other: Civil enforcement on the basis of the authentic document is an informatised procedure where claims can be filed on-line, with specific 
legislative framework, without the need for simultaneous submission of cases in paper form, and integrated to CMS. In 2020, more than 116.000 
claims were filed, 99,90% of them electronically.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1399 / 1555

8. Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and public prosecution services in Slovenia

In Slovenia, quality standards are determined for the judicial system at national level (e.g. quality systems for the judiciary and/or judicial quality policies). Specialised personnel 
within the courts and the public prosecution services is entrusted with implementation of these national level quality standards.

The Office for Court Management Development at the Supreme Court promotes the improvement in leadership and management of courts and the increase in effectiveness 
and efficiency. It is responsible for the preparation of different reports and analysis regarding work of courts and the promotion of best practices. 

The Supreme Court’s Data warehouse, containing all court cases, as well as financial data and human resources data was implemented in 2011. The data are collected based 
on CEPEJ Guidelines on Judicial statistics (GOJUST). A special office at the Supreme Court with specialised knowledge was introduced in order to monitor the quality and 
define quality policies on the level of entire judiciary and individual courts. Quality standards based on SATURN guidelines are taken into account in several predefined BI 
system reports.

The important role in the determination of quality standards is played by the Supreme Court's „Opening of the judicial year“ document, in which a set of priorities is determined. 
The priorities are subsequently monitored throughout the judicial year by automated BI tools and customised analysis at the Supreme Court.

The 2013 amendment to the Courts Act provides that the Supreme Court shall adopt the Criteria for quality of work for courts for the next (judicial) year, based on its Yearly 
report on efficiency and effectiveness of courts. Since 2015, the Supreme Court has been adopting the timeframes for different types of procedures as well as for different 
procedural phases for next year (as a part of the Criteria for quality of work).

As for public prosecution, the criteria for quality of work are defined in the Prosecution Policy (adopted by the Prosecutor General), while the quantitative aspects of work are 
defined in the Criteria for evaluating the performance of the state prosecutor’s offices adopted by the State Prosecutorial Council. The Department for the Organization and 
Development of Management of the Supreme State Prosecutor's Office of the Republic of Slovenia is responsible for monitoring the implementation of the Prosecution Policy 
and the Criteria for the Success of Prosecution of State Prosecutor's Offices.

● Systems for measuring and evaluating courts' performance

A regular monitoring system of court activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

In Slovenia there is a regular monitoring system in a form of collecting data on court statistics. Court statistics are collected and published four times a year by the Ministry of 
Justice. They include the data on the number of judges and court staff, number of incoming, resolved and pending cases, age of unresolved cases, length of proceedings, 
average time to resolve a case, type of decision, court backlogs, legal remedies and time to issue a court decision.

Besides that, the data on court activities are automatically on national level, thus statistical analysis are made possible. All courts have access to a wide range of special 
reports, generated in the Court management information system. Reports include detailed information on court activities (for example length of specific phases of a court 
proceeding, top 20 oldest cases in certain area of law, etc.), human resources, court performance indicators (the critical indicators are marked red for unsatisfactory 
performance and green when meeting the standards) that provide guidance to presidents and directors of courts. The business intelligence system that creates priority reports 
derives the data from the Data warehouse of the Supreme Court. The same source is used for Court statistics publications by the Ministry of Justice. Each court is able to 
access the above mentioned reports at any moment, while some data are quarterly collected and published on national level (as prescribed by the Court rules).

The satisfaction surveys are performed and results published bi-annually.

In Slovenia, there is a system to regularly evaluate the court performance based primarily on defined indicators and the frequency of the reporting is annual.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each court.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

The Annual work programme consists of the assessment of the expected number of incoming cases, timeframes for typical procedural acts and solving the cases and the plan 
of operating results. The latter includes the expected number of resolved cases and criteria of efficiency (resolved cases to staff ratio), effectiveness (expected time to 
resolution) and economy (budgetary funds to solved cases ratio) (the Courts Act, art. 71.b).

The number of complaints is monitored as a performance indicator, however it is not directly considered as a measure of quality of work.

The data on staisfaction of court staff and users is also colletcted, however it si not yet used as quality indicator.

The evaluation of the courts' activities is used for the later allocation of means in the courts.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1400 / 1555

● Systems for measuring and evaluating public prosecution services' performance

A regular monitoring system of public prosecution services activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases 

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs 

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecution) 

Costs of the judicial procedures 

Clearance rate 

Disposition time 

Percentage of convictions and aquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

The BI tools that use data gathered in information system of the State Prosecutor's Office provide the heads of prosecution offices with up-to-date overview of the performance 
of state prosecutors and the functioning of the office. Heads can customize the level and content of information presented to them for the purpose of making quantitative data 
supported decisions on allocation of work among prosecutors, control of the case-flow.

"Other": percentage of different types of decisions, value of proceeds of crime under freezing order, pronounced criminal sanctions etc.

In Slovenia, there is a system to evaluate regularly the activity of each public prosecution service and the reporting is more frequent than annual.

The quantitative indicators are defined in the Criteria for evaluating the performance of the state prosecutor’s offices adopted by the State Prosecutorial Council. General 
guidelines for the work of state prosecutors and priority fields of prosecution are defined in a Prosecution Policy by prosecutor general. Heads of offices implement both criteria 
in their Annual Work Program. Twice a year the prosecutor general, the State Prosecutorial Council and the Minister discuss the performance of state prosecutor’s offices at 
joint meetings held with the heads of state prosecutor’s offices and adopt and/or coordinate the measures required for implementation of annual work programmes. An 
evaluation of attained goals set in the adopted Annual Work Programme, Criteria and Prosecution Policy are an integral part of Annual Report of each prosecution office. The 
prosecutor general compiles Joint Annual Report on the work of the whole state prosecutor offices. The Minister and State Prosecutorial Council may submit their opinion to 
this report.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each public prosecution service.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecutors)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Percentage of convictions and acquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff

The State Prosecutorial Council adopts the Criteria for evaluating the performance of the state prosecutor’s offices on the proposal of the State Prosecutor General. The 
criteria define indicators and their target values for the appraisal of the work efficiency and realization of prosecution policy.

 The criteria for the success of the prosecution of public prosecutors determine the following indicators: the number of unresolved cases at the end of the period, clearance 
rate, expected solution time, time criteria for typical process actions, (from the initiative of the police to the submission of a proposal to carry out urgent investigative actions, 
from the receipt to the rejection of the criminal complaint, from the receipt of the criminal complaint to the submission of a request for investigation or a proposal for individual 
investigative actions, from the receipt of the criminal complaint (without investigation) to the filing of the indictment, from the end of the investigation or individual investigative 
actions until the filing of the indictment, from the receipt of the complaint to the decision of the public prosecutor on the postponed prosecution and settlement, efficiency 
indicator, cost-effectiveness indicator, proportions of prosecution decisions, shares of rejected complaints according to individual reasons, shares of decisions alternative to 
criminal prosecution, share of penal orders, share of convictions, shares of imposed criminal sanctions.

The evaluation of the public prosecution services' activities is used for the later allocation of means in the public prosecution services.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1401 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table General Data: Economic and demographic data, in absolute values (Q1, Q3, Q5)

Q1 Number of inhabitants

2 058 821

2 061 085

2 061 085

2 064 188

2 065 895

2 066 880

2 080 908

2 095 861

2 108 977

2,4%

0,1%

0,0%

0,2%

0,1%

0,0%

0,7%

0,7%

0,6%

Q.3 GDP Per capita (in €) in current prices

17 172

17 128

18 065

18 680

19 262

20 951

22 182

22 983

22 014

28,2%

-0,3%

5,5%

3,4%

3,1%

8,8%

5,9%

3,6%

-4,2%

Q5. Exchange rate of Nat currency to € on 1 Jan

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Indicator 1: Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and prosecution services  (Indicator 4 in 2019)

Table 1.1 to Table 1.10 (Q66, Q67, Q77, Q78, Q77-1, Q78-1, Q73, Q73-0, Q73-1, Q73-2, Q73-3, Q73-4, Q73-5, Q73-6, Q70, Q70-1, Q71, Q72, Q83-2, Q83-3, Q120 
and Q120-1)

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

66 Qlty standards formulated_jud system

67 Specialised court staff entrusted_qlty standards

77 Performance and quality indicators of court activities

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

078.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078.1.5 Backlogs 

078.1.6 Productivity of judges and court staff

078.1.7 Satisfaction of court staff 

078.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts) 

078.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078.1.10 Number of appeals

078.1.11 Appeal ratio

078.1.12 Clearance rate 

078.1.13 Disposition time 

078.1.14 Other

077-1.1.1 Defined performance and quality indicators

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1402 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

078-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078-1.1.5 Backlogs 

078-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

078-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

078-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

078-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

078-1.1.11 Disposition time 

078-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

078-1.1.13 Other

73 Regular system_evaluation_performance_each court

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

073-0.1.1 Annual

073-0.1.2 Less frequent

073-0.1.3 More frequent

073-1.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
court

073-2.1.1 Courses of action taken in the evaluation is used for the 
allocation of resources

073-2.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-2.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-2.1.4 Other

073-3.1.1 Regular evaluation of the public prosecution services 
performance

Yes

Yes

True

True

False

False

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1403 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

073-4.1.1 Annual

073-4.1.2 Less frequent

073-4.1.3 More frequent

073-5.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
public prosecution services

073-6.1.1 Identifying the causes of improved or deteriorated 
performance

073-6.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-6.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-6.1.4 Other

070.1.1 number of incoming cases

070.1.2 length of proceedings (timeframes)

070.1.3 number of resolved cases

070.1.4 number of pending cases

070.1.5 backlogs

070.1.6 productivity of judges and court staff

070.1.7 satisfaction of court staff

070.1.8 satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts)

070.1.9 costs of the judicial procedures

070.1.10 number of appeals

070.1.11 appeal ratio

070.1.12 clearance rate

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1404 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

070-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases 

070-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

070-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

070-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

070-1.1.5 Backlogs 

070-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

070-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

070-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

070-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

070-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

070-1.1.11 Disposition time 

070-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

070-1.1.13 Other

071.1.1 Monitoring backlogs in Civil law cases

071.1.2 Monitoring backlogs in Criminal law cases

071.1.3 Monitoring backlogs in Administrative law cases

072.1.1 Monitoring timeframes Within the courts

072.1.2 Monitoring timeframes Within the public prosecution services

083-2.1.1 Quantitative performance tagets defined for each 
prosecutors

083-3.1.1 Body responsible - Executive power (for example the 
Ministry of Justice)

083-3.1.2 Body responsible - Prosecutor General /State public 
prosecutor

083-3.1.3 Body responsible - Public Prosecutorial Council

083-3.1.4 Body responsible - Head of the organisational unit or 
hierarchically superior public prosecutor

083-3.1.5 Body responsible - Other

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

True

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1405 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

120.1.1 Qualitative individual assessment of the public prosecutors' 
work

120-1.1.1 Feequency - Annual

120-1.1.2 Feequency - Less frequent

120-1.1.3 Feequency - More frequent

Q42.1.1Total number of all courts - legal entities 

Q42.1.2 Total number of courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.3 First instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.4 Second instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.5 Highest instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.6 Total number of specialised courts - legal entities

43.1.1 Total number of specialised courts of first instance

43.1.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.1.3 Insolvency courts

43.1.4 Labour courts

43.1.5 Family courts

43.1.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.1.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.1.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.1.9 Internet related disputes

43.1.10 Administrative courts

43.1.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.1.12 Military courts

43.1.13 Juvenile courts

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

Indicator 2: The judicial organisation

Tables 2.1a; 2.1b; 2.2a; 2.2b; 2.3a; 2.3b; 2.4 and 2.5(EC) (Q42, Q43 and Q44)

-

-

55

-

-

-

6

NAP

NAP

4

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

1

-

-

55

-

-

-

5

NAP

NAP

4

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

1

-

-

55

-

-

-

5

NAP

NAP

4

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

1

-

-

55

-

-

-

5

NAP

NAP

4

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

1

-

-

55

-

-

-

5

NAP

NAP

4

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

1

-

-

55

-

-

-

5

NAP

NAP

4

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

1

-

-

55

-

-

-

5

NAP

NAP

4

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

1

-

-

55

-

-

-

5

NAP

NAP

4

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

False

True

False

66

60

55

4

1

6

5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-16,7%

-16,7%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

1

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1406 / 1555

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

43.1.14 Other specialised courts

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

43.2.1 Total number of specialised courts of higher instances

43.2.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.2.3 Insolvency courts

43.2.4 Labour courts

43.2.5 Family courts

43.2.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.2.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.2.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.2.9 Internet related disputes

43.2.10 Administrative courts

43.2.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.2.12 Military courts

43.2.13 Juvenile courts

43.2.14 Other specialised courts

44.1.1 First instance courts geographic locations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

44.1.2 All courts geographic locations

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

77

1

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

70

76

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-1,3%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-1,3%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1407 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 3: The performance of courts at all stages of the proceedings

Tables 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.4 (all years) Number of other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 Variation of first instance other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants (Q1, Q91)

Table 3.13.7 (EC) to 3.13.12 (EC) First instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

91.1.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.1.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.1.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.1.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.1.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.1.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.1.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.1.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

91.1.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.1.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

91.1.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

91.2.1 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.2.2 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.2.3 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.2.4 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.2.5 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.2.6 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.2.7 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.2.8 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

91.2.9 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

356 071

303 220

285 279

251 889

192 231

148 701

122 514

109 533

98 134

-72,4%

-14,8%

-5,9%

-11,7%

-23,7%

-22,6%

-17,6%

-10,6%

-10,4%

56 651

55 486

53 815

48 384

45 550

42 220

38 624

34 645

31 115

-45,1%

-2,1%

-3,0%

-10,1%

-5,9%

-7,3%

-8,5%

-10,3%

-10,2%

-

-

187 198

170 745

118 604

82 719

61 003

49 196

44 288

-

-

-

-8,8%

-30,5%

-30,3%

-26,3%

-19,4%

-10,0%

200 131

188 531

177 648

164 736

113 760

77 127

56 402

44 203

39 854

-80,1%

-5,8%

-5,8%

-7,3%

-30,9%

-32,2%

-26,9%

-21,6%

-9,8%

-

-

44 990

14 705

839

477

-

-

-

-

9 550

8 593

957

NAP

NAP

6 009

5 376

633

NAP

NAP

4 844

4 442

402

NAP

NAP

5 592

4 601

4 993

4 434

-

-

-

-37,1%

-19,4%

15,4%

-17,7%

8,5%

-11,2%

5 179

4 119

4 610

4 061

-91,0%

-67,3%

-41,6%

-37,4%

-17,4%

16,6%

-20,5%

11,9%

-11,9%

413

NAP

NAP

482

NAP

NAP

383

NAP

NAP

373

-55,5%

-43,1%

100,6%

-33,9%

-36,5%

2,7%

16,7%

-20,5%

-2,6%

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 430

1 936

1 841

1 668

1 619

2 000

3 292

3 600

3 946

62,4%

-20,3%

-4,9%

-9,4%

-2,9%

23,5%

64,6%

9,4%

9,6%

51 030

42 085

42 425

31 092

26 458

21 762

19 595

22 092

18 785

-63,2%

-17,5%

0,8%

-26,7%

-14,9%

-17,7%

-10,0%

12,7%

-15,0%

929 328

921 342

871 916

800 360

710 366

664 648

638 075

630 234

551 822

-40,6%

-0,9%

-5,4%

-8,2%

-11,2%

-6,4%

-4,0%

-1,2%

-12,4%

62 761

63 636

59 996

57 277

51 659

44 772

40 700

36 979

32 097

-48,9%

1,4%

-5,7%

-4,5%

-9,8%

-13,3%

-9,1%

-9,1%

-13,2%

-

-

587 442

533 591

483 065

457 958

437 669

438 320

382 730

-

-

-

-9,2%

-9,5%

-5,2%

-4,4%

0,1%

-12,7%

250 169

250 918

228 724

205 756

184 457

169 702

163 899

164 614

135 459

-45,9%

0,3%

-8,8%

-10,0%

-10,4%

-8,0%

-3,4%

0,4%

-17,7%

-

-

358 718

327 835

298 608

288 256

273 770

273 706

247 271

-

-

-

-8,6%

-8,9%

-3,5%

-5,0%

0,0%

-9,7%

306 951

284 854

295 833

266 056

240 849

234 035

222 701

224 102

204 992

-33,2%

-7,2%

3,9%

-10,1%

-9,5%

-2,8%

-4,8%

0,6%

-8,5%

50 144

58 288

62 885

61 779

57 759

54 221

51 069

49 604

42 279

-15,7%

16,2%

7,9%

-1,8%

-6,5%

-6,1%

-5,8%

-2,9%

-14,8%

-

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

91.2.10 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

4 930

5 234

5 345

4 804

2 972

3 976

3 540

3 139

2 893

-41,3%

6,2%

2,1%

-10,1%

-38,1%

33,8%

-11,0%

-11,3%

-7,8%

91.2.11 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

254 373

258 412

219 133

204 688

172 670

157 942

156 166

151 796

134 102

-47,3%

1,6%

-15,2%

-6,6%

-15,6%

-8,5%

-1,1%

-2,8%

-11,7%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1408 / 1555

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

91.3.1 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.3.2 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.3.3 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.3.4 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.3.5 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.3.6 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.3.7 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.3.8 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

91.3.9 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

981 418

938 955

904 958

859 760

753 615

690 542

650 931

641 379

545 936

-44,4%

-4,3%

-3,6%

-5,0%

-12,3%

-8,4%

-5,7%

-1,5%

-14,9%

63 689

65 194

65 432

60 082

54 982

48 354

44 677

40 444

32 262

-49,3%

2,4%

0,4%

-8,2%

-8,5%

-12,1%

-7,6%

-9,5%

-20,2%

-

-

603 557

585 504

518 674

479 405

449 352

443 040

384 687

-

-

-

-3,0%

-11,4%

-7,6%

-6,3%

-1,4%

-13,2%

261 325

261 450

241 289

256 504

220 914

190 165

175 982

168 777

135 087

-48,3%

0,0%

-7,7%

6,3%

-13,9%

-13,9%

-7,5%

-4,1%

-20,0%

-

-

362 268

329 000

297 760

289 240

273 370

274 263

249 600

-

-

-

-9,2%

-9,5%

-2,9%

-5,5%

0,3%

-9,0%

337 182

290 939

299 060

266 990

240 018

235 094

222 205

224 654

207 271

-38,5%

-13,7%

2,8%

-10,7%

-10,1%

-2,1%

-5,5%

1,1%

-7,7%

50 506

57 993

63 208

62 010

57 742

54 146

51 165

49 609

42 329

-16,2%

14,8%

9,0%

-1,9%

-6,9%

-6,2%

-5,5%

-3,0%

-14,7%

-

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

91.3.10 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

5 424

5 329

5 504

4 853

2 589

2 682

3 233

2 792

3 088

-43,1%

-1,8%

3,3%

-11,8%

-46,7%

3,6%

20,5%

-13,6%

10,6%

91.3.11 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

91.4.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.4.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.4.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.4.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.4.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.4.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.4.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.4.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

91.4.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.4.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

91.4.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

263 292

258 050

230 465

209 321

177 370

160 101

153 669

155 103

125 899

-52,2%

-2,0%

-10,7%

-9,2%

-15,3%

-9,7%

-4,0%

0,9%

-18,8%

303 220

285 117

251 814

192 153

148 653

122 613

109 512

98 206

103 876

-65,7%

-6,0%

-11,7%

-23,7%

-22,6%

-17,5%

-10,7%

-10,3%

5,8%

55 486

53 813

48 389

45 579

42 227

38 638

34 647

31 180

30 950

-44,2%

-3,0%

-10,1%

-5,8%

-7,4%

-8,5%

-10,3%

-10,0%

-0,7%

-

-

170 653

118 497

82 668

61 078

49 175

44 298

42 187

-

-

-

-30,6%

-30,2%

-26,1%

-19,5%

-9,9%

-4,8%

188 531

177 392

164 581

113 655

77 068

56 472

44 175

39 862

40 086

-78,7%

-5,9%

-7,2%

-30,9%

-32,2%

-26,7%

-21,8%

-9,8%

0,6%

-

14 705

477

-

-

-

8 615

1 011

-

-

6 072

5 438

634

NAP

NAP

4 842

4 440

402

NAP

NAP

5 600

5 181

419

NAP

NAP

4 606

5 000

4 436

2 101

-

-

-

-20,3%

15,7%

-17,8%

8,6%

-11,3%

-52,6%

4 118

4 614

4 058

1 778

-87,9%

-41,4%

-36,9%

-18,4%

16,7%

-20,5%

12,0%

-12,1%

-56,2%

488

NAP

NAP

386

NAP

NAP

378

NAP

NAP

323

-32,3%

111,9%

-37,3%

-36,6%

4,2%

16,5%

-20,9%

-2,1%

-14,6%

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 936

1 841

1 682

1 619

2 000

3 294

3 599

3 947

3 751

93,8%

-4,9%

-8,6%

-3,7%

23,5%

64,7%

9,3%

9,7%

-5,0%

42 085

42 445

31 090

26 458

21 758

19 603

22 091

18 781

26 988

-35,9%

0,9%

-26,8%

-14,9%

-17,8%

-9,9%

12,7%

-15,0%

43,7%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1409 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.2 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.4 to 3.3.7 Variation of Clearence Rate and Disposition Time of first instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

Table 3.13.1 (EC) to 3.13.6 (EC) First instance courts: Disposition time and clearance rate for other than criminal cases  (Q91)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

105,6%

101,9%

103,8%

107,4%

106,1%

103,9%

102,0%

101,8%

98,9%

(6,32)

(3,50)

1,84

3,50

(1,24)

(2,07)

(1,81)

(0,24)

(2,79)

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

101,5%

102,4%

109,1%

104,9%

106,4%

108,0%

109,8%

109,4%

100,5%

(0,95)

0,96

6,45

(3,82)

1,46

1,47

1,64

(0,37)

(8,10)

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

-

-

102,7%

109,7%

107,4%

104,7%

102,7%

101,1%

100,5%

-

-

-

6,80

(2,15)

(2,50)

(1,92)

(1,55)

(0,56)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

104,5%

104,2%

105,5%

124,7%

119,8%

112,1%

107,4%

102,5%

99,7%

(4,53)

(0,25)

1,24

18,17

(3,93)

(6,43)

(4,18)

(4,51)

(2,73)

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

-

-

101,0%

100,4%

99,7%

100,3%

99,9%

100,2%

100,9%

-

-

-

(0,63)

(0,64)

0,63

(0,49)

0,35

0,74

CR Non litigious land registry cases

109,8%

102,1%

101,1%

100,4%

99,7%

100,5%

99,8%

100,2%

101,1%

(7,95)

(7,02)

(1,02)

(0,73)

(0,69)

0,80

(0,67)

0,47

0,86

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

100,7%

99,5%

100,5%

100,4%

100,0%

99,9%

100,2%

100,0%

100,1%

(0,60)

(1,22)

1,02

(0,14)

(0,40)

(0,11)

0,33

(0,18)

0,11

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

-

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CR Administrative law cases

110,0%

101,8%

103,0%

101,0%

87,1%

67,5%

91,3%

88,9%

106,7%

(2,98)

(7,46)

1,14

(1,90)

(13,77)

(22,57)

35,39

(2,61)

20,01

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

103,5%

99,9%

105,2%

102,3%

102,7%

101,4%

98,4%

102,2%

93,9%

(9,30)

(3,52)

5,32

(2,76)

0,45

(1,32)

(2,93)

3,84

(8,12)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

113

318

-

263

-

16

3

-

-

130

58

111

301

-

248

-

11

6

-

-

126

60

102

270

103

249

6

7

4

NAP

NAP

112

49

82

277

74

162

5

6

2

NAP

NAP

122

46

72

280

58

127

7

8

3

NAP

NAP

282

45

65

292

47

108

6

6

3

NAP

NAP

448

45

61

283

40

92

7

8

3

NAP

NAP

406

52

56

281

36

86

6

7

3

NAP

NAP

516

44

69

-38,4%

-1,7%

-8,4%

-19,7%

-11,7%

-10,0%

-5,2%

-9,0%

24,3%

350

10,1%

-5,3%

-10,4%

2,6%

1,2%

4,0%

-2,9%

-0,6%

24,4%

40

-

-

-

-28,4%

-21,2%

-20,1%

-14,1%

-8,6%

9,7%

108

-58,9%

-6,0%

0,5%

-35,0%

-21,3%

-14,9%

-15,5%

-5,9%

25,6%

3

3

3

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-12,2%

27,8%

-15,3%

14,9%

-11,6%

-48,0%

-80,3%

-32,1%

-38,6%

-8,5%

29,8%

-18,9%

18,5%

-13,0%

-52,5%

-19,2%

84,6%

-42,5%

-35,4%

11,9%

24,2%

-16,3%

1,0%

0,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

443

240,3%

-3,2%

-11,5%

9,2%

131,6%

59,0%

-9,4%

27,0%

-14,1%

78

34,1%

2,9%

-18,0%

-6,3%

-3,0%

-0,2%

17,4%

-15,8%

77,0%

1410 / 1555

        
        
         
         
        
        
        
        
        
        
         
         
        
         
         
         
        
        
         
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
         
       
        
        
        
        
        
        
        
         
        
         
         
        
        
        
        
        
         
        
         
         
        
        
         
        
        
        
         
        
         
        
        
         
        
      
      
       
        
       
        
        
         
        
         
        
        
         
        
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.4.1 (all years) First instance courts, number of cases for specific case categories (Q101)

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

101.1.1 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Litigious divorce case

1 068

1 022

1 048

1 033

101.1.2 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Employment dismissal case

101.1.3 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Insolvency

101.2.1 Incoming cases_Litigious divorce case

101.2.2 Incoming cases_Employment dismissal case

101.2.3 Incoming cases_Insolvency

101.3.1 Resolved cases_Litigious divorce case

101.3.2 Resolved cases_Employment dismissal case

101.3.3 Resolved cases_Insolvency

101.4.1 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Litigious divorce case

101.4.2 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Employment dismissal case

622

3 667

1 954

1 038

2 669

2 000

1 003

1 778

1 022

657

657

4 558

1 917

1 085

2 819

1 891

999

2 089

1 048

743

743

5 288

1 839

932

6 596

1 851

1 075

2 717

1 036

600

896

551

815

570

727

412

721

370

638

-40,3%

-4,3%

2,5%

-1,4%

-13,3%

-9,0%

-10,8%

-0,8%

-11,5%

361

-42,0%

5,6%

13,1%

-19,5%

-7,9%

3,4%

-27,7%

-10,2%

-2,4%

598

9 169

11 999

12 995

11 661

9 449

7 916

115,9%

24,3%

16,0%

73,4%

30,9%

8,3%

-10,3%

-19,0%

-16,2%

1 709

1 748

1 644

1 607

1 326

1 143

-41,5%

-1,9%

-4,1%

-7,1%

2,3%

-5,9%

-2,3%

-17,5%

-13,8%

905

6 224

1 842

952

887

5 517

1 829

868

722

642

650

837

-19,4%

4,5%

-14,1%

-2,9%

-2,0%

-18,6%

-11,1%

1,2%

28,8%

4 306

4 158

3 766

3 033

13,6%

5,6%

134,0%

-5,6%

-11,4%

-22,0%

-3,4%

-9,4%

-19,5%

1 732

1 614

1 409

975

-51,3%

-5,5%

-2,1%

-0,5%

-0,7%

-5,3%

-6,8%

-12,7%

-30,8%

881

683

658

615

-38,7%

-0,4%

7,6%

-11,4%

-8,8%

1,5%

-22,5%

-3,7%

-6,5%

3 398

4 519

5 642

6 370

5 298

4 190

135,7%

17,5%

30,1%

25,1%

33,0%

24,9%

12,9%

-16,8%

-20,9%

900

551

815

570

727

411

720

371

638

362

806

-21,1%

2,5%

-1,1%

-13,1%

-9,4%

-10,8%

-1,0%

-11,4%

26,3%

583

-11,3%

13,1%

-19,2%

-8,2%

3,4%

-27,9%

-9,7%

-2,4%

61,0%

101.4.3 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Insolvency

4 558

5 288

9 167

11 995

12 997

11 659

9 449

7 917

6 759

48,3%

16,0%

73,4%

30,8%

8,4%

-10,3%

-19,0%

-16,2%

-14,6%

Table 3.5.1 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for specific case categories (Q101)

Table 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 Variations of CR and DT for specific case categories of first instance cases (Q101)

CR Litigious divorce cases

102,4%

98,6%

100,7%

107,8%

104,6%

105,4%

100,4%

106,3%

85,3%

(16,66)

(3,63)

2,04

7,08

(2,92)

0,69

(4,67)

5,80

(19,72)

CR Employment dismissal cases

96,6%

92,1%

115,3%

105,2%

97,9%

122,0%

106,4%

101,2%

73,5%

(23,96)

(4,71)

25,27

(8,80)

(6,97)

24,69

(12,81)

(4,85)

(27,42)

CR Insolvency cases

66,6%

74,1%

41,2%

54,6%

81,9%

131,0%

153,2%

140,7%

138,1%

107,38

11,24

(44,41)

32,54

50,03

59,96

16,92

(8,17)

(1,80)

DT Litigious divorce cases

DT Employment dismissal cases

DT Insolvency cases

187

239

936

202

271

924

204

204

178

211

163

240

1 231

1 288

1 050

153

170

754

163

198

541

165

201

545

302

61,8%

8,5%

1,0%

-12,7%

-8,8%

-5,8%

6,3%

1,5%

82,6%

346

44,7%

13,5%

-25,0%

3,7%

13,5%

-29,0%

16,4%

1,3%

72,3%

589

-37,1%

-1,3%

33,3%

4,6%

-18,5%

-28,1%

-28,2%

0,7%

7,9%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1411 / 1555

      
        
         
         
        
         
        
         
      
      
        
       
        
        
       
      
        
      
     
       
      
       
       
       
       
        
        
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.7.1 to 3.7.5 (2019 and 2020) Second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Table 3.9.1 to 3.9.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.1.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.1.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.1.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.1.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.1.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.1.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.1.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.1.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

97.1.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.1.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

97.1.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases 

97.2.1 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.2.2 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.2.3 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.2.4 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.2.5 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.2.6 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.2.7 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.2.8 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

97.2.9 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.2.10 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

97.2.11 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases 

6 158

3 924

2 234

2 129

105

83

22

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

4 818

3 141

1 677

1 590

87

74

13

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4 215

2 887

1 328

1 249

79

54

25

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4 143

3 383

2 799

2 424

2 868

2 388

1 996

1 614

1 275

1 207

68

60

8

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

995

922

73

68

5

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

803

763

40

33

7

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

810

789

21

15

6

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

22 257

20 565

18 684

16 544

14 786

13 333

11 186

12 913

11 943

10 798

9 348

8 541

7 648

6 545

9 344

8 730

614

526

88

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

8 622

8 096

526

411

115

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

7 886

7 442

444

345

99

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

7 196

6 245

5 685

4 641

6 718

5 775

5 265

4 250

478

403

75

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

470

367

103

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

420

360

60

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

391

324

67

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-21,8%

-12,5%

-1,7%

-18,3%

-17,3%

-13,4%

-20,0%

-8,1%

-0,7%

-16,7%

-16,4%

-19,1%

-24,9%

-20,8%

-4,0%

-22,0%

-19,3%

0,9%

-25,3%

-21,4%

-3,4%

-23,6%

-17,2%

3,4%

-17,1%

-9,2%

-13,9%

7,4%

-45,2%

-47,5%

-10,8%

-27,0%

11,1%

13,3%

-51,5%

-54,5%

-40,9%

92,3%

-68,0%

-37,5%

40,0%

-14,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-7,6%

-9,1%

-11,5%

-10,6%

-9,8%

-16,1%

-7,5%

-9,6%

-13,4%

-8,6%

-10,5%

-14,4%

-7,7%

-8,5%

-8,7%

-13,2%

-9,0%

-18,4%

-7,3%

-8,1%

-9,7%

-14,0%

-8,8%

-19,3%

-14,3%

-15,6%

7,7%

-1,7%

-10,6%

-6,9%

-21,9%

-16,1%

16,8%

-8,9%

-1,9%

-10,0%

30,7%

-13,9%

-24,2%

37,3%

-41,7%

11,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1412 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.3.1 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.3.2 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.3.3 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.3.4 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.3.5 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.3.6 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.3.7 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.3.8 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

97.3.9 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

97.3.10 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

97.3.11 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases 

97.4.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.4.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.4.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.4.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.4.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.4.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.4.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.4.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

97.4.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.4.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

97.4.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases

97.5.1 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.5.2 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.5.10 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

23 597

21 170

18 756

17 304

15 370

13 708

12 428

13 696

12 199

10 817

9 828

8 933

8 030

7 354

9 901

9 269

632

535

97

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

4 818

3 141

1 677

1 590

87

74

13

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

8 971

8 437

534

431

103

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4 216

2 888

1 328

1 249

79

54

25

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

7 939

7 484

455

339

116

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

4 143

2 868

1 275

1 207

68

60

8

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2

2

7 476

6 437

5 678

5 074

7 003

5 934

5 239

4 678

473

395

78

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

503

402

101

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

439

378

61

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

396

327

69

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

3 383

2 799

2 424

1 181

2 388

1 996

1 614

995

922

73

68

5

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1

1

803

763

40

33

7

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

3

3

810

789

21

15

6

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

805

376

361

15

11

4

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-10,3%

-11,4%

-7,7%

-11,2%

-10,8%

-9,3%

-10,9%

-11,3%

-9,1%

-9,1%

-10,1%

-8,4%

-9,4%

-11,5%

-5,8%

-13,9%

-11,8%

-10,6%

-9,0%

-11,3%

-6,4%

-15,3%

-11,7%

-10,7%

-15,5%

-14,8%

4,0%

6,3%

-12,7%

-9,8%

-19,4%

-21,3%

16,5%

1,8%

-6,0%

-13,5%

6,2%

12,6%

-32,8%

29,5%

-39,6%

13,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-12,5%

-1,7%

-18,3%

-17,3%

-13,4%

-51,3%

-8,1%

-0,7%

-16,7%

-16,4%

-19,1%

-50,1%

-20,8%

-4,0%

-22,0%

-19,3%

0,9%

-53,6%

-21,4%

-3,4%

-23,6%

-17,2%

3,4%

-54,2%

-9,2%

-13,9%

7,4%

-45,2%

-47,5%

-28,6%

-27,0%

11,1%

13,3%

-51,5%

-54,5%

-26,7%

92,3%

-68,0%

-37,5%

40,0%

-14,3%

-33,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-50,0%

200,0%

-50,0%

200,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1413 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 (2019 and 2020): Second instance clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.9.4 and 3.9.5 (2019 and 2020): Variation of second clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

106,0%

102,9%

100,4%

104,6%

103,9%

102,8%

111,1%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

106,1%

102,1%

100,2%

105,1%

104,6%

105,0%

112,4%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

106,0%

104,0%

100,7%

103,9%

103,1%

99,9%

109,3%

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

106,2%

104,2%

100,6%

104,2%

102,8%

99,5%

110,1%

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

102,9%

101,5%

102,5%

99,0%

107,0%

104,5%

101,3%

CR Non litigious land registry cases

101,7%

104,9%

98,3%

98,0%

109,5%

105,0%

100,9%

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

110,2%

89,6%

117,2%

104,0%

98,1%

101,7%

103,0%

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

75

84

62

63

50

50

49

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

73

86

54

54

54

46

89

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

81

97

59

59

55

65

25

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

71

89

49

48

56

63

23

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

66

82

46

47

29

30

25

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

65

73

52

55

17

14

36

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

35

40

27

28

14

12

21

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(2,90)

(2,48)

4,19

(0,62)

(1,09)

8,06

(3,70)

(1,93)

4,95

(0,52)

0,39

7,02

(1,81)

(3,24)

3,20

(0,79)

(3,10)

9,46

(1,85)

(3,50)

3,66

(1,43)

(3,16)

10,62

(1,37)

0,94

(3,44)

8,15

(2,33)

(3,10)

3,10

(6,30)

(0,25)

11,76

(4,14)

(3,88)

(18,74)

30,82

(11,24)

(5,71)

3,68

1,30

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,5%

10,9%

-11,5%

-6,9%

-2,9%

-46,3%

3,2%

12,0%

-8,4%

-8,0%

-10,0%

-45,5%

-12,6%

8,5%

-17,1%

-6,3%

14,4%

-48,1%

-13,7%

8,9%

-18,4%

-2,3%

17,1%

-48,8%

7,5%

1,0%

3,3%

-48,5%

-39,8%

-20,8%

-9,4%

41,3%

-2,7%

-52,3%

-51,7%

-15,2%

81,1%

-71,6%

-7,1%

8,1%

41,9%

-41,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1414 / 1555

        
        
         
        
        
         
        
        
         
        
         
         
        
        
         
        
        
         
        
        
         
        
        
       
        
         
        
         
        
        
         
        
        
       
        
        
      
       
      
        
         
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.10.1 to 3.10.5 (2019 and 2020) Supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Table 3.12.1 to 3.12.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of the supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.1.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.1.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.1.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.1.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.1.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.1.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.1.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.1.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

99.1.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.1.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

99.1.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.2.1 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.2.2 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.2.3 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.2.4 High inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.2.5 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.2.6 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.2.7 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.2.8 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

99.2.9 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.2.10 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

99.2.11 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

1 375

1 091

28

25

3

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

256

-

2 770

1 782

37

26

11

11

NAP

NAP

NAP

951

-

1 377

1 282

1 230

1 182

903

798

759

806

912

690

9

9

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

213

NAP

606

467

16

14

2

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

123

NAP

9

8

1

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

462

NAP

21

18

3

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

355

NAP

2 583

2 398

2 370

2 062

1 846

2 008

1 970

1 621

29

25

4

4

NAP

NAP

NAP

708

NAP

22

20

2

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

368

NAP

53

45

8

8

NAP

NAP

NAP

347

NAP

76

66

10

10

NAP

NAP

NAP

365

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,1%

-6,9%

-4,1%

-3,9%

-22,8%

-33,6%

-17,2%

-11,6%

-4,9%

6,2%

-14,4%

-32,3%

-28,6%

-35,0%

-30,8%

133,3%

-57,1%

77,8%

-40,0%

-26,7%

-27,3%

125,0%

-50,0%

55,6%

66,7%

-60,0%

-50,0%

200,0%

66,7%

-60,0%

-50,0%

200,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

77,3%

3,7%

-1,9%

-23,2%

-40,0%

-42,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,0%

0,1%

-5,0%

-7,2%

-1,2%

-13,0%

5,8%

-4,1%

2,1%

8,8%

-1,9%

-17,7%

-18,9%

-26,7%

31,8%

-24,1%

140,9%

43,4%

3,8%

-22,2%

19,0%

-20,0%

125,0%

46,7%

-72,7%

-66,7%

300,0%

-50,0%

300,0%

25,0%

-72,7%

-66,7%

300,0%

-50,0%

300,0%

25,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-15,9%

11,1%

-20,4%

-48,0%

-5,7%

5,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

20

15

5

5

NAP

NAP

NAP

454

NAP

2 715

1 885

30

27

3

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

800

NAP

13

11

2

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

471

NAP

2 719

1 808

22

21

1

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

889

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1415 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.3.1 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.3.2 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.3.3 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.3.4 High inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.3.5 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.3.6 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.3.7 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.3.8 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

99.3.9 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.3.10 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

99.3.11 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.4.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.4.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.4.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.4.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.4.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.4.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.4.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.4.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry 
cases

99.4.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.4.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative 
law cases

99.4.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.5.1 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.5.2 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.5.10 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

2 631

2 668

2 676

2 233

1 799

2 124

2 193

1 797

2 768

1 970

45

36

9

9

NAP

NAP

NAP

753

-

2 810

1 991

36

30

6

6

NAP

NAP

NAP

783

NAP

2 770

1 847

26

24

2

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

897

NAP

17

15

2

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

815

NAP

1 377

1 282

1 231

1 182

903

797

759

806

20

15

5

5

NAP

NAP

NAP

454

-

-

-

-

14

12

2

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

471

NAP

-

-

-

9

8

1

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

463

NAP

9

6

3

21

18

3

3

NAP

NAP

NAP

355

NAP

46

5

40

34

29

5

5

NAP

NAP

NAP

510

NAP

912

690

9

9

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

213

NAP

8

-

8

46

40

6

6

NAP

NAP

NAP

437

NAP

606

467

16

14

2

2

NAP

NAP

NAP

123

NAP

30

3

27

70

63

7

7

NAP

NAP

NAP

366

NAP

435

291

22

17

5

5

NAP

NAP

NAP

122

NAP

32

3

29

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,5%

-1,4%

-5,0%

1,4%

0,3%

-16,6%

1,1%

-7,2%

-2,6%

18,1%

3,2%

-18,1%

-20,0%

-27,8%

-34,6%

100,0%

35,3%

52,2%

-16,7%

-20,0%

-37,5%

93,3%

37,9%

57,5%

-33,3%

-66,7%

0,0%

150,0%

20,0%

16,7%

-33,3%

-66,7%

0,0%

150,0%

20,0%

16,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4,0%

14,6%

-9,1%

-37,4%

-14,3%

-16,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-6,9%

-4,0%

-4,0%

-22,8%

-33,6%

-28,2%

-11,7%

-4,8%

6,2%

-14,4%

-32,3%

-37,7%

-30,0%

-35,7%

133,3%

-57,1%

77,8%

37,5%

-20,0%

-33,3%

125,0%

-50,0%

55,6%

21,4%

-60,0%

-50,0%

200,0%

-60,0%

-50,0%

200,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

150,0%

150,0%

-

-

-

3,7%

-1,7%

-23,3%

-40,0%

-42,3%

-0,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

411,1%

-82,6%

275,0%

6,7%

-16,7%

-

-

0,0%

1233,3%

-80,0%

237,5%

7,4%

1416 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 Supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.12.4 and 3.12.5 Variation of the supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

99,9%

103,5%

101,9%

101,9%

111,3%

112,9%

108,3%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

110,5%

105,6%

102,2%

97,5%

105,8%

111,3%

110,9%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

121,6%

120,0%

118,2%

58,6%

154,5%

86,8%

92,1%

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

138,5%

111,1%

114,3%

60,0%

145,0%

88,9%

95,5%

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

81,8%

200,0%

200,0%

50,0%

250,0%

75,0%

70,0%

CR Non litigious land registry cases

81,8%

200,0%

200,0%

50,0%

250,0%

75,0%

70,0%

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

79,2%

97,9%

100,9%

115,1%

138,6%

125,9%

100,3%

-

182

167

162

152

203

203

NAP

NAP

NAP

220

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

167

146

142

146

122

122

NAP

NAP

NAP

220

NAP

162

150

126

122

183

183

NAP

NAP

NAP

188

NAP

164

164

451

438

548

548

NAP

NAP

NAP

159

NAP

125

119

97

113

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

152

NAP

83

78

127

128

122

122

NAP

NAP

NAP

103

NAP

71

59

115

98

261

261

NAP

NAP

NAP

122

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,57

(1,57)

(0,02)

9,23

1,48

(4,09)

(4,46)

(3,28)

(4,60)

8,54

5,24

(0,42)

(1,33)

(1,52)

(50,40)

163,64

(43,84)

6,12

(19,75)

2,86

(47,50)

141,67

(38,70)

7,39

144,44

144,44

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(75,00)

400,00

(70,00)

(6,67)

(75,00)

400,00

(70,00)

(6,67)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

23,61

3,09

14,09

20,39

(9,13)

(20,38)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-8,3%

-2,6%

1,1%

-23,9%

-33,8%

-14,0%

-12,7%

2,7%

9,0%

-27,5%

-34,4%

-24,0%

-12,5%

-11,0%

256,9%

-78,6%

31,4%

-9,6%

-4,0%

-16,7%

260,0%

-74,1%

12,8%

-22,9%

-40,0%

50,0%

200,0%

-40,0%

50,0%

200,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

114,3%

114,3%

-

-

-

-0,2%

-14,2%

-15,6%

-4,1%

-32,6%

18,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

1417 / 1555

         
        
        
         
         
        
        
        
        
         
         
        
        
        
      
     
      
         
      
         
      
     
      
         
     
           
      
     
      
        
     
           
      
     
      
        
       
         
       
       
        
      
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.14.1 to 3.14.5 First instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

094.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

094.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

094.2.1 Total -incoming

094.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

094.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

094.2.4 Other - incoming

094.3.1 Total - resolved

094.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

094.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

094.3.4 Other - resolved

094.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

094.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

094.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

094.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

28 879

9 170

12 393

7 316

73 368

9 550

27 970

35 848

70 425

7 546

28 237

34 642

31 823

11 174

12 126

8 523

4 272

3 222

521

529

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1418 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.15.1 to 3.10.2 CR and DT for first instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

098.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

098.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

098.2.1 Total -incoming

098.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

098.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

098.2.4 Other - incoming

098.3.1 Total - resolved

098.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

098.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

098.3.4 Other - resolved

Table 3.16.1 to 3.16.5 Second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

96,0%

79,0%

101,0%

96,6%

165

540

157

90

606

494

104

8

4 597

3 297

979

321

4 852

3 479

1 051

322

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1419 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

098.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

098.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

098.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

098.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

351

312

32

7

2

-

2

-

Table 3.17.1 to 3.17.2 CR and DT for second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

105,5%

105,5%

107,4%

100,3%

26

33

11

8

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1420 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.18.1 to 3.18.5 Supreme court criminal law cases (Q100)

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

100.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

100.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

100.2.1 Total -incoming

100.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

100.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

100.2.4 Other - incoming

100.3.1 Total - resolved

100.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

100.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

100.3.4 Other - resolved

100.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

100.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

100.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

100.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

303

294

9

NAP

663

622

42

NAP

688

650

38

NAP

278

266

12

NAP

2

2

-

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1421 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.19.1 to 3.19.2 CR and DT for supreme court  criminal law cases (Q100)

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

103,8%

104,5%

90,5%

NAP

147

149

115

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1422 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 5: Access to justice

Legal aid

Table 5.1 to Table 5.6 (Q12-2, Q16, Q18, Q19, Q20, Q20-1)

12-2.1.1 Coverage of court fees

12-2.1.2 Exemption from court fees

16.1.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (criminal cases)

16.1.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (criminal cases)

16.2.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (other than criminal 
cases)

16.2.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (other than criminal cases)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

-

-

-

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

18.1.1 Legal aid for the enforcement of judicial decisions

19.1.1  Legal aid granted for other costs - criminal cases

19.1.2  Legal aid granted for other costs - other than criminal cases

020.1.1 Total

020.1.2 Total - criminal cases

020.1.3 Total - other than criminal cases

020.2.1 Total brought to court

020.2.2 Broight to court - criminal cases

020.2.3 Brought to court - other then criminal

020.3.1 Total not brought to court

020.3.2 Not broight to court - criminal cases

020.3.3 Not brought to court - other then criminal

020-1.1.1 Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulation

020-1.1.2 Average duration

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

NAP

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

9 876

NA

NA

9 138

NA

NA

738

NA

NA

NAP

30

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1423 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

System for compensating users

Table 5.7.1 and Table 5.7.2 (Q37)

037.1.1 Requests for compensation - Total

037.1.2 Requests for compensation - Excessive length of 
proceedings

037.1.3 Requests for compensation - Non-execution of court 
decisions

037.1.4 Requests for compensation - Wrongful arrest

037.1.5 Requests for compensation - Wrongful conviction

037.1.6 Requests for compensation - Other

037.2.1 Condemnations - Total

037.2.2 Condemnations - Excessive length of proceedings

037.2.3 Condemnations - Non-execution of court decisions

037.2.4 Condemnations - Wrongful arrest

037.2.5 Condemnations - Wrongful conviction

037.2.6 Condemnations - Other

037.3.1 Amount - Total

037.3.2 Amount - Excessive length of proceedings

037.3.3 Amount - Non-execution of court decisions

037.3.4 Amount - Wrongful arrest

037.3.5 Amount - Wrongful conviction

037.3.6 Amount - Other

32

15

NAP

15

2

NAP

11

3

NAP

4

4

NAP

389 871 €

61 615 €

NAP

242 108 €

86 147 €

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1424 / 1555

       
         
       
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 6.1 to Table 6.11 (Q62-7, Q62-7-1, Q62-8,  Q62-8-1, Q63-1, Q63-1-1, Q63-2 Q63-6, Q63-7, Q63-7-1, Q64-2,  Q64-4, Q64-6, Q64-3, Q64-3-1, Q64-7, Q64-7-1, 
Q64-9)

Indicator 6: The ICT tools of courts and for court users

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

62-7 Writing assistance tools coordinated at national level

62-7-1.1 Deployment rate in civil matter

62-7-1.2 Deployment rate in criminal matter

62-7-1.3 Deployment rate in administrative matter

62-8 Voice recording tools

62-8-1.1.1 Availability of simple dictation tools in civil matter

62-8-1.1.2 Availability of simple dictation tools in criminal matter

62-8-1.1.3 Availability of simple dictation tools in administrative 
matter

62-8-1.2.1 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in civil 
matter

62-8-1.2.2 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in criminal 
matter

62-8-1.2.3 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in 
administrative matter

62-8-1.3.1 Availability of voice recognition in civil matter

62-8-1.3.2 Availability of voice recognition in criminal matter

62-8-1.3.3 Availability of voice recognition in administrative matter

062-9 Availability of intranet site within the judicial system for 
distribution of news/novelties

63.1 Is there a case management system? 

63.1-1.1 CMS for civil matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for criminal matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for administrative matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.2 CMS for civil matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for criminal matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for administrative matter (status of case onlinee)

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

-

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

-

-

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1425 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63.1-1.3 CMS for civil matter (Centralised or interoperable database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for criminal matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for administrative matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.4 CMS for civil matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for criminal matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for administrative matter (Early warning signals)

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS civil matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS criminal matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS administrative matter

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - land registry

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - business registry

63-2.2 Data consolidated at national level for land registry

63-2.2  Data consolidated at national level for business registry

63-2.3 Service available online for land registry

63-2.3  Service available online for business registry

63-2.4 Statistical module integrated or connected for land registry

63-2.4  Statistical module integrated or connected for business 
registry

063-6.1.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (deployment 
rate)

063-6.1.2 Justice expenses management (deployment rate)

063-6.1.3 Other financial management tools (deployment rate)

063-6.2.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (Data 
consolidated at national level)

063-6.2.2 Justice expenses management (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.2.3 Other financial management tools (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.3.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (System 
communicating with other ministries)

063-6.3.2 Justice expenses management (System communicating 
with other ministries)

063-6.3.3 Other financial management tools (System communicating 
with other ministries)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

Fully integrated 
including BI

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

NA

0% (NAP)

True

True

False

True

True

False

True

True

NAP

True

True

NAP

NA

True

True

False

True

True

False

1426 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63-7.1 Measurement tools to assess the workload

63-7-1.1.1 Deployment rate - workload of judges

63-7-1.1.2 Deployment rate - workload of prosecutors

63-7-1.1.3 Deployment rate - workload of non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.2.1 Monitoring on national level - judges

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - prosecutors

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.3.1 Monitoring on court level - judges

63-7-1.3.2 Monitoring on court level - prosecutors

63-7-1.3.3 Monitoring on court level - non-judge and non-prosecutor 
staff

064-2 - Possibility to submit a case to courts by electronic means

064-2 - Civil and/or commercial

064-2 - Criminal

064-2 - Administrative

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - civil

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - criminal

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory  - administrative

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - civil

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - criminal

064-2 - Specific legislative framework  - administrative

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - civil

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - criminal

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - administrative

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

1-9%

1-9%

1-9%

1-9%

1-9%

1-9%

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1427 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-3 - Is it possible to request for granting legal aid by electronic 
means? 

064-3-1.1 - Equipment rate

064-3-1.2 - Request in paper mandatory

064-3-1.3 - Specific legislative framework

064-3-1.4 - Granting LA is also electronic

064-3-1.5 - Information available in CMS

064-4 - Possibility to transmit summons to a judicial meeting or a 
hearing by electronic means

064-4-1.1.1 - Summons produced by CMS- civil

064-4-1.1.2 - Summons produced by CMS- criminal

064-4-1.1.3 - Summons produced by CMS- administrative

064-4-1.2.1 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- civil

064-4-1.2.2 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- criminal

064-4-1.2.3 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- administrative

064-4-1.3.1 - Consent of the user - civil

064-4-1.3.2 - Consent of the user - criminal

064-4-1.3.3 - Consent of the user - administrative

064-6.1.1 - Civil and/or commercial (deployment rate)

064-6.1.2 - Criminal (deployment rate)

064-6.1.3 - Administrative (deployment rate)

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

100%

100%

100%

1-9%

1-9%

1-9%

1-9%

1-9%

1-9%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1428 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-6.2.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.2 - Criminal (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.3 - Administrative (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.3.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Modalities)

064-6.3.2 - Criminal (Modalities)

064-6.3.3 - Administrative (Modalities)

064-6.4.1 - Civil and/or commercial (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.2 - Criminal (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.3 - Administrative (specific legal framework)

064-6.5.1 - Civil and/or commercial (availability for)

064-6.5.2 - Criminal (availability for)

064-6.5.3 - Administrative (availability for)

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1429 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-7.1.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (deployment rate)

064-7.1.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.2.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (Modalities)

064-7.2.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.3.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (specific legal framework)

064-7.32.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-7.3.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts (specific 
legal framework)

064-7.3.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-9 - Existance of online processing devices of specialised 
litigation

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

-

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1430 / 1555

    
    
    
    
    
    
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

46.1.1 Total Number of professional judges

46.1.2 Number of 1st inst professional judges

46.1.3 Number of 2nd inst professional judges

46.1.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges

46.2.1 Number of professional judges_males

46.2.2 Number of 1st instance professional judges_males

46.2.3 Number of 2nd instance professional judges_males

46.2.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges_males

46.3.1  Number of professional judges_females

46.3.2  Number of 1st inst professional judges_females

46.3.3  Number of 2nd inst professional judges_females

46.3.4  Number of Supreme court professional judges_females

046-2.1.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Total

046-2.2.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Civil and commercial

046-2.2.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.3.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Criminal

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

Indicator 7: Professionals of justice  (Indicator 9 in 2019)

Table 7.1.1 to 7.5.6 for judges, non judge staff, prosecutors, non prosecutor staff and salaries

970

753

183

34

217

148

48

21

753

605

135

13

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

951

738

116

33

212

122

16

20

739

589

73

13

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

924

724

171

29

202

139

45

18

722

585

126

11

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

897

665

202

30

201

126

57

18

696

539

145

12

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

880

641

208

31

185

115

52

18

695

526

156

13

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

859

628

199

32

187

120

50

17

672

508

149

15

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

867

636

199

32

186

119

48

19

681

517

151

13

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

873

634

209

30

181

111

52

18

692

523

157

12

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

875

-9,8%

-2,0%

-2,8%

-2,9%

-1,9%

-2,4%

0,9%

0,7%

0,2%

638

-15,3%

-2,0%

-1,9%

-8,1%

-3,6%

-2,0%

1,3%

-0,3%

0,6%

208

13,7%

-36,6%

47,4%

18,1%

3,0%

-4,3%

0,0%

5,0%

-0,5%

29

-14,7%

-2,9%

-12,1%

3,4%

3,3%

3,2%

0,0%

-6,3%

-3,3%

176

-18,9%

-2,3%

-4,7%

-0,5%

-8,0%

1,1%

-0,5%

-2,7%

-2,8%

110

-25,7%

-17,6%

13,9%

-9,4%

-8,7%

4,3%

-0,8%

-6,7%

-0,9%

48

0,0%

-66,7%

181,3%

26,7%

-8,8%

-3,8%

-4,0%

8,3%

-7,7%

18

-14,3%

-4,8%

-10,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-5,6%

11,8%

-5,3%

0,0%

699

-7,2%

-1,9%

-2,3%

-3,6%

-0,1%

-3,3%

1,3%

1,6%

1,0%

528

-12,7%

-2,6%

-0,7%

-7,9%

-2,4%

-3,4%

1,8%

1,2%

1,0%

160

18,5%

-45,9%

72,6%

15,1%

7,6%

-4,5%

1,3%

4,0%

1,9%

11

-15,4%

0,0%

-15,4%

9,1%

8,3%

15,4%

-13,3%

-7,7%

-8,3%

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1431 / 1555

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

046-2.4.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - 
Administrative

046-2.4.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.5.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Other

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 52.1.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in courts 

3 330

3 239

3 355

3 300

3 330

3 328

3 391

3 427

3 427

2,9%

-2,7%

3,6%

-1,6%

0,9%

-0,1%

1,9%

1,1%

0,0%

481

659

516

826

511

802

506

970

494

497

43,6%

22,8%

18,8%

-4,8%

7,3%

-1,0%

-1,0%

-2,4%

0,6%

1 068

1 005

108,9%

74,2%

28,9%

-39,0%

25,3%

-2,9%

20,9%

10,1%

-5,9%

52.1.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)

52.1.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges

52.1.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks

52.1.5 Number of Technical staff

52.1.6 Number of Other non judge staff

52.2.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(men)

52.2.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(men)

52.2.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(men)

52.2.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(men)

52.2.5 Number of Technical staff(men)

52.2.6 Number of Other non judge staff(men)

52.3.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(women)

52.3.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(women)

52.3.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(women)

52.3.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(women)

52.3.5 Number of Technical staff(women)

52.3.6 Number of Other non judge staff(women)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

346

481

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

425

838

1 562

414

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

505

1 080

1 639

131

NAP

420

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1 998

1 796

1 822

1 716

1 679

1 734

162

NAP

405

49

109

172

75

192

NAP

406

49

124

136

97

193

NAP

411

43

132

132

104

199

NAP

402

41

131

120

110

186

NAP

407

38

144

126

99

191

NAP

435

44

131

159

101

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2 935

2 892

2 924

2 917

2 989

3 020

2 992

429

550

467

702

468

670

465

839

456

924

453

874

1 826

1 660

1 690

1 596

1 553

1 575

87

NAP

95

NAP

89

89

87

90

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4,9%

21,9%

-10,1%

1,4%

-5,8%

-2,2%

3,3%

-68,4%

23,7%

18,5%

0,5%

3,1%

-6,5%

2,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-3,6%

0,2%

1,2%

-2,2%

1,2%

6,9%

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

-12,2%

-4,7%

-7,3%

15,8%

13,8%

6,5%

-0,8%

9,9%

-9,0%

-20,9%

-2,9%

-9,1%

5,0%

26,2%

29,3%

7,2%

5,8%

-10,0%

2,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-1,5%

1,1%

-0,2%

2,5%

1,0%

-0,9%

-

-

-

-

-

8,9%

0,2%

-0,6%

-1,9%

-0,7%

27,6%

-4,6%

25,2%

10,1%

-5,4%

-9,1%

1,8%

-5,6%

-2,7%

1,4%

9,2%

-6,3%

0,0%

-2,2%

3,4%

-

-

-

-

-

1432 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

052-1.1.1 Non-judge staff (Total)

052-1.1.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (total)

052-1.1.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (total)

052-1.1.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (total)

052-1.2.1 Non-judge staff  (Males)

052-1.2.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (males)

052-1.2.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (males)

052-1.2.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (males)

052-1.3.1 Non-judge staff  (females)

052-1.3.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (females)

052-1.3.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (females)

052-1.3.4 Non-judge staff  at supreme court (females)

055.1.1 Prosecutors (total)

055.1.2 Prosecutors (1st inst.)

055.1.3 Prosecutors (2nd inst.)

055.1.4 Prosecutors (Highest instance)

055.2.1 Prosecutors - Males -total

055.2.2 Prosecutors - Males, 1st inst.

055.2.3 Prosecutors - Males, 2nd inst.

055.2.4 Prosecutors - Males, Supreme courts

055.3.1 Prosecutors - Females, Total

055.3.2 Prosecutors - Females, 1st inst.

055.3.3 Prosecutors - Females, 2nd inst.

055.3.4 Prosecutors - Females, Supreme courts

3 427

3 035

269

123

435

349

52

34

2 992

2 686

217

89

206

151

43

12

65

43

15

7

141

108

28

5

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1433 / 1555

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

060.1.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Total

060.2.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Males

060.3.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Females

004 Annual average salary in the country

132.1.1 Gross annual salary, in €  - Professional judge at the 
beginning of career

132.1.2 Gross annual salary, in €  - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.1.3 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor at the beginning 
of career

132.1.4 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

132.2.1 Net annual salary, in € - Professional judge at the beginning 
of career

132.2.2 Net annual salary, in € - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.2.3 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor at the beginning of 
career

132.2.4 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

133.1.1.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Reduced taxation

133.1.2.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Special pension

133.1.3.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Housing

133.1.4.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Other financial benefit

133.2.1.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Reduced taxation

133.2.2.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Special pension

133.2.3.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Housing

133.2.4.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Other financial benefit

321

64

257

22 300 €

32 628 €

63 660 €

32 628 €

63 660 €

20 568 €

36 984 €

20 568 €

36 984 €

False

False

True

False

False

False

True

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1434 / 1555

         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

144.1.1 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - Total number (1+2+3+4)

144.1.2 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 1. Breach of professional 
ethics 

144.1.3 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.1.4 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 3. Criminal offence 

144.1.5 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 4. Other

144.2.1 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - Total number 
(1+2+3+4)

144.2.2 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 1. Breach of 
professional ethics 

144.2.3 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.2.4 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 3. Criminal offence

144.2.5 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 4. Other 

145.1.1 Sanctions against Judges - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.1.2 Sanctions against Judges - 1. Reprimand

145.1.3 Sanctions against Judges - 2. Suspension

145.1.4 Sanctions against Judges - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.1.5 Sanctions against Judges - 4. Fine

145.1.6 Sanctions against Judges - 5. Temporary reduction of salary

145.1.7 Sanctions against Judges - 6. Position downgrade

145.1.8 Sanctions against Judges - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.1.9 Sanctions against Judges - 8. Resignation

145.1.10 Sanctions against  Judges - 9. Other

145.1.11 Sanctions against  Judges - 10. Dismissal

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3

3

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

NAP

NAP

NAP

0

NAP

0

0

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1435 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

145.2.1 Sanctions against Prosecutors - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.2.2 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 1. Reprimand

145.2.3 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 2. Suspension

145.2.4 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.2.5 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 4. Fine

145.2.6 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 5. Temporary reduction of 
salary

145.2.7 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 6. Position downgrade

145.2.8 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.2.9 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 8. Resignation

145.2.10 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 9. Other

145.2.11 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 10. Dismissal

1

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

0

NAP

0

0

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lawyers

Tables 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.7 and 7.8

146.1.1 Total number of lawyers practising

1 417

1 529

1 628

1 669

1 711

1 737

1 768

1 813

1 834

29,4%

7,9%

6,5%

2,5%

2,5%

1,5%

1,8%

2,5%

1,2%

146.2.1 Practicing lawyers - man

146.3.1 Practicing lawyers - woman

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

954

970

976

814

843

858

147 Does this figure include “legal advisors” who cannot represent 
their clients in court (for example, some solicitors or in-house 
counsellors)? 

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,7%

0,6%

3,6%

1,8%

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1436 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Slovenia (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 8: The existence and use of alternative dispute resolution methods

Table 8.1 8.2 and 8.3

166 Number of accredited or registered mediators who practice 
judicial mediation: 

347

341

311

292

167.1.1 Total number started

167. 1.2 Civil and commercial cases(cid:9) - started

167. 1.2 Family cases - started

167.1.4 Administrative cases - started

167.1.5 Labour cases including employment dismissal cases - started

167.1.6. Criminal cases - started

167.1.7 Consumer cases - started

281

2 844

2 320

NA

NAP

524

NAP

-

272

276

267

258

-25,6%

-1,7%

-8,8%

-6,1%

-3,8%

-3,2%

1,5%

-3,3%

-3,4%

3 093

2 818

2 787

2 437

2 625

2 451

2 414

2 076

NA

NAP

NA

NAP

-

NA

NAP

367

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

373

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

361

NAP

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

8,8%

-8,9%

-1,1%

-12,6%

13,1%

-6,6%

-1,5%

-14,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,6%

-3,2%

-

-

-

-

Key: Variation of more than (+ -) 20% 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1437 / 1555

Judiciary at a glance in Spain

General data

Population:

47 344 649

GDP per capita: 23 692 €

Average annual 

salary:

22 849 €

Professionals

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Spain

Spain

EU Median

EU Median

Professional judges

Professional judges

11,26

23,92

11,26

23,92

Non-judge staff

102,69

59,00

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

5,37

9,91

4,82

102,69

59,00

5,37

9,91

15,22

4,82

15,22

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual 
salary in the country

Spain

Spain

EU Median

EU Median

Judge at the beginning of a career 

2,27

5,72

2,02

5,72

4,09

Judge of the highest court 5,72

4,09

3,61

2,27

2,02
Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 
1,71
1,71

2,27

2,27

Public prosecutor at highest instance

5,72

3,61

Lawyers

Lawyers

303,71

122,09

122,09

303,71

Judge at the
beginning of a career

Judge of the highest
court

Prosecutor at the
beginning of a career

Public prosecutor at
highest instance

Efficiency

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

1st instance 2nd instance

Supreme Court
Supreme 
Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance 2nd instance Supreme Court

100%

,

%
9
6
1
Civil and
1
commercial
Administrativ
%
3
e
6
8
cases
Total 
criminal law 
cases

,

,

%
86,3%
%
5
1
9
9
4
9

,

99,5%

,

%
0
3
0
1

%
8
8
8

,

116,9%

%
94,1%
6
4
7

,

74,6%

103,0%

%
7
4
7

,

74,7%

%
88,8%
3
4
7

,

74,3%

1
1

1

1
1

Civil and commercial litigious cases
468
Administrative cases 406

227
452

888

Total criminal law cases314

350

59

227

468

452

406

888
350

412

412

59

314

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

Administrative
cases

Total criminal law
cases

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

Information and communication technology

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

Assistance toolsCase management system
2018

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the workload
2019

Electronic communication

EU Median 2020

2020

2018
2019
2020

1,00
1,00
2,33

EU Median 2020

2,00

4,92

4,92

2,33

2,00

1,00

1,00

4,92
4,92
4,92

4,92
5,17

5,17

0,00
0,00
1,00

4,00
4,00
4,00

8,33
8,33
9,17

9,17

8,33

8,33

6,94

1,25

2,50

6,94

4,00

4,00

4,00

2,50

1,00

1,25

0,00

0,00

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

*ICT calculations are described in more details in Annex 5 - IT Calculation methodology

1438

2020

Synthesis table for the main indicators for:

Spain

Economic and demographic data

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Variations

Population

GDP per capita

Exchange rate (local currency needed to 
obtain 1€)

Average annual salary

46 006 414

22 300

NAP

22 726

Resources

2012

2013

Professional judges per 100 000 inhab.

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhab.

Lawyers per 100 000 inh.

Mediators

ICT overall assesment

11,2

97,3

285,5

NA

First instance incoming cases per 100 
inhab.

2012

2013

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

3,828

0,428

First instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

2012

2013

100%

124%

First instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

2012

2013

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
cases (days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

264

427

DT total criminal law cases (days)

First instance pending cases per 100 
inhab. on 31 dec.

2012

2013

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

2,76

0,62

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

46 439 864

46 438 422

46 528 966

46 698 569

47 007 367

47 431 256

47 344 649

22 800

23 300

23 985

24 919

25 703

26 255

23 692

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

22 803

22 770

23 033

23 462

22 849

2,9%

6,2%

NAP

0,5%

0,2%

5,2%

NAP

-0,1%

1,0%

7,2%

NAP

1,2%

0,7%

3,1%

0,9%

2,1%

-0,2%

-9,8%

NAP NAP

NAP

1,9%

-2,6%

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

11,5

11,6

11,5

11,5

11,5

11,3

11,2

104,6

107,1

105,7

100,4

101,4

100,8

102,7

290,7

322,6

305,3

308,8

304,6

302,3

303,7

2,5

7,1

NA

11,4

14,8

6,5

16,3

6,5

18,8

0,0

0,3%

5,6%

6,4%

NA

0,1%

1,1%

5,0%

NA

-0,1%

-4,1%

-0,2%

0,1%

1,0%

-1,4%

-2,3%

-0,5%

-0,8%

-0,2%

1,9%

0,5%

NA

30,0%

10,1%

15,6%

0,0%

-100,0%

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

2,164

2,337

2,148

2,541

2,732

2,726

2,549

-33,4%

-0,7%

27,2%

7,5%

-0,2%

-6,5%

0,4

0,368

0,354

0,354

0,367

0,421

0,327

-23,6%

-9,9%

3,5%

3,7%

14,7%

-22,2%

1,318

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

98%

95%

103%

88%

87%

113%

117%

112%

104%

100%

94%

92%

86%

99%

75%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

-13,39

5,14

-16,45

-24,23

-0,90

-11,98

-1,16

-4,83

7,30

-7,40

-7,74

7,25

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

318

361

325

317

282

312

329

322

362

331

353

338

468

406

314

76,9%

-11,3%

28,4%

-4,9%

-13,5%

5,9%

9,8%

2,9%

-2,4%

32,4%

2,1%

20,1%

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

1,85

0,44

1,97

0,37

1,71

0,34

2,02

0,33

2,35

0,33

2,48

0,36

2,82

0,36

0,85

2,0%

-7,3%

37,3%

16,5%

-41,5%

-22,7%

-2,1%

1,8%

5,6%

8,5%

13,6%

0,8%

Second instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

105%

96%

98%

110%

100%

100%

92%

98%

87%

92%

93%

72%

117%

94%

103%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

-7,61

-9,51

-11,22

-8,11

-5,70

-5,50

6,46

-20,02

23,90

21,91

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

 Supreme court 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Supreme court
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

178

332

194

321

181

319

216

329

271

355

279

418

227

452

59

1,4%

49,9%

25,5%

2,9%

-18,7%

-3,9%

11,3%

7,7%

18,0%

8,2%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

77%

93%

78%

67%

84%

60%

79%

82%

80%

103%

142%

126%

75%

89%

74%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

6,56

-32,39

-1,66

81,97

2,47

-1,71

-5,41

39,60

-16,50

-36,94

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

496

458

541

614

513

854

604

515

608

233

681

196

888

350

412

3,4%

18,6%

0,6%

12,1%

30,3%

86,4%

-72,8%

-54,8%

-15,6%

78,2%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1439 / 1555

In Spain there are 2 349 first instance courts of general jurisdiction. Besides, there are 1 459 first instance specialised courts.

1. Judicial organisation in Spain

Spain’s judicial organisation is structured in accordance with its territorial organisation. Pursuant to article 26 of the Organic Law on the Judiciary, the exercise of 
jurisdictional authority is attributed to the following judicial organs: 
- Sole judge courts: Justices of the Peace, Civil and Enquiry Courts, Commercial Courts, Violence against Women Courts, Penal Courts, Administrative Courts, Labour 
Courts, Juvenile Courts and Prison Courts. 
- Bench judges: Provincial Courts, High Courts, National Court and Supreme Court. 
Sole judge courts – except for Justices of the Peace, located in municipalities – are established at the top of legal districts, while benches of judges operate in the 
provinces, the Autonomous Regions and at the national level in the case of the Supreme Court and the National Court. Provincial Courts try civil and criminal cases and are 
located in the capitals of the provinces.
The Supreme Court is the sole judiciary body with jurisdiction throughout the nation and the highest court in all legal fields, except for issues of constitutional guarantees 
and rights. It has five divisions: civil, criminal, labour, administrative and military. High Courts act in each Autonomous Region and have different geographical locations to 
guarantee access to justice. They have four divisions: civil, criminal, administrative and labour. The National (Criminal) Court is a unique legal organ in Spain with 
jurisdiction over the entire national territory. It constitutes a centralised court, specialised in the knowledge of certain matters attributed by law such as crimes committed 
against the Royal Family, major drug trafficking, counterfeiting and offences committed outside the Spanish territory that are prosecuted in Spain. It has four divisions: 
review, criminal, administrative and labour.

Distribution of general courts in Spain

Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Spain - 1st instance
Spain - Higher instances

EU Median - 1st instance

EU Median - Higher instances

SpainDistribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Spain - 1st instance Spain - Higher instances
90%

General courts - Spain

General courts - Spain
EU Median

90%
87%

10%
13%

EU Median

87%

10%

13%

According to 2020 data, the distribution between 1st instance and higher instances courts of 
general jurisdiction in Spain is somewhat different from the EU median of 87% - 13%.

Courts counted as First Instance are: Courts of first instance (civil), Courts of First Instance and Instruction (civil and criminal), Family Courts (Civil) and Courts of Mortgage 
Enforcement.
Courts counted as Second Instance General Jurisdiction are: Sections of the Provincial Courts (except special sections) and Civil and Criminal Chambers of the Superior 
Courts of Justice of the Autonomous Regions.

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Spain

Geographic 
locations

Legal entities

General jurisdiction

Specialised 
jurisdiction

763

763

763

763

698

701

702

695

2 349

2 224

2 224

2 223

2 282

2 269

2 317

2 298

1 459

1 443

1 432

1 434

1 451

1 465

1 493

1 531

2 500

2 000

1 500

1 000

500

0

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Spain

Geographic locations

Legal entities General jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

It should be noted that one building usually houses different courts. For example, in Madrid one building (Castilla Square) houses 47 unipersonal Courts.

Distribution of first instance general jurisdiction and specialised courts

Spain

Ratio general jurisdiction vs specialised

Spain

General jurisdiction Specialised courts

40%

60%

75%

40%

25%

60%

EU Median

25%

75%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1440 / 1555

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

The distribution between number of general jurisdiction courts and specialised courts of 60,0% - 40,0% is somewhat different from the EU median 
(distribution tendency in EU: 75,5% - 24,5%).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1441 / 1555

Specialised courts
Total

Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

Insolvency courts

Labour courts

Family courts

Rent and tenancies courts

Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

Internet related disputes

Administrative courts

Insurance and / or social welfare courts

Military courts

Juvenile courts

Other specialised 1st instance courts

First instance

Higher instance

1531

91

NAP

376

132

NAP

17

7

NAP

241

NAP

NAP

82

585

57

3

NAP

23

5

NAP

NAP

2

NAP

23

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

The Arbitration Court was created by decision of the General Council of the Judiciary of 25 November 2010. The latter assigns exclusive jurisdiction over arbitration matters 
to the Court of First Instance No. 101 of Madrid. This measure seeks to foster the development of uniform criteria in court proceedings for the assistance and control of 
arbitration in Madrid.
Other specialised courts include: Penal courts, Penal courts specialized in violence against women (courts for criminal trial, that have been assigned only to cases of 
gender violence), violence against women courts (courts of criminal investigation and civil proceedings related to gender violence cases), juvenile courts, Prison courts, 
foreclosure proceedings courts, Civil Capacity courts and Civil registry.

 For Commercial courts it should be specified that new units have been established in 2020. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1442 / 1555

2. Professionals of justice in Spain

● Professional judges and non-judge staff

Evolution of the number of professional judges since 2012 (Q46)

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Absolute 
number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

5 155

-

5 353

5 367

5 367

5 377

5 419

5 341

5 320

11,20

-

11,53

11,56

11,53

11,51

11,53

11,26

11,24

Professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants

23,9

11,20

11,53

11,56

11,53

11,51

11,53

11,26

11,24

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

EU median
According to 2020 data, the total number of professional judges sitting in courts (all instances) in Spain is 5 320, which is -0,4% less than in previous cycle.

23,9

More precisely, in Spain, there are 11,24 professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants (this figure is below the EU median of 23,92 judges per 100 000 inhabitants) and about 9,14 non-
judge staff per judge .

There has been a small increase compared with previous cycle when this ratio was at 8,95 non-judge staff per judge.

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and gender

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

3 752

1 495

73

5 320

Distribution by 
instance

70,5%

28,1%

1,4%

Male

1 434

911

57

2 402

Female

% Male

% Female

2 318

584

16

2 918

38,2%

60,9%

78,1%

45,2%

61,8%

39,1%

21,9%

54,8%

Distribution of professional judges by instance

Spain

EU Median

Distribution of professional judges by gender and by instance

% Female
% Male

70,5%

EU Median

72,39%

72,39%

23,98%

4,03%

28,1%

23,98%

1,4%

4,03%

61,8%

38,2%

39,1%

60,9%

21,9%

78,1%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

In this cycle, the total number of female professional judges (all instances) is 2 918, which represents 54,8% of the total number of judges.

54,8%

45,2%

Total

The total number of judges is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 3 752 are sitting in first instance courts (of which 2 318 are female); 1 495 are sitting 
in second instance courts (of which 584 are female)  and 73 are sitting in Supreme Court (of which 16 are female).  

Compared with the EU distribution of professional judges per instance it should be noticed that Spain has fewer judges in the first and third instances but more judges in the 2nd instance 
courts. 

As regards the distribution male/female, it has to be specified that females are majority only in the first instance courts (61.8% of female judges), whereas they are disproportionately less 
represented in the higher instances, especially in the Supreme courts where females take only 21.9% of judgeship positions.  

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Total

Civil and commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

3 752

1 495

73

5 320

963

406

10

1 379

1 141

457

15

1 613

241

298

33

572

1 407

334

15

1 756

In Spain, the distribution of judges per categories of cases is possible as presented in the graph below. 

Distribution of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Civil and 
commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

25,7%

27,2%

13,7%

25,9%

30,4%

30,6%

20,5%

30,3%

6,4%

19,9%

45,2%

10,8%

37,5%

22,3%

20,5%

33,0%

Distribution of the total number of professional judges by instance and 
matter

25,9% Civil and commercial

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

30,3% Criminal

0

26%

33,0% Other

30%

11%

33%

0%

10,8% Administrative

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1443 / 1555

Non-judge staff

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Number of non-judge staff

44 748

Per 100 000 inhabitants

97,26

-

-

48 563

49 746

49 186

46 871

47 645

47 816

48 620

104,57

107,12

105,71

100,37

101,36

100,81

102,69

E
U 
m

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants

97,26

104,57

107,12

105,71

100,37

101,36

100,81

102,69

2020

Total

Rechtspfleger

59,00

Non-judge staff assisting the judge

Staff in charge of administrative tasks

Technical staff

Absolute 
number

48 620

4 331

NAP

NAP

NAP

in %

8,9%

NAP

NAP

NAP

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

Other

44 289

91,1%

In 2020, Spain has 48 620 non-judge staff (a breakdown by gender is not available). The total number of non-judge staff in comparison with the previous cycle reveals an increase of 
1,7%.

In this cycle, the non-judge staff is broken down as follows:

◦ 4 331 Rechtspfleger (or similar bodies) with judicial or quasi-judicial tasks having autonomous competence and whose decisions could be subject to appeal (among which 
◦ 44 289 other (a breakdown by gender is not available);

In 2020, the number of non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants has increased (from 100,8 in 2019 to 102,7 in 2020).

During the same period, the number of judges per 100 000 inhabitants evolves from 11,3 judges per 100 000 inhabitants in 2019 to 11,2 in 2020.

It is noteworthy that Spanish judicial system distinguishes between three categories of non-judicial staff: Gestor Procesal, Tramitador Procesal and Auxilio Judicial. The sum of these three 
categories in the Courts is 44289. In addition to that, there are 1144 Forensic Doctors.
Regarding the distribution of males / females, the data can only be provided from the Autonomous Regions of the direct competence of the Ministry of Justice (5 out of 17). In these 
Autonomous Regions, the proportion of females within the civil servants in Courts is 71.76% (therefore, 28.23% of males). This proportion is possibly applicable to the whole national 
system.

Professional judges, non-judge staff and their ratio (Q46, Q52)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Spain

EU median

Professional judges

11,24

Non-judge staff

102,69

Non-judge staff per judge

9,14

23,92

59,00

3,30

Professional judges and non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Non-judge staff per judge

102,69

9,14

11,24

59,00

23,92

3,30

Spain

EU median

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff  (Q46, Q52)

Judges 
per 100 000 inh.

Non-judge staff per
100 000 inh.

Ratio between professional judges and 
non-judge staff

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

11,20

-

11,53

11,56

11,53

11,51

11,53

11,26

11,24

97,26

-

104,57

107,12

105,71

100,37

101,36

100,81

102,69

EU median 2020

3,30

8,68

-

9,07

9,27

9,16

8,72

8,79

8,95

9,14

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff 
Non-judge staff per 100 000 inh.
(Q46, Q52)

8,68

9,07

8,68

2012

2013

2014

9,07
9,27
9,16
8,72
8,79
8,95
9,14

9,27

2015

9,16

8,72

8,79

9,14

8,95

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1444 / 1555

● Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff

Absolute number of public prosecutors by instance and gender (Q55)

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

NAP

NAP

50

2 544

Distribution by 
instance

NAP

NAP

2,0%

Male

NAP

NAP

36

884

Female

NAP

NAP

14

1 660

Male

NAP

NAP

72,0%

34,7%

Female

NAP

NAP

28,0%

65,3%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance

Spain

EU Median

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance and gender

Female

Male

EU Median

73,30%

21,69%

4,66%

2,0%

4,66%

Supreme courts

28,0%

72,0%

Supreme courts

65,3%

34,7%

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female prosecutors (all instances) is 1 660, which represents 65,3% of the total number of prosecutors.

The total number of prosecutors cannot be distributed among the different judicial instances in the way presented in the table, and therefore reply NAP is indicated for 1st and 2nd 
instances. However, the data for the final instance are available and there are 50 prosecutors on this level (of which 14 are female).  

As regards the methodology of presentation of data in respect of the number of prosecutors, it should be noticed that Prosecution services in Spain does not distinguish prosecutors by 
'instance level'. However, it distinguishes three categories:                                                                                                                                                                                                                  
1st Chamber Prosecutors of the Supreme Court, equal to Magistrates of the High Court; The Deputy Prosecutor of the Supreme Court will be considered the President of the Chamber;
2nd Prosecutors, equated to Magistrates;
3. Lawyers-Prosecutors, equated to Judges.

As regards the distribution of the number of prosecutors among the different judicial instances, Spain presents some peculiarities explained above that prevent analysis by instance. 
However, data are provided in accordance with the national categories as follows:                                                                                                                                                                                   
First category ("Fiscales de Sala del Tribunal Supremo") Supreme Court Prosecutor of Chamber: Total 50, Males 36, Females 14;
Second category ("Fiscal"): Total 1830, Males 700, Females 1130;
Third ("Abogado-Fiscal"): Total 681, Males 158, Females 523.

As regards the distribution male/female, it has to be specified that females represent majority in the total number of prosecutors (65,3% female prosecutors compared to 34,7% of male 
prosecutors). However, it is noteworthy that in the final instance there are only 28% of females (14 out 50 prosecutors).

Non-prosecutor staff by gender (Q60)

Non-prosecutor staff

2020

Total

2 280

Male

NA

Female

NA

Public prosecutors, non-prosecutor staff and their ratio (Q55, Q60)

Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Spain

EU median

Public prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per 
prosecutor

5,37

4,82

0,90

9,91

15,22

1,11

Public prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per prosecutor

0,90

5,37

4,82

15,22

9,91

1,11

Spain

EU median

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1445 / 1555

● Salaries of professional judges and prosecutors at beginning of a career and at the highest instance (Q132, Q4)

Salaries of professional judges and 
prosecutors (Q132, Q4)

Average gross annual 
salary 
in €

Average net annual 
salary 
in €

Ratio with national 
average annual 
gross salary

Judge at the beginning of a career 

51 946 €

36 881 €

Judge of the highest court 

130 654 €

81 006 €

Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

51 946 €

36 881 €

Public prosecutor at highest instance

130 654 €

81 006 €

2,27

5,72

2,27

5,72

EU Median

5,72

2,02

2,27
4,09

1,71

2,02

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual salary in the 
country

Salaries of 
judges and 
prosecutors in 
Judge

4,09

5,72

at the beginning 
of a career

2,27

at the highest 
instance
1,71

Prosecutor

at the beginning 
of a career

Judge at the beginning of
career

Judge on highest instance

3,61

Spain

Prosecutor at the
beginning of career

Prosecutor at highest
instance

EU Median

at the highest 
instance

51946

3,61

130654

51946

130654

According to 2020 data, the absolute gross salary of a judge at the beginning of a career in Spain of 51 946€ is equal to the EU median. As a ratio with the annual average salary of the 
country, the salary for a judge at the beginning of career is 2,27 which is slightly above EU median of 2,02.

In addition to salary, other concepts must be taken into account: remuneration for objectives and professional substitutions.
Remuneration according to objectives can be considerable in both cases (judges and prosecutors). Substitution refers to cases in which, according to the law, one judge substitutes 
another, thereby accruing an increase in remuneration, depending on the circumstances and duration of that substitution.

● Lawyers

Lawyers

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

131 337

-

135 016

149 818

142 061

144 212

143 205

143 398

143 790

285,48

-

290,73

322,62

305,32

308,81

304,64

302,33

303,71

EU median 2020

122,09

In 2020, there are 143 790 lawyers, which is 0,3% more than in 2019.

285,48

290,73

Number of lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants

322,62

305,32

308,81

304,64

302,33

303,71

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

122,09

EU median
2020

Spain has 303,7 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants, which is above the EU median of 122,1 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants.

It should be specified that data are obtained through the Lawyers 'dashboard' (within the General Bar Association website) on practicing and resident lawyers.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1446 / 1555

● Judicial professionals (summary)

Judicial professionals in absolute number and per 100 000 inhabitants (Q46, Q52, Q55, Q60, Q146)

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

EU Median

Professional judges

5 341

11,26

23,92

Non-judge staff

48 620

102,69

59,00

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Spain

EU Median

303,71

Prosecutors

2 544

Non-prosecutor staff

2 280

5,37

4,82

9,91

15,22

102,69

59,00

122,09

Lawyers

143 790

303,71

122,09

11,26

23,92

5,37

9,91

4,82

15,22

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

% Male

% Female

Professional judges

45,2%

54,8%

Non judge staff

NA

NA

Prosecutors

34,7%

65,3%

Non-prosecutor staff

NA

NA

Professional judges

Spain % Male
Judicial professionals: Gender balance
-45,2%
Spain % Male
EU Median  % Male

Spain % Female labels

54,8%

45,2%
Spain % Female
EU Median  % Female

Professional judges

45,2%

-39,0%

61,0%

39,0%

39,0%

0,0%

Non judge staff

#VALUE!

NA

#VALUE!

Prosecutors

-24,0%
34,7%

76,0%

24,0%

Lawyers

55,9%

44,0%

Prosecutors

40,5%

-34,7%
-40,5%

Lawyers

55,9%

Non-prosecutor staff #VALUE!

Lawyers

52,3%

-28,1%

-55,9%
-52,3%

0,0%

34,7%
40,5%
0,0%

#VALUE!

28,1%
0,0%
55,9%
52,3%

65,3%
59,5%

71,9%

44,0%
47,7%

NA

54,8%

61,0%

65,3%

59,5%

44,0%

47,7%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1447 / 1555

3. Legal aid and court fees in Spain

0

1

In Spain, legal aid includes:

◦ Coverage of court fees: 

◦ Exemption from court fees: 

In Spain, legal aid is available for :

> Representation in court:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

> Legal advice, ADR and other legal services:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

>

Fees related to enforcement of judicial decisions as fees for enforcement agents (Q18) 

>

 Other costs than above (Q19) 

1

1

1

1

0

1

The legal aid supposes the exemption of the taxes for the judicial procedure. The proceeding for the enforcement of judicial decisions is not subject to taxes or judicial fees. In any 
case, the concepts and costs covered by legal aid in the enforcement would be the same as in the trial.
In relation to enforcement agents, this role is performed by public officials in Spain.

According to Legal Aid Act, legal aid covers the following: Legal assistance to the arrested, prisoner or accused who had not appointed a lawyer, for any police action; Free 
insertion of announcements, during the process, in official newspapers; Free expert assistance; Free collection (or reduction of 80% of fees depending on cases) of copies, 
testimonies, instruments and notarial acts; Reduction of 80% of fees for notes, certifications, annotations, in the Property and Commercial Registries.

 Number of cases for which legal aid has been granted

Absolute number 
(in 2020)

Total

Cases brought to court

Cases not brought to 
court

Total

1 599 883

In criminal cases

1 103 860

In other than criminal cases

496 023

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Spain

EU Median

Per 100 000 inhabitants
 (in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

3 379,2

2 331,5

In other than criminal cases

1 047,7

734,2

330,9

402,7

Number of cases for which legal has been granted per 100 000 
inhabitants

Spain

EU Median

3 379,2

2 331,5

734,2

330,9

1 047,7

402,7

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

The methodology of presentation of data, namely the model of calculation, has been changed between 2019 and 2020 (source 2020 data: "XV Informe del Observatorio de la 
Justicia Gratuita").
Criminal cases include arrested person assistance of a lawyer, genre violence and officio lawyer criminal cases.

Timeframes of the procedure for granting legal aid (in relation to the duration from the initial legal aid request to the final approval of the legal aid request)

◦ Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulations: 

◦ Actual average duration: 

30

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1448 / 1555

4. Performance of courts in Spain

● Efficiency indicators

◦ Clearance Rate (CR) and Disposition Time (DT)

The Clearance Rate shows the capacity of a judicial system to deal with the incoming cases. A Clearance Rate of 100% and higher does not generate backlog. 

The Disposition Time determines the estimated number of days necessary for a pending case to be solved in a court. 

First instance Total of other than criminal cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Evolution of number of all other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants
Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Incoming

4
6
4

,

9
6
4

,

0
8
4

,

9
7
4

,

2
1
3

,

3
1
3

,

4
2
4

,

3
4
4

,

6
7
2

,

9
5
4

,

1
3
4

,

4
0
3

,

4
9
4

,

4
5
4

,

3
4
3

,

0
3
5

,

6
9
4

,

3
7
3

,

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

NA

-

4,64

4,80

4,24

4,59

4,94

5,30

4,93

6,82

3
9
4

,

3
4
4

,

3
2
4

,

2020

NA

-

4,69

4,79

4,43

4,31

4,54

4,96

4,43

6,60

NA

-

3,12

3,13

2,76

2
8
6

,

0
6
6

,

3,04

6
6
2

,

3,43

3,73

4,23

EU median

2,66

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Spain (4,93 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below EU median (6,82 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Spain (4,43 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below EU median (6,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Spain (4,23 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly above EU median (2,66 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Other than criminal cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Other than criminal 
cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NA

-

101%

100%

105%

94%

92%

94%

90%

NA

-

242

238

227

258

276

274

349

EU median

99%

109

101%

100%

105%

94%

92%

94%

90%

99%

DT (days)

CR (%)

242

2014

238

2015

227

2016

258

2017

276

2018

274

2019

349

2020

109

EU median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 89,8% in 2020 Spain seems to face some difficulties in dealing with its other than criminal cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -3,8 points.

In 2020, other than criminal cases are solved in approximately 349 days, which is well above EU median of 109 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 27,2% increase of the Disposition Time.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1449 / 1555

First instance Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

3
8
3

,

1
8
3

,

6
7
2

,

Evolution of number of civil and commercial litigious cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

6
1
2

,

2
1
2

,

5
8
1

,

4
3
2

,

1
2
2

,

7
9
1

,

5
1
2

,

2
2
2

,

1
7
1

,

4
5
2

,

3
2
2

,

2
0
2

,

3
7
2

,

7
3
2

,

5
3
2

,

3
7
2

,

6
5
2

,

3,83
-
2,16
2,34
2,15
2,54
2,73
2,73
2,55
1,56

8
4
2

,

3,81
-
2,12
2,21
2,22
2,23
2,37
2,56
2,20
1,50

2
8
2

,

5
5
2

,

0
2
2

,

2,76
-
1,85
1,97
1,71
2,02
2,35
2,48
2,82
1,05

6
5
1

,

0
5
1

,

5
0
1

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Spain (2,55 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly above EU median (1,56 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Spain (2,20 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat above EU median (1,50 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Spain (2,82 per 100 inhabitants) is well above EU median (1,05 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

99,6%

-

98,0%

94,7%

103,1%

87,9%

86,7%

94,0%

86,3%

264

-

318

325

282

329

362

353

468

EU Median

98%

221

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

DT (days)

CR (%)

99,6%

98,0%

94,7%

103,1%

87,9%

86,7%

94,0%

86,3%

98%

264

2012

2013

318

2014

325

2015

282

2016

329

2017

362

2018

353

2019

468

221

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 86,3% in 2020, Spain seems to face some difficulties in dealing with its civil and commercial litigious cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -7,7 points.

In 2020, the civil and commercial litigious cases are solved in approximately 468 days, which is well above EU median of 221 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 32,4% increase of the Disposition Time.

The number of civil and commercial litigious cases older than 2 years is not available.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1450 / 1555

First instance Administrative cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

2
6
0

,

3
5
0

,

3
4
0

,

Evolution of number of administrative cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

4
4
0

,

4
4
0

,

9
3
0

,

3
4
0

,

7
3
0

,

7
3
0

,

0
4
0

,

5
3
0

,

4
3
0

,

7
3
0

,

5
3
0

,

3
3
0

,

7
3
0

,

7
3
0

,

3
3
0

,

2
4
0

,

0,43
-
0,39
0,37
0,35
0,35
0,37
0,42
0,33
0,30

9
3
0

,

6
3
0

,

0,53
-
0,44
0,43
0,40
0,37
0,37
0,39
0,33
0,26

6
3
0

,

3
3
0

,

3
3
0

,

0
3
0

,

0,62
-
0,44
0,37
0,34
0,33
0,33
0,36
0,36
0,21

1
2
0

,

6
2
0

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Spain (0,33 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly above EU median (0,30 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Spain (0,33 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat above EU median (0,26 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Spain (0,36 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly above EU median (0,21 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Administrative cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

123,7%

-

112,5%

117,3%

111,6%

104,5%

99,6%

92,2%

99,5%

427

-

361

317

312

322

331

338

406

EU Median

100%

388

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Administrative cases

123,7%

112,5%

117,3%

111,6%

104,5%

99,6%

92,2%

99,5%

100%

DT (days)

CR (%)

427

2012

2013

361

2014

317

2015

312

2016

322

2017

331

2018

338

2019

406

388

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 99,5% in 2020, Spain seems to deal with its administrative cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased for 7,2 points.

In 2020, the administrative cases are solved in approximately 406 days, which is slightly above EU median of 388 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 20,1% increase of the Disposition Time.

The number of administrative law cases older than 2 years is not available.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1451 / 1555

Insolvency cases

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Insolvency cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Insolvency cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

46,3%

-

77,5%

113,8%

109,5%

103,7%

95,8%

86,1%

78,9%

1965

-

1873

1606

1436

1402

1302

1146

1187

EU Median

105%

281

46,3%

1965

2012

DT (days)

CR (%)

113,8%

109,5%

103,7%

95,8%

77,5%

105%

86,1%

78,9%

1873

2014

1606

2015

1436

2016

1402

2017

1302

2018

1146

2019

1187

281

2020

EU Median

2013

The Clearance Rate was calculated at 78,9% in 2020 for insolvency cases, Spain seems to face difficulties in dealing with its insolvency cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has decreased by -7,2 points.

In 2020, insolvency cases are solved in a approximately 1 187 days, which is well above EU median of 281 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a 3,6% increase of the Disposition Time.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1452 / 1555

● First instance Criminal Law Cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

358 146

623 828

465 430

400 834

Severe criminal cases 

253 301

248 714

234 348

276 013

Misdemeanour and/or 
minor cases

104 845

375 114

358 956

124 821

Other cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

Incoming cases

Spain

2
3
1

,

EU Median

8
9
0

,

5
8
0

,

Total criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases Resolved casesPending 
Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

1,32

0
6
1

,

8
4
1

,

0,98

0,85

1,60

1,48

0,46

6
4
0

,

Per 100 inhabitants

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 
Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

0,76

0,54

0,22

NAP

1,32

0,53

0,79

NAP

0,98

0,49

0,76

NAP

0,85

0,58

0,26

NAP

Spain

EU Median

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, and other 
criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases

Resolved cases

Pending cases 31 Dec

Total

Severe criminal
cases

1,32

0,98

0,85

0,53
0,49

0,58

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

0,26

0,79
0,76

The number of total incoming criminal cases in 2020 in Spain (1,32 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below EU median (1,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total resolved criminal cases in 2020 in Spain (0,98 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below EU median (1,48 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total pending criminal cases at the end of 2020 in Spain (0,85 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly above EU median (0,46 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT)

Total criminal law cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

DT (days)

CR (%)

Total

Severe criminal 
cases 

Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

74,6%

94,2%

95,7%

NAP

314

430

127

NAP

Total Criminal law cases

95,2%

74,6%

Severe, Misdemeanour and/or minor criminal cases, 
and other criminal law cases 

94,2%

95,7%

EU Median

95,2%

139

EU Median

314

Total

139

EU Median

430

Severe criminal
cases

127

Misdemeanour
and/or minor cases

With the Clearance Rate calculated at 74,6% in 2020 for total criminal cases, Spain seems to face difficulties in dealing with its total criminal cases.

In 2020, criminal law cases were solved in approximately 314 days, which is well above EU median of 139 days.

It should be noted that pandemic, and the restrictions it entailed, have possibly had an impact on the decrease of the number of resolved cases.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1453 / 1555

Overall efficiency by instance and by case matter

CR (%)

DT (days)

CR (%)

DT (days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases

86,3%

116,9%

74,7%

Administrative cases

99,5%

94,1%

88,8%

Total criminal law cases

74,6%

103,0%

74,3%

468

406

314

227

452

59

888

350

412

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)
2nd instance

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court
Supreme Court

1st instance
%
9
6
1
1

,

%
5
9
9

,

%
7
4
7

,

86,3%
99,5%

%
1
4
9

,

%
8
8
8

,

116,9%
%
6
94,1%
4
7

,

,

%
0
3
0
1

%
3
4
7

,

74,7%
88,8%

Civil and
commercial 
Administrative cases

100%

%
3
6
8

,

Total criminal law cases

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

Administrative cases Total criminal law

74,6%

103,0%

cases

74,3%

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1

1
1

1
1

888

227

468

350

452

406

412

59
314

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

Regarding Civil and commercial litigious cases, it should be noted that first instance courts and Supreme Court face difficulties in dealing with this category of cases 
as CR shows low values (86,3% and 74,7% respectively). This might further increase the number of pending cases that is already high and affect DT levels which are 
currently 2 times higher than EU median in the 1st instance courts and around 4 times higher than EU median in the Supreme court. The second instance courts 
seemed to achieve better results in 2020, with clearance rate above 100% threshold (116,9%) which had an impact on the reduction of pending cases at the end of 
the year and more favourable DT that was on the level of around 1,3 EU median values. 

Identical trends can be observer for criminal cases where CR is very low and DT high in the first and third instances. The situation in the third instance can be partly 
explained with broadening the scope of the cassation appeals that reach the Supreme Court which caused a gradual increase in the number of cases (already in 2018 
the final pending cases were higher than the initial number, followed by increase in incoming cases in 2019; all this resulted in significant increase in the number of 
pending cases at the end of 2020). At the same time, the second instance achieved very good results with CR of 103% and very low DT of 59 days (compared to EU 
median of 101 days). 

The administrative cases showed more stable levels of CR and DT. Although CR was lower than 100% in all three instances, only third instance had a CR level under 
90% (precisely 88.8%). Partly, this could be explained by the dynamics of work over the last two years in the Supreme Court Administrative Room, as judgements 
based on the unified doctrine related to the tax on the retail sales of certain hydrocarbons facilitated the resolution of cases in previous years and partly caused the 
good clearance rate in 2019. However, considering that there were fewer of these cases in 2020, the number of resolved cases decreased. Regarding levels of DT, it 
can be observed that they were stable and close to EU medians (1,05 EU median values in the first instance and around 1,25 EU medians in the 2nd instance and the 
Supreme Court).  

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1454 / 1555

5. Public prosecution services in Spain

● Role and powers of the public prosecutor

In the criminal procedure, the public prosecutor in Spain has the following 10 out of 11 possible roles and powers:

To conduct or supervise police investigation

To appeal

To conduct investigations

To supervise the enforcement procedure

When necessary, to request investigation measures from the judge

To discontinue a case without needing a decision by a judge

To charge

To present the case in the court

To propose a sentence to the judge

The public prosecutor also has a role in civil, administrative and insolvency cases.

● Public prosecutors: Number of first instance criminal cases

Type of cases

Absolute 
number

Per 100 
inhabitants

1. Pending cases on 1 Jan. ref. year 

NA

NA

2. Incoming/received cases

1 840 128

3,89

To end the case by imposing or negotiating a penalty or measure 
without requiring a judicial decision

Other significant powers

Public prosecutors: Total number of first instance criminal 
Incoming/rec
cases per 100 inhabitants
eived cases

Pendin
g cases 
Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. Year
on 31 

Processed 
cases

Processed cases

Incoming/received cases

3. Processed cases (3.1 + 3.2 + 3.3 + 3.4)

NAP

NAP

3,89

Spain

3,89 NAP

NA

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year (3.1.1 + 3.1.2 + 3.1.3 
+ 3.1.4)

3.1.1 Discontinued by the public prosecutor because the 
offender could not be identified 

3.1.2 Discontinued by the public prosecutor due to the lack 
of an established offence or a specific legal situation 

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

3.1.3 Discontinued by the public prosecutor for reasons of 
opportunity

NAP

NAP

EU Median

2,84

2,85
2,85 2,84

0,84

NAP

NA

Spain

0,84

EU Median

3.1.4 Discontinued for other reasons 

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated 
by the public prosecutor

NA

NA

NA

NA

Processed cases

Spain

EU Median

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

0,00

1,05

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons

NAP

NAP

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor

3.4. Cases brought to court

4. Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. year

NA

NA

NA

NA

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons
0,30

0,00

3.4. Cases brought to court

0,00

0,53

0,00

0,12

Regarding data on the number of public prosecutors' cases, there are some specificities that have to be taken into account. In Spain, the general rule is that the Prosecutor is a 
party in the criminal cases, but the Prosecutor does not process (with exclusive competence) the criminal cases. The investigation Judge (Juez de Instrucción) does that. Data 
provided above try to adapt the information from the Annual Report of the State Attorney General's Office to the criteria set by CEPEJ, by offering the data of cases received by the 
Prosecution Service in 2020, according to the classification of procedures of the Spanish procedural legislation (diligencias previas, diligencias urgentes, procedimiento por delitos 
leves, sumarios y procedimientos del jurado). In addition to that, there are other two kinds of actions for which the Prosecution have exclusive competence: Investigation of 
criminal responsibility of minors, and preliminary diligences of Article 773.2 of the Criminal Procedural Act. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1455 / 1555

 
6. Existence and use of alternative dispute resolution in Spain

Number of mediators

Mediators

Total

Per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

NA

-

1151

3289

NA

5302

6939

7710

8896

NA

-

2,5

7,1

NA

11,4

14,8

16,3

18,8

EU Median 2020

EU median in 2019

14,4

Number of mediators per 100 000 inhabitants

EU Median
2020

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

NA

2015

2014

2,5

7,1

18,8

14,4

16,3

14,8

11,4

In 2020, there are 8 896 accredited or registered mediators who practise court related mediation which represents 18,8 accredited or registered mediators per 100 
000 inhabitants.

The variation between  2019 and  2020 is about 15,4%.

It should be noted that figure provided represents the number of mediators (natural and legal persons) registered in the Registry of Mediators. This Registry is not 
compulsory, so the number of persons that act as mediators may be higher.

Number of court related mediations

Type of cases

Total of all cases

Civil and commercial

Family cases

Administrative

Employment dismissal

Criminal cases

Consumer cases

Number of cases 
for which the parties
agreed to start 
mediation

Number of finished 
court-related
mediations

Number of cases 
in which there is a 
settlement agreement

NA

764

2737

NA

2134

2485

NA

NA

420

1617

NA

2910

1700

NA

NA

64

292

NA

1102

781

NA

Given the severe restrictions between March and May of 2020, the pandemic is a possible explanation of the decreased number of court-related mediation 
proceedings in respect of all legal matters.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1456 / 1555

7. ICT tools of courts in Spain

●The ICT tools of courts and for court users

The use of ICT in courts in 2020 has been evaluated as  :

EU Median

Total 
(0 to 10)

Assistance tools (0 to 3)

Case management system (0 to 7)
Financial management tools (0 to 3)

Measurement tools to assess the workload (0 to 5)
Electronic communication (0 to 10)

7,6
2,3

4,9

1,0
4,0

9,2

6,6
2,0

5,2

1,3
2,5

6,9

The calculation of this values for each field is based on the answers for that question/s and weighted according the avaiability 
or deployment rate. The total value is normalised to max 10 points for readability and comparison.

The details of the calculation are given in Annex 5 - IT calculations

The result by area may be summarized in these graphics, where each field has been evaluated from 0 to 4 points.

Note: index is modified based on the available questions. This cycle the recalculation was made for the last three cycles to be 
able to follow the development.

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

2018

2019

2020

EU Median 2020

Case 
management 
system

Financial 
management 
tools

Measurement 
tools to assess 
the workload

Electronic 
communication

9,17

8,33

8,33

6,94

Assistance 
tools

Year
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
EU Median 20202,00

1,00

1,00

2,33

2,33

4,92

4,92

4,92

5,17

4,92

4,92

4,92

5,17

2,00

0,00

0,00

1,00

4,00

4,00

4,00

8,33

8,33

9,17

1,25

2,50

6,94

4,00

4,00

4,00

2,50

1,00

1,00

1,25

1,00

0,00

0,00

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1457 / 1555

8. Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and public prosecution services in Spain

In Spain, quality standards are determined for the judicial system at national level (e.g. quality systems for the judiciary and/or judicial quality policies). However, there is no 
specialised personnel within the courts or the public prosecution services entrusted with implementation of these national level quality standards.

● Systems for measuring and evaluating courts' performance

A regular monitoring system of court activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

The category “Other” encompasses: number of enforcement procedures, number of decisions appealed, number of rogatory letters issued, received and resolved, aid between 
courts, pending writings, form of termination of trials, etc.

In Spain, there is a system to regularly evaluate the court performance based primarily on defined indicators and the reporting is more frequent than annual.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each court.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

The statistic report that the Court sends every three months to the Inspection Service, and the reports and studies that the General Council for the Judiciary carry out with the 
information provided, serve to measure and control the burden of work of the Judges, Letrados de la Administración de Justicia, and Courts in general.
On the other hand, the “Citizens’ bill of rights before the law” is the document approved by the Parliament at 2002 that includes the list of rights of the citizen in their relation 
with the administration of justice, and the principles and good practices that must guide the service of the Justice to the citizens. It sets the principles of transparency, 
appropriate attention and information, gives special care and attention to the citizens who are most vulnerable (victims of crime, gender violence, minors, and other). The 
document is compulsory for all the professionals involved in Justice. According to this Bill of rights, the Parliament, through the Committee for Justice, will carry out a follow-up 
monitoring and continuous evaluation of the evolution of, and compliance with this Bill. The annual report submitted by the Council for the Judiciary to the Parliament will 
include a specific and sufficiently detailed reference to the claims, complaints, and suggestions made by citizens about the running of the Administration of Justice.
In addition to that, during the beginning of the implementation of the judicial offices (2010), a map of procedures and a quality management system with own indicators for this 
kind of offices were implemented. The model has been under review and is expected to be reviewed on the basis of electronic processing.
Finally, the hierarchical structure of the Letrados de la Administración de Justicia allow the Ministry of Justice control and ensure the compliance of standards and parameters 
of quality fixed, and achieve the new objectives fixed for the implementation of new measures (such the digitalization of Justice or the implementation of electronic tools right 
now).
The evaluation of the courts' activities is used for the later allocation of means in the courts.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1458 / 1555

● Systems for measuring and evaluating public prosecution services' performance

A regular monitoring system of public prosecution services activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases 

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs 

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecution) 

Costs of the judicial procedures 

Clearance rate 

Disposition time 

Percentage of convictions and acquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

In Spain, there is a system to evaluate regularly the activity of each public prosecution service and the reporting is more frequent than annual.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each public prosecution service.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecutors)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Percentage of convictions and acquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff

The evaluation of the public prosecution services' activities is used for the later allocation of means in the public prosecution services.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1459 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Q1 Number of inhabitants

Q.3 GDP Per capita (in €) in current prices

Q5. Exchange rate of Nat currency to € on 1 Jan

46 006 414

22 300

NAP

-

-

-

46 439 864

46 438 422

46 528 966

46 698 569

47 007 367

47 431 256

47 344 649

2,9%

22 800

23 300

23 985

24 919

25 703

26 255

23 692

6,2%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,2%

0,4%

0,7%

0,9%

-0,2%

2,2%

2,9%

3,9%

3,1%

2,1%

-9,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

Table General Data: Economic and demographic data, in absolute values (Q1, Q3, Q5)

Indicator 1: Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and prosecution services  (Indicator 4 in 2019)

Table 1.1 to Table 1.10 (Q66, Q67, Q77, Q78, Q77-1, Q78-1, Q73, Q73-0, Q73-1, Q73-2, Q73-3, Q73-4, Q73-5, Q73-6, Q70, Q70-1, Q71, Q72, Q83-2, Q83-3, Q120 
and Q120-1)

66 Qlty standards formulated_jud system

67 Specialised court staff entrusted_qlty standards

77 Performance and quality indicators of court activities

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

-

-

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

No

078.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078.1.5 Backlogs 

078.1.6 Productivity of judges and court staff

078.1.7 Satisfaction of court staff 

078.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts) 

078.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078.1.10 Number of appeals

078.1.11 Appeal ratio

078.1.12 Clearance rate 

078.1.13 Disposition time 

078.1.14 Other

077-1.1.1 Defined performance and quality indicators

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1460 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

078-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078-1.1.5 Backlogs 

078-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

078-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

078-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

078-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

078-1.1.11 Disposition time 

078-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

078-1.1.13 Other

True

True

True

True

False

True

False

False

False

False

False

True

False

73 Regular system_evaluation_performance_each court

Yes

-

Yes

Yes

073-0.1.1 Annual

073-0.1.2 Less frequent

073-0.1.3 More frequent

073-1.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
court

073-2.1.1 Courses of action taken in the evaluation is used for the 
allocation of resources

073-2.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-2.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-2.1.4 Other

073-3.1.1 Regular evaluation of the public prosecution services 
performance

Yes

Yes

True

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1461 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

073-4.1.1 Annual

073-4.1.2 Less frequent

073-4.1.3 More frequent

073-5.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
public prosecution services

073-6.1.1 Identifying the causes of improved or deteriorated 
performance

073-6.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-6.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-6.1.4 Other

070.1.1 number of incoming cases

070.1.2 length of proceedings (timeframes)

070.1.3 number of resolved cases

070.1.4 number of pending cases

070.1.5 backlogs

070.1.6 productivity of judges and court staff

070.1.7 satisfaction of court staff

070.1.8 satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts)

070.1.9 costs of the judicial procedures

070.1.10 number of appeals

070.1.11 appeal ratio

070.1.12 clearance rate

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

-

-

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1462 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

070-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases 

070-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

070-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

070-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

070-1.1.5 Backlogs 

070-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

070-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

070-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

070-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

070-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

070-1.1.11 Disposition time 

070-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

070-1.1.13 Other

071.1.1 Monitoring backlogs in Civil law cases

071.1.2 Monitoring backlogs in Criminal law cases

071.1.3 Monitoring backlogs in Administrative law cases

072.1.1 Monitoring timeframes Within the courts

072.1.2 Monitoring timeframes Within the public prosecution services

083-2.1.1 Quantitative performance tagets defined for each 
prosecutors

083-3.1.1 Body responsible - Executive power (for example the 
Ministry of Justice)

083-3.1.2 Body responsible - Prosecutor General /State public 
prosecutor

083-3.1.3 Body responsible - Public Prosecutorial Council

083-3.1.4 Body responsible - Head of the organisational unit or 
hierarchically superior public prosecutor

083-3.1.5 Body responsible - Other

True

True

True

True

False

True

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1463 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

120.1.1 Qualitative individual assessment of the public prosecutors' 
work

120-1.1.1 Feequency - Annual

120-1.1.2 Feequency - Less frequent

120-1.1.3 Feequency - More frequent

Q42.1.1Total number of all courts - legal entities 

Q42.1.2 Total number of courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

-

-

Q42.1.3 First instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

2 349

Q42.1.4 Second instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.5 Highest instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.6 Total number of specialised courts - legal entities

-

-

-

43.1.1 Total number of specialised courts of first instance

1 459

43.1.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.1.3 Insolvency courts

43.1.4 Labour courts

43.1.5 Family courts

43.1.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.1.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.1.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.1.9 Internet related disputes

43.1.10 Administrative courts

43.1.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.1.12 Military courts

43.1.13 Juvenile courts

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

65

NAP

345

103

NAP

17

NA

NAP

241

NAP

NAP

-

False

-

-

-

Indicator 2: The judicial organisation

Tables 2.1a; 2.1b; 2.2a; 2.2b; 2.3a; 2.3b; 2.4 and 2.5(EC) (Q42, Q43 and Q44)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4 128

2 540

-

-

2 224

2 224

2 223

2 282

2 269

2 317

2 298

-2,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

239

3

1 588

-

-

-

1 443

1 432

1 434

1 451

1 465

1 493

1 531

4,9%

64

NAP

345

105

64

NAP

345

109

64

NAP

345

104

68

70

74

91

40,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

354

104

354

127

365

126

376

9,0%

132

28,2%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

16

7

NAP

241

NAP

NAP

-

17

7

NAP

241

NAP

NAP

-

18

7

NAP

241

NAP

NAP

-

18

7

NAP

241

NAP

NAP

-

17

7

NAP

241

NAP

NAP

-

17

7

NAP

241

NAP

NAP

-

17

7

NAP

0,0%

-

-

241

0,0%

NAP

NAP

82

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

2,7%

-0,6%

2,1%

-0,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-0,8%

0,1%

1,2%

1,0%

1,9%

2,5%

0,0%

0,0%

6,3%

2,9%

5,7%

23,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

2,6%

0,0%

3,1%

3,0%

3,8%

-4,6%

0,0%

22,1%

-0,8%

4,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

6,3%

5,9%

0,0%

-5,6%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1464 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

43.1.14 Other specialised courts

688

43.2.1 Total number of specialised courts of higher instances

43.2.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.2.3 Insolvency courts

43.2.4 Labour courts

43.2.5 Family courts

43.2.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.2.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.2.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.2.9 Internet related disputes

43.2.10 Administrative courts

43.2.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.2.12 Military courts

43.2.13 Juvenile courts

43.2.14 Other specialised courts

44.1.1 First instance courts geographic locations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

44.1.2 All courts geographic locations

763

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

665

649

655

659

656

663

585

-15,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

57

3

NAP

23

5

NAP

NAP

2

NAP

23

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

617

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

763

763

763

698

701

702

695

-8,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,4%

0,9%

0,6%

-0,5%

1,1%

-11,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

-8,5%

0,4%

0,1%

-1,0%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1465 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Indicator 3: The performance of courts at all stages of the proceedings

Tables 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.4 (all years) Number of other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 Variation of first instance other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants (Q1, Q91)

91.1.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.1.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.1.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.1.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.1.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.1.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.1.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.1.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

91.1.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.1.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

91.1.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

91.2.1 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.2.2 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.2.3 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.2.4 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.2.5 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.2.6 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.2.7 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.2.8 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

91.2.9 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

NA

1 299 099

-

59 995

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

335 512

NAP

NA

1 761 051

-

183 225

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

91.2.10 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

196 995

91.2.11 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

Table 3.13.7 (EC) to 3.13.12 (EC) First instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

1 470 400

1 445 180

1 382 963

1 281 288

1 426 264

1 615 361

1 769 954

-

836 967

857 047

840 840

795 775

942 844

1 105 539

1 175 930

-9,5%

407 160

384 727

365 705

328 098

331 391

354 118

423 548

-

407 160

384 727

365 705

328 098

331 391

354 118

423 548

606,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

226 273

203 406

176 418

157 415

152 029

155 704

170 476

-49,2%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2 154 560

2 230 166

1 972 326

2 144 395

2 324 441

2 514 806

2 332 870

-

-

1 004 976

1 085 451

999 383

1 186 759

1 284 086

1 292 934

1 206 721

-31,5%

966 903

973 915

808 117

792 497

868 023

1 022 349

971 172

-

966 903

973 915

808 117

792 497

868 023

1 022 349

971 172

430,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

182 681

170 800

164 826

165 139

172 332

199 523

154 977

-21,3%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-1,7%

-4,3%

-7,4%

11,3%

13,3%

9,6%

2,4%

-1,9%

-5,4%

18,5%

17,3%

6,4%

-5,5%

-4,9%

-10,3%

1,0%

6,9%

19,6%

-5,5%

-4,9%

-10,3%

1,0%

6,9%

19,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-10,1%

-13,3%

-10,8%

-3,4%

2,4%

9,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,5%

-11,6%

8,7%

8,4%

8,2%

-7,2%

8,0%

-7,9%

18,7%

8,2%

0,7%

-6,7%

0,7%

-17,0%

-1,9%

9,5%

17,8%

-5,0%

0,7%

-17,0%

-1,9%

9,5%

17,8%

-5,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-6,5%

-3,5%

0,2%

4,4%

15,8%

-22,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

1466 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

91.3.1 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.3.2 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.3.3 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.3.4 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.3.5 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.3.6 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.3.7 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.3.8 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

91.3.9 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

NA

1 754 816

-

184 107

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

91.3.10 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

243 718

91.3.11 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

91.4.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.4.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.4.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.4.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.4.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.4.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.4.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.4.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

91.4.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.4.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

91.4.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NA

1 270 383

-

57 993

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

285 005

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 178 205

2 222 912

2 062 884

2 011 650

2 132 393

2 354 827

2 095 258

-

984 896

1 028 225

1 030 805

1 042 698

1 113 252

1 215 252

1 040 838

-40,7%

987 761

994 312

848 098

796 432

847 428

955 535

900 234

-

987 761

994 312

848 098

796 432

847 428

955 535

900 234

389,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

205 548

200 375

183 981

172 520

171 713

184 040

154 186

-36,7%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 446 755

1 452 434

1 284 483

1 421 091

1 613 295

1 769 599

2 002 069

-

-

857 047

914 273

795 722

941 138

1 103 465

1 175 900

1 333 257

4,9%

384 727

364 330

331 285

327 930

354 118

423 223

497 263

-

384 727

364 330

331 285

327 930

354 118

423 223

497 263

757,5%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

203 406

173 831

157 476

152 023

155 712

170 476

171 549

-39,8%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,1%

-7,2%

-2,5%

6,0%

10,4%

-11,0%

4,4%

0,3%

1,2%

6,8%

9,2%

-14,4%

0,7%

-14,7%

-6,1%

6,4%

12,8%

-5,8%

0,7%

-14,7%

-6,1%

6,4%

12,8%

-5,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,5%

-8,2%

-6,2%

-0,5%

7,2%

-16,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,4%

-11,6%

10,6%

13,5%

9,7%

13,1%

6,7%

-13,0%

18,3%

17,2%

6,6%

13,4%

-5,3%

-9,1%

-1,0%

8,0%

19,5%

17,5%

-5,3%

-9,1%

-1,0%

8,0%

19,5%

17,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-14,5%

-9,4%

-3,5%

2,4%

9,5%

0,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1467 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

Table 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.2 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.4 to 3.3.7 Variation of Clearence Rate and Disposition Time of first instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

Table 3.13.1 (EC) to 3.13.6 (EC) First instance courts: Disposition time and clearance rate for other than criminal cases  (Q91)

NA

99,6%

-

100,5%

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

123,7%

NAP

NA

264

-

115

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

427

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

101,1%

99,7%

104,6%

93,8%

91,7%

93,6%

89,8%

-

98,0%

94,7%

103,1%

87,9%

86,7%

94,0%

86,3%

(13,44)

102,2%

102,1%

104,9%

100,5%

97,6%

93,5%

92,7%

-

102,2%

102,1%

104,9%

100,5%

97,6%

93,5%

92,7%

(7,75)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

112,5%

117,3%

111,6%

104,5%

99,6%

92,2%

99,5%

(19,58)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

242

318

142

142

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

361

NAP

238

325

134

134

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

317

NAP

227

282

143

143

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

312

NAP

258

329

150

150

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

322

NAP

276

362

153

153

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

331

NAP

274

353

162

162

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

338

NAP

NAP

349

-

-

468

76,9%

202

-

202

75,4%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

406

-4,9%

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(1,41)

4,93

(10,31)

(2,21)

2,07

(4,08)

(3,34)

8,88

(14,82)

(1,33)

8,42

(8,23)

(0,06)

2,79

(4,24)

(2,85)

(4,26)

(0,82)

(0,06)

2,79

(4,24)

(2,85)

(4,26)

(0,82)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4,26

(4,85)

(6,41)

(4,62)

(7,43)

7,86

-

-

-

-

-

-

-1,6%

-4,7%

13,5%

7,1%

-0,7%

27,2%

2,2%

-13,2%

16,9%

9,8%

-2,4%

32,4%

-5,9%

6,6%

5,4%

1,5%

6,0%

24,7%

-5,9%

6,6%

5,4%

1,5%

6,0%

24,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-12,3%

-1,3%

3,0%

2,9%

2,1%

20,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

1468 / 1555

        
         
      
        
         
        
      
        
         
      
        
         
        
        
         
        
        
        
        
        
        
         
        
        
        
        
      
         
        
        
        
        
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

101.1.1 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Litigious divorce case

101.1.2 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Employment dismissal case

101.1.3 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Insolvency

101.2.1 Incoming cases_Litigious divorce case

101.2.2 Incoming cases_Employment dismissal case

101.2.3 Incoming cases_Insolvency

101.3.1 Resolved cases_Litigious divorce case

101.3.2 Resolved cases_Employment dismissal case

101.3.3 Resolved cases_Insolvency

101.4.1 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Litigious divorce case

101.4.2 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Employment dismissal case

101.4.3 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Insolvency

Table 3.4.1 (all years) First instance courts, number of cases for specific case categories (Q101)

37 586

38 417

20 306

49 330

147 404

10 290

47 572

108 570

4 763

37 472

64 705

25 647

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

36 349

39 093

37 354

37 148

36 185

35 116

34 092

-9,3%

78 832

78 820

55 514

48 738

51 797

54 258

62 273

62,1%

30 530

32 356

30 928

30 335

30 239

31 123

32 530

60,2%

50 604

49 941

46 830

45 019

44 433

42 826

36 090

-26,8%

118 213

104 457

94 877

104 824

107 294

120 049

129 287

-12,3%

8 132

6 288

7 040

7 594

9 115

12 031

13 741

33,5%

47 860

48 799

45 469

45 188

43 893

42 281

33 185

-30,2%

118 225

110 098

101 480

97 673

101 243

108 715

106 654

-1,8%

6 306

7 155

7 709

7 874

8 728

10 364

10 843

127,7%

39 093

40 235

37 148

36 189

35 116

34 092

35 731

-4,6%

78 820

55 514

48 738

51 798

54 274

62 273

82 573

27,6%

32 356

31 489

30 335

30 241

31 123

32 530

35 275

37,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CR Litigious divorce cases

CR Employment dismissal cases

CR Insolvency cases

DT Litigious divorce cases

DT Employment dismissal cases

DT Insolvency cases

Table 3.5.1 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for specific case categories (Q101)

Table 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 Variations of CR and DT for specific case categories of first instance cases (Q101)

96,4%

73,7%

46,3%

288

218

1 965

-

-

-

-

-

-

94,6%

97,7%

97,1%

100,4%

98,8%

98,7%

92,0%

(4,65)

100,0%

105,4%

107,0%

93,2%

94,4%

90,6%

82,5%

12,00

77,5%

113,8%

109,5%

103,7%

95,8%

86,1%

78,9%

70,48

298

243

301

184

298

175

292

194

292

196

294

209

393

36,7%

283

29,9%

1 873

1 606

1 436

1 402

1 302

1 146

1 187

-39,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7,5%

-4,4%

-0,6%

-2,6%

-3,0%

-2,9%

0,0%

-29,6%

-12,2%

6,3%

4,8%

14,8%

6,0%

-4,4%

-1,9%

-0,3%

2,9%

4,5%

-1,3%

-6,2%

-3,9%

-1,3%

-3,6%

-15,7%

-11,6%

-9,2%

10,5%

2,4%

11,9%

7,7%

-22,7%

12,0%

7,9%

20,0%

32,0%

14,2%

2,0%

-6,8%

-0,6%

-2,9%

-3,7%

-21,5%

-6,9%

-7,8%

-3,8%

3,7%

7,4%

-1,9%

13,5%

7,7%

2,1%

10,8%

18,7%

4,6%

2,9%

-7,7%

-2,6%

-3,0%

-2,9%

4,8%

-29,6%

-12,2%

6,3%

4,8%

14,7%

32,6%

-2,7%

-3,7%

-0,3%

2,9%

4,5%

8,4%

3,32

(0,63)

3,38

(1,58)

(0,06)

(6,86)

5,39

1,48

(12,88)

1,27

(4,03)

(8,91)

46,74

(3,77)

(5,31)

(7,65)

(10,04)

(8,40)

0,9%

-0,9%

-2,0%

-0,1%

0,8%

33,5%

-24,4%

-4,8%

10,4%

1,1%

6,9%

35,2%

-14,2%

-10,6%

-2,4%

-7,2%

-12,0%

3,6%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1469 / 1555

        
         
        
         
        
        
        
       
         
         
      
         
        
        
       
       
        
        
        
      
        
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

97.1.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.1.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.1.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.1.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.1.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.1.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.1.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.1.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

97.1.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.1.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

Table 3.7.1 to 3.7.5 (2019 and 2020) Second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Table 3.9.1 to 3.9.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

97 468

88 370

95 062

98 745

112 064

139 348

164 383

74 481

67 444

73 802

77 538

90 748

116 091

129 949

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

22 987

20 926

21 260

21 207

21 316

23 257

34 434

97.1.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases 

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

97.2.1 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.2.2 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.2.3 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.2.4 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.2.5 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.2.6 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.2.7 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.2.8 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

97.2.9 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

152 002

169 070

184 339

190 486

206 672

224 499

177 404

131 025

145 418

160 153

166 301

180 721

182 864

146 275

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

97.2.10 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

20 977

23 652

24 186

24 185

25 951

41 635

31 129

97.2.11 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases 

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-9,3%

7,6%

3,9%

13,5%

24,3%

18,0%

-9,4%

9,4%

5,1%

17,0%

27,9%

11,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-9,0%

1,6%

-0,2%

0,5%

9,1%

48,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

11,2%

9,0%

3,3%

8,5%

8,6%

-21,0%

11,0%

10,1%

3,8%

8,7%

1,2%

-20,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

12,8%

2,3%

0,0%

7,3%

60,4%

-25,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1470 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

97.3.1 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.3.2 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.3.3 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.3.4 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.3.5 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.3.6 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.3.7 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.3.8 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

97.3.9 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

161 100

162 788

180 825

177 026

180 327

200 117

200 281

138 062

139 070

156 564

153 395

156 399

170 065

170 993

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

97.3.10 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

23 038

23 718

24 261

23 631

23 928

30 052

29 288

97.3.11 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases 

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

97.4.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.4.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.4.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.4.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.4.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.4.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.4.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.4.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

97.4.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.4.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

88 370

94 652

98 712

112 064

139 340

164 341

142 509

67 444

73 792

77 538

90 748

116 096

129 907

106 207

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

20 926

20 860

21 174

21 316

23 244

34 434

36 302

97.4.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

97.5.1 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.5.2 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.5.10 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,0%

11,1%

-2,1%

1,9%

11,0%

0,1%

0,7%

12,6%

-2,0%

2,0%

8,7%

0,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,0%

2,3%

-2,6%

1,3%

25,6%

-2,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

7,1%

4,3%

13,5%

24,3%

17,9%

-13,3%

9,4%

5,1%

17,0%

27,9%

11,9%

-18,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-0,3%

1,5%

0,7%

9,0%

48,1%

5,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1471 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 (2019 and 2020): Second instance clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.9.4 and 3.9.5 (2019 and 2020): Variation of second clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

106,0%

96,3%

98,1%

92,9%

87,3%

89,1%

112,9%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

105,4%

95,6%

97,8%

92,2%

86,5%

93,0%

116,9%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

109,8%

100,3%

100,3%

97,7%

92,2%

72,2%

94,1%

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

200

178

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

332

NAP

212

194

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

321

NAP

199

181

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

319

NAP

231

216

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

329

NAP

282

271

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

355

NAP

300

279

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

418

NAP

260

227

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

452

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(9,15)

1,88

(5,26)

(6,11)

2,16

26,65

(9,24)

2,22

(5,65)

(6,18)

7,46

25,70

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(8,69)

0,03

(2,59)

(5,63)

(21,72)

30,35

-

-

-

-

-

-

6,0%

-6,1%

16,0%

22,1%

6,3%

-13,4%

8,6%

-6,7%

19,5%

25,5%

2,9%

-18,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-3,2%

-0,8%

3,4%

7,7%

18,0%

8,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

1472 / 1555

        
         
        
        
         
       
        
         
        
        
         
       
        
         
        
        
      
       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.10.1 to 3.10.5 (2019 and 2020) Supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Table 3.12.1 to 3.12.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of the supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

99.1.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.1.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.1.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.1.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.1.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.1.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.1.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.1.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

99.1.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.1.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

99.1.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.2.1 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.2.2 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.2.3 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.2.4 High inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.2.5 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.2.6 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.2.7 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.2.8 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

99.2.9 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

13 671

16 127

21 022

25 609

27 712

26 113

26 346

7 125

9 140

10 732

12 484

14 809

17 084

19 700

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

6 546

6 987

10 290

13 125

12 903

9 029

6 646

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

14 749

18 092

19 956

20 176

22 487

22 997

22 013

8 742

9 289

10 649

11 271

12 532

13 171

12 585

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

99.2.10 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

6 007

8 803

9 307

8 905

9 955

9 826

9 428

99.2.11 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

18,0%

30,4%

21,8%

8,2%

-5,8%

0,9%

28,3%

17,4%

16,3%

18,6%

15,4%

15,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6,7%

47,3%

27,6%

-1,7%

-30,0%

-26,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

22,7%

10,3%

1,1%

11,5%

2,3%

-4,3%

6,3%

14,6%

5,8%

11,2%

5,1%

-4,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

46,5%

5,7%

-4,3%

11,8%

-1,3%

-4,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1473 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

99.3.1 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.3.2 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.3.3 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.3.4 High inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.3.5 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.3.6 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.3.7 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.3.8 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

99.3.9 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

12 293

13 121

14 502

18 086

24 417

22 910

17 777

6 727

7 234

8 893

8 946

10 257

10 555

9 405

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

99.3.10 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

5 566

5 887

5 609

9 140

14 160

12 355

8 372

99.3.11 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.4.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.4.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.4.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.4.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.4.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.4.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.4.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.4.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry 
cases

99.4.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.4.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative 
law cases

99.4.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.5.1 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.5.2 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.5.10 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

16 127

20 635

25 613

27 712

26 113

26 346

30 903

9 140

10 732

12 488

14 809

17 084

19 700

22 880

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

6 987

9 903

13 125

12 903

9 029

6 646

8 023

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6,7%

10,5%

24,7%

35,0%

-6,2%

-22,4%

7,5%

22,9%

0,6%

14,7%

2,9%

-10,9%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5,8%

-4,7%

63,0%

54,9%

-12,7%

-32,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

28,0%

24,1%

8,2%

-5,8%

0,9%

17,3%

17,4%

16,4%

18,6%

15,4%

15,3%

16,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

41,7%

32,5%

-1,7%

-30,0%

-26,4%

20,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1474 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 Supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.12.4 and 3.12.5 Variation of the supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

83,3%

72,5%

72,7%

89,6%

108,6%

99,6%

80,8%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

77,0%

77,9%

83,5%

79,4%

81,8%

80,1%

74,7%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

92,7%

66,9%

60,3%

102,6%

142,2%

125,7%

88,8%

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

479

496

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

458

NAP

574

541

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

614

NAP

645

513

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

854

NAP

559

604

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

515

NAP

390

608

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

233

NAP

420

681

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

196

NAP

635

888

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

350

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(12,99)

0,20

23,35

21,13

(8,25)

(18,94)

1,20

7,23

(4,96)

3,12

(2,09)

(6,75)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(27,83)

(9,88)

70,31

38,58

(11,60)

(29,38)

-

-

-

-

-

-

19,9%

12,3%

-13,2%

-30,2%

7,5%

51,2%

9,2%

-5,3%

17,9%

0,6%

12,1%

30,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

34,0%

39,1%

-39,7%

-54,8%

-15,6%

78,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

1475 / 1555

      
         
       
       
        
      
         
         
        
         
        
        
      
        
       
       
      
      
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Table 3.14.1 to 3.14.5 First instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

094.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

094.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

094.2.1 Total -incoming

094.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

094.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

094.2.4 Other - incoming

094.3.1 Total - resolved

094.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

094.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

094.3.4 Other - resolved

094.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

094.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

094.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

094.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

358 146

253 301

104 845

NAP

623 828

248 714

375 114

NAP

465 430

234 348

358 956

NAP

400 834

276 013

124 821

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1476 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Table 3.15.1 to 3.10.2 CR and DT for first instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

098.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

098.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

098.2.1 Total -incoming

098.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

098.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

098.2.4 Other - incoming

098.3.1 Total - resolved

098.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

098.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

098.3.4 Other - resolved

Table 3.16.1 to 3.16.5 Second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

74,6%

94,2%

95,7%

NAP

314

430

127

NAP

8 778

6 281

2 497

NAP

44 098

30 772

13 326

NAP

45 415

31 733

13 682

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1477 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

098.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

098.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

098.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

098.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

7 327

5 196

2 131

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

Table 3.17.1 to 3.17.2 CR and DT for second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

103,0%

103,1%

102,7%

NAP

59

60

57

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1478 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Table 3.18.1 to 3.18.5 Supreme court criminal law cases (Q100)

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

100.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

100.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

100.2.1 Total -incoming

100.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

100.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

100.2.4 Other - incoming

100.3.1 Total - resolved

100.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

100.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

100.3.4 Other - resolved

100.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

100.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

100.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

100.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

4 373

NA

NA

NAP

7 506

NA

NA

NAP

5 577

NA

NA

NAP

6 302

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1479 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Table 3.19.1 to 3.19.2 CR and DT for supreme court  criminal law cases (Q100)

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

74,3%

NA

NA

NAP

412

NA

NA

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1480 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Indicator 5: Access to justice

Legal aid

Table 5.1 to Table 5.6 (Q12-2, Q16, Q18, Q19, Q20, Q20-1)

12-2.1.1 Coverage of court fees

12-2.1.2 Exemption from court fees

16.1.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (criminal cases)

16.1.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (criminal cases)

16.2.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (other than criminal 
cases)

16.2.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (other than criminal cases)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

-

-

-

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

18.1.1 Legal aid for the enforcement of judicial decisions

19.1.1  Legal aid granted for other costs - criminal cases

19.1.2  Legal aid granted for other costs - other than criminal cases

020.1.1 Total

020.1.2 Total - criminal cases

020.1.3 Total - other than criminal cases

020.2.1 Total brought to court

020.2.2 Broight to court - criminal cases

020.2.3 Brought to court - other then criminal

020.3.1 Total not brought to court

020.3.2 Not broight to court - criminal cases

020.3.3 Not brought to court - other then criminal

020-1.1.1 Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulation

020-1.1.2 Average duration

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

NAP

True

True

1 599 883

1 103 860

496 023

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

30

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1481 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

System for compensating users

Table 5.7.1 and Table 5.7.2 (Q37)

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

037.1.1 Requests for compensation - Total

037.1.2 Requests for compensation - Excessive length of 
proceedings

037.1.3 Requests for compensation - Non-execution of court 
decisions

037.1.4 Requests for compensation - Wrongful arrest

037.1.5 Requests for compensation - Wrongful conviction

037.1.6 Requests for compensation - Other

037.2.1 Condemnations - Total

037.2.2 Condemnations - Excessive length of proceedings

037.2.3 Condemnations - Non-execution of court decisions

037.2.4 Condemnations - Wrongful arrest

037.2.5 Condemnations - Wrongful conviction

037.2.6 Condemnations - Other

037.3.1 Amount - Total

037.3.2 Amount - Excessive length of proceedings

037.3.3 Amount - Non-execution of court decisions

037.3.4 Amount - Wrongful arrest

037.3.5 Amount - Wrongful conviction

037.3.6 Amount - Other

605

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

29

1

NA

NA

NA

28

569 858 €

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1482 / 1555

       
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 6.1 to Table 6.11 (Q62-7, Q62-7-1, Q62-8,  Q62-8-1, Q63-1, Q63-1-1, Q63-2 Q63-6, Q63-7, Q63-7-1, Q64-2,  Q64-4, Q64-6, Q64-3, Q64-3-1, Q64-7, Q64-7-1, 
Q64-9)

Indicator 6: The ICT tools of courts and for court users

62-7 Writing assistance tools coordinated at national level

62-7-1.1 Deployment rate in civil matter

62-7-1.2 Deployment rate in criminal matter

62-7-1.3 Deployment rate in administrative matter

62-8 Voice recording tools

62-8-1.1.1 Availability of simple dictation tools in civil matter

62-8-1.1.2 Availability of simple dictation tools in criminal matter

62-8-1.1.3 Availability of simple dictation tools in administrative 
matter

62-8-1.2.1 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in civil 
matter

62-8-1.2.2 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in criminal 
matter

62-8-1.2.3 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in 
administrative matter

62-8-1.3.1 Availability of voice recognition in civil matter

62-8-1.3.2 Availability of voice recognition in criminal matter

62-8-1.3.3 Availability of voice recognition in administrative matter

062-9 Availability of intranet site within the judicial system for 
distribution of news/novelties

63.1 Is there a case management system? 

63.1-1.1 CMS for civil matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for criminal matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for administrative matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.2 CMS for civil matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for criminal matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for administrative matter (status of case onlinee)

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

False

False

True

in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases
in some courts 
/ some pilot 
phases

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

FALSE

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

-

-

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

Accessible to 
parties

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1483 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

63.1-1.3 CMS for civil matter (Centralised or interoperable database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for criminal matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for administrative matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.4 CMS for civil matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for criminal matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for administrative matter (Early warning signals)

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS civil matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS criminal matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS administrative matter

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - land registry

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - business registry

63-2.2 Data consolidated at national level for land registry

63-2.2  Data consolidated at national level for business registry

63-2.3 Service available online for land registry

63-2.3  Service available online for business registry

63-2.4 Statistical module integrated or connected for land registry

63-2.4  Statistical module integrated or connected for business 
registry

063-6.1.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (deployment 
rate)

063-6.1.2 Justice expenses management (deployment rate)

063-6.1.3 Other financial management tools (deployment rate)

063-6.2.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (Data 
consolidated at national level)

063-6.2.2 Justice expenses management (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.2.3 Other financial management tools (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.3.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (System 
communicating with other ministries)

063-6.3.2 Justice expenses management (System communicating 
with other ministries)

063-6.3.3 Other financial management tools (System communicating 
with other ministries)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

NA

NA

True

True

True

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

1484 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

63-7.1 Measurement tools to assess the workload

63-7-1.1.1 Deployment rate - workload of judges

63-7-1.1.2 Deployment rate - workload of prosecutors

63-7-1.1.3 Deployment rate - workload of non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.2.1 Monitoring on national level - judges

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - prosecutors

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.3.1 Monitoring on court level - judges

63-7-1.3.2 Monitoring on court level - prosecutors

63-7-1.3.3 Monitoring on court level - non-judge and non-prosecutor 
staff

064-2 - Possibility to submit a case to courts by electronic means

064-2 - Civil and/or commercial

064-2 - Criminal

064-2 - Administrative

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - civil

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - criminal

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory  - administrative

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - civil

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - criminal

064-2 - Specific legislative framework  - administrative

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - civil

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - criminal

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - administrative

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1485 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

064-3 - Is it possible to request for granting legal aid by electronic 
means? 

064-3-1.1 - Equipment rate

064-3-1.2 - Request in paper mandatory

064-3-1.3 - Specific legislative framework

064-3-1.4 - Granting LA is also electronic

064-3-1.5 - Information available in CMS

064-4 - Possibility to transmit summons to a judicial meeting or a 
hearing by electronic means

064-4-1.1.1 - Summons produced by CMS- civil

064-4-1.1.2 - Summons produced by CMS- criminal

064-4-1.1.3 - Summons produced by CMS- administrative

064-4-1.2.1 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- civil

064-4-1.2.2 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- criminal

064-4-1.2.3 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- administrative

064-4-1.3.1 - Consent of the user - civil

064-4-1.3.2 - Consent of the user - criminal

064-4-1.3.3 - Consent of the user - administrative

064-6.1.1 - Civil and/or commercial (deployment rate)

064-6.1.2 - Criminal (deployment rate)

064-6.1.3 - Administrative (deployment rate)

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

False

False

False

True

True

False

False

True

True

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1486 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

064-6.2.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.2 - Criminal (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.3 - Administrative (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.3.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Modalities)

064-6.3.2 - Criminal (Modalities)

064-6.3.3 - Administrative (Modalities)

064-6.4.1 - Civil and/or commercial (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.2 - Criminal (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.3 - Administrative (specific legal framework)

064-6.5.1 - Civil and/or commercial (availability for)

064-6.5.2 - Criminal (availability for)

064-6.5.3 - Administrative (availability for)

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer
Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer
Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1487 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

064-7.1.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (deployment rate)

064-7.1.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.2.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (Modalities)

064-7.2.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.3.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (specific legal framework)

064-7.32.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-7.3.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts (specific 
legal framework)

064-7.3.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-9 - Existance of online processing devices of specialised 
litigation

100%

100%

100%

10-49%

10-49%

10-49%

10-49%

10-49%

10-49%

-

100%

100%

100%

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

  Specific 
application  

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1488 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

46.1.1 Total Number of professional judges

46.1.2 Number of 1st inst professional judges

46.1.3 Number of 2nd inst professional judges

46.1.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges

46.2.1 Number of professional judges_males

46.2.2 Number of 1st instance professional judges_males

46.2.3 Number of 2nd instance professional judges_males

46.2.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges_males

46.3.1  Number of professional judges_females

46.3.2  Number of 1st inst professional judges_females

46.3.3  Number of 2nd inst professional judges_females

46.3.4  Number of Supreme court professional judges_females

046-2.1.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Total

046-2.2.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Civil and commercial

046-2.2.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.3.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Criminal

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

5 155

3 647

1 431

77

2 565

1 533

964

68

2 590

2 114

467

9

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Indicator 7: Professionals of justice  (Indicator 9 in 2019)

Table 7.1.1 to 7.5.6 for judges, non judge staff, prosecutors, non prosecutor staff and salaries

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5 353

3 855

1 416

82

2 572

1 574

927

71

2 781

2 281

489

11

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5 367

3 781

1 505

81

2 555

1 520

965

70

2 812

2 261

540

11

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5 367

3 786

1 496

85

2 540

1 525

940

75

2 827

2 261

556

10

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5 377

5 419

5 341

5 320

3,2%

3 719

3 824

3 764

3 752

2,9%

1 576

1 515

1 502

1 495

4,5%

82

80

75

73

-5,2%

2 519

2 496

2 439

2 402

-6,4%

1 452

1 498

1 454

1 434

-6,5%

996

71

933

65

924

61

911

-5,5%

57

-16,2%

2 858

2 923

2 902

2 918

12,7%

2 267

2 326

2 310

2 318

9,6%

580

11

582

15

578

14

584

25,1%

16

77,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5 320

3 752

1 495

73

1 379

963

406

10

1 613

1 141

457

15

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,3%

0,0%

0,2%

0,8%

-1,4%

-0,4%

-1,9%

0,1%

-1,8%

2,8%

-1,6%

-0,3%

6,3%

-0,6%

5,3%

-3,9%

-0,9%

-0,5%

-1,2%

4,9%

-3,5%

-2,4%

-6,3%

-2,7%

-0,7%

-0,6%

-0,8%

-0,9%

-2,3%

-1,5%

-3,4%

0,3%

-4,8%

3,2%

-2,9%

-1,4%

4,1%

-2,6%

6,0%

-6,3%

-1,0%

-1,4%

-1,4%

7,1%

-5,3%

-8,5%

-6,2%

-6,6%

1,1%

0,5%

1,1%

2,3%

-0,7%

0,6%

-0,9%

0,0%

0,3%

2,6%

-0,7%

0,3%

10,4%

3,0%

4,3%

0,3%

-0,7%

1,0%

0,0%

-9,1%

10,0%

36,4%

-6,7%

14,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1489 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

046-2.4.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - 
Administrative

046-2.4.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.5.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Other

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 52.1.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in courts 

44 748

52.1.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)

52.1.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges

52.1.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks

52.1.5 Number of Technical staff

52.1.6 Number of Other non judge staff

52.2.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(men)

52.2.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(men)

52.2.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(men)

52.2.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(men)

52.2.5 Number of Technical staff(men)

52.2.6 Number of Other non judge staff(men)

52.3.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(women)

52.3.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(women)

52.3.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(women)

52.3.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(women)

52.3.5 Number of Technical staff(women)

52.3.6 Number of Other non judge staff(women)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

3 559

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 323

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

572

241

298

33

1 756

1 407

334

15

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

48 563

49 746

49 186

46 871

47 645

47 816

48 620

8,7%

3 667

3 710

4 379

4 283

4 289

4 260

4 331

21,7%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

44 896

46 036

44 807

42 588

43 356

43 556

44 289

NA

NA

1 221

1 224

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

2 446

2 486

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

1 412

1 375

1 355

1 336

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

2 871

2 914

2 905

2 995

28,9%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,4%

-1,1%

-4,7%

1,7%

0,4%

1,7%

1,2%

18,0%

-2,2%

0,1%

-0,7%

1,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2,5%

-2,7%

-5,0%

1,8%

0,5%

1,7%

-

0,2%

-

-

-

-

-

1,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,6%

-1,5%

-1,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,5%

-0,3%

3,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1490 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

052-1.1.1 Non-judge staff (Total)

052-1.1.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (total)

052-1.1.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (total)

052-1.1.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (total)

052-1.2.1 Non-judge staff  (Males)

052-1.2.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (males)

052-1.2.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (males)

052-1.2.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (males)

052-1.3.1 Non-judge staff  (females)

052-1.3.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (females)

052-1.3.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (females)

052-1.3.4 Non-judge staff  at supreme court (females)

055.1.1 Prosecutors (total)

055.1.2 Prosecutors (1st inst.)

055.1.3 Prosecutors (2nd inst.)

055.1.4 Prosecutors (Highest instance)

055.2.1 Prosecutors - Males -total

055.2.2 Prosecutors - Males, 1st inst.

055.2.3 Prosecutors - Males, 2nd inst.

055.2.4 Prosecutors - Males, Supreme courts

055.3.1 Prosecutors - Females, Total

055.3.2 Prosecutors - Females, 1st inst.

055.3.3 Prosecutors - Females, 2nd inst.

055.3.4 Prosecutors - Females, Supreme courts

48 620

43 776

4 380

464

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

2 544

NAP

NAP

50

884

NAP

NAP

36

1 660

NAP

NAP

14

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1491 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

060.1.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Total

060.2.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Males

060.3.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Females

004 Annual average salary in the country

132.1.1 Gross annual salary, in €  - Professional judge at the 
beginning of career

132.1.2 Gross annual salary, in €  - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.1.3 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor at the beginning 
of career

132.1.4 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

132.2.1 Net annual salary, in € - Professional judge at the beginning 
of career

132.2.2 Net annual salary, in € - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.2.3 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor at the beginning of 
career

132.2.4 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

133.1.1.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Reduced taxation

133.1.2.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Special pension

133.1.3.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Housing

133.1.4.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Other financial benefit

133.2.1.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Reduced taxation

133.2.2.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Special pension

133.2.3.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Housing

133.2.4.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Other financial benefit

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2 280

NA

NA

22 849 €

51 946 €

130 654 €

51 946 €

130 654 €

36 881 €

81 006 €

36 881 €

81 006 €

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1492 / 1555

         
         
       
         
       
         
         
         
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

144.1.1 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - Total number (1+2+3+4)

144.1.2 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 1. Breach of professional 
ethics 

144.1.3 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.1.4 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 3. Criminal offence 

144.1.5 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 4. Other

144.2.1 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - Total number 
(1+2+3+4)

144.2.2 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 1. Breach of 
professional ethics 

144.2.3 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.2.4 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 3. Criminal offence

144.2.5 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 4. Other 

145.1.1 Sanctions against Judges - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.1.2 Sanctions against Judges - 1. Reprimand

145.1.3 Sanctions against Judges - 2. Suspension

145.1.4 Sanctions against Judges - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.1.5 Sanctions against Judges - 4. Fine

145.1.6 Sanctions against Judges - 5. Temporary reduction of salary

145.1.7 Sanctions against Judges - 6. Position downgrade

145.1.8 Sanctions against Judges - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.1.9 Sanctions against Judges - 8. Resignation

145.1.10 Sanctions against  Judges - 9. Other

145.1.11 Sanctions against  Judges - 10. Dismissal

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

28

3

22

0

3

3

0

0

0

3

23

0

11

5

7

0

0

0

0

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1493 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

145.2.1 Sanctions against Prosecutors - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.2.2 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 1. Reprimand

145.2.3 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 2. Suspension

145.2.4 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.2.5 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 4. Fine

145.2.6 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 5. Temporary reduction of 
salary

145.2.7 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 6. Position downgrade

145.2.8 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.2.9 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 8. Resignation

145.2.10 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 9. Other

145.2.11 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 10. Dismissal

3

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lawyers

Tables 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.7 and 7.8

146.1.1 Total number of lawyers practising

131 337

146.2.1 Practicing lawyers - man

146.3.1 Practicing lawyers - woman

-

-

147 Does this figure include “legal advisors” who cannot represent 
their clients in court (for example, some solicitors or in-house 
counsellors)? 

-

-

-

135 016

149 818

142 061

144 212

143 205

143 398

143 790

9,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

NA

NA

NA

80 364

NA

63 325

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

11,0%

-5,2%

1,5%

-0,7%

0,1%

0,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1494 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Spain (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

166 Number of accredited or registered mediators who practice 
judicial mediation: 

NA

-

1 151

3 289

NA

5 302

6 939

7 710

8 896

167.1.1 Total number started

15 437

NA

NA

NA

167. 1.2 Civil and commercial cases(cid:9) - started

951

1 449

1 289

1 073

NA

764

Indicator 8: The existence and use of alternative dispute resolution methods

Table 8.1 8.2 and 8.3

167. 1.2 Family cases - started

167.1.4 Administrative cases - started

167.1.5 Labour cases including employment dismissal cases - started

167.1.6. Criminal cases - started

167.1.7 Consumer cases - started

7 336

5 563

4 937

4 769

2 737

NAP

4 571

2 579

-

NA

NAP

NA

NA

2 575

2 406

3 967

2 134

3 121

2 935

2 865

2 485

-

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

185,8%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

30,9%

11,1%

15,4%

-

-

-

52,4%

-11,0%

-16,8%

-28,8%

-24,2%

-11,3%

-3,4%

-42,6%

-

-

-

-

-43,7%

-6,6%

64,9%

-46,2%

21,0%

-6,0%

-2,4%

-13,3%

-

-

-

-

Key: Variation of more than (+ -) 20% 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1495 / 1555

Judiciary at a glance in Sweden

General data

Population:

10 379 295

GDP per capita: 47 455 €

Average annual 

salary:

43 092 €

Professionals

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Sweden

Sweden

EU Median

EU Median

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual 
salary in the country

Sweden
Sweden

EU Median

EU Median

Professional judges

Professional judges

11,46

23,92

11,46

23,92

Non-judge staff

48,13

59,00

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Lawyers

10,06

48,13

59,00

9,91

5,03

10,06

9,91

15,22

5,03

15,22

60,28

60,28

122,09

Judge at the beginning of a career 

1,86

4,09

2,02

3,61

3,21

Judge of the highest court 3,21
2,02

4,09

2,04

1,71
Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 
1,71

1,30

1,30

1,86

Public prosecutor at highest instance

2,04

3,61

122,09

Judge at the
beginning of a career

Judge of the highest
court

Prosecutor at the
beginning of a career

Public prosecutor at
highest instance

Efficiency

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

1st instance 2nd instance

Supreme Court
Supreme 
Court

100%

,

%
9
9
0
1

,

%
9
0
0
1

,

102,8%
%
3
2
0
1

102,3%

96,0%

%
9
6
9

,

,

Civil and
%
8
commercial
Administrativ
2
0
e
1
cases
Total 
criminal law 
cases

%
3
6
9

,

96,3%

100,9%

109,9%
%
0
6
9

92,5%

,

%
5
2
9

,

96,9%
%
4
6
9

,

96,4%

1
1

1

1
1

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance 2nd instance Supreme Court

Civil and commercial litigious cases
161
Administrative cases 107

127

Total criminal law cases149

128
68

156

128

161

94

68

107

127
94
45
45

156

149

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

Administrative
cases

Total criminal law
cases

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

Information and communication technology

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

Assistance toolsCase management system
2018

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the workload
2019

Electronic communication

EU Median 2020

2020

2018
2019
2020

2,00
2,00
2,00

5,08

5,08

EU Median 2020

2,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

5,08
5,08
5,08
5,08

5,17

5,17

1,00
1,00
0,50

5,00
5,00
4,67

6,20
6,20
7,96

1,25

2,50

6,94

5,00

5,00

4,67

2,50

1,00

1,00

1,25

0,50

7,96

6,94

6,20

6,20

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

*ICT calculations are described in more details in Annex 5 - IT Calculation methodology

1496

2020

Synthesis table for the main indicators for:

Sweden

Economic and demographic data

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Variations

Population

GDP per capita

Exchange rate (local currency needed to 
obtain 1€)

9 555 893

9 644 864

9 747 355

9 851 017

9 995 153

10 120 242

10 230 185

10 327 589

10 379 295

43 867

44 384

42 800

46 378

46 125

46 632

46 117

43 560

47 455

8,6%

8,2%

9

9

9

9

10

10

10

11

10

17,3%

Average annual salary

41 733

39 948

41 168

40 706

37 955

43 092

3,3%

2,5%

7,8%

1,4%

3,1%

2,4%

0,0%

6,7%

-1,1%

1,1%

1,0%

-1,1%

-5,5%

0,5%

8,9%

4,1%

9,4%

-9,9%

-6,8%

13,5%

Resources

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Professional judges per 100 000 inhab.

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhab.

Lawyers per 100 000 inh.

Mediators

ICT overall assesment

First instance incoming cases per 100 
inhab.

11,8

54,1

54,9

NAP

11,7

48,9

56,2

NAP

11,8

49,2

57,2

NAP

11,8

48,7

58,9

NAP

11,8

48,6

57,7

NAP

11,8

50,3

58,4

NAP

11,9

50,9

58,6

NAP

6,9

11,5

47,6

58,1

NAP

6,9

11,6

48,1

60,3

NAP

7,2

-1,6%

0,0%

-11,1%

-1,2%

9,8%

NAP

0,9%

NAP

0,9%

4,7%

1,6%

NAP

0,4%

1,3%

0,4%

NAP

-3,6%

-6,4%

-0,9%

NAP

0,0%

0,8%

1,0%

3,8%

NAP

4,8%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

Civil and commercial litigious cases

0,685

0,679

0,656

0,612

0,596

0,612

0,627

0,657

0,604

-11,8%

-9,1%

5,1%

Administrative law cases

1,086

1,1

1,1

1,034

1,440

1,616

1,635

1,715

1,848

70,2%

32,3%

13,5%

2,4%

1,2%

4,9%

-8,1%

4,9%

7,8%

Total criminal law cases

1,156

First instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

99%

101%

104%

104%

CR administrative law cases

105%

101%

103%

104%

99%

94%

100%

90%

97%

97%

97%

103%

102%

102%

4,01

-2,52

-4,69

-8,97

-1,76

2,95

-2,23

7,01

-0,04

4,85

5,39

0,61

CR total criminal law cases

96%

First instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
cases (days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

First instance pending cases per 100 
inhab. on 31 dec.

Civil and commercial litigious cases

Administrative law cases

Total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Second instance 
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases (days)

 Supreme court 
performance indicators 
(Clearence Rate)

CR administrative law cases

CR total criminal law cases

Supreme court
performance indicators (Disposition Time)

DT civil and commercial litigious cases 
(days)

DT administrative law cases (days)

DT total criminal law cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

179

126

171

126

157

114

152

105

164

115

159

147

166

146

167

125

-9,9%

-15,7%

4,9%

1,2%

1,1%

4,8%

0,3%

-3,4%

26,5%

-1,1%

-14,2%

-14,7%

161

107

149

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

0,33

0,39

0,32

0,38

0,29

0,35

0,27

0,31

0,27

0,43

0,27

0,59

0,28

0,63

0,29

0,60

-17,3%

-8,9%

4,4%

40,1%

22,3%

48,1%

4,9%

7,8%

5,2%

-5,4%

-6,3%

-7,5%

0,27

0,55

0,45

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

106%

102%

103%

98%

102%

90%

97%

97%

114%

93%

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

-3,18

7,58

-0,95

-4,43

4,01

-21,81

-6,53

4,21

0,92

13,01

95%

97%

96%

110%

93%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

106

178

107

188

100

148

109

63

96

96

117

106

128

68

156

-5,8%

-4,5%

-12,5%

22,0%

9,4%

-16,9%

-35,2%

51,4%

10,2%

-35,4%

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020 
(percentange 
points)

2014-2016 
(percentange 
points)

2016-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2017-2018 
(percentange 
points)

2018-2019 
(percentange 
points)

2019-2020 
(percentange 
points)

CR civil and commercial litigious cases

99%

105%

106%

110%

96%

108%

101%

7,74

-10,72

-14,62

112%

101%

99%

95%

110%

101%

97%

96%

-13,40

10,99

15,29

11,96

-8,71

-6,66

-4,23

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-2020

2014-2016

2016-2018

2017-2018

2018-2019

2019-2020

159

92

139

94

112

105

98

122

117

82

96

83

127

94

45

-29,8%

4,6%

19,0%

-18,3%

32,6%

13,8%

-21,8%

-32,9%

1,2%

13,0%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1497 / 1555

1. Judicial organisation in Sweden

In 2020 in Sweden, the number of courts considered as legal entities is 94. Namely, there are 55 courts of general jurisdiction and 39 specialised courts. 

Among the 55 legal entities of general jurisdiction, 48 District courts act at first instance and deal with criminal and civil cases and various kinds of other matters such as adoption, 
administrators, bankruptcy and special representatives. They vary in size, from about ten to several hundred employees.

The 6 Courts of appeal act as second instance courts of general jurisdiction, while the Supreme Court is the highest instance court of general jurisdiction. 

Among the 39 legal entities of specialised jurisdiction, 31 are of first instance, while 8 are higher instance specialised courts (infra). 

In terms of geographic locations, there are 99 courts among which 84 are of first instance. In fact, the number of first instance courts of general jurisdiction is 48, but five of these also operate 
in another location in addition to the main location. Thus, the total of first instance courts as geographic locations is equal to 48+5+31 (first instance specialised courts) = 84.

Distribution of general courts in Sweden

Distribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

Sweden - 1st instance

Sweden - Higher instances

SwedenDistribution of first and higher instances general courts (%)

EU Median - 1st instance

EU Median - Higher instances

According to 2020 data, the distribution between 1st instance and higher instances courts of general jurisdiction 
in Sweden corresponds to the EU median of 87% - 13%.

Sweden - 1st instanceSweden - Higher instances

General courts - Sweden

87%

General courts - Sweden
EU Median

87%
87%

13%
13%

EU Median

87%

13%

13%

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Sweden

Geographic 
locations

Legal entities

General jurisdiction

Specialised 
jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

95

95

95

95

95

95

99

99

99

60

60

60

60

60

60

48

48

48

12

12

12

12

10

10

31

31

31

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

Evolution of number of first instance courts in Sweden

Geographic locations
Legal entities General jurisdiction
Legal entities Specialised jurisdiction

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

It should be highlighted that the variations observed in 2018 stem from a change of the methodology of presentation of data and are not due to any reform or judicial reorganisation. More 
precisely, for the 2018-2020 evaluation cycle, the reply to Q42 has been adjusted to comply with the CEPEJ definitions. Namely, starting from 2018 the category of first instance courts of 
general jurisdiction encompasses solely the 48 District courts, while the 12 administrative courts are considered as specialised first instance courts.
Sweden

Distribution of first instance general jurisdiction and specialised courts

Ratio general jurisdiction vs specialised

Sweden

General jurisdiction Specialised courts

61%

75%

39%

39%

25%

61%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

EU Median

25%

75%

General jurisdiction

Specialised courts

The distribution between number of general jurisdiction courts and specialised courts of 60,8% - 39,2% is around the EU median (distribution tendency in EU: 75,5% - 
24,5%).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1498 / 1555

Specialised courts
Total

Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

Insolvency courts

Labour courts

Family courts

Rent and tenancies courts

Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

Internet related disputes

Administrative courts

Insurance and / or social welfare courts

Military courts

Juvenile courts

Other specialised 1st instance courts

First instance

Higher instance

31

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

12

NAP

NAP

NAP

18

8

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

5

NAP

NAP

NAP

3

The 12 administrative courts are the courts of first instance that deal with cases involving disputes between individuals/companies and authorities. These courts settle more than 500 different 
types of cases. Common types of cases are tax cases, social insurance cases, cases under the Social Services Act and cases concerning compulsory care. 

The Patent and Market Court deals with issues relating to market law and intellectual property. There is one first-instance Patent and Market Court. Its decisions can be appealed to the Patent 
and Market Court of Appeal. 

Land and Environment courts process cases such as permits for water operations and environmentally hazardous operations, issues of health protection, nature conservation, refuse collection, 
polluted areas and hazardous waste, environmentally-related damages, and compensation issues, issues of building, demolition and land permits under the Planning and Building Act, site 
leaseholds, appeals in planning matters, land parcelling, utility easements and expropriation. There are five Land and Environment Courts, which are specialized courts at the District Courts in 
Nacka, Vänersborg, Växjö, Umeå and Östersund. The Land and Environment Courts' decisions can be appealed to the Land and Environment Court of Appeal in Stockholm. 

Migration courts review decisions made by the Swedish Migration Board on matters concerning aliens and citizenship. There are four Migration Courts, they are specialized courts which are 
part of the Administrative Courts in Malmö, Göteborg , Stockholm and Luleå. The Migration Courts' decisions can be appealed to the Migration Court of Appeal in Stockholm. 

Maritime courts deal with cases under the Swedish Maritime Code (1994:1009). There are seven maritime courts, which are part of the District Courts in Luleå, Sundsvall, Stockholm, Kalmar, 
Malmö, Gothenburg and Karlstad. 

Sweden also has 2 special courts, which are completely separated from the general and administrative courts and their organization, meaning that they have a more far-reaching separation 
from the general and administrative courts. Those are the Labour Court and the Swedish Foreign Intelligence Court. The Labour Court deals with labour disputes, i.e., disputes in the frame of 
employers and employees' relationships; the Labour Court is normally the first and only instance competent in labour disputes. Nevertheless, some labour disputes are heard first in a district 
court, after which an appeal may be lodged with the Labour Court as the court of second and final instance. 

Rent and Tenancy Tribunals are not included because they are not courts, but administrative agencies. These are quasi-judicial bodies which hold similar powers to the courts and make 
decision on disputes involving rents, tenant-ownerships and leaseholds.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1499 / 1555

2. Professionals of justice in Sweden

● Professional judges and non-judge staff

Evolution of the number of professional judges since 2012 (Q46)

Year

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Absolute 
number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

1 123

1 132

1 150

1 159

1 179

1 199

1 217

1 184

1 200

11,75

11,74

11,80

11,77

11,80

11,85

11,90

11,46

11,56

EU median

23,9

Professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants

23,9

11,75

11,74

11,80

11,77

11,80

11,85

11,90

11,46

11,56

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

According to 2020 data, the total number of professional judges sitting in courts (all instances) in Sweden is 1 200, which is 1,4% more than in previous cycle.

More precisely, in Sweden, there are 11,56 professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants (this figure is below the EU median of 23,92 judges per 100 000 inhabitants) and about 4,16 non-
judge staff per judge .

There is no significant difference compared with previous cycle when this ratio was at 4,16 non-judge staff per judge.

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and gender

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

809

359

32

1 200

Distribution by 
instance

67,4%

29,9%

2,7%

Male

Female

% Male

% Female

374

142

19

535

435

217

13

665

46,2%

39,6%

59,4%

44,6%

53,8%

60,4%

40,6%

55,4%

Distribution of professional judges by instance

Sweden

EU Median

67,4%

72,39%

EU Median

72,39%

23,98%

4,03%

29,9%

23,98%

2,7%

4,03%

Distribution of professional judges by gender and by instance

% Female

% Male

53,8%

46,2%

60,4%

39,6%

40,6%

59,4%

55,4%

44,6%

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female professional judges (all instances) is 665, which represents 55,4% of the total number of judges.

In fact, female judges do not have the majority only at third instance. 

The total number of judges is distributed among the different judicial instances in the following way: 809 are sitting in first instance courts (of which 435 are female); 359 are sitting in 
second instance courts (of which 217 are female)  and 32 are sitting in Supreme Court (of which 13 are female).  

Compared with the EU distribution of professional judges per instance, the trend in Sweden is similar. However, we can notice that the predomination of first instance judges is less 
pronounced, second instance judges are more numerous, while third instance judges are fewer.  

As regards the distribution male/female, it has to be specified that owing to the fact that the Supreme Court judges are few, the variations affecting the distribution male/female could 
appear significant in terms of percentage, while in actual numbers the difference is not that significant (one or two judges). The statistics need to be viewed over a longer period of time.

Absolute number of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

Total

Civil and commercial

Criminal

Administrative

Other

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

809

359

32

1 200

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

215

120

16

351

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

In Sweden, the distribution of judges per categories of cases is possible only for some categories.

Distribution of professional judges by instance and matter

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Civil and 
commercial

NA

NA

NA

NA

Criminal

Administrative

Other

NA

NA

NA

NA

26,6%

33,4%

50,0%

29,3%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

TRUE

TRUE

FALSE

FALSE

NA

2

NA

NA

NA

NA

It is noteworthy that judges working with civil and/or commercial cases also work with criminal cases and vice versa, in the general courts. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1500 / 1555

Non-judge staff

Year

2012

Number of non-judge staff

5 173

Per 100 000 inhabitants

54,13

2013

4 716

48,90

2014

4 797

49,21

2015

4 800

48,73

Non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants

54,13

48,90

49,21

48,73

48,61

50,28

50,91

47,65

48,13

2016

4 859

48,61

59,00

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

2017

5 088

50,28

2018

5 208

50,91

2020

Total

Rechtspfleger

Non-judge staff assisting the judge

Staff in charge of administrative tasks

Technical staff

Other

2019

4 921

47,65

Absolute 
number

4 996

NAP

3 375

700

163

758

E
U 
m

2020

4 996

48,13

in %

NAP

67,6%

14,0%

3,3%

15,2%

In 2020, Sweden has 4 996 non-judge staff (of which 3 770 are females). The total number of non-judge staff in comparison with the previous cycle reveals an increase of 1,5%.

In this cycle, the non-judge staff is broken down as follows:

◦ 3 375 non-judge staff whose task is to assist the judges such as registrars (of which 2 715 are women);
◦ 700 staff in charge of different administrative tasks and of the court management (of which 468 are women);
◦ 163 technical staff (of which 50 are women);
◦ 758 other (of which 537 are women);

In 2020, the number of non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants has increased (from 47,6 in 2019 to 48,1 in 2020).

During the same period, the number of judges per 100 000 inhabitants evolves from 11,5 judges per 100 000 inhabitants in 2019 to 11,6 in 2020.

The category "Other non-judge staff" includes junior judges and associate judges in the judicial training program. A junior judge deals with the court's (court of first instance) business in the 
same way as the permanent judges, but with a smaller workload and with some exceptions as to types of cases handled. An acting associate judge (in a court of appeal) deals with the 
court's business in the same way as the permanent judges, but with a smaller workload. However, an associate judge is never presiding judge. 

The numbers do not include staff on leave or Swedish National Courts Administration (SNCA) employees.The SNCA is a government agency responsible for the service organisation of 
courts, namely the overall coordination and joint issues. It has no authority over the courts’ judicial business or their verdicts. It also provides support to the courts, rental and tenancy 
tribunals and the National Legal Aid Authority and the Legal Aid Board. It deals with issues related to staff development, training and information, development of regulations, instructions 
and guidance. It ensures that operations are conducted in an effective and accessible way for citizens. In 2020, there were about 400 employees with diverse professional backgrounds.

Professional judges, non-judge staff and their ratio (Q46, Q52)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Sweden

EU median

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

11,56

48,13

Non-judge staff per judge

4,16

23,92

59,00

3,30

Professional judges and non-judge staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

4,16

48,13

Non-judge staff per judge

11,56

59,00

3,30

23,92

Sweden

EU median

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff  (Q46, Q52)

Judges 
per 100 000 inh.

Non-judge staff per
100 000 inh.

Ratio between professional judges and 
non-judge staff

Evolution of the ratio between professional judges and non-judge staff 
Non-judge staff per 100 000 inh.
(Q46, Q52)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

11,75

11,74

11,80

11,77

11,80

11,85

11,90

11,46

11,56

54,13

48,90

49,21

48,73

48,61

50,28

50,91

47,65

48,13

EU median 2020

3,30

4,61

4,17

4,17

4,14

4,12

4,24

4,28

4,16

4,16

4,61

4,17

4,17

2012

2013

2014

4,61
4,17
4,17
4,14
4,12
4,24
4,28
4,16
4,16

4,14

4,12

4,24

4,28

4,16

4,16

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1501 / 1555

● Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff

Absolute number of public prosecutors by instance and gender (Q55)

2020

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme courts

Total

Total

NA

NA

12

1 044

Distribution by 
instance

NA

NA

1,1%

Male

Female

Male

Female

NA

NA

4

396

NA

NA

8

648

NA

NA

33,3%

37,9%

NA

NA

66,7%

62,1%

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance

Sweden

EU Median

EU Median

73,30%

21,28%

1,1%
4,66%

4,66%

Supreme courts

Distribution of  public prosecutors by instance and gender

Female

Male

66,7%

33,3%

Supreme courts

62,1%

37,9%

Total

In this cycle, the total number of female prosecutors (all instances) is 648, which represents 62,1% of the total number of prosecutors.

Within the total number of prosecutors 12 intervene at third instance (of which 8 are female).  

As regards the distribution of the number of prosecutors among the different judicial instances, Sweden presents some peculiarities which should be mentioned. Namely, cases in first 
and second instance level are handled by the same prosecutors. Put differently, all Swedish prosecutors have the mandate to act at first instance as well as second instance level. The 
number of prosecutors at first and second instance level is 1 032, 392 males and 640 females. However, only the Prosecutor General and specifically appointed prosecutors working in 
the Office of the Prosecutor General have the mandate to act in the Supreme Court.

Non-prosecutor staff by gender (Q60)

Non-prosecutor staff

Total

2020

522

Male

99

Female

423

Non-prosecutor staff by gender

19%

Male

Female

81%

Public prosecutors, non-prosecutor staff and their ratio (Q55, Q60)

Per 100 000 inhabitants

Sweden

EU median

Public prosecutors and non-prosecutor staff per 100 000 inhabitants, and their ratio

Public prosecutors

10,06

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per 
prosecutor

5,03

0,50

9,91

15,22

1,11

Public prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff per prosecutor

10,06

5,03

0,50

15,22

9,91

1,11

Sweden

EU median

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1502 / 1555

● Salaries of professional judges and prosecutors at beginning of a career and at the highest instance (Q132, Q4)

Salaries of professional judges and 
prosecutors (Q132, Q4)

Average gross annual 
salary 
in €

Average net annual 
salary 
in €

Ratio with national 
average annual 
gross salary

Judge at the beginning of a career 

79 951 €

51 169 €

Judge of the highest court 

138 395 €

76 117 €

Prosecutor at the beginning of a career 

56 000 €

Public prosecutor at highest instance

88 000 €

NA

NA

1,86

3,21

1,30

2,04

3,21

2,02

EU Median

2,02

1,86

4,09

1,71

Gross salaries of judges and prosecutors vs average annual salary in the 
country

Salaries of 
judges and 
prosecutors in 
Judge

4,09

at the beginning 
of a career

3,61

79951

at the highest 
1,71
instance

1,30

2,04

138395

Prosecutor

at the beginning 
of a career

56000

Judge at the beginning of
career

Judge on highest instance

3,61

Sweden

Prosecutor at the
beginning of career

EU Median

at the highest 
instance

Prosecutor at highest
instance

88000

According to 2020 data, the absolute gross salary of a judge at the begining of a career in Sweden of 79 951€ is more than 50% above when compared to the EU median of 51 946€. As 
a ratio with the annual average salary of the country, the salary for a judge at the begining of career is: 1,86 compared with EU median of : 2,02.

The Swedish Prosecution Authority cannot provide net annual salary, since it is not possible to calculate it accurately. In fact, the level of income tax varies depending on the income and 
domicile.

● Lawyers

Lawyers

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

Number of lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

5 246

5 422

5 575

5 800

5 767

5 911

6 000

6 000

6 257

54,90

56,22

57,20

58,88

57,70

58,41

58,65

58,10

60,28

EU median 2020

122,09

In 2020, there are 6 257 lawyers, which is 4,3% more than in 2019.

54,90

56,22

57,20

58,88

57,70

58,41

58,65

58,10

60,28

122,09

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median
2020

Sweden has 60,3 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants, which is below the EU median of 122,1 lawyers per 100 000 inhabitants.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1503 / 1555

● Judicial professionals (summary)

Judicial professionals in absolute number and per 100 000 inhabitants (Q46, Q52, Q55, Q60, Q146)

Absolute number

Per 100 000 
inhabitants

EU Median

Professional judges

1 184

11,46

Non-judge staff

4 996

48,13

Prosecutors

1 044

10,06

23,92

59,00

9,91

Non-prosecutor staff

522

5,03

15,22

Judicial professionals per 100 000 inhabitants

Sweden

EU Median

59,00

48,13

23,92

11,46

10,06

9,91

15,22

5,03

122,09

60,28

Lawyers

6 257

60,28

122,09

Professional judges

Non-judge staff

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

Judicial professionals: Gender balance

Sweden % Male Sweden % Femalelabels

Professional judges

Sweden % Male
-44,6%
EU Median  % Male

55,4%

Sweden % Female

44,6%
EU Median  % Female

% Male

% Female

Professional judges

44,6%

-39,0%

61,0%

39,0%

Professional judges

44,6%

55,4%

39,0%

0,0%

Non judge staff

24,5%

75,5%

Non judge staff

Non judge staff

Prosecutors

37,9%

62,1%

24,5%
-24,5%

24,0%
-24,0%

75,5%

24,5%

76,0%

24,0%

Non-prosecutor staff

19,0%

81,0%

Prosecutors

37,9%

40,5%

Lawyers

65,8%

34,2%

Prosecutors

Non-prosecutor staff

Non-prosecutor staff

Lawyers

Lawyers

65,8%

52,3%

-37,9%
-40,5%

19,0%

-19,0%
28,1%
-28,1%

-65,8%
-52,3%

62,1%
59,5%

81,0%
71,9%

34,2%
47,7%

0,0%

37,9%
40,5%
0,0%
19,0%
28,1%
0,0%
65,8%
52,3%

34,2%

55,4%

61,0%

62,1%

59,5%

75,5%

76,0%

81,0%

71,9%

47,7%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1504 / 1555

3. Legal aid and court fees in Sweden

0

1

In Sweden, legal aid includes:
◦ Coverage of court fees: 

◦ Exemption from court fees: 

In Sweden, legal aid is available for :

> Representation in court:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

> Legal advice, ADR and other legal services:

 ◦ Criminal cases

 ◦ Other than criminal cases

>

Fees related to enforcement of judicial decisions as fees for enforcement agents (Q18) 

>

 Other costs than above (Q19) 

1

1

1

1

1

1

If a person does not have insurance that covers the cost of her/his dispute, s/he could be entitled to legal aid. In criminal cases, a person cannot receive this kind of legal aid. In 
these cases, a public defence counsel or a counsel for the injured party can be appointed to represent the person in need of legal assistance.

Applying for legal aid: The applicant applies for legal aid together with the lawyer/legal practitioner s/he wishes to represent her/him. Before a person can apply for legal aid, the 
lawyer/legal practitioner must provide a minimum of one hour and a maximum of two hours consultation on payment of a set fee. During the consultation the lawyer/legal 
practitioner familiarises her-/himself with the dispute in order to provide advice and make a legal assessment of the need for legal aid. In many cases, consultation is sufficient. If a 
person decides to proceed, the legal aid application form is completed together with the lawyer/legal practitioner.
The cost of consultation is a set fee of SEK 1,404 per hour (2020). The fee can be reduced if a person's income is less than SEK 75,000 per year. For those who are under the 
age of 18 and have no income or wealth, consultation is free.

Legal aid includes: •Part of the cost for the lawyer/legal practitioner for up to 100 hours (in the case of persons under the age of 18 who have no income or wealth, the whole cost 
could be covered). Legal aid can be increased if there are special reasons; •The cost of evidence in a general court, the Patent and Market Court and the Labour Court; 
•Investigation costs up to SEK 10,000 (excluding VAT); •Costs for interpretation and translation; •The court application fee (if legal aid is already received at the time of the 
application); •Copies of documents from authorities, documents that have been served etc., •The cost of a mediator.

When a legal aid matter has been concluded, the National Legal Aid Authority must decide on the division of the legal aid costs. This means that the person receiving aid and the 
legal representative each receive a letter stating how much the matter has cost and how much shall be payed to the representative.

According to section 19 of the Legal Aid Act, an individual who is granted legal aid does not have to pay fees to the Swedish Enforcement Authority. Fees related to the 
enforcement of judicial decisions are covered, no matterthe  type of case.

In criminal cases, legal aid can be granted for travel expenses and subsistence in respect of the accused person. The latter can also be granted legal aid for expenses for 
witnesses who are not called by the prosecutor. In other than criminal cases, an individual granted with legal aid can have expenses covered for travelling and subsistence, 
evidence in court, investigation costs to a certain amount (10 000 SEK, approximately 1000 EUR) and costs for a mediator appointed by the court.

 Number of cases for which legal aid has been granted

Total

Cases brought to court

Cases not brought to 
court

Absolute number 
(in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

NA

NA

In other than criminal cases

6 561

NA

NA

5 977

NA

NA

584

NA

NA

NA

NA

91,1%

8,9%

Per 100 000 inhabitants
 (in 2020)

Total

In criminal cases

In other than criminal cases

Sweden

EU Median

NA

NA

63,2

734,2

330,9

402,7

Number of cases for which legal has been granted per 100 000 
inhabitants

Sweden

EU Median

402,7

63,2

In other than criminal cases

Timeframes of the procedure for granting legal aid (in relation to the duration from the initial legal aid request to the final approval of the legal aid request)

◦ Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulations: 

◦ Actual average duration: 

NAP

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1505 / 1555

According to the National Legal Aid Authority, when the application is handled by the National Legal Aid Authority, the median from application to decision is 12 days.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1506 / 1555

4. Performance of courts in Sweden

● Efficiency indicators

◦ Clearance Rate (CR) and Disposition Time (DT)

The Clearance Rate shows the capacity of a judicial system to deal with the incoming cases. A Clearance Rate of 100% and higher does not generate backlog. 

The Disposition Time determines the estimated number of days necessary for a pending case to be solved in a court. 

First instance Total of other than criminal cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Evolution of number of all other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants
Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

Incoming

2,07

2,08

2,03

1,92

2,32

2,10

2,09

2,09

1,99

2,22

7
0
2

,

0
1
2

,

8
0
2

,

9
0
2

,

3
0
2

,

9
0
2

,

6
8
0

,

4
8
0

,

6
7
0

,

2
9
1

,

9
9
1

,

9
6
0

,

2
3
2

,

2
2
2

,

1
8
0

,

0
5
2

,

4
3
2

,

4
5
2

,

7
4
2

,

7
9
0

,

3
0
1

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2,50

6
6
2

,

2,54

7
6
2

,

2,66

2,74

2019

6,82

4
7
2

,

1
0
1

,

2,34

0
8
2

,

2,47

2,67

5
9
0

,

2,80
2020
6,60

0,86

0,84

0,76

2
8
6

,

0
6
6

,

0,69

0,81

0,97

1,03

1,01

6
6
2

,

0,95
EU median
2,66

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Sweden (2,74 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below the EU median (6,82 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Sweden (2,80 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below the EU median (6,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Sweden (0,95 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below the EU median (2,66 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Other than criminal cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Other than criminal 
cases

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

102%

101%

103%

103%

96%

93%

97%

100%

102%

149

146

133

126

133

151

152

138

123

EU median

99%

109

102%

101%

103%

103%

96%

93%

97%

100%

102%

99%

DT (days)

CR (%)

149

2012

146

2013

133

2014

126

2015

133

2016

151

2017

152

2018

138

2019

123

109

2020

EU median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 102,2% in 2020 Sweden seems to be able to deal with its other than criminal cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased by 1,8 points.

In 2020, other than criminal cases are solved in approximately 123 days, which is slightly above the EU median of 109 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a -10,8% decrease of the Disposition Time.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1507 / 1555

First instance Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of civil and commercial litigious cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

0,68
0,68
0,66
0,61
0,60
0,61
0,63
0,66
0,60
1,56

0,68
0,69
0,68
0,64
0,59
0,61
0,61
0,64
0,62
1,50

6
5
1

,

0
5
1

,

0,33
0,32
0,29
0,27
0,27
0,27
0,28
0,29
0,27
1,05

5
0
1

,

8
6
0

,

8
6
0

,

8
6
0

,

9
6
0

,

6
6
0

,

8
6
0

,

1
6
0

,

4
6
0

,

0
6
0

,

9
5
0

,

1
6
0

,

1
6
0

,

3
6
0

,

1
6
0

,

6
6
0

,

4
6
0

,

0
6
0

,

2
6
0

,

3
3
0

,

2
3
0

,

9
2
0

,

7
2
0

,

7
2
0

,

7
2
0

,

8
2
0

,

9
2
0

,

7
2
0

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Sweden (0,60 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below the EU median (1,56 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Sweden (0,62 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below the EU median (1,50 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Sweden (0,27 per 100 inhabitants) is significantly below the EU median (1,05 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

98,8%

101,0%

103,9%

103,9%

99,3%

99,7%

97,5%

97,5%

102,8%

179

171

157

152

164

159

166

167

161

EU Median

98%

221

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

DT (days)

CR (%)

98,8%

101,0%

103,9%

103,9%

99,3%

99,7%

97,5%

97,5%

102,8%

98%

179

2012

171

2013

157

2014

152

2015

164

2016

159

2017

166

2018

167

2019

161

221

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 102,8% in 2020, Sweden seems to deal efficiently with its civil and commercial litigious cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased by 5,4 points.

In 2020, the civil and commercial litigious cases are solved in approximately 161 days, which is somewhat below the EU median of 221 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a -3,4% decrease of the Disposition Time.

In Sweden, there are 711 civil and commercial litigious cases older than 2 years. This is 2,5% of the total number of pending cases at the end of the year

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1508 / 1555

First instance Administrative cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Evolution of number of administrative cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming

Resolved

Pending 31 Dec

4
1
1

,

9
0
1

,

0
1
1

,

1
1
1

,

9
0
1

,

2
1
1

,

3
0
1

,

7
0
1

,

4
4
1

,

5
3
1

,

2
6
1

,

5
4
1

,

3
6
1

,

8
5
1

,

2
7
1

,

9
3
0

,

8
3
0

,

5
3
0

,

1
3
0

,

3
4
0

,

9
5
0

,

3
6
0

,

,

4
7
1

1,09
1,10
1,09
1,03
1,44
1,62
1,63
1,72
1,85
0,30

0
6
0

,

9
8
1

,

5
8
1

,

1,14
1,11
1,12
1,07
1,35
1,45
1,58
1,74
1,89
0,26

5
5
0

,

0,39
0,38
0,35
0,31
0,43
0,59
0,63
0,60
0,55
0,21

0
3
0

,

6
2
0

,

1
2
0

,

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU median

The number of incoming cases in 2020 in Sweden (1,85 per 100 inhabitants) is well above the EU median (0,30 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of resolved cases in 2020 in Sweden (1,89 per 100 inhabitants) is well above the EU median (0,26 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of pending  cases at the end of 2020 in Sweden (0,55 per 100 inhabitants) is well above the EU median (0,21 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Administrative cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

104,8%

100,7%

102,8%

103,7%

93,9%

89,8%

96,8%

101,7%

102,3%

126

126

114

105

115

147

146

125

107

EU Median

100%

388

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for Administrative cases

104,8%

100,7%

102,8%

103,7%

DT (days)

CR (%)

93,9%

89,8%

96,8%

101,7%

102,3%

100%

126

2012

126

2013

114

2014

105

2015

115

2016

147

2017

146

2018

125

2019

107

388

2020

EU Median

With a Clearance Rate calculated at 102,3% in 2020, Sweden seems to deal efficiently with its administrative cases.

Between 2019 and 2020, the Clearance Rate has increased for 0,6 points.

In 2020, the administrative cases are solved in approximately 107 days, which is significantly below EU median of 388 days.

The analysis of the 2019 - 2020 period reveals a -14,7% decrease of the Disposition Time.

In Sweden, there are 820 administrative law cases older than 2 years. This is 1,4% of the total number of pending cases at the end of the year.

It should be noted that migration cases are included in administrative law cases. 

The number of incoming cases before administrative courts increased by two percent, migration cases excluded. Looking at the migration cases separately, these 
increased strongly with 22 percent. A large amount of cases were resolved by the administrative courts, nine percent more than in 2019 regarding general cases, and a 
nine percent increase regarding migration cases. This led to a lower level of pending cases . However, the increase in pending cases older than two years in the 
administrative courts, may partly be due to an increase in the number of cases since the previous reference year. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1509 / 1555

Insolvency cases

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Insolvency cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

EU Median

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT) for 
Insolvency cases

DT (days)

CR (%)

109,7%

105%

109,7%

305

105%

281

305

2020

281

EU Median

The Clearance Rate was calculated at 109,7% in 2020 for insolvency cases, Sweden seems to deal efficiently with its insolvency cases.

In 2020, insolvency cases are solved in a approximately 305 days, which is slightly above the EU median of 281 days.

Data on Insolvency cases includes bankruptcy cases and company reconstruction cases. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1510 / 1555

● First instance Criminal Law Cases

◦ Incoming, resolved and pending cases

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

42 178

119 936

115 152

46 962

Severe criminal cases 

Misdemeanour and/or 
minor cases

Other cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Per 100 inhabitants

Pending cases 1 
Jan

Incoming cases Resolved cases

Pending cases 
31 Dec

Total

0,41

1,16

1,11

0,45

Severe criminal 
cases 
Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

Total criminal law cases per 100 inhabitants

Incoming cases Resolved casesPending 

Sweden

Incoming cases

Resolved cases

EU Median

1,16

1,60

0
6
1

,

1,11

Pending cases 31 Dec

0,45

1,48

0,46

8
4
1

,

6
1
1

,

1
1
1

,

5
4
0

,

6
4
0

,

Sweden

EU Median

The number of total incoming criminal cases in 2020 in Sweden (1,16 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below the EU median (1,60 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total resolved criminal cases in 2020 in Sweden (1,11 per 100 inhabitants) is somewhat below the EU median (1,48 per 100 inhabitants).

The number of total pending criminal cases at the end of 2020 in Sweden (0,45 per 100 inhabitants) is slightly below the EU median (0,46 per 100 inhabitants).

◦ Clearance Rate and Disposition Time

Clearance Rate in % (CR) and Disposition Time in days (DT)

Total criminal law cases

CR (%)

DT (days)

DT (days)

CR (%)

Total

96,0%

Severe criminal 
cases 

Misdemeanour 
and/or minor cases

Other cases

NA

NA

NA

149

NA

NA

NA

EU Median

95,2%

139

EU Median

Total Criminal law cases
96,0%

95,2%

149

Total

139

EU Median

With the Clearance Rate calculated at 96,0% in 2020 for total criminal cases, Sweden seems to encounter some difficulties in dealing with its total criminal cases.

In 2020, criminal law cases were solved in approximately 149 days, which is slightly above the EU median of 139 days.
 It should be pointed out that in the Swedish case management system, there are no subcategories of criminal cases such as those defined by the CEPEJ. Some 
misdemeanour criminal cases, resulting in breach-of-regulations fine and summary imposition of fine, are not handled by the courts (but by the Swedish Police 
Authority/Prosecution Authority). The Swedish National Courts Administration’s commission (as regards statistics) from the Government is about describing the operation 
of the courts and "details" about criminal cases are not needed to fulfill this task. Another authority, the Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention, describes the 
criminal statistics in Sweden, but only as regards reported cases and cases taken legal proceedings against, not the flow of cases to and from the courts. 

It is noteworthy that there are two different types of cases in the procedural framework (the Swedish Code of Judicial Procedure), civil cases and criminal cases. 
“Appointment cases” sort under criminal cases. However, “Appointment case” is not a formal term, but a term that can be used to describe the case’s /current/ status (a 
public defence counsel has been appointed, but the case has not /yet/ been brought to prosecution) or of how the case was closed (not brought to prosecution; 
dismissed). If a case is brought to prosecution, it is only referred to as a criminal case.

The increased amount of criminal cases in 2020 could be related to an increased outflow from previous stages in the legal chain, in combination with an increased inflow 
of appointment cases (appointment of public defender), as well as the fact that the trial operations regarding “rapid proceedings” in criminal cases have led to more such 
cases being registered. More courts joined the trial operation at the beginning of the year.

Important amendments relating to first instance courts’ efficiency in criminal matters have to be highlighted. On the one hand, the government bill (prop. 2020/21:209 
Utökade möjligheter att använda tidiga förhör) is aimed at making the procedure of all large criminal cases (rapid proceedings) more modern, flexible and efficient. The 
proposals include increased possibilities to use statements in questionings at an early stage, including inter alia increased possibilities to allow statements in questionings 
by law enforcement authorities to be used as evidence. On the other hand, a government bill (prop. 2020/21:214 Utökade möjligheter att avgöra mål på handlingarna i 
allmän domstol) is proposing that more of the criminal cases in the district courts shall be possible to determine in a written procedure, in order to handle these cases in 
the most appropriate way and as efficient as possible. This can result in, inter alia, shorter processing times and increased flexibility for the court, which can free up time 
for hearing times for the more complex cases. The amendments foreseen by the two bills are proposed to enter into force on 1 January 2022.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1511 / 1555

Overall efficiency by instance and by case matter

CR (%)

DT (days)

CR (%)

DT (days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and commercial 
litigious cases

102,8%

96,3%

100,9%

Administrative cases

102,3%

109,9%

96,9%

Total criminal law cases

96,0%

92,5%

96,4%

161

107

149

128

68

156

127

94

45

Clearance rate by instance and by matter (%)
2nd instance

2nd instance

1st instance

1st instance

Supreme Court

Supreme Court

Disposition time by instance and by matter (in days)

1st instance

2nd instance

Supreme Court

Civil and 
%
8
commercial 
2
0
Administrative cases
1

,

100%

,

%
9
0
0
1

%
3
6
9

,

Total criminal law cases

Civil and
commercial
litigious cases

,

%
9
9
0
1

%
102,8%
3
2
102,3%
0
1

,

%
9
6
9

,

96,3%
109,9%
%
0
6
9

,

%
5
2
9

,

100,9%
96,9%

%
4
6
9

,

1

1
1

127

128

161

94

68

107

45

156

149

Administrative cases Total criminal law
96,0%

92,5%

cases

96,4%

Civil and commercial litigious
cases

1
1

Administrative cases

Total criminal law cases

In recent years, an up-ward trend is to be noticed in Sweden concerning the number of incoming criminal cases at all levels. Accordingly, the Clearance Rate indicator of 
first instance courts and the Supreme court for 2020 in criminal matters is below the 100% threshold. At second instance, in order to deal with difficulties stemming from 
the extraordinary situation due to the pandemic, more urgent cases, such as criminal cases, have been prioritized in 2020. As a matter of fact, the Disposition Time 
indicator of first and second instance courts dealing with criminal cases are above the respective EU medians (139 days at first instance and 101 days at second 
instance). Conversely, despite the increase in the number of pending criminal cases before the Supreme Court in 2020, its Disposition Time is well below the EU median 
of 120 days in the criminal law field. In respect of the increased number of pending criminal cases at third instance, it should be mentioned that the so called "priority 
cases" are included in the number of incoming criminal cases, affecting the processing time of other cases. 

As to civil and administrative cases, the Disposition Time indicator is considerably below the EU medians at all instances (EU medians in civil matters: 1st instance - 221 
days, 2nd instance - 177 days and 3rd instance - 224 days; EU medians in administrative matters: 388 days, 362 days and 281 days), while the Clearance Rate is above 
the 100% threshold except at second instance for civil cases and third instance for administrative cases. In fact, the number of incoming and pending second instance 
civil cases increased in 2020 due to different reasons, namely the pandemic, the fact that a priority has been given to criminal cases during the health crisis, the increase 
in the number of environmental cases etc. The Supreme Administrative Court had in 2020 an increased level of pending cases, due to an increase in various case 
categories, for example social security cases and other cases.

At first and second instances, the fastest courts are the administrative courts, while at last instance  it is the Supreme Court in criminal matters.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1512 / 1555

5. Public prosecution services in Sweden

● Role and powers of the public prosecutor

In the criminal procedure, the public prosecutor in Sweden has the following 8 out of 11 possible roles and powers:

To conduct or supervise police investigation

To appeal

To conduct investigations

To supervise the enforcement procedure

When necessary, to request investigation measures from the judge

To discontinue a case without needing a decision by a judge

To charge

To present the case in the court

To propose a sentence to the judge

To end the case by imposing or negotiating a penalty or measure 
without requiring a judicial decision

Other significant powers

It is not compulsory for the prosecutor to propose a sentence to the judge but none the less this is often done by the prosecutor. Other significant powers may include decisions on 
coercive measures.

The public prosecutor does not have any role in civil, administrative or insolvency cases.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1513 / 1555

● Public prosecutors: Number of first instance criminal cases

Type of cases

Absolute 
number

Per 100 
inhabitants

1. Pending cases on 1 Jan. ref. year 

118 858

1,15

2. Incoming/received cases

497 291

4,79

Public prosecutors: Total number of first instance criminal 
cases per 100 inhabitants
Incoming/rec
eived cases

Processed 
Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. Year
cases

Processed cases

Incoming/received cases

Pendin
g cases 
on 31 

4,79

4,96

3. Processed cases (3.1 + 3.2 + 3.3 + 3.4)

514 851

4,96

Sweden

4,79 4,96

1,08

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year (3.1.1 + 3.1.2 + 3.1.3 
+ 3.1.4)

193 763

1,87

3.1.1 Discontinued by the public prosecutor because the 
offender could not be identified 

NA

NA

EU Median

1,08

2,85

2,84
2,85 2,84

0,84

0,84

3.1.2 Discontinued by the public prosecutor due to the lack 
of an established offence or a specific legal situation 

31 944

0,31

Sweden

EU Median

3.1.3 Discontinued by the public prosecutor for reasons of 
opportunity

39 505

0,38

3.1.4 Discontinued for other reasons 

122 314

1,18

Processed cases per 100 inhabitants
EU Median

Sweden

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated 
by the public prosecutor

Processed cases

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

Sweden
1,87

EU Median

1,05

55 915

0,54

3.1. Discontinued during the reference year

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed
or negotiated by the public prosecutor

-1,87

0,54

1,05

0,12

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons

65 159

0,63

3.2. Concluded by a penalty or a measure imposed or negotiated by the public prosecutor

3.4. Cases brought to court

200 014

1,93

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for
other reasons

-0,54

0,63

0,12

0,30

3.3. Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons
0,30

-0,63

3.4. Cases brought to court

1,93

0,53

4. Pending cases on 31 Dec. ref. year

112 271

1,08

3.4. Cases brought to court

-1,93

0,53

It is noteworthy mentioning that each case (suspicion of crime) usually gets registered only once. A suspicion of crime can, however, be “resolved” more than once. When it is 
reopened it does not receive a new registration date, as the old one is still valid. So it is not “incoming” again. But the next decision that closes the case generates a new date 
when the case is considered to be resolved. If these decisions are taken during different years the case is counted as “resolved” twice, but only “incoming” once. As a result, there 
are usually more resolved cases than incoming, even if the number of pending cases are the same. The most usual examples are 1) when a summary imposition of a fine is 
issued, which means that the case is resolved. If the fine is not paid, the case will be reopened followed by a decision to prosecute, resolving the case a second time. And 2) when 
the prosecutor decides that the police shall take over responsibility for the preliminary investigation. If the investigation later on returns from the police to the prosecution agency 
the case will be reopened and later resolved once again. But as it is the same case it will not receive a new registration date.

3.1.1 Discontinued by the public prosecutor because the offender could not be identified: on the one hand, the numbers are very small and will not affect the totals considerably 
and, on the other hand, these types of cases, when they occur, are included in other subcategories.

3.1.4 The vast majority of the cases mentioned in 3.1.4 are discontinued due to the lack of enough evidence (the Code of Judicial Procedure, Chapter 23, Section 4).

3.3 Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons consists of cases closed for administrative reasons, i.e. transfer to another prosecution office or that the police shall be 
in charge of the preliminary investigation. The data for 2018 is 486 410 (3. Processed cases) and 66 766 (3.3 Cases closed by the public prosecutor for other reasons)

118 858 includes 23 563 from the Swedish Economic Crime Authority (EBM).
497 291 includes 40 047 from the Swedish Economic Crime Authority (EBM).
387 526 includes 69 150 from the Swedish Economic Crime Authority (EBM).
193 763 includes 34 575 from the Swedish Economic Crime Authority (EBM).
31 944 includes 8 260 from the Swedish Economic Crime Authority (EBM).
39 505 includes 15 001 from the Swedish Economic Crime Authority (EBM).
122 314 includes 11 314 from the Swedish Economic Crime Authority (EBM).
55 915 includes 1 571 from the Swedish Economic Crime Authority (EBM).
200 014 includes 4 684 from the Swedish Economic Crime Authority (EBM).
112 271 includes 21 081 from the Swedish Economic Crime Authority (EBM).

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1514 / 1555

6. Existence and use of alternative dispute resolution in Sweden

Number of mediators
EU Median 2020
In Sweden, there is no formal accreditation/registration of mediators. Accordingly, this CEPEJ category of justice professional does not exist as such within the Swedish 
judicial system.

EU median in 2019

14,4

However, in order to facilitate the choice of special mediator, the Swedish National Courts Administration, commissioned by the Swedish Government, has put together 
and published a list of special mediators available for the mediation procedure outside the court room (the list does not include mediators in family cases). 

Number of court related mediations

Number of cases 
for which the parties
agreed to start 
mediation

Number of finished 
court-related
mediations

Number of cases 
in which there is a 
settlement agreement

Type of cases

All cases

Civil and commercial

Family cases

NA

NA

NA

Administrative

NAP

Employment dismissal

Criminal cases

Consumer cases

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

The Swedish National Courts Administration does not register whether (court-related) mediation was applied or nor, nor whether the mediation was successful or not.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1515 / 1555

7. ICT tools of courts in Sweden

●The ICT tools of courts and for court users

The use of ICT in courts in 2020 has been evaluated as  :

EU Median

Total 
(0 to 10)

Assistance tools (0 to 3)

Case management system (0 to 7)
Financial management tools (0 to 3)

Measurement tools to assess the workload (0 to 5)
Electronic communication (0 to 10)

7,2
2,0

5,1

0,5
4,7

8,0

6,6
2,0

5,2

1,3
2,5

6,9

The calculation of this values for each field is based on the answers for that question/s and weighted according the avaiability 
or deployment rate. The total value is normalised to max 10 points for readability and comparison.

The details of the calculation are given in Annex 5 - IT calculations

The result by area may be summarized in these graphics, where each field has been evaluated from 0 to 4 points.

Note: index is modified based on the available questions. This cycle the recalculation was made for the last three cycles to be 
able to follow the development.

ICT tools assessment from 2018 to 2020 

Case 
management 
system

Financial 
management 
tools

2018
Measurement 
tools to assess 
the workload

2019

2020
Electronic 
communication

EU Median 2020

7,96

6,94

6,20

6,20

5,08

5,08

5,08

2,00

2,00

5,08

5,08

5,08

5,17

1,00

1,00

0,50

5,00

5,00

4,67

5,17

1,25

6,20

6,20

2,50

1,00

7,96
1,00

6,94
0,50

1,25

5,00

5,00

4,67

2,50

Assistance 
tools

Year
###
###
###
###
###
###
###
EU Median 20202,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

2,00

Assistance tools

Case management system

Financial management tools

Measurement tools to assess the
workload

Electronic communication

According to the Swedish National Courts Administration, in the CMS it is possible to get an overview of workload, the amount of detail differs from 
court to court depending on which level in the organization the individual cases are connected to.

In an additional system for managing lay judges it is also possible to extract detailed information on which judge that presided in which 
meeting/hearing.

In addition to this, data from the CMS is exported to a data warehouse from which a statistics tool can extract data at an organizational level, thus 
making comparisons between courts possible. The answer "no" regarding data used for monitoring at national level for non-judge/non-prosecutor 
staff refers to non-judge staff only (source: the Swedish National Courts Administration), whereas the answer regarding non-prosecutor staff is yes 
(source: the Swedish Prosecution Authority). The Swedish Prosecution Authority has its own system and makes its own follow-up, monitoring 
takes place at prosecution office level. 

The electronic communication with courts is mainly managed through e-mail, but professionals and parties can i.e. submit applications and sign 
documents electronically at the official homepage of the Swedish Courts - this procedure is somewhat limited in reach still, because it is not 
possible to submit documents in all kinds of cases through this channel yet.

In criminal matters the Prosecution Authority turn in their indictments and other documents through an electronic channel within the criminal justice 
system. 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1516 / 1555

8. Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and public prosecution services in Sweden

In Sweden, quality standards are not detemined for the judicial system at the national level.

● Systems for measuring and evaluating courts' performance

A regular monitoring system of court activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

The Swedish courts all use the same case management system but with different set-ups. The system is used for all categories of cases. Information is shared when a case is 
appealed to a higher instance court. In criminal cases the system communicates with the National Police Board and the prosecutors office. The system also provides the 
statistics system with data on a daily basis.

The statistics are found in ready-made reports and some people who are employed by a court can obtain the information quickly and easily. All courts have access to all 
available information. The statistics system contains operational statistics, as well as historical data and data which is updated continuously. The statistics database and 
reports are updated every night.

The statistics are mainly used for analysis and follow-ups for all courts and the National Courts Administration, annual reports to the government, official statistics (annual 
publication), inquiries from media, authorities and public as well as for allocation of budgetary resources between different courts.

 "Other" refers to: Statistics concerning review permits in a superior court (this is often required when you appeal to a superior court): Number of incoming cases where there is 
a demand for a review permit; Number of cases that receives a review permit; Time to examine if a review permit will be given.

Statistics concerning hearings: Number and duration of hearings in a case; Number of cancelled hearings in a case.

Statistics concerning parties: Number and type of parties in a case (defendants, witnesses, parties injured, plaintiffs) - Number of detained persons (in custody) in a criminal 
case; Number of cases including minor offenders (< 18 years old).

Statistics concerning various types of decisions: Number of times a judicial decision is changed in a superior court - Statistics concerning unit within court used to handle the 

In Sweden, there is a system to regularly evaluate the court performance based primarily on defined indicators and the reporting is more frequent than annual. More precisely, 
the evaluation is annual and occasional when needed.

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each court.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes)

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases

Backlogs

Productivity of judges and court staff

Satisfaction of court staff

The evaluation of the courts' activities is used for the later allocation of means in the courts.

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the courts)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Number of appeals

Appeal ratio

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Other

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1517 / 1555

● Systems for measuring and evaluating public prosecution services' performance

A regular monitoring system of public prosecution services activities is in place concerning:

Number of incoming cases 

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs 

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecution) 

Costs of the judicial procedures 

Clearance rate 

Disposition time 

Percentage of convictions and aquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

In Sweden, there is a system to evaluate regularly the activity of each public prosecution service and the reporting is more frequent than annual.

There is a regular evaluation of the Prosecution Authority, both by internal audit and external through, e.g. meetings between Prosecutor-General and the Ministry of Justice 
once a year, and with the Swedish National Audit Office. 

Performance and quality indicators are defined for the activity of each public prosecution service.

The following indicators are used:

Number of incoming cases

Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

Number of resolved cases

Number of pending cases 

Backlogs

Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered 
by the public prosecutors)

Costs of the judicial procedures

Clearance rate

Disposition time

Percentage of convictions and acquittals

Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

Other

Satisfaction of prosecution staff

The categroy "Other" encompasses the number of individuals and cases prosecuted (including decisions on summary imposition of a fine and waiver of prosecution); case 
handling time (including investigation time) and decision making time (time from a completed preliminary investigation to decision by a prosecutor); the number of cases where 
prosecutors request confiscation of proceeds of crime

There are of course many more performance indicators, but these are the main ones as specified in SPA:s annual report.

The evaluation of the public prosecution services' activities is used for the later allocation of means in the public prosecution services.

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1518 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table General Data: Economic and demographic data, in absolute values (Q1, Q3, Q5)

Q1 Number of inhabitants

9 555 893

9 644 864

9 747 355

9 851 017

9 995 153

10 120 242

10 230 185

10 327 589

10 379 295

8,6%

0,9%

1,1%

1,1%

1,5%

1,3%

1,1%

1,0%

0,5%

Q.3 GDP Per capita (in €) in current prices

43 867

44 384

42 800

46 378

46 125

46 632

46 117

43 560

47 455

8,2%

1,2%

-3,6%

8,4%

-0,5%

1,1%

-1,1%

-5,5%

8,9%

Q5. Exchange rate of Nat currency to € on 1 Jan

9

9

9

9

10

10

10

11

10

17,3%

3,4%

6,4%

-2,5%

3,9%

2,5%

4,1%

9,4%

-9,9%

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 1: Systems for measuring and evaluating the performance of courts and prosecution services  (Indicator 4 in 2019)

Table 1.1 to Table 1.10 (Q66, Q67, Q77, Q78, Q77-1, Q78-1, Q73, Q73-0, Q73-1, Q73-2, Q73-3, Q73-4, Q73-5, Q73-6, Q70, Q70-1, Q71, Q72, Q83-2, Q83-3, Q120 
and Q120-1)

66 Qlty standards formulated_jud system

67 Specialised court staff entrusted_qlty standards

77 Performance and quality indicators of court activities

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

No

Yes

False

False

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

078.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078.1.5 Backlogs 

078.1.6 Productivity of judges and court staff

078.1.7 Satisfaction of court staff 

078.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts) 

078.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078.1.10 Number of appeals

078.1.11 Appeal ratio

078.1.12 Clearance rate 

078.1.13 Disposition time 

078.1.14 Other

077-1.1.1 Defined performance and quality indicators

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1519 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

078-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases

078-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

078-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

078-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

078-1.1.5 Backlogs 

078-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

078-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

078-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

078-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

078-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

078-1.1.11 Disposition time 

078-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

078-1.1.13 Other

73 Regular system_evaluation_performance_each court

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

073-0.1.1 Annual

073-0.1.2 Less frequent

073-0.1.3 More frequent

073-1.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
court

073-2.1.1 Courses of action taken in the evaluation is used for the 
allocation of resources

073-2.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-2.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-2.1.4 Other

073-3.1.1 Regular evaluation of the public prosecution services 
performance

Yes

Yes

True

False

False

True

True

False

False

False

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

True

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1520 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

073-4.1.1 Annual

073-4.1.2 Less frequent

073-4.1.3 More frequent

073-5.1.1 Evaluation used for the allocation of resources within the 
public prosecution services

073-6.1.1 Identifying the causes of improved or deteriorated 
performance

073-6.1.2 Reallocating resources (human/financial resources based 
on performance)

073-6.1.3 Reengineering of internal procedures to increase efficiency

073-6.1.4 Other

070.1.1 number of incoming cases

070.1.2 length of proceedings (timeframes)

070.1.3 number of resolved cases

070.1.4 number of pending cases

070.1.5 backlogs

070.1.6 productivity of judges and court staff

070.1.7 satisfaction of court staff

070.1.8 satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by the 
courts)

070.1.9 costs of the judicial procedures

070.1.10 number of appeals

070.1.11 appeal ratio

070.1.12 clearance rate

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

False

True

True

True

True

True

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1521 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

070-1.1.1 Number of incoming cases 

070-1.1.2 Length of proceedings (timeframes) 

070-1.1.3 Number of resolved cases

070-1.1.4 Number of pending cases 

070-1.1.5 Backlogs 

070-1.1.6 Productivity of prosecutors and prosecution staff

070-1.1.7 Satisfaction of prosecution staff 

070-1.1.8 Satisfaction of users (regarding the services delivered by 
the public prosecution) 

070-1.1.9 Costs of the judicial procedures 

070-1.1.10 Clearance rate 

070-1.1.11 Disposition time 

070-1.1.12 Percentage of convictions and aquittals

070-1.1.13 Other

071.1.1 Monitoring backlogs in Civil law cases

071.1.2 Monitoring backlogs in Criminal law cases

071.1.3 Monitoring backlogs in Administrative law cases

072.1.1 Monitoring timeframes Within the courts

072.1.2 Monitoring timeframes Within the public prosecution services

083-2.1.1 Quantitative performance tagets defined for each 
prosecutors

083-3.1.1 Body responsible - Executive power (for example the 
Ministry of Justice)

083-3.1.2 Body responsible - Prosecutor General /State public 
prosecutor

083-3.1.3 Body responsible - Public Prosecutorial Council

083-3.1.4 Body responsible - Head of the organisational unit or 
hierarchically superior public prosecutor

083-3.1.5 Body responsible - Other

True

True

True

True

False

False

True

False

True

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

False

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1522 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

120.1.1 Qualitative individual assessment of the public prosecutors' 
work

120-1.1.1 Feequency - Annual

120-1.1.2 Feequency - Less frequent

120-1.1.3 Feequency - More frequent

Q42.1.1Total number of all courts - legal entities 

Q42.1.2 Total number of courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.3 First instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.4 Second instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.5 Highest instance courts of general jurisdiction - legal entities

Q42.1.6 Total number of specialised courts - legal entities

43.1.1 Total number of specialised courts of first instance

43.1.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.1.3 Insolvency courts

43.1.4 Labour courts

43.1.5 Family courts

43.1.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.1.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.1.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.1.9 Internet related disputes

43.1.10 Administrative courts

43.1.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.1.12 Military courts

43.1.13 Juvenile courts

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

True

False

False

True

Indicator 2: The judicial organisation

Tables 2.1a; 2.1b; 2.2a; 2.2b; 2.3a; 2.3b; 2.4 and 2.5(EC) (Q42, Q43 and Q44)

-

-

60

-

-

-

12

NAP

NAP

1

-

-

60

-

-

-

12

NAP

NAP

1

-

-

60

-

-

-

12

NAP

NAP

1

-

-

60

-

-

-

12

NAP

NAP

1

-

-

60

-

-

-

10

NAP

NAP

1

-

-

60

-

-

-

10

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

8

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

8

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

8

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

8

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

8

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

8

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

48

-

-

-

31

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

12

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

48

-

-

-

31

NAP

NAP

1

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

12

NAP

NAP

-

94

55

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

48

-20,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-20,0%

0,0%

0,0%

6

1

39

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

31

158,3%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-16,7%

0,0%

210,0%

0,0%

0,0%

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

12

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

0,0%

-

-

-

-

-

-

1523 / 1555

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

43.1.14 Other specialised courts

3

3

3

3

1

1

18

18

18

500,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

-66,7%

0,0% 1700,0%

0,0%

0,0%

43.2.1 Total number of specialised courts of higher instances

43.2.2 Commercial courts (excluded insolvency courts)

43.2.3 Insolvency courts

43.2.4 Labour courts

43.2.5 Family courts

43.2.6 Rent and tenancies courts

43.2.7 Enforcement of criminal sanctions courts

43.2.8 Fight against terrorism, organised crime and corruption

43.2.9 Internet related disputes

43.2.10 Administrative courts

43.2.11 Insurance and / or social welfare courts

43.2.12 Military courts

43.2.13 Juvenile courts

43.2.14 Other specialised courts

44.1.1 First instance courts geographic locations

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

44.1.2 All courts geographic locations

95

95

95

95

95

95

99

99

8

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

5

NAP

NAP

NAP

3

84

99

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4,2%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

0,0%

4,2%

0,0%

0,0%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1524 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 3: The performance of courts at all stages of the proceedings

Tables 3.1.1.1 to 3.1.1.4 (all years) Number of other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.1 to 3.3.3 Variation of first instance other than criminal cases per 100 inhabitants (Q1, Q91)

Table 3.13.7 (EC) to 3.13.12 (EC) First instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

91.1.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.1.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.1.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.1.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.1.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.1.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.1.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.1.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

91.1.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.1.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

91.1.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

91.2.1 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.2.2 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.2.3 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.2.4 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.2.5 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.2.6 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.2.7 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.2.8 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

91.2.9 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

85 228

81 916

80 562

74 407

71 388

81 014

97 859

105 443

104 472

22,6%

-3,9%

-1,7%

-7,6%

-4,1%

13,5%

20,8%

7,7%

-0,9%

30 917

31 686

31 035

28 538

26 196

26 667

26 858

28 499

30 234

-2,2%

2,5%

-2,1%

-8,0%

-8,2%

1,8%

0,7%

6,1%

6,1%

-

-

8 505

9 337

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

9 128

9 128

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

8 744

8 744

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

8 399

8 399

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

8 385

8 692

8 701

9 078

-

-

-

-4,2%

-3,9%

-0,2%

3,7%

0,1%

4,3%

8 385

8 692

8 701

9 078

6,7%

9,8%

-2,2%

-4,2%

-3,9%

-0,2%

3,7%

0,1%

4,3%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

42 654

37 724

37 003

34 000

33 796

42 627

59 299

64 646

61 698

44,6%

-11,6%

-1,9%

-8,1%

-0,6%

26,1%

39,1%

9,0%

-4,6%

3 152

3 169

3 396

3 125

2 997

3 335

3 010

3 597

3 462

9,8%

0,5%

7,2%

-8,0%

-4,1%

11,3%

-9,7%

19,5%

-3,8%

197 441

200 644

197 953

189 467

231 823

253 319

260 016

274 598

284 482

44,1%

1,6%

-1,3%

-4,3%

22,4%

9,3%

2,6%

5,6%

3,6%

65 418

65 467

63 902

60 313

59 591

61 931

64 117

67 885

62 676

-4,2%

0,1%

-2,4%

-5,6%

-1,2%

3,9%

3,5%

5,9%

-7,7%

-

-

22 382

21 489

21 366

21 729

21 490

22 331

22 682

-

-

-

-4,0%

-0,6%

1,7%

-1,1%

3,9%

1,6%

22 800

23 217

22 382

21 489

21 366

21 729

21 490

22 331

22 682

-0,5%

1,8%

-3,6%

-4,0%

-0,6%

1,7%

-1,1%

3,9%

1,6%

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

91.2.10 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

103 745

106 094

106 085

101 889

143 970

163 550

167 245

177 144

191 832

84,9%

2,3%

0,0%

-4,0%

41,3%

13,6%

2,3%

5,9%

8,3%

91.2.11 1st inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

5 478

5 866

5 584

5 776

6 896

6 109

7 164

7 238

7 292

33,1%

7,1%

-4,8%

3,4%

19,4%

-11,4%

17,3%

1,0%

0,7%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1525 / 1555

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

91.3.1 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.3.2 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

91.3.3 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.3.4 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and commercial) 
non-litigious cases

91.3.5 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.3.6 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

91.3.7 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business registry 
cases

91.3.8 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

91.3.9 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

200 774

201 996

204 109

196 006

222 225

236 486

252 458

275 581

290 710

44,8%

0,6%

1,0%

-4,0%

13,4%

6,4%

6,8%

9,2%

5,5%

64 651

66 112

66 421

62 668

59 146

61 758

62 507

66 155

64 457

-0,3%

2,3%

0,5%

-5,7%

-5,6%

4,4%

1,2%

5,8%

-2,6%

-

-

22 726

21 811

21 361

21 405

21 445

21 945

22 700

-

-

-

-4,0%

-2,1%

0,2%

0,2%

2,3%

3,4%

21 937

23 416

22 726

21 811

21 361

21 405

21 445

21 945

22 700

3,5%

6,7%

-2,9%

-4,0%

-2,1%

0,2%

0,2%

2,3%

3,4%

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

91.3.10 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

108 724

106 832

109 102

105 625

135 150

146 888

161 929

180 107

196 212

80,5%

-1,7%

2,1%

-3,2%

28,0%

8,7%

10,2%

11,2%

8,9%

91.3.11 1st inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. insolvency 
registry cases)

91.4.1 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

91.4.2 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

91.4.3 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

91.4.4 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

91.4.5 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

91.4.6 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

91.4.7 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

91.4.8 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

91.4.9 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

91.4.10 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

91.4.11 1st inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

5 462

5 636

5 860

5 902

6 568

6 435

6 577

7 374

7 341

34,4%

3,2%

4,0%

0,7%

11,3%

-2,0%

2,2%

12,1%

-0,4%

81 895

80 564

74 406

67 868

80 986

97 847

105 417

104 460

98 244

20,0%

-1,6%

-7,6%

-8,8%

19,3%

20,8%

7,7%

-0,9%

-6,0%

31 684

31 041

28 516

26 183

26 641

26 840

28 468

30 229

28 453

-10,2%

-2,0%

-8,1%

-8,2%

1,7%

0,7%

6,1%

6,2%

-5,9%

-

-

9 368

9 138

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

8 784

8 784

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

8 422

8 422

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

8 404

8 404

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

8 709

8 737

9 087

9 060

-

-

-

-4,1%

-0,2%

3,6%

0,3%

4,0%

-0,3%

8 709

8 737

9 087

9 060

-3,3%

-2,5%

-3,9%

-4,1%

-0,2%

3,6%

0,3%

4,0%

-0,3%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

37 675

36 986

33 986

30 264

42 616

59 289

64 615

61 683

57 318

52,1%

-1,8%

-8,1%

-11,0%

40,8%

39,1%

9,0%

-4,5%

-7,1%

3 168

3 399

3 120

2 999

3 325

3 009

3 597

3 461

3 413

7,7%

7,3%

-8,2%

-3,9%

10,9%

-9,5%

19,5%

-3,8%

-1,4%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1526 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Table 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.2 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal cases (Q91)

Table 3.3.4 to 3.3.7 Variation of Clearence Rate and Disposition Time of first instance other than criminal cases  (Q91)

Table 3.13.1 (EC) to 3.13.6 (EC) First instance courts: Disposition time and clearance rate for other than criminal cases  (Q91)

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

101,7%

100,7%

103,1%

103,5%

95,9%

93,4%

97,1%

100,4%

102,2%

0,49

(1,00)

2,42

0,33

(7,34)

(2,61)

4,00

3,36

1,82

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

98,8%

101,0%

103,9%

103,9%

99,3%

99,7%

97,5%

97,5%

102,8%

4,06

2,18

2,93

(0,04)

(4,48)

0,47

(2,24)

(0,04)

5,53

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

-

-

101,5%

101,5%

100,0%

98,5%

99,8%

98,3%

100,1%

-

-

-

(0,04)

(1,50)

(1,47)

1,30

(1,52)

1,84

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

96,2%

100,9%

101,5%

101,5%

100,0%

98,5%

99,8%

98,3%

100,1%

4,02

4,82

0,67

(0,04)

(1,50)

(1,47)

1,30

(1,52)

1,84

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CR Administrative law cases

104,8%

100,7%

102,8%

103,7%

93,9%

89,8%

96,8%

101,7%

102,3%

(2,40)

(3,92)

2,13

0,80

(9,45)

(4,33)

7,80

5,01

0,60

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

99,7%

96,1%

104,9%

102,2%

95,2%

105,3%

91,8%

101,9%

100,7%

0,97

(3,64)

9,23

(2,63)

(6,79)

10,60

(12,84)

10,97

(1,18)

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

149

179

-

156

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

126

212

146

171

-

142

-

NAP

NAP

-

-

126

220

133

157

141

141

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

114

194

126

152

141

141

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

105

185

133

164

144

144

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

115

185

151

159

149

149

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

147

171

152

166

149

149

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

146

200

138

167

151

151

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

125

171

123

-17,1%

-2,2%

-8,6%

-5,0%

5,2%

13,5%

0,9%

-9,2%

-10,8%

161

-9,9%

-4,2%

-8,6%

-2,7%

7,8%

-3,5%

4,8%

0,3%

-3,4%

146

-

-

-

-0,1%

1,9%

3,4%

0,1%

1,6%

-3,6%

146

-6,5%

-8,6%

-1,0%

-0,1%

1,9%

3,4%

0,1%

1,6%

-3,6%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

107

-15,7%

-0,1%

-10,0%

-8,0%

10,1%

28,0%

-1,1%

-14,2%

-14,7%

170

-19,8%

4,0%

-11,7%

-4,6%

-0,4%

-7,6%

17,0%

-14,2%

-0,9%

1527 / 1555

         
        
         
         
        
        
         
         
         
         
         
         
        
        
         
        
        
         
        
        
        
         
        
         
         
         
         
        
        
        
         
        
         
        
        
         
         
        
        
         
         
         
         
        
         
        
        
       
      
       
        
Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.4.1 (all years) First instance courts, number of cases for specific case categories (Q101)

101.1.1 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Litigious divorce case

5 535

5 677

5 738

5 411

5 292

5 435

5 536

5 692

5 490

-0,8%

2,6%

1,1%

-5,7%

-2,2%

2,7%

1,9%

2,8%

-3,5%

101.1.2 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Employment dismissal case

101.1.3 Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Insolvency

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

10 559

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

101.2.1 Incoming cases_Litigious divorce case

8 972

9 503

9 254

8 939

9 174

9 402

9 457

9 545

9 163

2,1%

5,9%

-2,6%

-3,4%

2,6%

2,5%

0,6%

0,9%

-4,0%

101.2.2 Incoming cases_Employment dismissal case

101.2.3 Incoming cases_Insolvency

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

10 414

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

101.3.1 Resolved cases_Litigious divorce case

8 824

9 444

9 601

9 070

9 056

9 304

9 329

9 745

9 458

7,2%

7,0%

1,7%

-5,5%

-0,2%

2,7%

0,3%

4,5%

-2,9%

101.3.2 Resolved cases_Employment dismissal case

101.3.3 Resolved cases_Insolvency

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

11 429

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

101.4.1 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Litigious divorce case

5 683

5 736

5 391

5 280

5 410

5 533

5 664

5 492

5 195

-8,6%

0,9%

-6,0%

-2,1%

2,5%

2,3%

2,4%

-3,0%

-5,4%

101.4.2 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Employment dismissal case

101.4.3 Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Insolvency

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

9 544

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Table 3.5.1 (all years) First instance courts: Clearance rate and disposition time for specific case categories (Q101)

Table 3.6.1 and 3.6.2 Variations of CR and DT for specific case categories of first instance cases (Q101)

CR Litigious divorce cases

98,4%

99,4%

103,7%

101,5%

98,7%

99,0%

98,6%

102,1%

103,2%

4,95

1,05

4,40

(2,20)

(2,71)

0,25

(0,31)

3,50

1,10

CR Employment dismissal cases

CR Insolvency cases

DT Litigious divorce cases

DT Employment dismissal cases

DT Insolvency cases

NA

NA

235

NA

NA

NA

NA

222

NA

NA

NA

NA

205

NA

NA

NA

NA

212

NA

NA

NA

NA

218

NA

NA

NA

NA

217

NA

NA

NA

NA

222

NA

NA

NA

NA

206

NA

NA

NA

109,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

200

-14,7%

-5,7%

-7,6%

3,7%

2,6%

-0,5%

2,1%

-7,2%

-2,5%

NA

305

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1528 / 1555

         
         
         
        
        
         
        
         
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.1.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.1.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.1.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.1.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.1.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.1.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.1.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.1.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

97.1.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.1.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

Table 3.7.1 to 3.7.5 (2019 and 2020) Second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

Table 3.9.1 to 3.9.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of second instance other than criminal cases (Q97)

11 076

13 457

15 184

15 895

10 716

13 755

15 996

1 046

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

874

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

825

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

748

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

804

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

750

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

882

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

8 237

10 842

12 432

13 424

7 765

11 108

12 500

97.1.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases 

1 793

1 741

1 927

1 723

2 147

1 897

2 614

97.2.1 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.2.2 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.2.3 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.2.4 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.2.5 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.2.6 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.2.7 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.2.8 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

97.2.9 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

42 217

40 137

50 566

56 832

63 668

64 516

62 228

2 824

2 771

2 646

2 740

2 801

2 888

2 931

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

97.2.10 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

24 837

23 362

34 099

39 085

45 614

44 555

41 044

97.2.11 2nd inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases 

14 556

14 004

13 821

15 007

15 253

17 073

18 253

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

21,5%

12,8%

4,7%

-32,6%

28,4%

16,3%

-16,4%

-5,6%

-9,3%

7,5%

-6,7%

17,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

31,6%

14,7%

8,0%

-42,2%

43,1%

12,5%

-2,9%

10,7%

-10,6%

24,6%

-11,6%

37,8%

-4,9%

26,0%

12,4%

12,0%

1,3%

-3,5%

-1,9%

-4,5%

3,6%

2,2%

3,1%

1,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-5,9%

46,0%

14,6%

16,7%

-2,3%

-7,9%

-3,8%

-1,3%

8,6%

1,6%

11,9%

6,9%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1529 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

97.3.1 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.3.2 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

97.3.3 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.3.4 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.3.5 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.3.6 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

97.3.7 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

97.3.8 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

97.3.9 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

39 836

39 204

49 859

62 010

60 626

62 280

66 197

2 996

2 820

2 723

2 684

2 856

2 756

2 824

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

97.3.10 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

22 233

22 567

33 110

44 743

42 271

43 166

45 106

97.3.11 2nd inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases 

14 607

13 817

14 026

14 583

15 499

16 358

18 267

97.4.1 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.4.2 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.4.3 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

97.4.4 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

97.4.5 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

97.4.6 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

97.4.7 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

97.4.8 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry cases

97.4.9 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

97.4.10 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative law 
cases

13 457

14 390

15 891

10 717

13 758

15 991

12 027

874

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

825

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

748

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

804

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

749

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

882

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

989

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

10 847

11 637

13 421

7 766

11 108

12 497

8 438

97.4.11 2nd inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases

1 742

1 928

97.5.1 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

97.5.2 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

97.5.10 2nd inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 722

2 247

4

2 230

2 147

1 901

2 612

2 600

105

110

5

89

5

96

474

8

456

112

19

83

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-1,6%

27,2%

24,4%

-2,2%

2,7%

6,3%

-5,9%

-3,4%

-1,4%

6,4%

-3,5%

2,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,5%

46,7%

35,1%

-5,5%

2,1%

4,5%

-5,4%

1,5%

4,0%

6,3%

5,5%

11,7%

6,9%

10,4%

-32,6%

28,4%

16,2%

-24,8%

-5,6%

-9,3%

7,5%

-6,8%

17,8%

12,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7,3%

15,3%

-42,1%

43,0%

12,5%

-32,5%

10,7%

-10,7%

24,7%

-11,5%

37,4%

-0,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-95,3%

4,8%

330,9%

-76,4%

25,0%

0,0%

60,0%

137,5%

-96,0%

7,9%

375,0%

-81,8%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1530 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.8.1 and 3.8.2 (2019 and 2020): Second instance clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.9.4 and 3.9.5 (2019 and 2020): Variation of second clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

94,4%

97,7%

98,6%

109,1%

95,2%

96,5%

106,4%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

106,1%

101,8%

102,9%

98,0%

102,0%

95,4%

96,3%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

89,5%

96,6%

97,1%

114,5%

92,7%

96,9%

109,9%

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

100,4%

98,7%

101,5%

97,2%

101,6%

95,8%

100,1%

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

123

106

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

178

44

134

107

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

188

51

116

100

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

148

45

63

109

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

63

54

83

96

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

96

45

94

117

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

106

58

66

128

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

68

52

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,51

0,95

10,66

(12,73)

1,38

10,20

(4,07)

1,12

(4,81)

4,09

(6,41)

0,96

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

7,91

0,52

17,90

(19,05)

4,54

13,43

(1,68)

2,86

(4,25)

4,57

(5,71)

4,45

8,7%

-13,2%

-45,8%

31,3%

13,1%

-29,2%

0,3%

-6,1%

9,0%

-12,5%

22,0%

9,4%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

5,7%

-21,4%

-57,2%

51,4%

10,2%

-35,4%

17,0%

-12,0%

19,9%

-16,7%

30,2%

-10,9%

1531 / 1555

         
         
       
      
         
       
        
         
        
         
        
         
         
         
       
      
         
       
        
         
        
         
        
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.10.1 to 3.10.5 (2019 and 2020) Supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Table 3.12.1 to 3.12.3 (2019 and 2020) Variation of the supreme courts, number of other than criminal law cases (Q99)

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.1.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.1.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.1.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.1.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.1.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.1.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.1.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.1.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other registry cases

99.1.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.1.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Administrative law 
cases

99.1.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 1 Jan.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.2.1 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.2.2 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.2.3 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.2.4 High inst courts_Incoming cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.2.5 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.2.6 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.2.7 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.2.8 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other registry cases

99.2.9 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.2.10 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Administrative law cases

99.2.11 High inst courts_Incoming cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

4 235

3 237

2 831

2 649

3 014

2 211

2 273

149

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

2 856

1 230

153

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 996

1 088

135

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

113

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

84

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

99

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

78

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 905

1 987

2 402

1 711

1 621

791

549

528

401

574

11 585

11 886

11 289

11 768

11 376

11 837

12 185

358

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

7 036

4 191

336

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

7 380

4 170

347

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

6 989

3 953

283

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

320

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

277

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

217

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

7 581

6 960

7 096

7 439

3 904

4 096

4 464

4 529

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-23,6%

-12,5%

-6,4%

13,8%

-26,6%

2,8%

2,7%

-11,8%

-16,3%

-25,7%

17,9%

-21,2%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-30,1%

-4,6%

4,3%

20,9%

-28,8%

-5,3%

-11,5%

-27,3%

-30,6%

-3,8%

-24,1%

43,1%

2,6%

-5,0%

4,2%

-3,3%

4,1%

2,9%

-6,1%

3,3%

-18,4%

13,1%

-13,4%

-21,7%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4,9%

-5,3%

8,5%

-8,2%

2,0%

4,8%

-0,5%

-5,2%

-1,2%

4,9%

9,0%

1,5%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1532 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

99.3.1 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Total of other than criminal 
law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.3.2 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Civil (and commercial) 
litigious cases

99.3.3 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.3.4 High inst courts_Resolved cases_General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.3.5 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.3.6 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non litigious land registry 
cases

99.3.7 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Non-litigious business 
registry cases

99.3.8 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other registry cases

99.3.9 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other non-litigious cases

99.3.10 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Administrative law cases

99.3.11 High inst courts_Resolved cases_Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.4.1 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Total of other than 
criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.4.2 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.4.3 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious cases 
(2.1+2.2+2.3)

99.4.4 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  General civil (and 
commercial) non-litigious cases

99.4.5 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Registry cases 
(2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

99.4.6 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non litigious land 
registry cases

99.4.7 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Non-litigious 
business registry cases

99.4.8 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other registry 
cases

99.4.9 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other non-litigious 
cases

99.4.10 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Administrative 
law cases

99.4.11 High inst courts_Pending cases on 31 Dec.  Other cases (e.g. 
insolvency registry cases)

99.5.1 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Total of other 
than criminal law cases (1+2+3+4)

99.5.2 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Civil (and 
commercial) litigious cases

99.5.10 High inst courts_Pending more than 2 years - Administrative 
law cases

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

12 583

12 280

11 471

11 403

12 172

11 763

11 832

353

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

7 896

4 334

3 237

154

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 996

1 087

-

-

-

354

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

7 460

4 466

2 843

135

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

369

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

6 907

4 195

2 649

113

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

312

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

306

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

298

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

219

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

7 166

7 643

7 174

7 206

3 925

4 223

4 291

4 407

3 014

2 218

2 285

2 626

84

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

98

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

78

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

76

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

1 916

1 987

2 402

1 719

1 633

1 854

792

549

528

401

574

696

-

-

-

19

2

14

5

2

3

7

3

4

2

1

1

18

-

17

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-2,4%

-6,6%

-0,6%

6,7%

-3,4%

0,6%

0,3%

4,2%

-15,4%

-1,9%

-2,6%

-26,5%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-5,5%

-7,4%

3,7%

6,7%

-6,1%

0,4%

3,0%

-6,1%

-6,4%

7,6%

1,6%

2,7%

-12,2%

-6,8%

13,8%

-26,4%

3,0%

14,9%

-12,3%

-16,3%

-25,7%

16,7%

-20,4%

-2,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-4,0%

3,7%

20,9%

-28,4%

-5,0%

13,5%

-27,1%

-30,7%

-3,8%

-24,1%

43,1%

21,3%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-73,7%

40,0%

-71,4%

800,0%

0,0%

50,0%

-66,7%

-

-78,6%

33,3%

-75,0% 1600,0%

1533 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.11.1 and 3.11.2 Supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Table 3.12.4 and 3.12.5 Variation of the supreme courts, clearance rate and disposition time for other than criminal law cases  (Q97)

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR Total of other than criminal law cases

108,6%

103,3%

101,6%

96,9%

107,0%

99,4%

97,1%

CR Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

98,6%

105,4%

106,3%

110,2%

95,6%

107,6%

100,9%

CR Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

CR General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

CR Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

CR Non litigious land registry cases

CR Non-litigious business registry cases

CR Other registry cases

CR Other non-litigious cases

CR Administrative law cases

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

112,2%

101,1%

98,8%

94,5%

109,8%

101,1%

96,9%

CR Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

103,4%

107,1%

106,1%

100,5%

103,1%

96,1%

97,3%

DT Total of other than criminal law cases

DT Civil (and commercial) litigious cases

DT Non litigious cases (2.1+2.2+2.3)

DT General civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases

DT Registry cases (2.2.1+2.2.2+2.2.3)

DT Non litigious land registry cases

DT Non-litigious business registry cases

DT Other registry cases

DT Other non-litigious cases

DT Administrative law cases

DT Other cases (e.g. insolvency registry cases)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

94

159

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

92

92

85

139

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

94

65

84

112

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

105

48

96

98

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

122

49

67

117

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

82

35

71

96

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

83

49

81

127

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

94

58

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(4,88)

(1,65)

(4,64)

10,42

(7,12)

(2,29)

6,85

0,93

3,67

(13,26)

12,50

(6,19)

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

(9,93)

(2,23)

(4,35)

16,17

(7,94)

(4,19)

3,56

(0,91)

(5,26)

2,55

(6,77)

1,23

-10,0%

-0,3%

14,5%

-31,1%

6,6%

14,3%

-12,6%

-19,7%

-12,1%

19,0%

-18,3%

32,6%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1,6%

12,0%

16,5%

-32,9%

1,2%

13,0%

-29,3%

-26,2%

2,8%

-29,4%

40,9%

18,1%

1534 / 1555

        
        
        
       
        
        
         
         
         
      
       
        
        
        
        
       
        
        
         
        
        
         
        
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.14.1 to 3.14.5 First instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

094.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

094.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

094.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

094.2.1 Total -incoming

094.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

094.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

094.2.4 Other - incoming

094.3.1 Total - resolved

094.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

094.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

094.3.4 Other - resolved

094.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

094.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

094.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

094.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

094.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

094.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

42 178

NA

NA

NA

119 936

NA

NA

NA

115 152

NA

NA

NA

46 962

NA

NA

NA

1 859

NA

NA

1 859

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1535 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.15.1 to 3.10.2 CR and DT for first instance criminal law cases (Q94)

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

098.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

098.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

098.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

098.2.1 Total -incoming

098.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

098.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

098.2.4 Other - incoming

098.3.1 Total - resolved

098.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

098.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

098.3.4 Other - resolved

Table 3.16.1 to 3.16.5 Second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

96,0%

NA

NA

NA

149

NA

NA

NA

3 444

NA

NA

NA

10 765

NA

NA

NA

9 960

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1536 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

098.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

098.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

098.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

098.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

098.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

098.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

4 249

NA

NA

NA

38

NA

NA

38

Table 3.17.1 to 3.17.2 CR and DT for second instance criminal law cases (Q98)

92,5%

NA

NA

NA

156

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1537 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.18.1 to 3.18.5 Supreme court criminal law cases (Q100)

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

100.1.1 Total - pending 1 Jan

100.1.2 Severe cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 1 Jan

100.1.4 Other - pending 1 Jan

100.2.1 Total -incoming

100.2.2 Severe cases - incoming

100.2.3 Misdemeanour cases - incoming

100.2.4 Other - incoming

100.3.1 Total - resolved

100.3.2 Severe cases -resolved

100.3.3 Misdemeanour cases - resolved

100.3.4 Other - resolved

100.4.1 Total - pending 31 Dec

100.4.2 Severe cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending 31 Dec

100.4.4 Other - pending 31 Dec

100.5.1 Total - pending more then 2 years

100.5.2 Severe cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.3 Misdemeanour cases - pending more then 2 years

100.5.4 Other - pending more then 2 years

188

NA

NA

NA

2 236

NA

NA

NA

2 156

NA

NA

NA

268

NA

NA

NA

1

NA

NA

1

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1538 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 3.19.1 to 3.19.2 CR and DT for supreme court  criminal law cases (Q100)

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

CR of Total

CR o2 Severe cases

CR of Misdemeanour cases

CR of Other

DT of Total

DT of Severe cases

DT of Misdemeanour cases

DT of Other

96,4%

NA

NA

NA

45

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1539 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 5: Access to justice

Legal aid

Table 5.1 to Table 5.6 (Q12-2, Q16, Q18, Q19, Q20, Q20-1)

12-2.1.1 Coverage of court fees

12-2.1.2 Exemption from court fees

16.1.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (criminal cases)

16.1.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (criminal cases)

16.2.1 Legal aid applies to representation in court (other than criminal 
cases)

16.2.2 Legal aid applies to legal advice (other than criminal cases)

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

-

-

-

-

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

18.1.1 Legal aid for the enforcement of judicial decisions

19.1.1  Legal aid granted for other costs - criminal cases

19.1.2  Legal aid granted for other costs - other than criminal cases

020.1.1 Total

020.1.2 Total - criminal cases

020.1.3 Total - other than criminal cases

020.2.1 Total brought to court

020.2.2 Broight to court - criminal cases

020.2.3 Brought to court - other then criminal

020.3.1 Total not brought to court

020.3.2 Not broight to court - criminal cases

020.3.3 Not brought to court - other then criminal

020-1.1.1 Maximum duration prescribed in law/regulation

020-1.1.2 Average duration

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

NAP

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

NA

NA

6 561

NA

NA

5 977

NA

NA

584

NAP

NA

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1540 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

System for compensating users

Table 5.7.1 and Table 5.7.2 (Q37)

037.1.1 Requests for compensation - Total

037.1.2 Requests for compensation - Excessive length of 
proceedings

037.1.3 Requests for compensation - Non-execution of court 
decisions

037.1.4 Requests for compensation - Wrongful arrest

037.1.5 Requests for compensation - Wrongful conviction

037.1.6 Requests for compensation - Other

037.2.1 Condemnations - Total

037.2.2 Condemnations - Excessive length of proceedings

037.2.3 Condemnations - Non-execution of court decisions

037.2.4 Condemnations - Wrongful arrest

037.2.5 Condemnations - Wrongful conviction

037.2.6 Condemnations - Other

037.3.1 Amount - Total

037.3.2 Amount - Excessive length of proceedings

037.3.3 Amount - Non-execution of court decisions

037.3.4 Amount - Wrongful arrest

037.3.5 Amount - Wrongful conviction

037.3.6 Amount - Other

2 125

3

-

2 122

-

NAP

1 880

1

-

1 879

-

NAP

7 170 985 €

985 €

-

7 170 000 €

-

NAP

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1541 / 1555

    
              
    
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Table 6.1 to Table 6.11 (Q62-7, Q62-7-1, Q62-8,  Q62-8-1, Q63-1, Q63-1-1, Q63-2 Q63-6, Q63-7, Q63-7-1, Q64-2,  Q64-4, Q64-6, Q64-3, Q64-3-1, Q64-7, Q64-7-1, 
Q64-9)

Indicator 6: The ICT tools of courts and for court users

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

62-7 Writing assistance tools coordinated at national level

62-7-1.1 Deployment rate in civil matter

62-7-1.2 Deployment rate in criminal matter

62-7-1.3 Deployment rate in administrative matter

62-8 Voice recording tools

62-8-1.1.1 Availability of simple dictation tools in civil matter

62-8-1.1.2 Availability of simple dictation tools in criminal matter

62-8-1.1.3 Availability of simple dictation tools in administrative 
matter

62-8-1.2.1 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in civil 
matter

62-8-1.2.2 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in criminal 
matter

62-8-1.2.3 Availability of multiple speakers recording tools in 
administrative matter

62-8-1.3.1 Availability of voice recognition in civil matter

62-8-1.3.2 Availability of voice recognition in criminal matter

62-8-1.3.3 Availability of voice recognition in administrative matter

062-9 Availability of intranet site within the judicial system for 
distribution of news/novelties

63.1 Is there a case management system? 

63.1-1.1 CMS for civil matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for criminal matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.1 CMS for administrative matter (deployment rate)

63.1-1.2 CMS for civil matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for criminal matter (status of case online)

63.1-1.2 CMS for administrative matter (status of case onlinee)

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

not available 
for this matter

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

in all courts

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

No

-

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

-

-

-

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

Not accessible 
at all

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1542 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63.1-1.3 CMS for civil matter (Centralised or interoperable database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for criminal matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.3 CMS for administrative matter (Centralised or interoperable 
database)

63.1-1.4 CMS for civil matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for criminal matter (Early warning signals)

63.1-1.4 CMS for administrative matter (Early warning signals)

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS civil matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS criminal matter

63-1-1.5 Statistics in CMS administrative matter

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - land registry

63-2.1 Deployment rate for computerised registries managed by 
courts - business registry

63-2.2 Data consolidated at national level for land registry

63-2.2  Data consolidated at national level for business registry

63-2.3 Service available online for land registry

63-2.3  Service available online for business registry

63-2.4 Statistical module integrated or connected for land registry

63-2.4  Statistical module integrated or connected for business 
registry

063-6.1.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (deployment 
rate)

063-6.1.2 Justice expenses management (deployment rate)

063-6.1.3 Other financial management tools (deployment rate)

063-6.2.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (Data 
consolidated at national level)

063-6.2.2 Justice expenses management (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.2.3 Other financial management tools (Data consolidated at 
national level)

063-6.3.1 Budgetary and financial management of courts (System 
communicating with other ministries)

063-6.3.2 Justice expenses management (System communicating 
with other ministries)

063-6.3.3 Other financial management tools (System communicating 
with other ministries)

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

True

Not connected 
at all

Not connected 
at all

Not connected 
at all

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not integrated 
but connected

Not connected 
at all

Not connected 
at all

Not connected 
at all

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

100%

100%

100%

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

0% (NAP)

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

1543 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

63-7.1 Measurement tools to assess the workload

63-7-1.1.1 Deployment rate - workload of judges

63-7-1.1.2 Deployment rate - workload of prosecutors

63-7-1.1.3 Deployment rate - workload of non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.2.1 Monitoring on national level - judges

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - prosecutors

63-7-1.2.2 Monitoring on national level - non-judge and non-
prosecutor staff

63-7-1.3.1 Monitoring on court level - judges

63-7-1.3.2 Monitoring on court level - prosecutors

63-7-1.3.3 Monitoring on court level - non-judge and non-prosecutor 
staff

064-2 - Possibility to submit a case to courts by electronic means

064-2 - Civil and/or commercial

064-2 - Criminal

064-2 - Administrative

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - civil

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory - criminal

064-2 - Submission in paper remains mandatory  - administrative

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - civil

064-2 - Specific legislative framework - criminal

064-2 - Specific legislative framework  - administrative

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - civil

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - criminal

064-2 - Integrated/connected with the CMS - administrative

True

True

True

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

10-49%

10-49%

100%

50-99%

50-99%

100%

1-9%

1-9%

100%

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

True

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1544 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-3 - Is it possible to request for granting legal aid by electronic 
means? 

064-3-1.1 - Equipment rate

064-3-1.2 - Request in paper mandatory

064-3-1.3 - Specific legislative framework

064-3-1.4 - Granting LA is also electronic

064-3-1.5 - Information available in CMS

064-4 - Possibility to transmit summons to a judicial meeting or a 
hearing by electronic means

064-4-1.1.1 - Summons produced by CMS- civil

064-4-1.1.2 - Summons produced by CMS- criminal

064-4-1.1.3 - Summons produced by CMS- administrative

064-4-1.2.1 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- civil

064-4-1.2.2 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- criminal

064-4-1.2.3 - Simultaneous summon in paper form remains 
mandatory- administrative

064-4-1.3.1 - Consent of the user - civil

064-4-1.3.2 - Consent of the user - criminal

064-4-1.3.3 - Consent of the user - administrative

064-6.1.1 - Civil and/or commercial (deployment rate)

064-6.1.2 - Criminal (deployment rate)

064-6.1.3 - Administrative (deployment rate)

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

True

True

True

True

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

-

-

-

-

True

True

True

True

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1545 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-6.2.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Trial phases concerned)

064-6.2.2 - Criminal (Trial phases concerned)

  Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

  Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

  Hearing 
preparatory 

  Hearing 
preparatory 

064-6.2.3 - Administrative (Trial phases concerned)

phases     

phases     

064-6.3.1 - Civil and/or commercial (Modalities)

064-6.3.2 - Criminal (Modalities)

064-6.3.3 - Administrative (Modalities)

064-6.4.1 - Civil and/or commercial (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.2 - Criminal (specific legal framework)

064-6.4.3 - Administrative (specific legal framework)

064-6.5.1 - Civil and/or commercial (availability for)

064-6.5.2 - Criminal (availability for)

064-6.5.3 - Administrative (availability for)

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
Decision 
transmission

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   

Submission of 
a case  
Hearing 
preparatory 
phases  
Scheduling   
E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail    

Decision 
transmission

Decision 
transmission

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

E-mail  
Specific 
application  

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer
Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer
Lawyers & 
Parties not 
represented by 
lawyer

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1546 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

064-7.1.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (deployment rate)

064-7.1.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.1.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(deployment rate)

064-7.2.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (Modalities)

064-7.2.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.2.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(Modalities)

064-7.3.1 - Electronic communication of enforcement agents and 
courts (specific legal framework)

064-7.32.2 - Electronic communication of notaries and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-7.3.3 - Electronic communication of experts and courts (specific 
legal framework)

064-7.3.4 - Electronic communication of judicial police and courts 
(specific legal framework)

064-9 - Existance of online processing devices of specialised 
litigation

100%

100%

100%

100%

100%

NA

100%

100%

100%

-

100%

100%

NA

E-mail    

E-mail    

    Other

E-mail    

E-mail    

    Other

E-mail    

E-mail    

    Other

E-mail    

E-mail    

    Other

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1547 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Indicator 7: Professionals of justice  (Indicator 9 in 2019)

Table 7.1.1 to 7.5.6 for judges, non judge staff, prosecutors, non prosecutor staff and salaries

46.1.1 Total Number of professional judges

1 123

1 132

1 150

1 159

1 179

1 199

1 217

1 184

1 200

6,9%

0,8%

1,6%

0,8%

1,7%

1,7%

1,5%

-2,7%

1,4%

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

46.1.2 Number of 1st inst professional judges

46.1.3 Number of 2nd inst professional judges

46.1.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges

46.2.1 Number of professional judges_males

46.2.2 Number of 1st instance professional judges_males

46.2.3 Number of 2nd instance professional judges_males

46.2.4 Number of Supreme court professional judges_males

46.3.1  Number of professional judges_females

46.3.2  Number of 1st inst professional judges_females

46.3.3  Number of 2nd inst professional judges_females

46.3.4  Number of Supreme court professional judges_females

046-2.1.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Total

046-2.1.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Total

046-2.2.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Civil and commercial

046-2.2.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.2.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Civil and 
commercial

046-2.3.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Criminal

046-2.3.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Criminal

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

766

324

33

600

428

152

20

523

338

172

13

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

764

334

34

584

414

149

21

548

350

185

13

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

771

343

36

584

412

150

22

566

359

193

14

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

780

343

36

572

410

140

22

587

370

203

14

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

785

361

33

570

397

151

22

609

388

210

11

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

800

365

34

577

400

156

21

622

400

209

13

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

816

370

31

569

391

159

19

648

425

211

12

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

803

349

32

540

377

144

19

644

426

205

13

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

809

5,6%

-0,3%

0,9%

1,2%

0,6%

1,9%

2,0%

-1,6%

0,7%

359

10,8%

3,1%

2,7%

0,0%

5,2%

1,1%

1,4%

-5,7%

2,9%

32

-3,0%

3,0%

5,9%

0,0%

-8,3%

3,0%

-8,8%

3,2%

0,0%

535

-10,8%

-2,7%

0,0%

-2,1%

-0,3%

1,2%

-1,4%

-5,1%

-0,9%

374

-12,6%

-3,3%

-0,5%

-0,5%

-3,2%

0,8%

-2,3%

-3,6%

-0,8%

142

-6,6%

-2,0%

0,7%

-6,7%

7,9%

3,3%

1,9%

-9,4%

-1,4%

19

-5,0%

5,0%

4,8%

0,0%

0,0%

-4,5%

-9,5%

0,0%

0,0%

665

27,2%

4,8%

3,3%

3,7%

3,7%

2,1%

4,2%

-0,6%

3,3%

435

28,7%

3,6%

2,6%

3,1%

4,9%

3,1%

6,3%

0,2%

2,1%

217

26,2%

7,6%

4,3%

5,2%

3,4%

-0,5%

1,0%

-2,8%

5,9%

13

0,0%

0,0%

7,7%

0,0%

-21,4%

18,2%

-7,7%

8,3%

0,0%

1 200

809

359

32

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

1548 / 1555

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

046-2.4.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.4.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - 
Administrative

046-2.4.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Administrative

046-2.5.1 Number of professional judges (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.2 Professional judges of first instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.3 Professional judges of second instance (FTE) - Other

046-2.5.4 Professional judges of supreme court (FTE) - Other

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

351

215

120

16

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

 52.1.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in courts 

5 173

4 716

4 797

4 800

4 859

5 088

5 208

4 921

4 996

-3,4%

-8,8%

1,7%

0,1%

1,2%

4,7%

2,4%

-5,5%

1,5%

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3 260

3 290

3 269

3 343

3 490

3 577

3 342

3 375

-3,6%

-6,9%

0,9%

-0,6%

2,3%

4,4%

2,5%

-6,6%

1,0%

707

106

694

708

104

719

706

104

706

724

119

755

733

144

754

710

148

721

700

-33,6%

-34,7%

2,8%

0,1%

-0,3%

2,5%

1,2%

-3,1%

-1,4%

163

37,0%

-23,5%

16,5%

-1,9%

0,0%

14,4%

21,0%

2,8%

10,1%

758

51,6%

35,4%

2,5%

3,6%

-1,8%

6,9%

-0,1%

-4,4%

5,1%

52.1.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)

52.1.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges

52.1.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks

52.1.5 Number of Technical staff

52.1.6 Number of Other non judge staff

52.2.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(men)

52.2.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(men)

52.2.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(men)

52.2.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(men)

52.2.5 Number of Technical staff(men)

52.2.6 Number of Other non judge staff(men)

52.3.1 Total Number of non judge staff who are working in 
courts(women)

NAP

3 500

1 054

119

500

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

688

91

677

-

-

-

-

-

-

1 060

1 098

1 105

1 198

1 216

1 156

1 226

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

565

238

54

203

595

235

56

212

597

234

63

211

658

248

73

219

659

251

97

209

613

235

97

211

660

232

113

221

3 669

3 737

3 702

3 754

3 890

3 992

3 765

3 770

52.3.2 Number of Non judge staff (Rechtspfleger)(women)

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

52.3.3 Number of Non-judge staff assisting the judges(women)

52.3.4 Number of Staff in charge of administrative tasks(women)

52.3.5 Number of Technical staff(women)

52.3.6 Number of Other non judge staff(women)

-

-

-

-

2 701

2 725

2 674

2 746

2 832

2 918

2 729

2 715

443

49

476

469

52

491

473

48

507

472

41

495

476

46

536

482

47

545

475

51

510

468

50

537

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

3,6%

0,6%

8,4%

1,5%

-4,9%

6,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

5,3%

0,3%

10,2%

0,2%

-7,0%

7,7%

-1,3%

-0,4%

6,0%

1,2%

-6,4%

-1,3%

3,7%

12,5%

15,9%

32,9%

0,0%

16,5%

4,4%

-0,5%

3,8%

-4,6%

1,0%

4,7%

1,9%

-0,9%

1,4%

3,6%

2,6%

-5,7%

0,1%

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,9%

-1,9%

2,7%

3,1%

3,0%

-6,5%

-0,5%

5,9%

0,9%

-0,2%

0,8%

1,3%

-1,5%

-1,5%

6,1%

-7,7%

-14,6%

12,2%

2,2%

8,5%

-2,0%

3,2%

3,3%

-2,4%

8,3%

1,7%

-6,4%

5,3%

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1549 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

052-1.1.1 Non-judge staff (Total)

052-1.1.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (total)

052-1.1.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (total)

052-1.1.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (total)

052-1.2.1 Non-judge staff  (Males)

052-1.2.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (males)

052-1.2.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (males)

052-1.2.4 Non-judge staff  at Supreme court (males)

052-1.3.1 Non-judge staff  (females)

052-1.3.2 Non-judge staff  at first instance (females)

052-1.3.3 Non-judge staff  at second instance (females)

052-1.3.4 Non-judge staff  at supreme court (females)

055.1.1 Prosecutors (total)

055.1.2 Prosecutors (1st inst.)

055.1.3 Prosecutors (2nd inst.)

055.1.4 Prosecutors (Highest instance)

055.2.1 Prosecutors - Males -total

055.2.2 Prosecutors - Males, 1st inst.

055.2.3 Prosecutors - Males, 2nd inst.

055.2.4 Prosecutors - Males, Supreme courts

055.3.1 Prosecutors - Females, Total

055.3.2 Prosecutors - Females, 1st inst.

055.3.3 Prosecutors - Females, 2nd inst.

055.3.4 Prosecutors - Females, Supreme courts

4 996

3 973

886

137

1 226

995

203

28

3 770

2 978

683

109

1 044

NA

NA

12

396

NA

NA

4

648

NA

NA

8

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1550 / 1555

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

060.1.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Total

060.2.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Males

060.3.1 Number of non-prosecutor staff Females

004 Annual average salary in the country

132.1.1 Gross annual salary, in €  - Professional judge at the 
beginning of career

132.1.2 Gross annual salary, in €  - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.1.3 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor at the beginning 
of career

132.1.4 Gross annual salary, in €  - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

132.2.1 Net annual salary, in € - Professional judge at the beginning 
of career

132.2.2 Net annual salary, in € - Judge of the Supreme Court 

132.2.3 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor at the beginning of 
career

132.2.4 Net annual salary, in € - Public prosecutor of the Supreme 
Court or the Highest Appellate Instance

133.1.1.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Reduced taxation

133.1.2.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Special pension

133.1.3.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Housing

133.1.4.1 - Additional benefits for judges - Other financial benefit

133.2.1.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Reduced taxation

133.2.2.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Special pension

133.2.3.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Housing

133.2.4.1 - Additional benefits for prosecutors - Other financial benefit

522

99

423

43 092 €

79 951 €

138 395 €

56 000 €

88 000 €

51 169 €

76 117 €

NA

NA

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1551 / 1555

         
         
       
         
         
         
         
Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

144.1.1 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - Total number (1+2+3+4)

144.1.2 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 1. Breach of professional 
ethics 

144.1.3 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.1.4 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 3. Criminal offence 

144.1.5 Disciplinary procedures for Judges - 4. Other

144.2.1 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - Total number 
(1+2+3+4)

144.2.2 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 1. Breach of 
professional ethics 

144.2.3 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 2. Professional 
inadequacy

144.2.4 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 3. Criminal offence

144.2.5 Disciplinary procedures for Prosecutors - 4. Other 

145.1.1 Sanctions against Judges - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.1.2 Sanctions against Judges - 1. Reprimand

145.1.3 Sanctions against Judges - 2. Suspension

145.1.4 Sanctions against Judges - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.1.5 Sanctions against Judges - 4. Fine

145.1.6 Sanctions against Judges - 5. Temporary reduction of salary

145.1.7 Sanctions against Judges - 6. Position downgrade

145.1.8 Sanctions against Judges - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.1.9 Sanctions against Judges - 8. Resignation

145.1.10 Sanctions against  Judges - 9. Other

145.1.11 Sanctions against  Judges - 10. Dismissal

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

6

0

6

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

1

1

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1552 / 1555

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

145.2.1 Sanctions against Prosecutors - Total number (total 1 to 9)

145.2.2 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 1. Reprimand

145.2.3 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 2. Suspension

145.2.4 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 3. Withdrawal from cases

145.2.5 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 4. Fine

145.2.6 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 5. Temporary reduction of 
salary

145.2.7 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 6. Position downgrade

145.2.8 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 7. Transfer to another 
geographical (court) location

145.2.9 Sanctions against Prosecutors - 8. Resignation

145.2.10 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 9. Other

145.2.11 Sanctions against  Prosecutors - 10. Dismissal

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Lawyers

Tables 7.6.1, 7.6.2, 7.6.3, 7.7 and 7.8

146.1.1 Total number of lawyers practising

5 246

5 422

5 575

5 800

5 767

5 911

6 000

6 000

6 257

19,3%

3,4%

2,8%

4,0%

-0,6%

2,5%

1,5%

0,0%

4,3%

146.2.1 Practicing lawyers - man

146.3.1 Practicing lawyers - woman

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

4 065

4 065

4 117

1 935

1 935

2 140

147 Does this figure include “legal advisors” who cannot represent 
their clients in court (for example, some solicitors or in-house 
counsellors)? 

No

No

False

False

False

False

False

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

0,0%

1,3%

0,0%

10,6%

-

-

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1553 / 1555

Question

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2012-
2020

2012-
2013

2013-
2014

2014-
2015

2015-
2016

2016-
2017

2017-
2018

2018-
2019

2019-
2020

Sweden (2012-2020) data tables

Variations for quantitative questions

Indicator 8: The existence and use of alternative dispute resolution methods

Table 8.1 8.2 and 8.3

166 Number of accredited or registered mediators who practice 
judicial mediation: 

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

167.1.1 Total number started

167. 1.2 Civil and commercial cases(cid:9) - started

167. 1.2 Family cases - started

167.1.4 Administrative cases - started

167.1.5 Labour cases including employment dismissal cases - started

167.1.6. Criminal cases - started

167.1.7 Consumer cases - started

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

-

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NAP

NA

NA

NA

NAP

NA

NA

NA

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Key: Variation of more than (+ -) 20% 

CEPEJ study on the functioning of judicial systems 
 in the EU Member States

1554 / 1555

PDF

ISBN 978-92-76-51164-9

DOI 10.2838/180329

DS-05-22-088-EN-N

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2022

© European Union, 2022