Source: EURLEX
Language: en
Format: md

*|*

# 52013DC0160

**COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS The EU Justice Scoreboard A tool to promote effective justice and growth /\* COM/2013/0160 final \*/**

  

Introduction

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

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

Experience
in Member States subject to the Economic Adjustment Programmes[1] shows that
shortcomings in the functioning of a justice system increase the negative
growth spiral and undermine the confidence of citizens and enterprises in the
justice institutions. For this reason, in 2011, national judicial reforms
became an integral part of the structural components in these programmes.

The
improvement of the quality, independence and efficiency of judicial systems is
also a priority in the European Semester, the new EU annual cycle of economic
policy coordination.[2]
In 2012, six Member States[3]
were identified as having challenges, particularly with regard to the length of
judicial proceedings and the organisation of the judiciary.

The effectiveness of national justice
systems is crucial for the EU

Access
to an effective justice system is an essential right at the foundation of
European democracies and enshrined in the constitutional traditions common to
the Member States. It is crucial for the effectiveness of all EU law, in
particular the EU economic laws that contribute to growth. For example,
national courts play an essential role in enforcing EU competition laws[4] and other EU
legislation crucial for the Single Market[5],
in particular in the areas of electronic communications[6], intellectual
property[7],
public procurement[8],
environment[9]
or consumer protection[10].

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

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

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

The need for a systematic overview

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

1.
What is the EU Justice Scoreboard?

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

The main characteristics of the
Scoreboard are:

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

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

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

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

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

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

2.
Indicators of the 2013 EU Justice Scoreboard

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

–
The length of the proceedings
expresses the time (in days) needed to resolve a case in court that is the time
for the court to reach a decision at first instance. The 'disposition time'
indicator is the number of unresolved cases divided by the number of resolved
cases at the end of a year multiplied by 365 days.

–
The clearance rate is the ratio of
the number of resolved cases over the number of incoming cases. It measures
whether a court is keeping up with its incoming caseload. When the clearance
rate is low and the length of proceedings is high, backlog develops in the
system.

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

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

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

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

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

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

–
regular evaluation of performance and outputs,

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

–
specialised court staff entrusted with quality
policy.

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

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

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

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

The
Scoreboard also presents findings based on indicators relating to the perceived
independence of the justice system. Perception of independence is
important for investment decisions. The World Economic Forum (WEF) in its
annual Global Competitiveness Report provides a ‘perceived independence index’
which is relevant in the context of the economic growth as it is based on a
survey answered by a representative sample of firms  in all countries and
representing the main sectors of the economy (agriculture, manufacturing
industry, non-manufacturing industry, and services).[16] The World
Justice Project (WJP) in the context of its 2012-2013 Rule of Law Index Report
developed an indicator on the 'perceived independence of the civil justice',[17] based on
replies from a general population poll and qualified respondents. It should
also be noted that the Court of Justice of the European Union[18] and the
European Court of Human Rights[19]
in examining the independence of the judiciary have underlined the importance
of the appearance of judicial independence. According to the case law of these
courts, the independence of the judiciary requires detailed rules in order to
dismiss any reasonable doubt in the minds of individuals as to the
imperviousness of that body to external factors and its neutrality with respect
to the interests before it.

3.
Key findings of the 2013 EU Justice Scoreboard
3.1.
Important disparities in the length of
proceedings

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

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

Figure 1: Time needed to resolve non-criminal
cases\* (in days) (source: CEPEJ study[20])

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ø The above figures show important disparities in the length of
proceedings: at least one third of Member States have a length of proceedings
at least two times higher than the majority of Member States.[21]

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

Figure 5: Rate of resolving non-criminal
cases (in % - values higher than 100% indicate that more cases are resolved
than come in, while values below 100% indicate that fewer cases are resolved
than come in) (source: CEPEJ study)

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

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

Ø The above figures indicate that some Member States may experience
difficulties in their capacity to resolve particular categories of cases.

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

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

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

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

Ø
The above figures show that several Member
States have a particularly high number of pending cases.

In conclusion, it appears that:

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

Ø
The reduction of the excessive length of
proceedings should be a priority in order to improve the business environment
and attractiveness for investment.

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

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

Figure 11: Availability of monitoring of
courts' activities[22]
(source: CEPEJ study)

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

The above figures show

Ø that a large majority of Member States has a comprehensive
monitoring system, but several Member States are lagging behind or do not make
the data available;

Ø that several Member States do not perform regular evaluations of
court activities and that quality standards are not defined in more than half
of the Member States.

3.3.
Information and Communication Technology systems
help to reduce the length of proceedings and to facilitate access to justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ø The above figures show large disparities between Member States in
the development of ICT systems for information exchange between courts and the
parties.

3.4.
Alternative Dispute Resolution methods help to
reduce the workload of courts

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

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

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

Ø
Member States should encourage the availability
and quality of mediation and other ADR methods.

3.5.
Promoting the training of judges can help to
improve the effectiveness of justice

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

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

Ø The above figure shows that policies on
compulsory continuous training for judges are very diverse among the Member
States.

3.6.
Resources

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

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

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

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

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

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

\* Lawyer is a person qualified and authorised according to national law
to plead and act on behalf of his or her clients, to engage in the practice of
law, to appear before the courts or advise and represent his or her clients in
legal matters (Recommendation Rec(2000)21 of the Committee of Ministers of the
Council of Europe on the freedom of exercise of the profession of lawyer).

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

3.7.
Disparity in the perception of independence

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

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

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

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

4.
Follow-up to the findings of the 2013 Scoreboard
4.1.
Follow-up in the context of the judicial reforms
in the Member States

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

–
The issues identified in the Scoreboard will be
taken into account in preparing the forthcoming country specific analysis of
the 2013 European Semester. They will also guide the work in the context of the
Economic Adjustments Programmes.

–
The Commission has proposed that Regional
Development and Social Funds will be available for reforms of the judicial
systems in the next multi-annual financial framework.

4.2.
Addressing the data gap

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

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

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

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

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

–
use targeted field studies on how the justice
systems function in practice when applying selected growth-related EU
legislation and Eurobarometer qualitative surveys for collecting views of legal
practitioners and various end-users;

–
examine with the networks of judges and judicial
authorities how the quality and availability of comparable data could be improved
at national level, including as regards the structural independence of the
judiciary;

–
explore with Eurostat how to improve the
collection of comparable data for the most significant indicators.

4.3.
Further steps

The quality, independence and
efficiency of justice systems are important structural components of
sustainable growth and social stability in all Member States and are fundamental
to the effective implementation of EU law. On the
basis of this Scoreboard, the Commission invites the Member States, the
European Parliament,[26]
and all stakeholders to an open dialogue and constructive collaboration towards
the continued improvement of the national justice systems in the EU in the
context of the European Semester, of Europe's growth strategy 'Europe 2020', the
strengthening of the Single Market and the EU's Citizens' Agenda.

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

[1]               EL, IE, LV, PT.

[2]               Communication from the Commission, Annual Growth
Survey 2013, COM(2012) 750 final.

[3]               BG, IT, LV, PL, SI, SK.

[4]               E.g. Council Regulation (EC) No 1/2003 of 16 December
2002 on the implementation of the rules on competition laid down in Articles 81
and 82 of the Treaty (OJ L 1, 4.1.2003, p. 1–25).

[5]               E.g. Directive 2000/31/EC on electronic commerce (OJ
L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1–16).

[6]               E.g. Framework Directive 2002/21/EC on electronic
communications networks and services (OJ L 108, 24.4.2002, p. 33–50).

[7]               E.g. Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of
intellectual property rights (OJ L 157, 30.4.2004, p. 45–86).

[8]               E.g. Directive 2007/66/EC with regard to improving
the effectiveness of review procedures concerning the award of public contracts
(OJ L 335, 20.12.2007, p. 31–46).

[9]               The role of national courts is highlighted
in the Communication from the Commission, Implementing European Community
Environmental Law, COM (2008) 773
final.

[10]             E.g. Directive 2011/83/EU on consumer rights (OJ L 304,
22.11.2011, p. 64–88).

[11]             COM(2012) 750 final.

[12]             Where national data are not
available, this is mentioned in the relevant figures.

[13]             Many Member States are in the process of implementing
measures for improving the functioning of their justice systems. In 12 Member
States these reforms are developed in the context of EU initiatives and
instruments (Economic Adjustment Programmes, Country Specific Recommendations
within the European Semester and the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism).

[14]             The full study on the functioning of judicial systems
and the functioning of the economy in the EU Member States, prepared in 2012 by
the CEPEJ for the European Commission, is available on the website of DG
Justice http://ec.europa.eu/justice/index\_en.htm

[15]             These are standard indicators defined by CEPEJ. Their
definition and interrelation is available at http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/evaluation/default\_en.asp

[16]             The WEF indicator is based on survey answers to the
question: "To what extent is the judiciary in your country independent
from the influences of members of government, citizens, or firms?" The
survey was replied to, depending on the country, between 2010 and 2011 by a representative
sample of firms in all countries representing the main sectors of the economy
(agriculture, manufacturing industry, non-manufacturing industry, and
services). The administration of the survey took different formats, including
face-to-face interviews with business executives, telephone interviews and
mailings, with an online survey as an alternative. Available at: http://reports.weforum.org/global-competitiveness-report-2012-2013/

[17]             The WJP Civil justice sub-indicator indicates
perceptions on whether the civil justice is free of improper government
influence. It is based on replies from: (1) a general population poll conducted
by leading local polling companies using a representative sample of 1,000
respondents in the three largest cities in each country (depending on the
country data were collected in 2009, 2011 or 2012); and (2) qualified
respondents' questionnaires consisting of closed-ended questions completed by
in-country practitioners and academics with expertise in civil law (data were
collected in 2012).
Data are available under indicator 7.4 at:
http://worldjusticeproject.org/sites/default/files/WJP\_Index\_Report\_2012.pdf

[18]             E.g. C-506/04, Wilson, [2006] I-8613.

[19]             E.g. Cooper v. The UK [GC], no. 48843/99, ECHR
2003-XII; Campbell and Fell v. The UK, nos. 7819/77 and 7878/77, 28 June
1984, Series A no. 80.

[20]             Study on the functioning of judicial systems and the
functioning of the economy in the EU Member States, prepared in 2012 by the
CEPEJ for the European Commission.  http://ec.europa.eu/justice/index\_en.htm

[21]             Considering the figures 1, 2 and 3 together.

[22]             Indicators in figures 11 to 22 cover all courts.

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

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

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

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

[Top](#document1)