ISSN 2467-2254

THE 2019 EU JUSTICE
SCOREBOARD

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
COM(2019) 198/2

Justice
and Consumers

The European Commission is not liable for any consequence stemming from the reuse of this
publication.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019
© European Union, 2019
Reuse is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
The reuse policy of European Commission documents is regulated by Decision 2011/833/EU (OJ L 330,
14.12.2011, p. 39).
For any use or reproduction of photos or other material that is not under the copyright of the European
Union, permission must be sought directly from the copyright holders.
Print

ISBN 978-92-76-03166-6

ISSN 2467-2246

doi:10.2838/457497

DS-AG-19-001-EN-C

PDF

ISBN 978-92-76-03165-9

ISSN 2467-2254

doi:10.2838/569

DS-AG-19-001-EN-N

Cover photograph: iStock / Getty Images Plus / Yobro10

THE 2019 EU JUSTICE
SCOREBOARD

Country codes
BE
BG
CZ
DK
DE
EE
IE
EL
ES
FR
HR
IT
CY
LV
LT
LU
HU
MT
NL
AT
PL
PT
RO
SI
SK
FI
SE
UK
UK
(EN+WL)
UK
(NI)
UK
(SC)

Belgium
Bulgaria
Czechia
Denmark
Germany
Estonia
Ireland
Greece
Spain
France
Croatia
Italy
Cyprus
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Hungary
Malta
Netherlands
Austria
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovenia
Slovakia
Finland
Sweden
United Kingdom
United Kingdom
(England and Wales only)
United Kingdom
(Northern Ireland only)
United Kingdom
(Scotland only)

Foreword
2019 EU Justice Scoreboard:
a key tool of the European Union’s rule of law toolbox
The EU Justice Scoreboard, now in its seventh edition, continues to serve as an inspiration
to EU governments, highlighting positive and negative trends in the judiciary. This year, it
comes at a time where challenges to the rule of law continue to mount. For this reason, the
European Commission has launched an additional reflection process to further strengthen
the rule of law. We all should share the same objective of improving our European judiciary,
as without independent and efficient justice systems, there can be no rule of law, no trust
from citizens, and no business and investment-friendly environment.
The Scoreboard assists Member States in addressing the challenges they are facing in line
with European standards. It serves as a basis for an informed dialogue to focus on tailored
solutions, depending on the specific circumstances in a given country.
This year’s Scoreboard sheds further light on the functioning of justice systems in the EU
Member States. It continues to develop the different indicators on efficiency, quality and
independence, and takes a closer look at the breakdown of governments’ expenditure. The
Scoreboard presents a first overview on standards for the quality of judgements, looks at
the functioning of prosecution services and intensifies the focus on independence.
Overall, the results are mixed. I am pleased to see that some countries continue to improve.
Sadly, some others reverse the positive trends. Still too many EU citizens don’t trust their
justice systems and wait too long for justice to be served.
The Scoreboard continues to be teamwork. Much deserved gratitude for their work goes
to the judiciary in Member States, the European Network of Councils of the Judiciary
(ENCJ), the Network of Presidents of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the EU (NPSJC) and
the Association of the Councils of State and Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions of the
EU (ACA-Europe).
Now, more than ever, we need joint efforts to strengthen the rule of law and to improve the
effectiveness of our justice systems in the EU. We owe this to our citizens!

Věra Jourová
European Commissioner for Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality

Contents
1. Introduction		

1

2. Context: Key developments in justice reforms in 2018

5

2.1. Mapping of justice reforms

5

2.2. Monitoring of justice reforms

6

2.3. Supporting justice reforms

7				

2.4. Guaranteeing judicial independence

8

3. Key findings of the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard
3.1. Efficiency of justice systems

10
10

		

3.1.1. Developments in caseload

10

		

3.1.2. General data on efficiency

12

		

3.1.3. Efficiency in specific areas of EU law

18

		

3.1.4. Summary on the efficiency of justice systems

21

3.2. Quality of justice systems

23

		

3.2.1. Accessibility

23

		

3.2.2. Resources

29

		

3.2.3. Assessment tools

36

		

3.2.4. Standards

38

		

3.2.5. Summary on the quality of justice systems

41

3.3. Independence

44

		

3.3.1. Perceived judicial independence

44

		

3.3.2. Structural independence

47

		

3.3.3. Summary on judicial independence

55

4. Conclusions		

57

‘The European Union is a community of law. Respecting the rule of law and abiding
by Court decisions are not optional’
President of the Commission Jean-Claude Juncker, 2018 State of the Union Address (1)

‘Respect for the rule of law is not only a prerequisite for the protection of all the
fundamental values listed in Article 2. It is also a pre-requisite for upholding all
rights and obligations deriving from the Treaties and for establishing mutual trust
of citizens, businesses and national authorities in the legal systems of all other
Member States’
First Vice-President Frans Timmermans, EP Plenary Debate, 28 February 2018 (2)

‘We are working on increasing the trust in justice. Providing sufficient financial
resources to the justice system is not a cost, [it] is an investment. […] The country
with a well functioning judiciary is more likely attracting investors.’
Commissioner Věra Jourová, Vienna, 30 November 2018 (3)

1

2018 State of the Union Address delivered before the European Parliament on 12 September 2018: https://ec.europa.eu/commission/sites/beta-political/files/soteu2018-speech_en_0.pdf

2 	Commission Statement by First Vice-President Timmermans, European Parliament Plenary debate of 28 February 2018 on the Commission decision to activate Article 7(1) TEU as
regards the situation in Poland.
3

Speech delivered in Vienna on 30 November 2018, at the Conference on the Effectiveness of Justice Systems.

1. Introduction
The independence, quality and efficiency, as the essential elements of effective justice systems, are crucial for upholding the
rule of law and the values upon which the EU is founded. Effective justice systems are essential for the implementation of EU
law. National courts act as EU courts when applying EU law. It is national courts in the first place that ensure that the rights and
obligations provided under EU law are enforced effectively (4). As noted by the Court of Justice of the European Union, the very
existence of effective judicial protection by independent courts is the essence of the rule of law (5).
The Communication on Further strengthening the Rule of Law within the Union – State of play and possible next steps, adopted
on 3 April 2019, identifies the EU Justice Scoreboard as part of the EU’s toolbox to strengthen the rule of law by contributing
in promoting judicial reform and standards on the rule of law (6). Respect for the rule of law, including the independence of
justice systems, has a significant impact on investment decisions and on attracting businesses. For this reason, improving the
effectiveness of national justice systems is a priority of the European Semester — the EU’s annual cycle of economic policy
coordination. The Annual Growth Survey 2019, which identifies the economic and social priorities for the EU and its Member
States for the year ahead, reiterates the link between, on the one side, the rule of law and effective justice systems and, on the
other side, a business-friendly environment and economic growth (7).
For monitoring justice reforms and their impact in Member States, since 2013, the EU Justice Scoreboard (‘the Scoreboard’)
presents an annual overview of indicators with relevance for the independence, quality and efficiency of justice, essential
parameters of an effective justice system. The 2019 edition further develops the indicators on all three elements and, for the
first time, presents indicators on:
- the detailed spending of financial resources in each justice system;
- the standards applied to improve the quality of judgments in highest courts;
- the management powers over the national prosecution services, and the appointment and dismissal of national prosecutors;
- the authorities involved in disciplinary proceedings regarding judges;
- the standards and practices on managing caseloads and backlogs in courts.

4

Article 19 of Treaty on European Union (TEU).

5

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 February 2018, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v Tribunal de Contas, C-64/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:117.

6

COM (2019) 163

7

Communication from the Commission — Annual Growth Survey 2019, 21.11.2018, COM(2018) 770 final, p. 12.
1. Introduction

1

What is the EU Justice Scoreboard?
The EU Justice Scoreboard is a comparative information tool that aims to assist the EU and Member States on
an annual basis to improve the effectiveness of their national justice systems by providing objective, reliable
and comparable data on a number of indicators relevant for the assessment of the quality, independence and
efficiency of justice systems in all Member States. The Scoreboard does not present an overall single ranking
but an overview of how all the justice systems function, based on indicators that are of common interest for all
Member States.
The Scoreboard does not promote any particular type of justice system and treats all Member States on an equal
footing.
Independence, quality and efficiency are essential parameters of an effective justice system, whatever the model
of the national justice system or the legal tradition in which it is anchored. Figures on these three parameters
should be read together, as all three elements are necessary for the effectiveness of a justice system and are
often interlinked (initiatives aimed at improving one of them may have an influence on the other).
The Scoreboard mainly focuses on litigious civil and commercial cases as well as administrative cases in order to
assist Member States in their efforts to create a more investment, business and citizen-friendly environment. The
Scoreboard is a comparative tool which evolves in dialogue with Member States and the European Parliament (8).
Its objective is to identify the essential parameters of an effective justice system and to provide relevant data
on an annual basis.

What is the methodology of the EU Justice Scoreboard?
The Scoreboard uses a range of sources of information. Large parts of the quantitative data are provided by the
Council of Europe Commission for the Evaluation of the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) with which the Commission
has concluded a contract to carry out a specific annual study. These data cover the period from 2010 to 2017,
and have been provided by Member States according to CEPEJ’s methodology. The study also provides detailed
comments and country-specific factsheets that give more context. They should be read together with the figures (9).
Data on the length of proceedings collected by CEPEJ show the ‘disposition time’ which is a calculated length of
court proceedings (based on a ratio between pending and resolved cases). Data on courts’ efficiency in applying
EU law in specific areas show the average length of proceedings derived from actual length of court cases. It
should be noted that the length of court proceedings may vary substantially geographically within a Member
State, particularly in urban centres where commercial activities may lead to a higher caseload.
Other sources of data are: the group of contact persons on national justice systems (10), the European Network
of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) (11), the Network of the Presidents of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the
EU (NPSJC) (12), Association of the Councils of State and Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions of the EU (ACAEurope) (13), the European Competition Network (ECN) (14), the Communications Committee (COCOM) (15), the

8	The European Parliament adopted the resolution of 29 May 2018 on the 2017 EU Justice Scoreboard (P8_TA(2018)0216) which has informed the preparation of this edition and
will inform the preparation of future editions of the EU Justice Scoreboard.
9

https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/justice-and-fundamental-rights/effective-justice/eu-justice-scoreboard_en

10	In view of the preparation of the EU Justice Scoreboard and to promote the exchange of best practices on the effectiveness of justice systems, the Commission asked Member
States to designate two contact persons, one from the judiciary and one from the ministry of justice. Regular meetings of this informal group are taking place.
11	ENCJ unites the national institutions in the Member States that are independent of the executive and legislature, and who are responsible for the support of the judiciaries in the
independent delivery of justice: https://www.encj.eu/
12	NPSJC provides a forum through which European institutions are given an opportunity to request the opinions of Supreme Courts and to bring them closer by encouraging discussion
and the exchange of ideas: http://network-presidents.eu/
13	ACA-Europe is composed of the Court of Justice of the EU and the Councils of State or the Supreme administrative jurisdictions of each EU Member State: 		
www.aca-europe.eu/index.php/en/
14	The ECN has been established as a forum for discussion and cooperation of European competition authorities in cases where Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning
of the EU are applied. The ECN is the framework for the close cooperation mechanisms of Council Regulation 1/2003. Through the ECN, the Commission and the national competition
authorities in all EU Member States cooperate with each other: http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ecn/index_en.html
15	COCOM is composed of representatives of EU Member States. Its main role is to provide an opinion on the draft measures that the Commission intends to adopt on Digital Market
issues: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/communications-committee
2

The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

European Observatory on infringements of intellectual property rights (16), the Expert Group on Money Laundering
and Terrorist Financing (EGMLTF) (17), Eurostat (18), the European Judicial Training Network (EJTN) (19), and the
World Economic Forum (WEF) (20).
The methodology for the Scoreboard has been further developed in close cooperation with the group of contact
persons on national justice systems, particularly through a questionnaire and collecting data on certain aspects
of the functioning of justice systems.
The availability of data, in particular for indicators on the efficiency of justice systems, continues to improve
as many Member States have invested in their capacity to produce better judicial statistics. Where difficulties
in gathering or providing data continue to exist, this is either due to insufficient statistical capacity or to the
fact that the national categories for which data are collected do not exactly correspond to the ones used for the
Scoreboard. Only in very few cases, the data gap is due to the lack of willingness of certain national authorities
to contribute. The Commission continues to encourage Member States to further reduce this data gap and to
actively engage in the exchange of best practices.

How does the EU Justice Scoreboard feed into the European
Semester?
The Scoreboard provides elements for assessing the quality, independence and efficiency of national justice
systems and thereby aims at helping Member States to improve the effectiveness of their national justice
systems. This makes it easier to identify shortcomings and best practices and to keep track of challenges and
progress. In the context of the European Semester, country-specific assessments are carried out through bilateral
dialogue with the national authorities and stakeholders concerned. This assessment is reflected in the annual
country reports within the Semester and combines the insight from the scoreboard with qualitative analysis,
taking into account the characteristics of the legal systems and the broader context of the Member States
concerned. The analysis under the Semester may lead to the Commission proposing to the Council to adopt
country-specific recommendations on the improvement of national justice systems in individual Member States.

16	The European Observatory on Infringements of Intellectual Property Rights is a network of experts and specialist stakeholders. It is composed of public- and private-sector
representatives, who collaborate in active working groups. https://euipo.europa.eu/ohimportal/en/web/observatory/home
17	EGMLTF meets regularly to share views and help the Commission define policy and draft new legislation on Anti-Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing: 			
http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/financial-crime/index_en.htm
18 Eurostat is the statistical office of the EU: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/about/overview
19	EJTN is the principal platform and promoter for the training and exchange of knowledge of the European judiciary. It develops training standards and curricula, coordinates judicial
training exchanges and programmes, disseminates training expertise and promotes cooperation between EU judicial training institutions. EJTN has some 34 members representing
EU states as well as EU transnational bodies. http://www.ejtn.eu/
20 WEF is an International Organisation for Public-Private Cooperation, whose members are companies: https://www.weforum.org/
1. Introduction

3

Why are effective justice systems important for an investment
friendly environment?
Effective justice systems which uphold the rule of law have since a long time been identified as having a positive
economic impact. Where judicial systems guarantee the enforcement of rights, creditors are more likely to lend,
businesses are dissuaded from opportunistic behaviour, transaction costs are reduced and innovative businesses
are more likely to invest. The beneficial impact of well-functioning national justice systems for the economy is
supported by a wide range of studies and academic literature, including from the International Monetary Fund (21)
the European Central Bank (22), the OECD (23), the World Economic Forum (24), and the World Bank (25).
A recent study has found that reducing the length of court proceedings by 1% (measured in disposition time (26))
may increase growth of firms (27) and that a higher percentage of companies perceiving the justice system as
independent by 1% tends to be associated with higher turnover and productivity growth (28). Another study has
indicated a positive correlation between perceived judicial independence and Foreign Direct Investment flows in
Central and Eastern Europe (29).
In addition, several surveys have highlighted the importance of the effectiveness of national justice systems for
companies. For example, in one survey, 93% of large enterprises replied that they systematically review the rule
of law conditions (including court independence) on a continuing basis in the countries they invest in (30) and, in
another, more than half of small and medium-sized enterprises replied that cost and excessive length of judicial
proceedings, respectively, were among the main reasons for not starting court proceedings over infringement of
intellectual property rights (IPR) (31).

21	IMF, Regional Economic Outlook, November 2017, Europe: Europe Hitting its Stride, pp. xviii, pp. 40, 70: https://www.imf.org/~/media/Files/Publications/REO/EUR/2017/November/eur-booked-print.ashx?la=en
22	ECB, ‘Structural policies in the euro area’, June 2018, ECB Occasional Paper Series No 210: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpops/ecb.op210.en.pdf?3db9355b1d1599799aa0e475e5624651
23	See e.g. ‘What makes civil justice effective?’, OECD Economics Department Policy Notes, No. 18 June 2013 and ‘The Economics of Civil Justice: New Cross-Country Data and
Empirics’, OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1060.
24 World Economic Forum, ‘The Global Competitiveness Report 2018’, October 2018: https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-competitveness-report-2018
25 World Bank, ‘World Development Report 2017: Governance and the Law, Chapter 3: The role of law’, pp. 83, 140: http://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2017
26	‘Disposition Time’ indicator is the number of unresolved cases divided by the number of resolved cases at the end of a year multiplied by 365 (days). It is a standard indicator
defined by Council of Europe’s CEPEJ: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/evaluation/default_en.asp
27	Vincenzo Bove and Leandro Elia; The judicial system and economic development across EU Member States, JRC Technical Report, EUR 28440 EN, Publications Office of the EU,
Luxembourg, 2017:
http://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC104594/jrc104594__2017_the_judicial_system_and_economic_development_across_eu_member_states.pdf
28 Idem.
29	Effect of judicial independence to FDI into Eastern Europe and South Asia; Bülent Dogru; 2012, MPRA Munich Personal RePEc Archive:
https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/40471/1/MPRA_paper_40322.pdf . EU MS included in the study were: BG, HR, CZ, EE, HU, LV, LT, RO, SK and SI.
30 The Economist Intelligence Unit: “Risk and Return – Foreign Direct Investment and the Rule of Law”, 2015 http://www.biicl.org/documents/625_d4_fdi_main_report.pdf, p.22
31	EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), Intellectual Property (IP) SME Scoreboard 2016:
https://euipo.europa.eu/tunnel-web/secure/webdav/guest/document_library/observatory/documents/sme_scoreboard_study_2016/Executive-summary_en.pdf
4

The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

2. Context

Key developments in justice reforms in 2018

2.1.

Mapping of justice reforms

In 2018, a large number of Member States continued their efforts to further improve the effectiveness of their justice systems.
Figure 1 presents an overview of adopted and envisaged measures across the different functional areas of the justice systems
of Member States.
Figure 1
Legislative and regulatory activity concerning justice systems in 2018 (adopted measures/initiatives under negotiation per Member State)
Adopted

Under negotiation

Source: European Commission (32)

25

Procedural
reforms

Promotion of
ADR methods

Legal aid

ICT
Optimising the
development judicial map

Adopted

Administration
of courts

Judges

Council for the
Court
Legal
Judiciary
specialization professionals

BE IE ES LV MT PL

EL CY LV PL

BG CZ HR IT LV HU MT PL PT RO SE

BE EL ES FR HR LV LU HU NL AT PL RO SI SK

DK IE EL FR CY LV NL

BE ES LU HU MT PT RO

BG HR LV RO

BE IE FR HR LV LT NL PT RO FI

BG EL HR IT LU HU MT NL PL RO SK SE

BE EE IE ES FR HR IT LV LT NL PT SI SK

ES HR HU MT PL RO

Court fees

BE EL ES FR HR CY HU RO FI

BE HR AT SK

BG CZ HR LT HU AT

EL FR HR IT PT

BE BG ES HR LV MT AT PT RO FI

BE BG CZ DK HR IT HU MT NL AT SE

BE CZ EE FR HR IT CY LV AT SK FI

BE CZ FR HR MT NL PL FI

0

BG CZ EL ES FR LV LT HU PL FI SE

5

ES FR HR IT CY LT LU NL PT SE

10

BE IE EL ES CY LT HU RO

15

BE BG CZ DK IE EL ES HR IT CY LT LV LU HU MT AT
PL RO SK FI SE
BE CZ DK EE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV HU NL AT PL RO
FI SE

20

Other
activities

Under negotiation

In 2018, procedural law continued to be an area of particular focus in many Member States and a significant amount of legislative
activity was either ongoing or planned for the near future. The status of judges, reforms in the area of legal professionals, ICT
development, legal aid and measures to optimize judicial maps also saw elevated activity. A comparison with the previous
Scoreboard shows that the level of activity gathered further momentum in certain areas as Member States followed-up on
earlier announced reform plans while in some areas, further reforms are to be expected in the near future. This also confirms
the observation that justice reforms take time - sometimes several years from their initial announcement until the adoption of
legislative and regulatory measures and their actual implementation.

32	The information has been collected in cooperation with the group of contact persons on national justice systems for 26 Member States. The UK did not submit information. DE
explained that a number of reforms are under way as regards judiciary, where the scope and scale of the reform process can vary within the 16 federal states.
2. Context Key developments in justice reforms in 2018

5

2.2.

Monitoring of justice reforms

In 2018, the Commission continued to monitor reform efforts undertaken by Member States.

Results of the 2018 European Semester
Improving the independence, quality and efficiency of justice systems is a well-established priority of the structural reforms
encouraged through the European Semester. The European Semester cycle starts every year in November when the Commission
presents its priorities for the next year (Communication on the Annual Growth Survey). In February, the Commission services
present country specific assessments in the Country Reports covering all matters dealt with by the Semester. In May/June,
the Commission presents its proposals for the country-specific recommendations that are addressed to Member States. These
recommendations are adopted in July by the Council after having been endorsed by the European Council.
In the 2018 European Semester, based on a proposal from the Commission, the Council addressed country-specific
recommendations to five Member States relating to their justice system (33). In addition to those Member States that received
country specific recommendations, a further 11 Member States are facing specific challenges as regards their justice systems,
including the rule of law and the independence of justice, which are being monitored by the Commission through the European
Semester (34).

2018 Reports under the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism
The Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) was set up at the accession of Bulgaria and Romania to the European Union
in 2007 (35) to address shortcomings in judicial reform and the fight against corruption and, as regards Bulgaria, also the fight
against organised crime. Since then, CVM reports have sought to help focus the efforts of the Bulgarian and Romanian authorities
through specific recommendations, and have charted the progress made (36).
In the November 2018 CVM reports, the Commission took stock of progress against the recommendations that were contained in the
previous reports. The report on Romania noted that while Romania had taken some steps to implement the final recommendations,
recent developments reversed the course of progress and called into question the positive assessment made back in January
2017. For Bulgaria, the report came to the conclusion that several recommendations had already been implemented and a number
of others were close to implementation. The Commission has given appropriate follow-up to both these reports.

33	HR, IT, CY, PT, SK. See Council Recommendation of 13 July 2018 on the 2018 National Reform Programme of Croatia and delivering a Council opinion on the 2018 Convergence
Programme of Croatia (2018/C 320/10); Council Recommendation of 13 July 2018 on the 2018 National Reform Programme of Italy and delivering a Council opinion on the 2018
Stability Programme of Italy, (2018/C 320/11); Council Recommendation of 13 July 2018 on the 2018 National Reform Programme of Cyprus and delivering a Council opinion
on the 2018 Stability Programme of Cyprus, (2018/C 320/12); Council Recommendation of 13 July 2018 on the 2018 National Reform Programme of Portugal and delivering a
Council opinion on the 2018 Stability Programme of Portugal, (2018/C 320/21); Council Recommendation of 13 July 2018 on the 2018 National Reform Programme of Slovakia
and delivering a Council opinion on the 2018 Stability Programme of Slovakia, (2018/C 320/24).
34	BE, BG, IE, EL, ES, LV, HU, MT, PL, RO, SI. These challenges have been reflected in the recitals of the Country-Specific Recommendations and the country reports relating to these Member
States. The most recent 2019 country reports, published on 27 February 2019, are available at: https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2019-european-semester-country-reports_en
35	Conclusions of the Council of Ministers, 17 October 2006 (13339/06); Commission Decision of 13 December 2006 establishing a mechanism for cooperation and verification of
progress in Bulgaria to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption and organised crime (notified under document number C(2006)
6570).
	Conclusions of the Council of Ministers, 17 October 2006 (13339/06); Commission Decision of 13 December 2006 establishing a mechanism for cooperation and verification of
progress in Romania to address specific benchmarks in the areas of judicial reform and the fight against corruption (notified under document number C (2006) 6569).
36 https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/justice-and-fundamental-rights/effective-justice/rule-law/assistance-bulgaria-and-romania-under-cvm/reports-progress-bulgaria-and-romania_en
6

The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

2.3. 	Supporting justice reforms
European Structural and Investment Funds
The Commission financially supports certain justice reforms through the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESI Funds).
Since 2007, 16 Member States have used both the European Social Fund (ESF) and the European Regional Development Fund
(ERDF) to improve the effectiveness of their justice systems (37). Between 2007 and 2020, more than EUR 900 million will have
been committed to increasing the efficiency and improve the quality of justice systems in these Member States (38). Funded
activities include:
• Developing and upgrading business processes in courts and introducing case management systems or developing or upgrading
human resources management processes;
• Digitalisation of court services and purchase of information and communication technology (ICT) systems;
• Providing training to judges, prosecutors, court staff, bailiffs, public notaries, lawyers and raising citizens’ awareness of their
rights.
The Commission pays particular attention to ensure that EU funds are adequately used for the appropriate reforms in line with
rule of law. The Commission emphasises the importance of taking a result-oriented approach when implementing the funding
priorities and calls upon Member States to evaluate the impact of ESI Funds support.

Technical support
Member States are also drawing on the Commission’s technical support available through the Structural Reform Support Service
(SRSS) under the Structural Reform Support Programme (39) which has a total budget of EUR 222.8 million over the period 20172020. Since 2017, 16 Member States (40) have already been receiving or have requested technical support for a wide range of
areas. This includes for example technical support to improve the efficiency of the court system, for reforming the judicial map, on
court organisation, on the design or implementation of e-justice programmes and cyber justice, on case-management systems,
on the selection and promotion process for judges, for the training of judges and for the out-of-court resolution of consumer
disputes. In May 2018, the Commission also presented its proposals for the next multiannual financing period 2021-2027 and in
particular for a new Reform Support Programme with an overall budget of EUR 25 billion to provide financial and technical support
to all Member States in order to pursue and implement reforms aimed at modernising their economies, notably reform priorities
identified in the context of the European Semester (41).

37 BG, CZ, EE, EL, ES, HR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, PL, PT, RO, SI, and SK.
38	The information presented is based on data collected in autumn 2017 and updated in June 2018. Since the current programming period 2014 – 2020 is ongoing, the total amounts
dedicated to justice systems may increase and the allocations to the various types of activities may change until the end of the programming period in 2023.
39 https://ec.europa.eu/info/funding-tenders/funding-opportunities/funding-programmes/overview-funding-programmes/structural-reform-support-programme-srsp_en
40 BE, BG, CZ, EE, EL, ES, HR, IT, CY, LV, HU, MT, PL, PT, SI and SK.
								
41 See press release IP/18/3972, 31 May 2018, available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-3972_en.htm
2. Context Key developments in justice reforms in 2018

7

2.4.

Guaranteeing judicial independence

There are various instruments the EU is using with a view to enforce the respect of judicial independence in Member States in
order to protect the functioning of the Union.

Infringement proceedings and rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union
The Commission is committed to pursuing cases where national law prevents national judicial systems from ensuring that EU
law is applied effectively in line with the requirements of the rule of law and Article 47 of the Charter on Fundamental Rights of
the EU (42).
In September 2018, the Commission decided to refer Poland to the Court of Justice of the European Union for violation of judicial
irremovability and independence by the Law on the Supreme Court (43). The Commission’s concerns relate to the abrupt lowering
of the retirement age of Supreme Court judges and the discretionary power given to the President of the Republic to prolong the
active service of these judges without any clear criteria and no judicial review of the final decision taken in this respect, which
the Commission considers a violation of Article 19(1) TEU read in connection with Article 47 of the Charter (44). On 17 December
2018, the Court of Justice of the European Union issued interim measures, as requested by the Commission, ordering Poland to
restore the Supreme Court to its situation before 3 April 2018, when the contested law entered into force, until the final judgment
is rendered in the case (45). On 1 January 2019, a law adopted by the Polish Parliament to implement the Court’s order entered into
force. On 11 April 2019, the Advocate General at the Court of Justice considered that the Court should rule that the provisions of
Polish legislation relating to the lowering of the retirement age for Supreme Court judges are contrary to EU law as they violate
the principles of irremovability of judges and of judicial independence (46).
On 3 April 2019, the Commission launched an infringement procedure by sending a Letter of Formal Notice to Poland regarding
the new disciplinary regime for ordinary court judges, on the grounds that it undermines their judicial independence by not offering
necessary guarantees to protect them from political control (47).
The importance for Member States to ensure the independence of national courts, as a matter of EU law, has been highlighted
by the recent case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (48). In particular, the Court clarified that the requirement
of judicial independence also means that the disciplinary regime governing those who have the task of adjudicating in a dispute
must display the necessary guarantees in order to prevent any risk of it being used as a system of political control of the content
of judicial decisions (49).
In 2018, a number of national courts seized the Court of Justice of the European Union within the preliminary reference mechanism
(Article 267 TFEU), seeking clarifications on the EU law requirements of judicial independence. In particular, the Polish Supreme
Court referred six such cases (50), the Polish Supreme Administrative Court one (51), and ordinary courts three (52) (53).

42 Communication from the Commission — EU law: Better results through better application (2017/C 18/02) (OJ C 18, 19.1.2017, p. 10–20).
43	In December 2017, the Commission decided to refer the Polish Government to the Court of Justice of the European Union for breach of EU law by the Law on the Ordinary Courts
Organisation. The Commission considers that the law in question violates Article 19(1) TEU in combination with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. For more details,
see: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-5367_en.pdf
44 http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-18-5830_en.htm
45 https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2018-12/cp180204en.pdf
46 See Opinion of Advocate General E. Tanchev of 11 April 2019, European Commission v Republic of Poland, ECLI:EU:C:2019:325.
47 See press release IP/19/1957, 3 April 2019, available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-19-1957_en.pdf
48	See in particular the judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 27 February 2018, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses v Tribunal de Contas, C-64/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:117,
available at: https://goo.gl/utc5GR. Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018, LM, C-216/18 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2018:586, available at: https://goo.gl/ty1fnk.
49 See Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 25 July 2018, LM, C-216/18 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2018:586, para. 67, available at: https://goo.gl/ty1fnk.
50 Cases C-522/18; C-537/18; C-585/18; C-624/18; C-625/18; C-668/18.
51 Case C-824/18..
52 Cases C-558/18; C-563/18; C-623/18.
53	These requests for preliminary rulings concern, i.a., the compliance of the new disciplinary regime for judges, of the composition of the National Council for the Judiciary, and of the
newly established disciplinary chamber of the Supreme Court, with EU requirements on judicial independence.
8

The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

2.4. Guaranteeing judicial independence

Article 7 TEU proceedings and the rule of law framework
Article 7(1) TEU provides for a preventive mechanism that can be activated in case of a “clear risk of a serious breach” of the
values set out in Article 2 TEU and Article 7(2) TEU provides for a sanctioning mechanism only in case of a “serious and persistent
breach by a Member State” of these values. The Rule of Law Framework was set out by the Commission in 2014 (54), and its role
has been acknowledged by the Court (55). It provides a staged process of dialogue with a Member State, structured with opinions
and recommendations from the Commission. The goal is to prevent the emergence of a systemic threat to the rule of law, at
which point an Article 7 TEU procedure would be required. The first – and so far only – time the Rule of Law Framework has been
used came with the start of a dialogue with Poland in January 2016 (56). While the dialogue helped identifying problems and
framing the discussion, it did not solve the detected rule of law deficiencies and the Commission triggered the Article 7(1) TEU
procedure in December 2017 (57). On 26 June, 18 September, and 11 December 2018, the Council held three hearings on Poland
in the framework of Article 7(1) TEU.
On 12 September 2018, the European Parliament submitted a reasoned proposal in accordance with Article 7(1) TEU for the
Council to determine that there is a clear risk of a serious breach by Hungary of the fundamental values of the EU (58).

54	Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council of 11 March 2014, ‘A new EU Framework to Strengthen the Rule of Law’, COM(2014) 158 final/2.
See also press release IP-14-237, 11 March 2014, available at: http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-237_en.htm
55 See case C-619/18 R, Commission v Poland, order of 17 December 2018.
56	The dialogue took place from January 2016 to December 2017. The Commission adopted one opinion on 1 June 2016 and four recommendations on 27 July 2016, 21 December
2016, 26 July 2017 and 20 December 2017. On 20 December 2017, the Commission concluded that there is a clear risk of a serious breach of the rule of law in Poland and
therefore proposed to the Council to adopt a decision under Article 7(1) TEU.
57 COM(2017) 835 final.
58 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20180906IPR12104/rule-of-law-in-hungary-parliament-calls-on-the-eu-to-act
2. Context Key developments in justice reforms in 2018

9

3. Key findings

of the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

Efficiency, quality and independence are the main parameters of an effective justice system, and the Scoreboard presents indicators
on all three.

3.1. 	Efficiency of justice systems
The Scoreboard presents indicators for the efficiency of proceedings in the broad areas of civil, commercial and administrative cases
and in specific areas where administrative authorities and courts apply EU law (59).

3.1.1.

Developments in caseload

The caseload of Member States’ justice systems is high and remains stable, even if it varies considerably between Member States
(Figure 2). This shows the importance of continuing efforts to ensure the effectiveness of justice system.

Figure 2
Number of incoming civil, commercial, administrative and other cases (*) (1st instance/per 100 inhabitants) 		
2010

2015

2016

2017

Source: CEPEJ study (60)

50
45
40
35
30
25
20

N
O

15

D
A
T
A

10
5
0

DK AT SI PL HR EE SK CZ LT FI HU RO NL PT EL IT BG IE ES BE DE LV FR CY SE LU MT UK
2010

2015

2016

2017

(*) Under the CEPEJ methodology, this category includes all civil and commercial litigious and non-litigious cases, non-litigious land and business registry cases, other registry cases,
other non-litigious cases, administrative law cases and other non-criminal cases. Methodology changes in SK.

59 The enforcement of court decisions is also important for the efficiency of a justice system. However, comparable data are not available in most Member States.
60	2019 Study on the functioning of judicial systems in the EU Member States, carried out by the CEPEJ Secretariat for the Commission: 				
https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/justice-and-fundamental-rights/effective-justice/eu-justice-scoreboard_en
10

The 2018 EU Justice Scoreboard

3.1. Efficiency of justice systems

3.1.1. Developments in caseload

Figure 3
Number of incoming civil and commercial litigious cases (*) (1st instance/per 100 inhabitants) 				
2010

2015

2016

2017

Source: CEPEJ study

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1

NO
DATA

0

RO LT SK PL CZ CY HR PT IE ES IT FR SI BE EL HU LV MT DE EE AT NL LU DK SE FI BG UK
2010

2015

2016

2017

(*) Under the CEPEJ methodology, litigious civil/commercial cases concern disputes between parties, e.g. disputes regarding contracts. Non-litigious civil/commercial cases concern
uncontested proceedings, e.g. uncontested payment orders. Methodology changes in EL and SK. Data for NL include non-litigious cases.

Figure 4
Number of incoming administrative cases (*) (1st instance/per 100 inhabitants) 				
2010

2015

2016

2017

Source: CEPEJ study

1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
NO DATA

0.0
SE DE AT RO NL EL FI BG LT ES FR HR PT EE CY LU SI PL BE HU LV CZ SK IT MT DK IE UK
2010

2015

2016

2017

(*) Under the CEPEJ methodology, administrative law cases concern disputes between citizens and local, regional or national authorities. Methodology changes in EL and SK. DK
and IE do not record administrative cases separately.

3. Key findings of the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

11

3.1. Efficiency of justice systems

3.1.2.

General data on efficiency

The indicators on the efficiency of proceedings in the broad areas of civil, commercial and administrative cases are: length of
proceedings (disposition time); clearance rate; and number of pending cases.

Length of proceedings
The length of proceedings indicates the estimated time (in days) needed to resolve a case in court, meaning the time taken by the court
to reach a decision at first instance. The ‘disposition time’ indicator is the number of unresolved cases divided by the number of resolved
cases at the end of a year multiplied by 365 (days) (61). Figures mostly concern proceedings at first instance courts and compare, where
available, data for 2010, 2015, 2016 and 2017 (62). Two figures show the disposition time in 2017 in civil and commercial litigious
cases, and administrative cases at all court instances.

Figure 5
Time needed to resolve civil, commercial, administrative and other cases (*) (1st instance/in days) 			
2010

2015

2016

2017

Source: CEPEJ study

1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200

NO DATA
0
DK EE LT AT HU SI PL NL BG SK HR FI SE RO CZ LV ES FR MT IT EL PT CY BE DE IE LU UK
2010

2015

2016

2017

(*) Under the CEPEJ methodology, this category includes all civil and commercial litigious and non-litigious cases, non-litigious land and business registry cases, other registry cases,
other non-litigious cases, administrative law cases and other non-criminal cases. Methodology changes in SK. Pending cases include all instances in CZ and, until 2016, in SK.

61 Length of proceedings, clearance rate and number of pending cases are standard indicators defined by CEPEJ: http://www.coe.int/t/dghl/cooperation/cepej/evaluation/default_en.asp
62	The years were chosen to keep the seven-year perspective with 2010 as a baseline, while at the same time not overcrowding the figures. Data for 2012, 2013 and 2014 are
available in the CEPEJ report.
12

The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

3.1. Efficiency of justice systems

3.1.2. General data on efficiency

Length of proceedings

Figure 6
Time needed to resolve litigious civil and commercial cases (*) (1st instance/in days) 				
2010

2015

2016

2017

Source: CEPEJ study

900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100

NO DATA

0

LT BE LU NL EE AT CZ SE RO SK DK HU DE PL PT FI SI ES LV FR HR MT EL CY IT BG IE UK
2010disputes
2015
2016
2017
(*) Under the CEPEJ methodology, litigious civil/commercial cases concern
between parties,
e.g. disputes
regarding contracts. Non-litigious civil/commercial cases concern
uncontested proceedings, e.g. uncontested payment orders. Methodology changes in EL and SK. Pending cases include all instances in CZ and, until 2016, in SK. Data for NL
include non-litigious cases.

Figure 7
Time needed to resolve litigious civil and commercial cases (*) at all court instances in 2017 (1st, 2nd and 3rd instance/in days)
First instance courts (2017)

Second instance courts (2017)

Third instance courts (2017)

Source: CEPEJ study

1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
0

NO
DATA

NL EE AT SE BG SK CZ DK RO LT IE PL HU PT FI DE SI LV HR BE LU FR EL ES MT IT CY UK
First instance
courts
Secondininstance
Third
courts
(*) The order is determined
by the court
instance (2017)
with the longest proceedings
each Membercourts
State. No(2017)
data available for first
and instance
second instance
courts in(2017)
BE, BG and IE, for
second and third instance courts in NL and AT, for third instance courts in HR. No third instance court in MT. Access to third instance court may be limited in some Member States.

3. Key findings of the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

13

3.1. Efficiency of justice systems

3.1.2. General data on efficiency

Length of proceedings

Figure 8
Time needed to resolve administrative cases (*) (1st instance/in days) 					
2010

2015

2016

2017

Source: CEPEJ study

3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500

NO
DATA

0

LT EE RO HU BG PL SE NL LU LV FI HR FR SK ES CZ DE AT SI BE EL IT PT MT CY DK IE UK
2010

2015

2016

2017

(*) Administrative law cases concern disputes between citizens and local, regional or national authorities, under the CEPEJ methodology. Methodology changes in EL and SK. Pending
cases include all court instances in CZ and, until 2016, in SK. DK and IE do not record administrative cases separately.

Figure 9
Time needed to resolve administrative cases (*) at all court instances in 2017 (1st and, where applicable, 2nd and 3rd instance/in days)
First instance (2017)

Second instance (2017)

Third instance (2017)

Source: CEPEJ study

2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
NO DATA

0
SE BG EE RO HU LU FI HR SK FR LT LV CZ DE NL AT SI BE PL ES IT PT EL MT CY DK IE UK
First instance (2017)

Second instance (2017)

Third instance (2017)

(*) The order is determined by the court instance with the longest proceedings in each Member State. No data available: for first instance court in LU, for second instance courts
in MT and RO, and for third instance court in NL. The supreme or another highest court is the only appeal instance in CZ, IT, CY, AT, SI and FI. No third instance court for these
types of cases in HR, LT, LU, and MT. The highest Administrative Court is the first and only instance for certain cases in BE. Access to third instance court may be limited in some
Member States. DK and IE do not record administrative cases separately.

14

The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

3.1. Efficiency of justice systems

3.1.2. General data on efficiency

Clearance rate

Clearance rate
The clearance rate is the ratio of the number of resolved cases over the number of incoming cases. It measures whether a court is
keeping up with its incoming caseload. When the clearance rate is about 100 % or higher, it means the judicial system is able to resolve
at least as many cases as that come in. When the clearance rate is below 100 %, it means that the courts are resolving fewer cases
than the number of incoming cases.

Figure 10
Rate of resolving civil, commercial, administrative and other cases (*) (1st instance/in % — values higher than 100 % indicate
that more cases are resolved than come in, while values below 100 % indicate that fewer cases are resolved than come in)
2010

2015

2016

2017

Source: CEPEJ study

140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%

NO
DATA

0%

CY SK EE SI FR IT BE LT HR CZ AT PL DK NL RO HU LU LV BG FI SE PT MT ES IE EL DE UK
2010 to be2015
2017
(*) Methodology changes in SK. IE: the number of resolved cases is expected
underreported2016
due to the methodology.
Figure 11
Rate of resolving litigious civil and commercial cases (*) (1st instance/in %) 					
2010

2015

2016

2017

Source: CEPEJ study

140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%

NO
DATA

0%

SK PT BE FI HR SI IT FR DK LT CZ DE LV SE EE RO NL AT MT HU LU EL PL ES CY IE BG UK
2010

2015

2016

2017

(*) Methodology changes in EL and SK. IE: the number of resolved cases is expected to be underreported due to the methodology. Data for NL include non-litigious cases.
3. Key findings of the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

15

3.1. Efficiency of justice systems

3.1.2. General data on efficiency

Clearance rate

Figure 12
Rate of resolving administrative cases (*) (1st instance/in %) 							
2010

2015

2016

2017

Source: CEPEJ study

200%
180%
160%
140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
40%

NO
NO
DATA
DATA

20%
0%

EL IT MT HR SK LT FI PL NL PT ES RO FR HU BE LV EE BG LU SE CZ DE AT CY SI DK IE UK
2010 purposes
2015
2016 %; IT2017
(*) Past values for some Member States have been reduced for presentation
(MT in 2015=411
in 2010=316 %); Methodology changes in EL and SK. DK and IE do
not record administrative cases separately.

Pending cases
The number of pending cases expresses the number of cases that remains to be dealt with at the end of the year in question. It also
influences the disposition time.

Figure 13
Number of pending civil, commercial and administrative and other cases (*) (1st instance/per 100 inhabitants)
2010

2015

2016

2017

Source: CEPEJ study

20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2

NO DATA

0
SE LT BG EE HU NL LV MT DK FR FI ES RO CZ SK EL SI AT PL CY IT HR PT BE DE IE LU UK
2010

2015

(*) Methodology changes in SK. Pending cases include all instances in CZ and, until 2016, in SK.

16

The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

2016

2017

3.1. Efficiency of justice systems

3.1.2. General data on efficiency

Pending cases

Figure 14
Number of pending litigious civil and commercial cases (*) (1st instance/per 100 inhabitants) 			
2010

2015

2016

2017

Source: CEPEJ study

7
6
5
4
3
2
1
NO DATA

0

FI LU SE NL DK AT EE DE HU LT CZ LV BE MT SI ES PL SK PT EL FR RO HR CY IT BG IE UK
2010

2015

2016

2017

(*) Methodology changes in EL and SK. Pending cases include all instances in CZ and, until 2016, in SK. Data for NL include non-litigious cases.

Figure 15
Number of pending administrative cases (*) (1st instance/per 100 inhabitants) 					
2010

2015

2016

2017

Source: CEPEJ study

3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5

NO
DATA

0.0

LU HU EE PL LV MT SK LT CZ BG SI FR BE RO HR NL IT ES SE FI PT AT CY DE EL DK IE UK
2010

2015

2016

2017

(*) Past values for some Member States have been reduced for presentation purposes (EL in 2010=3.7). Methodology changes in EL and SK. Pending cases include all instances in
CZ and, until 2016, in SK. DK and IE do not record administrative cases separately.

3. Key findings of the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

17

3.1. Efficiency of justice systems

3.1.3.

Efficiency in specific areas of EU law

This section complements the general data on the efficiency of justice systems and presents the average length of proceedings (63) in specific
areas when EU law is involved. The 2019 Scoreboard builds on previous data in the areas of competition, electronic communications,
EU trademark, and anti-money laundering. The areas are selected because of their relevance for the single market and the business
environment. In general, long delays in judicial proceedings may have negative consequences on rights stemming from EU law, e.g.
when appropriate remedies are no longer available or serious financial damages become irrecoverable.

Competition

3500
3000

Effective enforcement of competition law ensures a level playing field for businesses and is therefore essential for an attractive
business environment. Figure 16 below presents the average length of cases against decisions of national competition authorities
2000
applying Articles 101 and 102 TFEU (64).
2500

1500
1000

Figure 16
0
Competition:
Average length of judicial review (*) (1st instance/in days) 					
UK HR AT PT LT IT NL FR RO SK FI LV LU EL SE HU DE SI ES BE PL CY MT BG CZ DK
500

2013

2013

2015

2015

2016 2016

2017
2017

Average 2013,
2015-17

Average 2013, 2015-17

Source: European Commission with the European Competition Network

3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
UK HR AT PT LT IT NL FR RO SK FI LV LU EL SE HU DE SI ES BE PL CY MT BG CZ DK
2013
2015
Average
2013,
2015-17
(*) EE: no cases. IE and AT: scenario is
not applicable as the
authorities do not2016
have powers to take2017
respective decisions.
AT: data includes
cases
decided by the Cartel Court involving an infringement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, but not based on appeals against the national competition authority. An estimation of length was used in BG, IT. An empty
column can indicate that the Member State reported no cases for the year. The number of cases is low (below 5 per year) in many Member States, which can make the annual
data dependent on one exceptionally long or short case. A number of the longest cases in the dataset included the time needed for a reference to the Court of Justice of the
European Union (e.g. LT), a constitutional review (e.g. SK) or specific procedural delays (e.g. CZ, EL, HU).

63	The length of proceedings in specific areas is calculated in calendar days, counting from the day when an action or appeal was lodged before the court (or the indictment became
final) and the day on which the court adopted its decision (Figures 18-21, 23 and 24). Values are ranked based on a weighted average of data for 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 for
Figures 18-21, data for 2015 and 2016 for Figure 23, and data for 2014, 2015 and 2016 for Figures 22 and 24. Where data was not available for all years, the average reflects
the available data, calculated based on all cases, a sample of cases or estimations.
64 See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012E/TXT&from=EN.
18

The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

3.1. Efficiency of justice systems

3.1.3. Efficiency in specific areas of EU law

Electronic communications
The objective of EU electronic communications legislation is to raise competition, to contribute to the development of the single market
and to generate investment, innovation and growth. The positive effects for consumers can be achieved through effective enforcement
3000
of this legislation which can lead to lower end-user prices and better quality services. Figure 17 below presents the average length of
2500
judicial review cases against decisions of national regulatory authorities applying EU law on electronic communications (65). It covers
2000
a broad spectrum of cases, ranging from more complex ‘market analysis’ reviews to consumer-focused issues.
3500

1500
1000

Figure 17
0
Electronic
communications: Average length of judicial review cases (*) (1st instance/in days) 				
UK HR AT PT LT IT NL FR RO SK FI LV LU EL SE HU DE SI ES BE PL CY MT BG CZ DK
500

2013

2013

2015

2015

2016 2016

2017
2017

Average 2013,
2015-17

Average 2013, 2015-17

Source: European Commission with the Communications Committee

2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
EE DK HU RO BG IE UK SI LV LT FR LU PL SE FI HR SK EL NL ES DE BE MT IT AT CZ CY PT
2013

2015

2016

2017

Average 2013, 2015-17

(*) The number of cases varies by Member State. An empty column indicates that the Member State reported no cases for the year (except PT for 2017: no data). In some court
instances, the limited number of relevant cases (LV, LT, MT, SK, SE) can make the annual data dependent on one exceptionally long or short case and result in large variations
from one year to the other. DK: quasi-judicial body in charge of 1st instance appeals. ES, AT, and PL: different courts in charge depending on the subject matter. MT: an exceptionally long case of 2 500 days was reported in 2016, which related to a complex issue whereby a local authority, together with several residents, filed proceedings in relation
to alleged harmful emissions from base mobile radiocommunications stations.

65	The calculation has been made based on the length of cases of appeal against national regulatory authority decisions applying national laws that implement the Regulatory
Framework for Electronic Communications (Directives 2002/19/EC (Access Directive), Directive 2002/20/EC (Authorisation Directive), Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive),
Directive 2002/22/EC (Universal Service Directive), and other relevant EU law such as the Radio Spectrum Policy Programme, Commission Spectrum Decisions, excluding Directive
2002/58/EC on privacy and electronic communications.
3. Key findings of the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

19

3.1. Efficiency of justice systems

3.1.3. Efficiency in specific areas of EU law

EU trademark

EU trademark
Effective enforcement of intellectual property rights is essential to stimulate investment into innovation. EU legislation on EU trademarks (66)
gives
a significant role to the national courts, which act as EU courts and take decisions affecting the single market. Figure 18 below
3000
shows
average length of EU trademark infringement cases in litigation among private parties.
2500
3500

2000
1500
1000
500

Figure 18
0
EU trademark:
(*) (1st instance/in days) 			
UK HR AT PT LTAverage
IT NL FR ROlength
SK FI LVof
LUEU
EL trademark
SE HU DE SI ES infringement
BE PL CY MT BG CZ cases
DK
2013

2013

2015

2015

2016 2016

2017
2017

Average 2013,
2015-17

Average 2013, 2015-17

Source: European Commission with the European Observatory on infringements of intellectual property rights

1200
1000
800
600
400
200
NO DATA

0
MT HU DE EL LT BG PL RO FI ES NL LV LU PT HR SE CZ EE AT DK SI FR IT IE SK BE CY UK
2013

2015

2016

2017

Average 2013, 2015-17

(*) FR, IT, LT, LU: a sample of cases used for data of certain years. BG: estimation by courts used for 2016. PL: estimation by courts used for 2015. Particularly long cases affecting
the average reported in EE, IE, LV and SE. EL: data based on weighted average length from two courts. ES: cases concerning other EU IP titles are included in the calculation of
average length. DK: data from all trademark cases - not only EU - in Commercial and Maritime High Courts.

Money Laundering
In addition to contributing to the fight against crime, the effectiveness of the fight against money laundering is crucial for the soundness,
integrity and stability of the financial sector, the confidence in the financial system and fair competition in the single market (67). As
underlined by the International Monetary Fund, money laundering can discourage foreign investment, distort international capital flows
and have negative consequences for a country’s macroeconomic performance, resulting in welfare losses, draining resources from
more productive economic activities (68). The Anti-Money Laundering Directive requires Member States to maintain statistics on the
effectiveness of their systems to combat money laundering or terrorist financing (69). In cooperation with Member States, an updated
questionnaire collected data on the judicial phases of the national anti-money laundering regimes. Figure 19 shows the average length
of first instance court cases dealing with money laundering criminal offences.

66 Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark (OJ L 154, 16.62017, p. 1-99).
67	Recital 2 of Directive (EU) 2015/849 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on the prevention of the use of the financial system for the purposes of money
laundering or terrorist financing.
68 IMF Factsheet, 6 October 2016: http://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/Sheets/2016/08/01/16/31/Fight-Against-Money-Laundering-the-Financing-of-Terrorism
69	Article 44(1) of the Directive (EU) 2015/849. See also the revised article 44 in Directive (EU) 2018/843, which entered into force in June 2018 and has to be implemented by Member
States by January 2020, at the latest.
20

The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

3500
3000
2500
2000
3.1. Efficiency of justice systems

3.1.3. Efficiency in specific areas of EU law

Money laudering

1500
1000
500

Figure 19
0
st
Money
laundering:
Average
length
ofSEcourt
instance/in
UK HR
AT PT LT IT NL
FR RO SK FI
LV LU EL
HU DE cases
SI ES BE(*)
PL(1
CY MT
BG CZ DK days) 						
2014

2013

2015

2015

2016 2016

2017
2017

Average
2014-2017

Average 2013, 2015-17

Source: European Commission with the Expert Group on Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism

1600
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200

NO DATA

0

LU EE BG AT BE CZ SE PL FI HR SK NL CY IE PT LT RO FR ES IT SI HU LV MT DK DE EL UK

2014

2015

2016

2017

Average 2014-2017

(*) No data for 2017: LU, AT and CY. ES: estimated length. LV: Due to a relatively low number of cases in 2016, there are various factors possibly impacting the length of proceeding,
e.g. a stay in a single case for objective reasons. PL: Calculation of length for 2016 based on a randomly selected sample of cases. SE: calculation in 2017 based on a sample
of resolved cases. IT: data refer to the responding courts, covering about 91% of the total proceedings in 2015, and about 99% in 2016 and 2017; data refer to both trial and
preliminary court hearing.

3.1.4. Summary on the efficiency of justice systems
An efficient justice system manages its caseload and backlog of cases, and delivers its decisions without undue delay.
The main indicators used by the EU Justice Scoreboard to monitor the efficiency of justice systems are therefore the
length of proceedings (estimated or average time in days needed to resolve a case), the clearance rate (the ratio of the
number of resolved cases over the number of incoming cases) and the number of pending cases (that remains to be
dealt with at the end of the year).

> General data on efficiency
The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard contains data on efficiency spanning eight years (2010-2017). This time-span allows
to identify certain trends and to take into account that justice reforms often take time to show their impact.
Looking at the available data since 2010 in civil, commercial and administrative cases, efficiency has improved or
remained stable in eleven Member States, while it decreased, albeit often only marginally, in ten Member States.
Positive developments can be observed in most of the Member States which have been identified in the context of the
European Semester as facing specific challenges (70):
• Since 2010, in nearly all of those Member States, the length of first instance court proceedings in the broad ‘all
cases’ category (Figure 5) and the litigious civil and commercial cases (Figure 6) has decreased or remained stable. In
administrative cases (Figure 8), the length of proceedings since 2010 decreased or remained stable in most of these
Member States. However, a few Member States facing the most substantial challenges showed an increase in the length
of proceedings in 2017.

70	See Section 2 [HR, IT, CY, PT, SK, which received 2018 European Semester Country-Specific Recommendations, and BE, BG, IE, EL, ES, LV, HU, MT, PL, RO, and SI for which the challenges
have been reflected in the recitals of the 2018 Country-Specific Recommendations and the 2019 European Semester Country Reports relating to those Member States].
	Variance in the results over the eight years analysed may be explained by contextual factors (variations of more than 10 % of incoming cases are not unusual) or systemic deficiencies
(lack of flexibility and responsiveness or inconsistencies in the process of reform).

3. Key findings of the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

21

3.1. Efficiency of justice systems

3.1.4. Summary on the efficiency of justice systems

• The Scoreboard presents data on the length of proceedings in all court instances for the litigious civil and
commercial (Figure 7) and administrative cases (Figure 9). Data show that in a number of Member States identified
as facing challenges with the length of proceedings in first instance courts, higher instance courts perform in a more
efficient manner. On the contrary, for some other Member States facing challenges, the average length of proceedings
in higher instance courts is even longer than in first instance courts.
• In the broad ‘all cases’, and the litigious civil and commercial cases categories (Figures 10 and 11), the overall number
of Member States where the clearance rate is less than 100 % has decreased since 2010. In 2017, nearly all Member
States, including those facing challenges, reported a high clearance rate (more than 97 %), which means that courts
are generally able to deal with the incoming cases in these categories. In administrative cases (Figure 12), a larger
variation of the clearance rate can be observed from one year to another and while it overall remains lower than in
other categories of cases, some Member States have made good progress.
• Since 2010, progress is continuing in almost all Member States facing the most substantial challenges with their
backlog, regardless of the category of cases. Often substantial progress in reducing pending cases has been made for
both litigious civil and commercial cases (Figure 14) and administrative cases (Figure 15). Despite these improvements,
significant differences between Member States with comparatively few pending cases and those with a high number
of pending cases remain.

> Efficiency in specific areas of EU law
Data on the average length of proceedings in specific areas of EU law (Figures 16-19) provide an insight into the
functioning of justice systems in these types of business-related disputes.
Data on efficiency in specific areas of law are collected on the basis of narrowly defined scenarios and the number of
relevant cases may appear low. However, as compared to the calculated length of proceedings presented in the general
data on efficiency, these figures provide for an actual average length of all relevant cases in specific areas in a year. It
is therefore worth noting that several Member States which do not appear as facing challenges on the basis of general
data on efficiency report significantly longer average length of cases in specific areas of EU law. At the same time, the
length of proceedings in different specific areas may also vary considerably in the same Member State.
The figures in specific areas of EU law show the following trends :
• For competition cases (Figure 16), the overall caseload faced by courts across Member States decreased
significantly, resulting in reduced length of judicial review in seven Member States, while it remained stable or
increased in seven other Member States. As a sign of improvement, in 2017, only three Member States reported an
average length exceeding 1000 days compared to eight Member States one year earlier.
• In the area of electronic communications (Figure 17), despite marked increase in case-loads faced by courts, a
positive trend, sometimes significantly, in terms of reduced length of proceedings can be observed across the EU and
only very few Member States did not manage to reduce or at least maintain previous average lengths of proceedings.
• As regards EU trademark infringement cases (Figure 18), in 2017 courts in some Member States managed to cope
better with caseload and reduced the time needed to resolve cases, while in others, the average length increased
quite significantly.
• The effective fight against money laundering is crucial in protecting the financial system, fair competition and
preventing negative economic consequences. Challenges in length of court proceedings when dealing with money
laundering offences, may influence the effective fight against money laundering. The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard
presents updated data on the length of judicial proceedings dealing with money laundering offences (Figure 19),
which show that while in about half of Member States the first instance court proceedings take up to a year on
average, these proceedings take around two years on average in several Member States facing challenges (71).

71 Directive (EU) 2018/1673 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2018 on combating money laundering by criminal law will eliminate legal obstacles that
may delay prosecution, such as that a prosecution for money laundering can only start when the proceedings for the underlying predicate offence have been concluded. Member
States have to transpose the Directive before 8 December 2020.
22

The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

3.2. 	Quality of justice systems
There is no single way of measuring the quality of justice systems. The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard continues examining factors that
are generally accepted as relevant to improve the quality of justice. As in the previous years, they are grouped into four categories:
1) accessibility of justice for citizens and businesses;
2) adequate material and human resources;
3) putting in place assessment tools; and
4) using quality standards.

3.2.1.

Accessibility

Accessibility is required throughout the whole justice chain to enable obtaining relevant information — about the justice system, how
to initiate a claim and the related financial aspects, the state of play of proceedings up until their end — so that the judgment can be
swiftly accessed online (72).

Giving information about the justice system
Citizen-friendly justice requires that information about the judicial system is provided in a way that is not only easily accessible but
also presents the information in a tailor-made form for specific groups of society who would otherwise have difficulties in accessing
the information. Figure 20 shows the availability of online information about specific aspects of the judicial system and for specific
groups of society.

Figure 20
Availability of online information about the judicial system for the general public (*) 				
Education on legal rights
through interactive learning tools

Interactive online simulation
to assess eligibility for legal aid

Targetted information for visually
or hearing impaired

Computer terminals in courts with internet
connection available to the public

Website with online forms for
the public and companies

Targetted information
for children

Targetted information
for non-native speakers

Source: European Commission (73)

N
O

NONE

D
A
T
A

BG IE LV LT SI IT NL AT PT RO FI DE EE HU BE DK ES SE FR MT PL SK CZ EL HR CY LU UK
Education on legal rights through interactive learning tools
Computer terminals in courts with internet connection available to the public
Interactive
online
simulation
to online.
assess eligibility for legal aid
(*) DE: Each federal state and the federal
level decide which
information
to provide
Website with online forms for the public and companies
Targetted information for visually or hearing impaired
Targetted information for children
Targetted information for non-native speakers

72	To be noted that the Association of the Councils of State and Supreme Administrative jurisdictions (ACA) has published a transversal study on ‘Access to administrative supreme
courts and to their decisions’: www.aca-europe.eu/images/media_kit/aca_surveys/Transversal-Analysis.pdf
73	2018 data collected in cooperation with the group of contact persons on national justice systems.

3. Key findings of the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

23

3.2. Quality of justice systems

3.2.1. Accessibility

Legal aid and court fees
Access to legal aid is a fundamental right enshrined in the Charter (74). Most Member States grant legal aid on the basis of the
applicant’s income (75).
Figure 21 shows the availability of full or partial legal aid in the scenario of a claim of EUR 6 000 in the context of each Member State’s
income and living conditions (76). It compares the income thresholds for granting legal aid, expressed as percentage of the Eurostat
poverty threshold in each Member State. For example, if the threshold for legal aid appears at 20 %, it means that an applicant with
an income 20 % higher than the Eurostat poverty threshold in his or her Member State will be still eligible for legal aid. On the contrary,
if the threshold for legal aid appears at below 0 it means that a person with income below the poverty threshold may not be eligible
for legal aid.
Some Member States operate a legal aid system that provides for 100 % coverage of the costs linked to litigation (full legal aid),
complemented by a system covering partial costs (partial legal aid), the latter applying eligibility criteria different from that of the
former. Other Member States operate either only a full or only a partial legal aid system.

Figure 21
Income threshold for legal aid in a specific consumer case (*) (differences in % from Eurostat poverty threshold) 		
Full legal aid

Partial legal aid

Source: European Commission with the CCBE (77)

150%
130%
110%
90%

COURT
DISCRETION

30%
10%
-10%

DK

ES

PT

EL

LV

IT

NL

SE

IE

SI

LT

DE

FR

BE

FI

SK

LU

HR RO HU

-30%

CZ

EE

AT

PL

CY

NO DATA

50%

NO LEGAL AID
IN SCENARIO

70%

UK BG MT
(EN+
WL)

-50%

Full legal aid

Partial legal aid

(*) LV: income thresholds are not comparable with previous year due to adaptation of methodology for calculation. EE: decision to grant legal aid is not based on the level of financial
resources of the applicant. IE: income threshold for full legal aid is not comparable with the previous year due to adaptation of methodology for calculation; partial legal aid has
to take into account also the disposable assets of the applicant.

74 Article 47(3) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU.
75	Member States use different methods to establish the eligibility threshold, e.g. different reference periods (monthly/annual income). About half of the Member States also have a
threshold related to the personal capital of the applicant. This is not taken into account for this figure. In BE, IE, ES, FR, HR, HU, LT, LV, LU and NL certain categories of persons (e.g.
individuals who receive certain benefits) are automatically entitled to receive legal aid in civil/commercial disputes. Additional criteria that Member States may use such as the
merit of the case are not reflected in this figure. Although not directly related to the figure, it should be noted that in several Member States (AT, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FR, IT, NL, PL,
PT, SI, UK(EW)) legal aid is not limited to natural persons.
76	In order to collect comparable data, each Member State’s respective Eurostat poverty threshold has been converted to monthly income. The at-risk-of-poverty (AROP) threshold is
set at 60 % of the national median equivalised disposable household income. European Survey on Income and Living Conditions, Eurostat table ilc_li01, available at: 		
http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/income-and-living-conditions/data/database.
77	2018 data collected through replies by CCBE members to a questionnaire based on the following specific scenario: a dispute of a consumer with a company (two different values
of the claim have been indicated: €6 000 and the Eurostat poverty threshold in each Member State). Given that conditions for legal aid depend on the applicant’s situation, the
following scenario was used: a single 35-year-old employed applicant without any dependant and legal expenses insurance, with a regular income and a rented apartment.
24

The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

3.2. Quality of justice systems

3.2.1. Accessibility

Legal and court fees

Most Member States require parties to pay a court fee when starting judicial proceedings. Recipients of legal aid are often exempt from
paying court fees. Only EE, IE, NL and SI require a recipient of legal aid to pay a court fee. In CZ the court decides on an individual basis
to exempt a legal aid recipient from paying court fees. Figure 22 compares for two scenarios the level of the court fee presented as a
share of the value of the claim. If, for example, in the figure below the court fee appears at 10 % of a EUR 6 000 claim, the consumer
will have to pay a EUR 600 court fee to start a judicial proceeding. The low value claim is based on the Eurostat poverty threshold for
each Member State.
Figure 22
Court fee to start a judicial proceeding in a specific consumer case (*) (level of court fee as a share of the value of the claim)
Court fee for a €6000 claim (in %)

Court fee for a a low value claim (*) (in %)

Source: European Commission with the CCBE(78)

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%

N
O
N
E

30%
20%
10%
0%

ES

FR

NO
DATA

EL

IE

HR DK PL

IT

SK

LT

LU NL SE UK AT CZ
(EN+
WL)

Court fee for a €6000 claim (in %)

SI

DE HU LV

EE

PT

FI

CY RO BE BG MT

Court fee for a low value claim (*) (in %)

(*) ‘Low value claim’ is a claim corresponding to the Eurostat poverty threshold for a single person in each Member State, converted to monthly income (e.g. in 2018, this value ranged
between €110 in RO and €1 716 in LU). BE and RO: no information on court fees for a low value claim was provided. LU: Litigants have to pay bailiff fees to start proceedings
as a plaintiff unless they benefit from legal aid. NL: Court fees for income <€2 242/month.

Submitting and following a claim online
The ability to complete specific steps in the judicial procedure by electronic means is an important part of the quality of justice systems
because the electronic submission of claims, the possibility to monitor and advance a proceeding online can ease access to justice and
reduce delays and costs. ICT systems in courts also play an increasing role in cross-border cooperation between judicial authorities and
also facilitate the implementation of EU legislation, for example, on small claims procedures.

78	The data refer to income thresholds valid in 2018 and have been collected through replies by CCBE members to a questionnaire based on the following specific scenario: a dispute
of a consumer with a company (two different values of the claim have been indicated: €6 000 and the Eurostat poverty threshold in each Member State).
3. Key findings of the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

25

3.2. Quality of justice systems

3.2.1. Accessibility

Submitting and following a claim online

Figure 23
Availability of electronic means (*) (0 = available in 0 % of courts, 4 = available in 100 % of courts (79)) 		
to submit a case

to transmit summons

to monitor the stages of a proceeding

Source: CEPEJ study

4
3
N
O

NONE

2
1

D
A
T
A

0

CZ EE LV LT HU RO SK PT ES IT AT FI SI DE PL MT SE IE FR BE BG DK NL EL HR CY LU UK
(*) DK and RO: cases may be submitted to courts by email.

to submit a case

to transmit summons

to monitor the stages of a proceeding

Information to parties
Figure 24 presents standards on the way parties are informed and the type of information they receive about the progress of their
case, with particular focus on the use of electronic or automatic methods. Certain Member States have an automated e-mail or
SMS notification system providing information about delays, timetables or general case progress. Others give online access to the
information during the case, while some leave it at the discretion of the courts.
Figure 24
Standards on information about case progress (*) 								
Timetable of court proceedings

Information about the progress of a case

Information on delays

Other

Source: European Commission ( )
80

16
14
12
10
8

NONE

4
2

NO DATA

6

0
BG EE LV LT HU ES IT PL PT DK MT SI EL BE DE AT LU NL FI SE CZ HR RO SK IE FR CY UK

Timetable of court proceedings

Information on delays

(*) Maximum possible: 16 points. Member States were awarded points depending on the method used to provide each type of information. 1.5 points for automatic notification by
e-mail or SMS,Information
1 point for online access
to the
during the case
information upon request by parties, court discretion or any other method
about
thecase
progress
of proceedings,
a case 0.5 points for eachOther
used. LU: communications done by email are not legally binding (still on implementation phase). SI: The new Court Rules provide the obligation for courts to enable an on-line
view of data recorded in case register systems. It is still to be implemented.

79	Data concern 2017. Equipment rate from 100 % (device completely deployed) to 0 % (device non existing) indicates the functional presence in courts of the device covered by the
graph, according to the following scale: (100 % = 4 points if applicable to all matters / 1.33 points per specific matter; 50-99 % = 3 points if applicable to all matters / 1 point per
specific matter; 10-49 % = 2 points if applicable to all matters / 0.66 point per specific matter; 1-9 % = 1 point if applicable to all matters / 0.33 points per specific matter. Matter
relates to the type of litigation handled (civil/commercial, criminal, administrative or other).
80 2018 data collected in cooperation with the group of contact persons on national justice systems.
26

The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

3.2. Quality of justice systems

3.2.1. Accessibility

Accessing judgments
Ensuring access to judgments online increases the transparency of justice systems, helps citizens and businesses understand their
9
rights and can contribute to consistency in case-law. The arrangements for online publication of judgments are essential for creating
8 (81), that make case-law more accessible to legal professionals and the general public. The online
user-friendly search facilities
publication of court decisions7requires balancing a variety of interests, within the boundaries set by legal and policy frameworks (82).
The European Commission supports open data initiatives from the public sector, including the judicial system (83).
6
99
88
77

5
Figure 25
4
Online accessibility to published judgments to the general public (*) (civil/commercial, administrative and criminal cases, all instances)
3
1st instance courts

2

1st instance criminal courts

2nd instance

2nd instance criminal courts

1

Highest instance courts

Highest instance criminal courts

Source: European Commission ( )

0

66
55
44
33
22
11
00

84

EE LV LT HU MT RO SK LU IE ES IT SI AT BG CZ DK HR NL DE CY PT BE PL SE

9
8
7

1st instance courts

1st instance criminal courts

2nd instance

2nd instance criminal courts

Highest instance courts

Highest instance criminal

6
EE
EE LV
LV LT
LT HU
HU MT
MT RO
RO SK
SK LU
LU IE
IE ES
ES IT
IT SI
SI AT
AT BG
BG CZ
CZ DK
DK HR
HR NL
NL DE
DE CY
CY PT
PT BE
BE PL
PL SE
SE EL
EL FI
FI FR
FR
5
1st
1st
2nd
1st instance
instance courts
courts
1st instance
instance criminal
criminal courts
courts
2nd instance
instance
4
2nd
Highest
Highest
2nd instance
instance criminal
criminal courts
courts
Highest instance
instance courts
courts
Highest instance
instance criminal
criminal courts
courts
3
2
1
0
EE LV LT HU MT RO SK LU IE ES IT SI AT BG CZ DK HR NL DE CY PT BE PL SE EL FI FR
1st instance courts

1st instance criminal courts

2nd instance

(*) Maximum possible: 9 points. For each court instance, one point was given if all judgments are available for civil/commercial and administrative and criminal cases respectively
(0.5 when some judgments are available). For Member States with only two court instances, points have been given for three court instances by mirroring the respective higher
2nd instance criminal courts
Highest instance courts
Highest instance criminal courts
instance court of the non-existing instance. For those Member States that do not distinguish the two areas of law (civil/commercial and administrative), the same number of
points have been given for both areas. BG: Court of Cassation criminal decision are all published except those containing classified information. LU and SE: courts do not publish
judgments regularly online (only landmark cases). LV: for judgment adopted in non-public hearing, only the publicly announced parts are published online. DE: each federal state
decides on online availability of 1st instance judgments. IE: for criminal cases, summary cases are not generally the subject of a written judgment. CY: for administrative and
criminal cases judges decide on which judgments to be published. NL: courts decide on publication according to published criteria. PL: for administrative cases, the chief of unit
in every court decides on the publication. PT: for civil and criminal cases, a commission within the court decides on the publication.

81 See Best practice guide for managing Supreme Courts, under the project Supreme Courts as guarantee for effectiveness of judicial systems, p. 29.
82	Conclusions of the Council and the representatives of the Governments of the Member States meeting within the Council on Best Practices regarding the Online Publication of Court
Decisions (OJ C 362, 8.10.2018, p. 2).
83 https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/open-data
84 2018 data collected in cooperation with the group of contact persons on national justice systems.
3. Key findings of the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

27

3.2. Quality of justice systems

3.2.1. Accessibility

Accessing judgments

Figure 26
Arrangements for online publication of judgments in all instances (*) (civil/commercial, administrative and criminal cases, all instances)
Rules are in place on personal data

Judgments are assigned a
European Case Law Identifier (ECLI)

Judgments are tagged with keywords

Website is updated at least
once a month

Website is accessible to the general
public free of charge

Source: European Commission (85)

45
40
35
30
25
20
NO DATA

15
10
5
0

AT DE ES RO SK EE HR LV IT LU MT NL PT HU SI LT PL BE BG CY FI IE DK SE FR CZ EL UK
Rules are in place on personal data
Judgments are tagged with keywords
(*) Maximum possible: 45 points. For each of the three
instances, are
threeassigned
points can be
if civil/commercial,
administrative
criminal cases are covered. If e.g. only one of the
Judgments
a given
European
Case Law
Identifierand
(ECLI)
three categories of cases is covered only one point per instance is given. Where a Member State has only two instances, points have been accorded for three instances by mirroring
Website
is
updated
at
least
once
a
month
the respective higher instance of the non-existing instance. For those Member States which do not distinguish between administrative and civil/commercial cases, the same points
have been allocated for both areas of law. CZ: Website
some of theis2nd
instance judgments
civil/commercial
areof
assigned
ECLI. IE: Administrative cases are in effect subsumed
accessible
to theingeneral
publiccases
free
charge
within the category civil and commercial cases in the Irish legal order. NL: no keywords, but a table of contents is added to every published judgment.

85	2018 data collected in cooperation with the group of contact persons on national justice systems.
28

The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

3.2. Quality of justice systems

3.2.1. Accessibility

Accessing alternative dispute resolution methods
Figure 27 shows Member States’ efforts in promoting the voluntary use of alternative dispute resolution methods through specific
incentives, which may vary depending on the area of law (86).

Figure 27
Promotion of and incentives for using ADR methods (*) 								
Civil and commercial disputes

Labour disputes

Consumer disputes

Administrative disputes

Source: European Commission (87)

NO DATA

48
44
40
36
32
28
24
20
16
12
8
4
0

DE DK NL HU ES PT LT BE EL EE HR RO FI BG LV PL SI SE AT FR SK CZ CY MT IE IT LU UK
(*) MaximumCivil
possible:
48 points.
Aggregated data
based on the following
indicators:
1) website providing
information
on ADR, 2) publicity
campaigns in media, disputes
3) brochures to the
and
commercial
disputes
Labour
disputes
Consumer
disputes
Administrative
general public, 4) court provides specific information sessions on ADR upon request, 5) ADR/mediation coordinator at courts, 6) publication of evaluations on the use of ADR, 7)
publication of statistics on the use of ADR, 8) legal aid covers costs (in part or in full) incurred with ADR, 9) full or partial refund of court fees (including stamp duties, if ADR is
successful, 10) no lawyer for ADR procedure required, 11) judge can act as mediator and 12) agreement reached by the parties becomes enforceable in court. For each of these 12
indicators, one point was given for each area of law. DK: each court has an ambassador responsible for promoting the use of mediation. Administrative courts have the possibility
to propose to the parties to turn to mediation. IE: administrative cases are subsumed within the category civil and commercial cases. EL: ADR exists in the area of public procurement procedure before Administrative Courts of appeal. ES: ADR is mandatory in labour law cases. LT: a secretary at the National Courts Administration coordinates the judicial
mediation processes in courts. PT: for civil/commercial disputes, court fees are refunded only in case of justices for peace. SK: the Slovak legal order does not support the use of
ADR for administrative purposes. SE: judges have procedural discretion on ADR. Indeed, seeking friendly settlements is a mandatory task for the judge unless it is inappropriate.

3.2.2.

Resources

Sufficient resources, including the necessary investments into physical and technical infrastructure, and well-qualified, trained and
adequately remunerated personnel of all categories, are necessary for the good functioning of the justice system. Without adequate
facilities, tools or personnel with the required qualifications, skills and access to continuous training, the quality of proceedings and
decisions is put at stake.

Financial resources
The figures below show the actual government expenditure on operation of the justice system (excluding prisons), both per inhabitant
(Figure 28) and as a share of gross domestic product (GDP) (Figure 29), the criteria for determining the financial resources (Figure 30),
and, finally, the main categories of expenditure on law courts (Figure 31) (88).

86	The methods to promote and incentivise the use of ADR do not cover compulsory requirements to use ADR before going to court, as such requirements raise concerns about their
compatibility with the right to an effective remedy before a tribunal enshrined in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.
87	2018 data collected in cooperation with the group of contact persons on national justice systems.
88	General government total (actual) expenditure on the administration, operation or support of administrative, civil and criminal law courts and the judicial system, including enforcement
of fines and legal settlements imposed by the courts and operation of parole probation systems, and legal aid as well as legal representation and advice on behalf of government or
on behalf of others provided by government in cash or in services, excluding prison administrations (National Accounts Data, Classification of the Functions of Government (COFOG),
group 03.3), Eurostat table gov_10a_exp, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database.
3. Key findings of the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

29

3.2. Quality of justice systems

3.2.2. Resources Financial ressources

Figure 28
General government total expenditure on law courts (*) (in EUR per inhabitant) 					
2010

2015

2016

2017

Source: Eurostat

200

150

100

50

0
LU DE UK IE SE AT NL BE IT SI FI ES FR DK PT MT PL LV EL CZ EE HR HU BG RO SK LT CY

2010

2015

2016

2017

(*) Member States are ordered according to the expenditure in 2017 (from highest to lowest). 2017 data for ES, FR, HR, NL and SK are provisional.

Figure 29
General government total expenditure on law courts (*) (as a percentage of GDP) 					
2010

2015

2016

2017

Source: Eurostat

0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
BG PL RO SI HR HU LV DE UK ES IT PT EL CZ EE AT SE NL BE SK LT MT FI LU FR IE DK CY
2010

2015

2016

2017

(*) Member States are ordered according to the expenditure in 2017 (from highest to lowest). 2017 data for ES, FR, HR, NL and SK are provisional.

30

The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

3.2. Quality of justice systems

3.2.2. Ressources Financial resources

Figure 30 shows which state power (judiciary, legislature or executive) sets the criteria on determining financial resources for the
judiciary, and the type of criteria used.
Figure 30
Criteria for determining financial resources for the judiciary (*) (89)
Judiciary sets criteria

Executive sets criteria

Parliament sets criteria

Other body sets criteria

Amount based on historic/realised costs

No. of incoming cases taken into account

No. of resolved cases taken into account

Anticipated costs of projects, investments

Courts’ needs/requests

BE BG CZ DK DE

EE

IE

EL

ES

FR

HR

IT

CY

LV

LT

LU HU MT NL

AT

PL

PT RO

SI

SK

FI

SE UK UK UK
(EN (NI) (SC)
+
WL)

Judiciary sets criteria

Executive sets criteria

Parliament sets criteria

Other body sets criteria

Amount based on historic/realised costs

No. of incoming cases taken into account

(*) DK: number of incoming and resolved cases at courts of 1st instance courts are taken into account. DE: only for the Supreme Federal Court’s budget — as regards courts of 1st
nd resolved cases taken into account
No.2of
costsof
ofincoming
projects,
investments
Courts’
and
instance. Judicial systems vary between the federalAnticipated
states. EE: number
and
resolved cases for courts
of 1 stneeds/requests
and 2nd instance courts. FR: number of incoming and resolved cases for courts of all instances. The number of resolved cases based on an evaluation of the costs for courts is taken into account. IT: the Ministry of Justice
defines criteria for civil and criminal courts, while the Council for the Judiciary (CPGA) defines criteria for administrative courts. HU: law states that the salaries of judges must be
determined in the act on the central budget in such a way that the amount must not be lower than it had been in the previous year. NL: the number of resolved cases based on
an evaluation of the costs for courts is taken into account. FI: The number of resolved cases based on an evaluation of the costs for courts is taken into account.

89	Data collected through an updated questionnaire drawn up by the Commission in close association with the ENCJ. Responses from Member States without Councils for the Judiciary
were obtained through cooperation with the Network of the Presidents of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the EU.
3. Key findings of the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

31

3.2. Quality of justice systems

3.2.2. Ressources Financial resources

Figure 31 shows, for the first time, the main economic categories comprising government expenditure on law courts: 1) wages and
salaries of judges and court staff, including social contributions (‘compensation of employees’ (90)), 2) operating costs for goods and
services consumed by the law courts such as building rentals, office consumables, energy and legal aid (‘intermediate consumption’
(91)), 3) investment in fixed assets, such as court buildings and software (‘gross fixed capital formation’ (92)), and 4) other expenditure.
Figure 31
General government total expenditure on law courts (in 2017, as a percentage of expenditure) 			
Other

Operating costs (e.g. building rentals, legal aid, energy)

Fixed assets (e.g. court buildings and software)

Wages and salaries of judges and court staff

Source: Eurostat

100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK

Other
Fixed assets (e.g. court buildings and software)
Operating costs (e.g. building rentals, legal aid, energy)
Wages and salaries of judges and court staff

90	Compensation of employees consists of wages and salaries in cash or in kind (D.11) and employer’s actual and imputed social contributions (D.121 and D.122). 			
See: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Compensation_of_employees.
91	Intermediate consumption is a national accounts concept which measures the value of the goods and services consumed as inputs by a process of production. It excludes
fixed assets (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Fixed_assets) whose consumption is recorded as consumption of fixed capital
(https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Fixed_capital). The goods and services may be either transformed or used up by the production process.
See https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Intermediate_consumption.
92	Gross fixed capital formation, abbreviated as GFCF, consists of resident producers’ investments, deducting disposals, in fixed assets (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/
index.php?title=Glossary:Asset) during a given period. It also includes certain additions to the value of non-produced assets realized by producers or institutional units. Fixed assets
are tangible or intangible assets produced as outputs from production processes that are used repeatedly, or continuously, for more than one year. 				
See https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Gross_fixed_capital_formation_(GFCF).

32

The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

3.2. Quality of justice systems

3.2.2. Ressources

Human resources
Adequate human resources are essential for the quality of a justice system. Diversity among judges, including gender balance, adds
complementary knowledge, skills and experience and reflects the reality of society.
Figure 32
Number of judges (*) (per 100 000 inhabitants) 									
2010

2015

2016

2017

Source: CEPEJ study

50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
HR SI LU BG HU CZ AT LT EL PL SK LV DE RO PT FI EE NL CY BE SE ES IT FR MT DK IE UK
2010

2015

2016

2017

(*)	This category consists of judges working full-time, under the CEPEJ methodology. It does not include the Rechtspfleger/court clerks that exist in some Member States. AT: Data
on administrative justice is introduced for 2016 cycle for the first time. EL: the total number of professional judges includes different categories over the years shown above,
which partly explains their variation. Since 2016, data on number of professional judges includes all the ranks for criminal and political justice as well as administrative judges.
IT: The regional administrative courts, regional audit commissions, local tax commissions and military courts are not taken into consideration. UK: weighted average of the three
jurisdictions. Data for 2010 contains 2012 data for UK (NI). LU: numbers have been revised following an improved methodology.

Figure 33
Proportion of female professional judges at 1st and 2nd instance courts in 2017 (*) 				
1st instance courts

2nd instance courts

Source: CEPEJ study

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%

NO
DATA

10%
0%

LV SI RO EL* HU HR SK FR LU SE FI EE PL CZ IT BE NL AT DK LT PT ES IE MT CY BG DE UK
(*) EL: data for 2016.

1st instance courts

2nd instance courts
3. Key findings of the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

33

3.2. Quality of justice systems

3.2.2. Ressources Human resources

Figure 34
Proportion of female professional judges at Supreme Courts in 2017 and 2018 (*) 				
2017

2018

Source: European Commission (93)

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

NO DATA

LV SI RO EL HU HR SK FR LU SE FI EE PL CZ IT BE NL AT DK LT PT ES IE MT CY BG DE UK
2017

(*) The Member States are in the same order as in Figure 33.

2018

Figure 35
Number of lawyers (*) (per 100 000 inhabitants) 									
2010

2015

2016

2017

Source: CEPEJ study

450
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
CY LU EL IT MT ES PT UK* IE DE BG BE PL RO HR HU DK SK CZ NL FR SI LT EE AT LV FI SE
2010

2015

2016

2017

(*) Under CEPEJ methodology a lawyer is a person qualified and authorised according to national law to plead and act on behalf of his or her clients, to engage in the practice of law,
to appear before the courts or advise and represent his or her clients in legal matters (Recommendation Rec (2000)21 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe
on the freedom of exercise of the profession of lawyer). DE: no distinction is made between different groups of lawyers in Germany, such as between solicitors and barristers.
FI: since 2015, the number of lawyers provided includes both the number of lawyers working in the private sector and the number of lawyers working in the public sector. UK:
data for 2010 and 2014.

93	2018 data. European Institute for Gender Equality, Gender Statistics Database, available at: http://eige.europa.eu/lt/gender-statistics/dgs/indicator/wmidm_jud_natcrt__wmid_natcrt_supcrt .
34

The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

3.2. Quality of justice systems

3.2.2. Ressources

Training		
Judicial training is important in contributing to the quality of judicial decisions and the justice service delivered to citizens. The data set
out below cover judicial training in a broad range of areas, including communication with parties and the press and on judicial skills.

Figure 36
Judges participating in continuous training activities in EU law or in the law of another Member State (*) (as a
percentage of total number of judges) 										
Source: European Commission (94)

140%
120%
100%
80%
60%
N
O
N
E

40%
20%
0%

SI HU LV MT DK IT IE EE CY LT SE BG DE CZ ES RO HR FR BE NL AT PL PT SK UK EL FI LU
(*) Values for some Member States have been reduced for presentation purposes (SI=257%). In several Member States the ratio of participants exceeds 100 %, meaning that some
participants attended more than one training activity. DK: including court staff. IT: The regional administrative courts, regional audit commissions, local tax commissions and
military courts are not taken into consideration. AT: including prosecutors. UK: Data are for 2016.

Figure 37
Share of continuous training of judges on various types of skills (*) (as a percentage of total number of judges receiving these types of training)
Judgecraft

IT skills

Court management

Judical ethics

Source: European Commission (95)

100%
80%
60%
40%
20%

NONE
0%

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE ES FR HR IT LV LT HU NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK EL CY LU MT

Judgecraft

IT skills

Court management

Judicial ethics

(*) The table shows the distribution of judges participating in continuous training activities (i.e. those taking place after the initial training period to become a judge) in each of the four
identified areas as a percentage of the total number of judges trained in these types of training. Legal training activities are not taken into account. Judicial training authorities
in EL, CY, LU and MT did not provide specific training activities on the selected skills. DK: including court staff. AT: including prosecutors. UK data are for England and Wales.

94	2017 data collected in cooperation with the European Judicial Training Network and CEPEJ.
95 2017 data collected in cooperation with the European Judicial Training Network and CEPEJ. ‘Judgecraft’ includes activities such as conducting hearings, writing decisions or rhetoric.
3. Key findings of the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

35

3.2. Quality of justice systems

3.2.2. Ressources Training

Figure 38
Availability of training for judges on communication (*) 								
Awareness and dealing with fake news
and disinformation campaigns in new media

Communication with victims of gender based
violence (including domestic violence)

Communication with visually/hearing impaired

Gender-sensitive practices in judicial proceedings

Communication with asylum seekers

Communication with children

Source: European Commission (96)

12
10
8
6
4
2

NONE

0

PT IT BG AT PL SE DE SK LV HU IE ES EE RO NL EL LU BE SI LT DK CZ HR FR MT FI CY UK
Awareness and dealing with fake news and disinformation campaigns in new media

practices
judicial
proceedings
(*) Maximum possible: 12 points. Gender-sensitive
Member States were given
1 point if in
they
have initial
training and 1 point if they have continuous training (maximum of 2 points for each type of
training). DK: no training is offered
on communicating
with victims
people whoofaregender
visually or
hearingviolence
impaired because
the state
offers a visually
or hearing impaired people support in
Communication
with
based
(including
domestic
violence)
form of tools or an assistant inCommunication
the courtroom, e.g. awith
deaf interpreter.
asylum seekers

3.2.3.

Communication with visually/hearing impaired
Communication with children

Assessment tools

Monitoring and evaluation of court activities help to detect shortcomings and needs, and therefore help the justice system increase its quality.
Regular evaluation could improve the justice system’s responsiveness to current and future challenges. Adequate ICT tools could provide
real-time case management systems and could help to provide nationwide standardised court statistics. In addition, they could be used for
the management of backlogs and automated early-warning systems. Surveys are essential to assess how justice systems operate from the
perspective of legal professionals and court users. An adequate follow-up of surveys is a prerequisite to improve the quality of justice systems.
Figure 39
Availability of monitoring and evaluation of court activities (*) 							
Annual activity report

Regular evaluation system

Number of postponed cases

Age of cases

Other elements

Performance and quality indicators

Specialised court staff for quality

Source: CEPEJ study ( )
97

N
O
D
A
T
A

PT SI SK ES FR LV LT HU AT PL RO DK EE EL HR IT CY MT NL FI BG CZ SE DE LU BE IE UK
Annual
report
Number
postponed
cases
(*) The evaluation system
refers toactivity
the performance
of court systems, using indicators and targets. In 2018, all Member
Statesof
reported
having a system
that allows them to monitor the
number of incomingAge
cases of
and delivered
decisions,
as
well
as
the
length
of
proceedings
making
these
categories
superfluous
for
the
above
figure.
Similarly,
the
more in-depth work on quality
cases
Performance
and
quality
indicators
standards has superseded their use as an evaluation category. Data on ‘other elements’ include e.g. clearance rate (AT, FR), number of appealed cases and enforcement procedures (ES),
number of cases according
to types
of disputes (SK),system
outcome of the case, e.g. full or partial satisfaction (SK), final
convictions and suspended
cases (RO)
andquality
number of court sessions (PL).
Regular
evaluation
Specialised
court staff
for
Other elements
96 2018 data collected in cooperation with the group of contact persons on national justice systems.
97 2017 data.
36

The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

3.2. Quality of justice systems

3.2.3. Assessment tools

Figure 40
Availability of ICT for case management and court activity statistics (0 = available in 0 % of courts, 4 = available in 100 % of courts (98))
Case management systems

Tools of producing courts activity statistics

Source: CEPEJ study

4
3

N
O

1
0

D
A
T
A

NO DATA

NONE

2

BG CZ EE ES HR LV LT HU MT AT PL PT RO SI SE DK IE NL FI DE BE IT FR EL LU SK CY UK

Case management systems

Tools of producing courts activity statistics

Figure 41
Topics of surveys conducted among court users or legal professionals (*) 					
Accessibility of the court service

Needs and satisfaction of visually/hearing impaired

The judgment/decision of the court

The conduct of the hearing

Awareness of rights

Needs and satisfaction of children

Needs and satisfaction of non-native speakers

Customer service of the court

General level of trust in the justice system

Other topics

Source: European Commission ( )
99

N
O

NO SURVEYS IN 2017

D
A
T
A

LV HU MT SI BG EE PT NL SE ES PL AT DK FI BE CZ IE EL FR HR IT CY LT LU RO SK UK
Accessibility of the court service
Customer service of the court
The conduct of the hearing
The judgment/decision of the court
(*) Member States
wereand
givensatisfaction
one point per survey
topic indicated regardless
conducted
national, regional
court level. ‘Other topics’ include: physical
Needs
of non-native
speakersof whether the survey was
Needs
andatsatisfaction
oforchildren
accessibility (MT); usability of the online portal with court information (DK); access to court information (PT), and availibility of readibility of forms and instructions to complete them
Needsalso
andcovers
satisfaction
ofcourt
visually/hearing
General
level of
trust
in the
justice
system
(PL). This category
surveys among
staff, e.g. integrity impaired
of judges (HU), level of knowledge
and personal
culture
of court
service
employees
(PL) and property profile
of the judiciary
(AT), and qualitative
aspects, such as satisfaction (AT), quality of sentencing (MT), Other
loyalty towards
Awareness
of rights
topicsthe courts (PT) and conception of appropriate punishment (FI).

98	2017 data. Equipment rate from 100 % (device completely deployed) to 0 % (device non-existing) indicates the functional presence in courts of the device covered by the graph, according
to the following scale: 100 % = 4 points if applicable to all matters / 1.33 points per specific matter; 50-99 % = 3 points if applicable to all matters / 1 point per specific matter; 10-49 % = 2
points if applicable to all matters / 0.66 point per specific matter; 1-9 % = 1 point if applicable to all matters / 0.33 points per specific matter. Matter relates to the type of litigation handled
(civil/commercial, criminal, administrative or other).
99 2017 data collected in cooperation with the group of contact persons on national justice systems.
3. Key findings of the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

37

3.2. Quality of justice systems

3.2.3. Assessment tools

Figure 42
Follow-up of surveys conducted among court users or legal professionals (*) 					
Result publicly available online in their entirety
Feed an evaluation or to identify the need
to amend legislation

Determine training needs of
judges and court staff
Feed an annual/specific report at local
or national level

Modify/improving the functioning of courts
Other specific follow-up

Source: European Commission (100)

N
O
N
E

N
O

NO SURVEYS IN 2017

D
A
T
A

SI LV DE IE HU NL PT EE AT ES MT FI DK SE BG PL BE CZ EL FR HR IT CY LT LU RO SK UK
Results publicly available online in their entirety

Feed an annual/specific report at local or national level

Feed an evaluation or to identify the need to amend legislation

Modifying/improving the functioning of courts

(*) Member States were given one point per type of follow-up. The category ‘other specific follow-up’ included: guideline and framework for new online portal (DK), guideline for
policy and operational direction, (MT), improve general perceptions about justice system (PT), and publication of informative tools for general public. IE: data refer to the probate
needs of judges and court staff
Other specific follow-up
surveyDetermine
conducted in training
2016.

3.2.4.

Standards

Standards can drive up the quality of justice systems. For the first time, based on data gathered by the Association of the Councils of State
and Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions of the EU (ACA-Europe) and the Network of the Presidents of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the
EU (NPSJC), the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard presents an overview of the practices used at the highest and lower courts that contribute to
the quality of judgments (Figure 43).
Following the examination of standard measures on timing and information to parties in the previous edition, the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard
focuses on timing, backlogs and timeframes as a management tool in the judiciary (101). Figure 44 presents an overview of which Member
States use standard measures on time limits, timeframes and backlogs. Time limits are quantitative deadlines, e.g. maximum number of
days between the registration of a case until the first hearing. Backlogs are cases older than an identified period of time. Timeframes are
measurable targets/practices e.g. specifying a pre-defined share of cases to be completed within a certain time period. Figure 45 presents
which bodies set, monitor and follow-up on backlog standards, and Figure 46 shows in more detail certain aspects related to timeframes.

Quality of judgments
High quality judicial decisions are generally perceived as those that are clearly drafted, structured and that strike a proper balance
between clear reasoning and conciseness, thus being easily understood and enforceable. The wording and structure of judicial decisions
may also have an impact on how well they can be processed by software programmes, in particular Natural Language Processing (NLP)
applications. This end result can only be achieved through the combination of a complex and multifaceted set of elements, such as
the high quality professional training of judges, the adoption of good pratices regarding drafting and the monitoring of the quality of
the decisions, in the respect of the independence of the judiciary. The Association of the Councils of State and Supreme Administrative
Jurisdictions of the EU (ACA-Europe) developed a questionnaire that was replied to by the Supreme Administrative Courts, and by
the Supreme Courts (members of the Network of the Presidents of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the EU (NPSJC)). Without entering
into the merits of individual decisions, Figure 43 presents the standards adopted by the Member States regarding selected indicators
considered to contribute to the overall quality of judgments.

100 2017 data collected in cooperation with the group of contact persons on national justice systems.
101 In the EU Justice Scoreboard, the standards on time limits and timeframes go beyond the requirements stemming from the right to a hearing within a reasonable time as enshrined in
Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and in Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
38

The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

3.2. Quality of justice systems

3.2.4. Standards Quality of jugements

Figure 43
Standards applied to improve the quality of judgments in highest courts (*) 					
Predetermined elements of reasoning or structure

Obligation of conciseness

Mechanism for clarifying judgments

Obligation to use clear and simple language

Traning

Assessment of the quality of judgments

Source: European Commission with ACA-Europe and NPSJC

A
A

A

A
A

A

A

A
A

A

A

Predetermined elements of reasoning or structure

NO DATA

NO DATA

A
A

Training

(*) For each Member
State, left
presents
practices
in Supreme Courts, right column presentsMechanism
the practices infor
Supreme
Administrative
Courts (column marked with letter
Obligation
to column
use clear
andthesimple
language
clarifying
judgments
“A”). The Member States appear in the alphabetical order of their geographical names in the original language. Member States were given one point per indicator of the quality of
judgments.Obligation
Training includes
the legal training of judges on the structure of written decisions (0.25 Assessment
points), legal training
of Supreme
judges on the style of reasoning of
of conciseness
of the
qualityCourts’
of judgments
written judgments, legal training of lower courts’ judges on the style of reasoning of written decisions (0.25 points) and training on the drafting of judgments (university, judges’
school or on the job) (0.25 points). An obligation to use clear and simple language is considered to exist whether required by law, regulation or professional practice (1 point).
The obligation of conciseness is considered to be applicable whether based on law, court regulations or practices (1 point). The assessment of the quality of judgments refers to
the existence of an internal mechanism at the level of the Supreme Court to assess the global quality of its own decisions (1 point). IT, Corte Suprema di Cassazione: although
a procedural tool for clarification of judgments does not exist, in some situations, certain aspects of the case may still be clarified at the stage of the execution of the decision
before a competent judge. DK and RO: no data. Participating courts: BE: Cour de Cassation (Supreme Court) and Conseil d’Etat (Council of State) BG: Върховен касационен съд
(Supreme Court) and Върховен административен съд (Supreme Administrative Court). CZ: Nejvyšší soud (Supreme Court) and Nejvyšší správní soud (Supreme Administrative
Court) DE: Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Federal Administrative Court). EE: Riikohus (Supreme Court). IE: Chúirt Uachtarach (Supreme Court). EL: Συμβούλιο της Επικρατείας (Council
of State). ES: Tribunal Supremo (Supreme Court). FR: Cour de Cassation (Supreme Court) and Conseil d’Etat (Council of State). HR: Vrhovni sud (Supreme Court) and Visoki upravni
(Supreme Administrative Court). IT: Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Supreme Court) and Consiglio de Stato (Council of State). CY: Ανώτατο Δικαστήριο (Supreme Court). LV: Augstākā
tiesa (Supreme Court). LT: Vyriausiasis Administracinis Teismas (Supreme Administrative Court). LU: Cour de Cassation (Supreme Court). HU: Kúria (Supreme Court). MT: Court of
Appeal. NL: Hoge Raad (Supreme Court) and Raad van State (Council of State). AT: Oberster Gerichtshof (Supreme Court) and Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Supreme Administrative
Court). PL: Sąd Najwyższy (Supreme Court) and Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny (Supreme Administrative Court). PT: Supremo Tribunal Administrativo (Supreme Administrative
Court). SI: Vrhovno sodišče (Supreme Court). SK: Najvyšší súd (Supreme Court). FI: Korkein hallinto-oikeus (Supreme Administrative Court). SE: Högsta domstolen (Supreme Court)
and Högsta förvaltningsdomstolen (Supreme Administrative Court). UK: Supreme Court.

Figure 44
Standards on timing (*) 											
Time limits

Timeframes

Backlogs

Source: European Commission ( )

N
O
N
E

NO DATA

102

BE EE IT LT HU AT RO SI FI SE DK DE ES HR CY LV NL SK CZ IE EL FR MT PL PT BG LU UK

Time limits

Timeframes

(*) Member States were given 1 point if standards are defined, regardless of the area (civil/commercial, administrative, or other).

Backlogs

102 2018 data collected in cooperation with the group of contact persons on national justice systems.
3. Key findings of the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

39

3.2. Quality of justice systems

3.2.4. Standards Quality of jugements

Figure 45 focuses on standards on backlogs, which consist of delay reducing measures to improve the pace of definition in litigation.
The figure shows the competences of the different powers of the Member States to set, monitor and follow-up standards on backlogs.
Figure 46 focuses on timeframes, which can be an effective management tool in the judiciary since they can help to detect potential
issues on efficiency and assist in identifying solutions (e.g. additional human or financial resources, reorganisation of court management
process, temporary assistance to a court).

Figure 45
Setting and monitoring of standards on backlogs (*) 								
Source: European Commission (103)

BE BG CZ DK DE EE ES FR HR IT CY LV LT HU MT AT RO SI SK FI SE LU NL PL PT IE EL UK
The executive/other
Follow-up
The judiciary

The judiciary

NONE

The executive/other

NO DATA

The executive/other
Monitoring

Setting
The judiciary
BE BG CZ DK DE EE ES FR HR IT CY LV LT HU MT AT RO SI SK FI SE LU NL PL PT IE EL UK
(*) The ‘executive’ encompasses institutions under direct or indirect control by the government. ‘Other’ refers to the National Office for the Judiciary in HU, headed by its president
elected by qualified majority of the Parliament from among judges for a period of nine years. The ‘judiciary’ includes bodies such as court presidents, Councils for the Judiciary,
judges’ bodies. HU: The National Office for the Judiciary is involved in setting, monitoring and follow-up of standards on backlogs.

103	2018 data collected in cooperation with the group of contact persons on national justice systems.
40

The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

3.2. Quality of justice systems

3.2.4. Standards Quality of jugements

Figure 46
Timeframes: definition, automatic monitoring and follow-up 							
Possible follow-up measure: report from judge
Possible follow-up measure: reorganisation
of the court management process

Possible follow-up measure: temporary
assistance by special judges

Continuous, real time monitoring of timeframes

Possible follow-up measure: additional
resources

Definition of standards on timeframes

Source: European Commission (104)

N
O

NONE

D
A
T
A

BE LV HU NL ES IT AT RO SE BG EE LT SI DK FR FI CY CZ DE IE PT EL HR LU MT PL SK UK

3.2.5.

Possible follow-up measure: report from judge
Possible follow-up measure: reorganisation of the court management process
Possible follow-up measure: temporary assistance by special judges
follow-up measure: additional resources
SummaryPossible
on the
quality
of justice
systems
Continuous,
real
time monitoring
of timeframes
Definition of standards on timeframes

Easy access, sufficient resources, effective assessment tools and appropriate standards and practices are the factors
that contribute to a high quality of justice systems. Citizens and business expect high-quality decisions from an effective
justice system (105). The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard develops its comparative examination of these factors.

> Accessibility
This edition looks at elements contributing to a citizen-friendly justice system:
• Almost all Member States provide access to some online information about their judicial system, including a centralised
web portal with online forms and interactive education on legal rights (Figure 20). Differences appear on the content of
the information and how adequate these are with people’s needs. For example, as to the possibility to calculate legal
aid through online simulation, an improved number of Member States (13) enable people to find out whether they are
eligible for legal aid. While information for non-native speakers is available in the majority of Member States, this is not
always the case with targeted information for children and visually or hearing impaired people.
• The availability of legal aid and the level of court fees have a major impact on access to justice, in particular for
people in poverty. Figure 21 shows that in some Member States, consumers whose income is below the Eurostat poverty
threshold would not receive legal aid. Compared to last year, though, two of such Member States have made legal aid
more reachable. At the same time, over the years, legal aid has become less accessible in some Member States. The level
of court fees (Figure 22) has remained largely stable since 2016 although in several Member States, the court fees have
raised as a proportion of the claim, especially for low value claims, imputable to the increase of the minimum court fee
applicable. The difficulty in benefiting from legal aid in combination with partly significant levels of court fees in some
Member States could have a dissuasive effect for people in poverty to access justice.
• The availability of electronic means during the judicial procedure contributes to easier access to justice and the
reduction of delays and costs. Figure 23 shows that in more than half of the Member States, electronic submission of
claims is not in place or is possible only to a limited extent and that not all Member States allow following the progress
of court proceedings online.

104 2018 data collected in cooperation with the group of contact persons on national justice systems.
105 The use of Artificial Intelligence in justice systems has become a topical issue. In April 2018, the Commission adopted a Communication on Artificial Intelligence for Europe (COM(2018)237
final); it highlighted the importance of investments in key application areas such as public administration, including justice. In the coming years the EU Justice Scoreboard could give an
overview of the situation in the Member States. Figures 26 and 43 (arrangements for online publication of judgments, and practices for the quality of judgments) already present data
related to factors that are crucial for the development of a robust “Legal tech” industry in Europe.
3. Key findings of the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

41

3.2. Quality of justice systems

3.2.5. Summary on the quality of justice systems

• Most Member States have standards on how to inform the parties about the progress of their case, the court
timetable or potential delays (Figure 24). Compared to previous years, a few Member States have considerably improved
these standards. The differences between Member States relate mainly to the methods used. While some Member States
have a system with automated e-Mail or SMS notification providing information about delays, timetables or general case
progress, others simply give online access to the information about the case, and some also leave it at the discretion
of the courts.
• Compared to previous years, online access to court judgments (Figure 25) has improved especially as to the
publication of judgments of the highest instance: 19 Member States publish all civil/commercial and administrative
judgments. For the first time, the EU Justice Scoreboard presents the publication of criminal judgments. They indicate
that 19 Member States publish all criminal judgments of the highest instance. The positive developments invite all
Member States to further improve as decisions at the highest instance play an important role for the consistency of case
law. As various arrangements for online publication (Figure 26) could facilitate searches for relevant case-law, tagging
judgments with keywords and greater use of the European Case Law identifier (ECLI) could be further developed.
• The number of Member States promoting the voluntary use of alternative dispute resolution methods (ADR)
(Figure 27) for private disputes continues to grow compared to previous years. This is mainly achieved by introducing
more incentives for the use of ADR across different areas of law. Administrative disputes have also been taken into
consideration and less than half of the Member States allow ADR in the field.

> Resources
High quality justice systems in Member States require sufficient levels of financial and human resources, including the
necessary investments into physical and technical infrastructure, appropriate initial and continuous training, as well as
diversity among judges, including gender balance. The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard shows the following:
• In terms of financial resources, data show that, overall, in 2017, general government total expenditure on law courts
remained mostly stable in Member States, with significant differences in actual amounts, both in EUR per inhabitant and
as a percentage of GDP between Member States persisting (Figures 28 and 29). However, fewer Member States increased
their expenditure in 2017 compared to 2016. Member States mostly use historical or actual cost for determining
financial resources for the judiciary, while few rely on the actual workload or court requests (Figure 30).
• For the first time, based on data gathered by the Eurostat, the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard also presents the breakdown
of total expenditure into different categories. Figure 31 reveals significant differences in spending patterns among
Member States. On the one hand, while the wages and salaries of judges and court staff (including social contributions)
represent the biggest share in most Member States, investment into fixed assets such as court buildings and software
is very low, and even absent in some cases. The expenditure on operating costs (e.g. building rentals, legal aid and other
consumables), on the other hand, is considerably higher in some Member States (Figure 31).
• Women represent a large majority among judges. In first and second instance courts they prevail in the majority of
Member States (Figure 33). This is then reversed, though, in Supreme Courts where women represent less than fifty
percent of judges in most Member States (Figure 34). However, the proportion of female judges at Supreme Courts has
grown since 2010 in most Member States.
• On the training of judges, while most Member States provide continuous training in EU law, the law of another Member
State and on judgecraft fewer offer training on IT skills, court management and judicial ethics (Figure 37). On the training
on communicating with vulnerable group of parties, there appear to be improvements at the benefit of children, persons
visually or hearing impaired and victims of gender based violence (Figure 38), less so with respect to asylum seekers.
Less than half of Member States provide trainings on awareness raising and ability to deal with fake news and social
media issues.

> Assessment tools
• Monitoring and evaluation of court activities (Figure 39) exists in all Member States. It generally includes different
performance and quality indicators and regular reporting. Almost all Member States monitor the number and length of
court cases and have regular evaluation systems. Compared to previous years, several Member States have extended
monitoring to more specific elements and some involved more specialised court staff for quality.
• Many Member States have yet to implement ICT case management systems to their full potential, and no improvements
have been achieved compared to previous years (Figure 40). These systems serve various purposes, including generating
statistics, and are to be implemented consistently across the whole justice system. Some Member States have earlywarning systems to detect malfunctions or non-compliance with case processing standards, which enables the finding of
timely solutions. In some Member States, it is still not possible to ensure nationwide data collection across all justice areas.

42

The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

3.2. Quality of justice systems

3.2.5. Summary on the quality of justice systems

• The use of surveys among court users and legal professionals (Figure 41) has decreased, with a rising number of
Member States opting not to conduct any surveys. Accessibility, customer service, court hearing and judgment, as well
as general trust in the justice system remained key survey topics, but only a few Member States inquired about the
satisfaction of groups with special needs and the awarness of rights. Almost all Member States who used surveys also
ensured follow-up (Figure 42), while the extent of the follow up continued to vary greatly. Results generally were made
public and fed into reports, while in most of the Member States the survey results allowed to identify the need to amend
legislation.

> Standards
Standards can drive up the quality of justice systems. This edition continues to examine in more detail certain standards
aiming to improve the timing of proceedings and the information provided to the parties. For the first time, the 2019 EU
Justice Scoreboard also includes data on the standards regarding the quality of judgments.
• Based on data gathered by ACA-Europe and NPSJC, Figure 43 shows that the standards regarding the quality of
judgments differ considerably among Member States, and, in some Member States, even between the courts considered.
However, most Member states provide some kind of professional training for judges on the structure, style of reasoning
and drafting of judgments.
In most Member States, the structure and reasoning of decisions include predetermined elements. In addition, in
some Member States, court users have access to mechanisms to obtain clarifications regarding court decisions, an
interesting practice to improve citizen-friendly justice systems.
Supreme Courts that deploy instruments of self-assessment of the quality of their decisions are a minority, although
such practice, while respecting the independence of the judiciary, could allow improvements.
• Most Member States use standards on timing. However, certain Member States facing particular challenges on
efficiency are currently not using such standards. Standards on backlogs are still not as widespread as those fixing time
limits (e.g. fixed time from the registration of a case until the first hearing) and time frames (e.g. specifying a pre-defined
share of cases to be completed within a certain time) (Figure 44).
• Standards on backlogs are a useful tool that can contribute to better case management and improved efficiency. Figure
45 shows that backlogs are mostly set solely by the judiciary or in cooperation with the executive. The monitoring and
follow-up is mainly under the responsibility of the judiciary, while, in some Member States, the executive also plays a
role on the monitoring and follow-up phases.
• While most Member States have standards on timeframes (Figure 46), only a few have continuous monitoring
mechanisms on the predefined timeframes. The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard shows that the majority of Member States
deploy additional resources on follow-up measures, which, however, differ in their scope. The most common follow-up
measure is the reorganisation of the court management process, while the possibility of temporary assistance by special
judges is only foreseen by few Member States.

3. Key findings of the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

43

3.3. 	Independence
Judicial independence is a requirement stemming from the principle of effective judicial protection referred to in Article 19 TEU, and
from the right to an effective remedy before a court or tribunal enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU (Article
47) (106). It guarantees the fairness, predictability and certainty of the legal system, which are vital elements for the rule of law and
for an attractive investment environment. The perceived independence of the judiciary is a growth-enhancing factor, as a perceived
lack of independence can deter investments. In addition to indicators on perceived judicial independence from various sources, the
Scoreboard presents a number of indicators on how justice systems are organised to protect judicial independence in certain types of
situations where independence could be at risk. Reflecting the input from the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ), the
Network of the Presidents of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the EU (NPSJC) and the Association of the Councils of State and Supreme
Administrative Jurisdictions of the EU (ACA-Europe), the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard shows new or updated indicators in relation to
legal safeguards on the disciplinary proceedings regarding judges and the appointment of judges-members of the Councils for the
Judiciary, and on the organisation of the prosecution services.

3.3.1.

Perceived judicial independence

Figure 47
Perceived independence of courts and judges among the general public (*) (light colours: 2016, 2017 and 2018, dark colours: 2019)
Very good

Fairly good

Fairly bad

Very bad

Don’t know

Source: Eurobarometer (107)

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

DK FI

AT SE IE

DE NL LU UK BE CY FR EL
Very good

Fairly good

MT EE CZ LT
Fairly bad

LV HU PT RO SI

Very bad

PL IT

ES BG SK HR

Don't know

(*) Member States are ordered first by the percentage of respondents who stated that the independence of courts and judges is very good or fairly good (total good); if some Member
States have the same percentage of total good, then they are ordered by the percentage of respondents who stated that the independence of courts and judges is fairly bad
or very bad (total bad); if some Member States have the same percentage of total good and total bad, then they are ordered by the percentage of respondents who stated that
the independence of courts and judges is very good; if some Member States have the same percentage of total good, total bad and of very good, then they are ordered by the
percentage of respondents who stated that the independence of courts and judges is very bad.

106 See http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:12012P/TXT&from=EN.
107 Eurobarometer survey FL474, conducted between 9 and 11 January 2019. Replies to the question: ‘From what you know, how would you rate the justice system in (our country) in terms of
the independence of courts and judges? Would you say it is very good, fairly good, fairly bad or very bad?’, see: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/justice-and-fundamental-rights/effectivejustice/eu-justice-scoreboard_en.
44

The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

3.3. Independence

3.3.1. Perceived judicial independence

Figure 48 shows the main reasons given by respondents for the perceived lack of independence of courts and judges. Respondents
among the general public, who rated the independence of the justice system as being ‘fairly bad’ or ‘very bad’, could choose between
three reasons to explain their rating. The Member States are listed in the same order as in Figure 47.
Figure 48
Main reasons among the general public for the perceived lack of independence (share of all respondents — higher value
means more influence)
The status and position of judges do not
sufficiently guarantee their independence

Interference or pressure from economic
or other specific interests

Interference or pressure from government
and politicians

Source: Eurobarometer (108)

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
DK FI AT SE IE DE NL LU UK BE CY FR EL MT EE CZ LT LV HU PT RO SI PL IT ES BG SK HR
The status and position of judges do not
sufficiently guarantee their independence

Interference or pressure from
economic or other specific interests

Interference or pressure from
government and politicians

Figure 49
Perceived independence of courts and judges among companies (*) (light colours: 2016, 2017 and 2018, dark colours: 2019)
Very good

Fairly good

Fairly bad

Very bad

Don’t know

Source: Eurobarometer (109)

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

DK LU FI

AT IE

NL DE RO SE BE UK MT LT

FR EL

CY LV CZ BG EE IT

ES PT PL SI

SK HU HR

Very good
Fairly
good
Fairlyofbad
Don't
(*) Member States are ordered first by the percentage
of respondents who
stated
that the independence
courts and judgesVery
is verybad
good or fairly good
(totalknow
good); if some Member States have the same

percentage of total good, then they are ordered by the percentage of respondents who stated that the independence of courts and judges is fairly bad or very bad (total bad); if some Member States
have the same percentage of total good and total bad, then they are ordered by the percentage of respondents who stated that the independence of courts and judges is very good; if some Member
States have the same percentage of total good, total bad and of very good, then they are ordered by the percentage of respondents who stated that the independence of courts and judges is very bad.

108 Eurobarometer survey FL474, replies to the question: ‘Could you tell me to what extent each of the following reasons explains your rating of the independence of the justice system in (our
country): very much, somewhat, not really, not at all?’.
109 Eurobarometer survey FL475, conducted between 7 January and 16 January 2019. Replies to the question: ‘From what you know, how would you rate the justice system in (our country) in
terms of the independence of courts and judges? Would you say it is very good, fairly good, fairly bad or very bad?’, see: https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/justice-and-fundamental-rights/
effective-justice/eu-justice-scoreboard_en.
3. Key findings of the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

45

3.3. Independence

3.3.1. Perceived judicial independence

Figure 50 shows the main reasons given by respondents for the perceived lack of independence of courts and judges. Respondents
among companies, who rated the independence of the justice system as being ‘fairly bad’ or ‘very bad’, could choose between three
reasons to explain their rating. The Member States are listed in the same order as in Figure 49.
Figure 50
Main reasons among companies for the perceived lack of independence (rate of all respondents — higher value means more influence)
The status and position of judges do not
sufficiently guarantee their independence

Interference or pressure from economic
or other specific interests

Interference or pressure from government
and politicians

Source: Eurobarometer (110)

100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
DK LU FI AT IE NL DE RO SE BE UK MT LT FR EL CY LV CZ BG EE IT ES PT PL SI SK HU HR
The status and position of judges do not

Interference or pressure from

Interference or pressure from

sufficiently guarantee their independence
economic or other specific interests
government and politicians
Figure 51
WEF: businesses’ perception of judicial independence (perception — higher value means better perception) 		
Survey conducted in:

2010-12

2015-16

2016-17

2017-18

Source: World Economic Forum ( )
111

8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
FI NL LU DK IE UK BE SE AT EE DE FR PT CY CZ RO LT MT ES IT LV EL SI BG HU PL SK HR

Survey conducted in:

2010-12

2015-16

2016-17

2017-18

110 Eurobarometer survey FL475; replies to the question: ‘Could you tell me to what extent each of the following reasons explains your rating of the independence of the justice system in (our
country): very much, somewhat, not really, not at all?’.
111 The World Economic Forum (WEF) bases its indicator on survey answers to the question: ‘In your country, how independent is the judicial system from influences of the government, individuals,
or companies? [1 = not independent at all; 7 = entirely independent]’. Responses to the survey came from a representative sample of businesses representing the main sectors of the
economy (agriculture, manufacturing industry, non-manufacturing industry, and services) in all the Member States concerned. The survey is administered in a variety of formats, including
face-to-face or telephone interviews with business executives, mailed paper forms, and online surveys. See https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-competitveness-report-2018
46

The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

3.3. Independence

3.3.2.

Structural independence

The guarantees of structural independence require rules, particularly as regards the composition of the court and the appointment, length
of service and grounds for abstention, rejection and dismissal of its members, in order to dispel any reasonable doubt in the minds of
individuals as to the imperviousness of that court to external factors and its neutrality with respect to the interests before it (112).
European standards have been developed, particularly by the Council of Europe, for example in the 2010 Council of Europe
Recommendation on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities (113). The Scoreboard presents a number of indicators on
how justice systems are organised to safeguard judicial independence.
For the first time, this edition of the Scoreboard includes indicators on bodies and authorities involved in disciplinary proceedings
regarding judges (Figures 52 and 53), and, as last year, shows an indicator on the appointment of judges-members of the Councils
for the Judiciary (Figure 54) (114). The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard expands its overview of how prosecution services are managed and
organised in the Member States (Figures 55, 56 and 57) (115). The figures present the national frameworks as they were in place in
December 2018.
The figures presented in the Scoreboard do not provide an assessment or present quantitative data on the effectiveness of the
safeguards. They are not intended to reflect the complexity and details of the safeguards. Having more safeguards does not, in itself,
ensure the effectiveness of a justice system. It should also be noted that implementing policies and practices to promote integrity and
prevent corruption within the judiciary is also essential to guarantee judicial independence. Ultimately, the effective protection of judicial
independence requires a culture of integrity and impartiality, shared by magistrates and respected by the wider society.

Safeguards on disciplinary proceedings regarding judges
Disciplinary proceedings regarding judges are among the most sensitive situations in relation to judicial independence. According to the
Court of Justice of the European Union, “the requirement of independence also means that the disciplinary regime governing those who
have the task of adjudicating in a dispute must display the necessary guarantees in order to prevent any risk of it being used as a system of
political control of the content of judicial decisions” (116). The set of guarantees identified by the Court of Justice as essential for safeguarding
the independence of the judiciary include rules which define both conduct amounting to disciplinary offences and the penalties actually
applicable, rules which provide for the involvement of an independent body in accordance with a procedure which fully safeguards the rights
enshrined in Articles 47 and 48 of the Charter, in particular the rights of the defence, and rules which lay down the possibility of bringing
legal proceedings challenging the disciplinary bodies’ decisions (117). The Court of Justice held that “Article 267 TFEU gives national courts the
widest discretion in referring matters to the Court (…) at whatever stage of the proceedings they consider appropriate” (118). The Court added
that any national rule inhibiting this discretion “in order to avoid being (…) exposed to disciplinary penalties” is “detrimental to the prerogatives
granted to national courts and tribunals by Article 267 TFEU and, consequently, to the effectiveness of the cooperation between the Court
and the national court (…) established by the preliminary ruling mechanism” (119). The Court later stated that “not being exposed to disciplinary
sanctions for (…) sending request for a preliminary ruling to the Court (…) constitutes a guarantee essential to judicial independence” (120).
According to the Council of Europe standards, disciplinary proceedings regarding judges may follow where they fail to carry out their duties
in an efficient and proper manner (121). The interpretation of the law, assessment of facts or weighing of evidence carried out by judges to
determine cases should not give rise to civil or disciplinary liability, except in case of malice and gross negligence (122). Moreover, disciplinary
proceedings should be conducted by an independent authority as a court with all the guarantees of a fair trial. The judge under disciplinary
proceeding should have the right to challenge the decision and the sanction. Disciplinary sanctions should be proportionate (123).

112 See Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 25 July 2018, LM, C-216/18 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2018:586. para 66. See also paragraphs 46 and 47 of the Recommendation CM/
Rec(2010)12 Judges: Independence, Efficiency and Responsibility (adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 17 November 2010) and Explanatory Memorandum,
which provide that the authority taking decisions on the selection and career of judges should be independent of the executive and legislative powers. With a view to guaranteeing its
independence, at least half of the members of the authority should be judges chosen by their peers. However, where the constitutional or other legal provisions prescribe that the head
of state, the government or the legislative power take decisions concerning the selection and career of judges, an independent and competent authority drawn in substantial part from
the judiciary (without prejudice to the rules applicable to councils for the judiciary contained in Chapter IV) should be authorised to make recommendations or express opinions which the
relevant appointing authority follows in practice.
113 Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 Judges: Independence, Efficiency and Responsibility, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 17 November 2010 and
Explanatory Memorandum (hereinafter: ‘the Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12’).
114 The figures are based on the responses to an updated questionnaire drawn up by the Commission in close association with the ENCJ. Responses to the updated questionnaire from Member
States that have no Councils for the Judiciary, are not ENCJ members, or their ENCJ membership has been suspended (CZ, DE, EE, CY, LU, AT, PL and FI) were obtained through cooperation
with the Network of the Presidents of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the EU.
115 The figures are based on responses to an updated questionnaire drawn up by the Commission in close cooperation with the Expert Group on Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism.
116 Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 25 July 2018, LM, C-216/18 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2018:586, para 67.
117 Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 25 July 2018, LM, C-216/18 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2018:586, para 67.
118 Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 5 July 2016, Ognyanov, C-614/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:514, para. 17.
119 Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 5 July 2016, Ognyanov, C-614/14, ECLI:EU:C:2016:514, para. 25.
120 Court of Justice of the European Union, order of 12 February 2019, RH, C-8/19, ECLI:EU:C:2019:110, para. 47.
121 Para 69 of the Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12.
122 Para 66 of the Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12.
123 Para 69 of the Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12.
3. Key findings of the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

47

3.3. Independence

3.3.2. Structural independence Safeguards on disciplinary proceedings regarding judges

Figure 52 presents an overview of the authorities that decide on disciplinary sanctions regarding ordinary judges, which can be either
(a) regular independent authorities such as courts (Supreme Court, Administrative Court or Court President) or Councils for the judiciary,
or (b) other authorities whose members are specifically appointed by the Council for the Judiciary, by judges or by the executive to
decide in disciplinary proceedings regarding judges.
Figure 52
Authority deciding on disciplinary sanctions regarding judges (*) (124)
A special court composed of judges
selected by judges

A special court composed of judges selected
by the Minister of Justice

N
O
N
E

REGULAR COURT/COURT
PRESIDENT DECIDES

IE BE DK DE LU NL AT

FI

A special court, whose members are selected
by the Council for the Judiciary

COUNCIL FOR THE JUDICIARY
DECIDES

SE UK BG ES FR HR IT

CY MT PT RO LT HU SI SK CZ EE EL LV PL

A special court composed of judges selected by the Minister of Justice
A special court composed of judges selected by judges
(*)	BG: Lighter disciplinary
sanctions court,
may be imposed
the Court President.
CZ: Disciplinary
examined
by the
disciplinary
chambers of the Supreme
A special
whosebymembers
are selected
by cases
the are
Council
for
Judiciary

Administrative Court. The members are proposed by the President of the Court among a list of judges and they are chosen by sortition. DK: The Court of
Indictment and Revision whose members are proposed by several actors (judiciary, law firm and public organisation) and appointed by the Ministry of
Justice following the recommendation of the Judicial Appointments Council (independent body) decides. DE: Disciplinary measures can be applied in formal
disciplinary proceedings (Section 63 German Judiciary Act) by service courts (‘Dienstgerichte der Länder’ concerning federal state judges, and ‘Dienstgericht
des Bundes’ concerning federal judges), which are special panels in regular courts. The members of these panels are appointed by the judges (‘Präsidium’)
of the particular court (higher regional court or regional court, or the Federal Court of Justice). Less severe disciplinary measures, such as reprimand, can be
issued in a disciplinary ruling (Section 64 German Judiciary Act) by either a court president or the ministry of justice (both at the level of federal states and
at federal level). EE: disciplinary cases are examined by the Disciplinary Chamber of Judges appointed by the Supreme Court and by the General Assembly
of all Estonian judges. IE: Judges are not subject to a disciplinary body or disciplinary regime apart from the procedure under the Constitution under which
a judge may be removed from office for stated misbehaviour or incapacity upon resolutions passed by both Houses of Parliament (the Oireachtas) calling
for his/her removal. EL: The disciplinary authority over judges is exercised, in the first and second instance, by councils composed of regular judges of
higher rank chosen by lot. Disciplinary authority over high ranking judges is exercised by the Supreme Disciplinary Council. LV: Disciplinary cases are examined by the Judicial Disciplinary Committee whose members are appointed by the general meeting of judges. ES: Disciplinary decisions regarding minor
disciplinary offences are made by the governance chamber of the respective Court of the district where the disciplined judge sits (High Court of Justice,
National Court and Supreme Court). LT: At first instance, the Judicial Court of Honour, whose members and chairperson (judge, elected by the Council for
the Judiciary) are laid out in the Ruling of the Council for the Judiciary, decides. It is composed of six judges selected and appointed by the Council for the
Judiciary, two members appointed by the President of the Republic and two members appointed by the Speaker of the Seimas. At second instance, the
Supreme Court decides. HU: Disciplinary cases are examined by the Service Tribunal appointed by the Council for the Judiciary. MT: The Commission for
the Administration of Justice decides. PL: The Minister of Justice selects disciplinary judges after a non-binding consultation with the National Council for
the Judiciary. SI: The disciplinary court is appointed by the Council for the Judiciary among members of the Council itself and among judges proposed by
the Supreme Court. SK: Disciplinary panels are appointed by the Council for the Judiciary. For the President and Vice President of the Supreme Court, the
Constitutional Court is competent for disciplinary proceedings. SE: A permanent judge may be removed from office only if he has committed a serious
crime or repeatedly neglected his duties and thereby shown himself manifestly unfit to hold the office. Should the decision to remove the judge from office
have been made by another authority than a court (in practice by the National Disciplinary Offence Board), the judge concerned may call upon a court to
review that decision. UK (EN&WL): The Lord Chief Justice has the power, with the agreement of Lord Chancellor, to give a judge formal advice, a formal
warning or a reprimand, or to suspend them from office in certain circumstances. UK (NI): Disciplinary cases are decided by Lord Chief Justice and Judicial
Appointments Ombudsman.

124 Data collected through an updated questionnaire drawn up by the Commission in close association with the ENCJ. Responses to the updated questionnaire from Member States that have
no Councils for the Judiciary, are not ENCJ members, or their ENCJ membership has been suspended were obtained through cooperation with the NPSC.
48

The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

3.3. Independence

3.3.2. Structural independence Safeguards on disciplinary proceedings regarding judges

Figure 53 presents an overview of the investigative bodies, which carry out the formal investigation during disciplinary proceedings
regarding judges. It does not concern preliminary enquiries to decide whether or not to initiate a formal disciplinary proceeding.
The investigation phase is a particularly sensitive step within disciplinary proceedings, which could affect judicial independence.
The investigative power can be exercised either (a) by regular independent authorities such as Court Presidents or Councils for the
Judiciary, or (b) by other investigators who are specifically appointed -by the Council of the Judiciary, by judges or by other authoritiesfor conducting investigations in disciplinary proceedings regarding judges.

Figure 53
Investigator in charge of formal disciplinary proceedings regarding judges (*) (125)
Selected by the Minister of Justice

NONE

IE

FI

BE

Selected by judges

Selected by the Council for the Judiciary

COURT PRESIDENT INVESTIGATES

COUNCIL FOR THE
JUDICIARY/OTHER
INDEPENDENT BODY
INVESTIGATES

BG

HR

CZ

DE

EE

FR

LU

NL

AT

UK UK DK
(SC) (NI)

IT

MT

RO

SK

SE

ES

LT

PT

SI

EL

CY

Investigator selected by the Minister of Justice

LV

HU

UK PL
(EN&
WL)

Investigator
selected
by judges
(*)	
BG: The relevant administrative
head of the court
or the Judge’s
College to the Supreme Judicial Council of Bulgaria investigates. CZ: The minister of justice can
also conduct some preliminaryInvestigator
enquiries in order
to prepare by
the the
motion
to initiatefor
disciplinary
proceedings, normally consulting the president of the court where
selected
Council
the Judiciary
the concerned judge sits. DK: The Director of the Public Prosecution investigates. DE: There is no formal pre-investigatory phase. In disciplinary orders, concerning
less severe disciplinary measures such as reprimand, the court president and the highest service authority (usually the ministry of justice, both at the level of
federal states and at federal level) assess the facts. The highest service authority decides whether to launch a disciplinary proceeding before the court. Then the
court carries out formal investigations. EE: The President of a court or the Chancellor of Justice (Ombudsman) can conduct an investigation. IE: The judges are not
subject to a disciplinary body or disciplinary regime apart from the procedure under the Constitution under which a judge may be removed from office for stated
misbehaviour or incapacity upon resolutions passed by both Houses of Parliament (the Oireachtas) calling for his/her removal. EL: Civil and Criminal Courts: The
Judicial Inspection Body which is elected from among judges by lot. Administrative courts: The investigator is chosen by lot among the members of the Council of
State. ES: The Promoter of disciplinary action is appointed by the General Council for the Judiciary; the Promoter is selected from a pool of judges of the Supreme
Court and Magistrates with more than 25 years of legal experience, but exclusively exercises the functions of Promoter during his mandate. IT: The Prosecutor
General at the Supreme Court (who is a member of the Council for the Judiciary) is entitled to conduct the investigation. CY: The Investigative judge, appointed
by the Supreme Court, investigates. LV: The Judicial Disciplinary Committee investigates. HU: The Disciplinary Commissioner, appointed by the Service Tribunal
(disciplinary court), investigates. LT: The Judicial Ethics and Discipline Commission, whose members and chairperson (elected by the Council for the Judiciary) are
laid out in the Ruling of the Council for the Judiciary, is composed of four judges appointed by the Council for the Judiciary, two members appointed by the President
of the Republic, and one member appointed by the Speaker of the Seimas, investigates. The chairperson of the Judicial Ethics and Discipline Commission has the
right to delegate the court president in which the judge is working or the president of the higher court to carry out the investigation and present the results of the
investigation. MT: The Commission for the Administration of Justice investigates. NL: The Prosecutor-General investigates. PL: The Minister of Justice appoints the
Disciplinary Officer for ordinary court judges and his/her two deputies (they, in turn, can appoint their own deputies from among candidates proposed by judges, but
under some circumstances can appoint deputies of their own choosing) to investigate. The Minister of Justice can take over any ongoing investigation by appointing
an ad hoc Disciplinary Officer of the Minister of Justice. PT: The Council for the judiciary appoints the Judicial Inspection Body, which investigates. RO: The Judicial
Inspection Body investigates. SI: The Judicial Council appoints a disciplinary prosecutor from among candidates proposed by the Supreme Court, to investigate.
SK: The Disciplinary panel, appointed by the Council for the Judiciary, conducts the investigation. SE: The Parliamentary Ombudsmen and the Chancellor of Justice
act as prosecutors in cases of serious malpractice. UK (EN&WL): Depending on the nature of the case and what stage of the disciplinary process the case is at,
different authorities consider complaints at different stages of the disciplinary process: the Judicial Conduct and Investigations Office considers the papers in
the first instance; nominated judges, selected by Lord Chief Justice, typically make decisions on the papers alone, but do have the discretion to interview parties;
disciplinary panels, selected by Lord Chief Justice and Lord Chancellor, typically look at the papers and take evidence from the subject of the complaint in person;
and investigating judges, selected by Lord Chief Justice, usually interview the subject of the complaint and might also interview other parties. It should be noted
that not every complaint goes through all of these stages. UK (NI): Lord Chief Justice for Northern Ireland.

Safeguards on the nomination of judges-members of the Councils for the Judiciary
Councils for the judiciary are essential bodies for ensuring the independence of justice. It is for the Member States to organise their justice
systems, including deciding on whether or not to establish a Council for the Judiciary. However, well established European standards, in
particular the Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12, recommend that “not less than half the members of [Councils for the Judiciary] should
be judges chosen by their peers from all levels of the judiciary and with respect for pluralism inside the judiciary” (126). The figure below
describes whether the judiciary is involved in the appointment of judges-members of the Councils for the Judiciary.

125 Data collected through an updated questionnaire drawn up by the Commission in close association with the ENCJ. Responses to the updated questionnaire from Member States that have
no Councils for the Judiciary, are not ENCJ members, or their ENCJ membership has been suspended were obtained through cooperation with the NPSC.
126 Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12, para. 27; see also 2016 CoE action plan, C item (ii); Opinion no.10(2007) of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) to the attention of the
Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the Council for the Judiciary at the service of society, para. 27; and ENCJ, Councils for the Judiciary Report 2010-11, para. 2.3.
3. Key findings of the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

49

3.3. Independence

3.3.2. Structural independence Safeguards on the nomination of judges-members of the Councils for the Judiciary

Figure 54
Appointment of judges-members of the Councils for the Judiciary: involvement of the judiciary (*) (127)

(*)	The Member States appear in the alphabetical order of their geographical names in the original language. The figure presents the national frameworks as they were in place in
December 2017. DK: judges-members of the Council are selected by judges. All members are formally appointed by the Minister of Justice. EL: judges-members are selected
by lot. ES: judges-members are appointed by the Parliament — the Council communicates to the Parliament the list of candidates who have received the support of a judges’
association or of 25 judges. NL: judges-members are selected by the judiciary and are appointed on the proposal of the Council, based among others on the advice of a selection
committee (consisting mainly of judges and court staff). All members of the Council are formally appointed by a Royal Decree, an administrative act, which does not leave any
room for discretion to the executive. PL: Candidate judges-members are proposed by groups of at least 2 000 citizens or 25 judges. From among the candidates, the deputies’
clubs select up to nine candidates, from which a committee of the lower chamber of the Parliament (Sejm) establishes a final list of 15 candidates, who are appointed by the
Sejm. RO: The campaign and election of judges-members are organised by the Superior Council of Magistracy. Once the final list of elected judges-members is confirmed, the
Senate will validate it «en bloc». The Senate may refuse to validate the list only in case of infringement of the law in the procedure for the election of the members of the council
and only if the infringement has had an influence over the result of the election. The Senate cannot exercise discretion over the choice of candidates UK: judges-members are
selected by judges.

Safeguards relating to the functioning of national prosecution services in the EU
Public prosecution plays a major role in the criminal justice system as well as in cooperation in criminal matters. The proper functioning of
the national prosecution service is important for fighting money laundering and corruption. According to the Court of Justice case-law, in the
context of the Framework Decision on the European Arrest Warrant (128), the public prosecutor’s office can be considered a Member State
judicial authority responsible for administering criminal justice whenever it can be distinguished from the executive, in accordance with the
principle of the separation of powers which characterises the operation of the rule of law (129).
The organisation of national prosecution services varies throughout the EU and there is no uniform model for all Member States.
However, there is a widespread tendency to allow for a more independent prosecutor’s office, rather than one subordinated or linked to
the executive (130). Management powers over national prosecutors, together with procedures for appointment and dismissal of prosecutors
may influence the extent of the independence of a prosecution service. Whatever the model of the national justice system or the legal
tradition in which it is anchored, European standards require that Member States take effective measures to guarantee that public
prosecutors are able to fulfil their professional duties and responsibilities under adequate legal and organisational conditions (131)
and without unjustified interference (132). In particular, where the government gives instruction of a general nature, for example on
crime policy, such instructions must be in writing and published in an adequate way (133). Where the government has the power to
give instructions to prosecute a specific case, such instructions must carry with them adequate guarantees (134). According to the
2000 Recommendation of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, instructions not to prosecute should be prohibited
(135). Interested parties (including victims) should be able to challenge a decision of a public prosecutor not to prosecute a case (136).
127 Data collected through an updated questionnaire drawn up by the Commission in close association with the ENCJ.
128 OJ L 190, 18.7.2002, p. 1.
129 Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 10 November 2016, Openbaar Ministerie v Ruslanas Kovalkovas, Case C-477/16 PPU, paras 34 and 36, ECLI:EU:C:2016:861; judgment
of 10 November 2016, Openbaar Ministerie v Halil Ibrahim Özçelik, C‑453/16 PPU, ECLI:EU:C:2016:860, paras. 32 and 34. See also Opinion No. 13(2018) Independence, accountability and
ethics of prosecutors, adopted by the Consultative Council of European Prosecutors (CCPE), recommendation xii.
130 CDL-AD(2010)040-e Report on European Standards as regards the Independence of the Judicial System: Part II — the Prosecution Service — Adopted by the Venice Commission — at its
85th plenary session (Venice, 17-18 December 2010), para. 26.
131 Recommendation Rec(2000)19 on the role of public prosecution in the criminal justice system, adopted by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 6 October 2000 (the
2000 Recommendation), para. 4.
132 The 2000 Recommendation, paras 11 and 13. See also Opinion No. 13(2018) Independence, accountability and ethics of prosecutors, adopted by the Consultative Council of European
Prosecutors (CCPE), recommendations i and iii.
133 The 2000 Recommendation, para. 13, point c).
134 The 2000 Recommendation, para. 13, point d).
135 The 2000 Recommendation, para. 13, point f). See also Opinion No. 13(2018) Independence, accountability and ethics of prosecutors, adopted by the Consultative Council of European
Prosecutors (CCPE), recommendation iv.
136 The 2000 Recommendation, para. 34.

50

The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

3.3. Independence

3.3.2. Structural independence Safeguards relating to the functioning of national prosecution services in the EU

Figure 55 presents an overview of the distribution of the main management powers over national prosecutors between different authorities.
The figure shows which authority, either the Prosecutor General; the Council for the Judiciary/Prosecutorial Council; the Minister of Justice/
Government/President; or the Parliament, has the following management powers:
1) to issue general guidance regarding prosecution policy,
2) to give instructions regarding prosecution in individual cases,
3) to evaluate a prosecutor,
4) to promote a prosecutor,
5) to remove an individual case which was assigned to a prosecutor (transfer a case),
6) to decide on a disciplinary measure regarding a prosecutor, and
7) to transfer prosecutors without their consent.
Apart from these selected main management powers, the same or other authorities may have additional powers over national prosecution
services (e.g. the power to solve conflicts of competence between Member States’ public prosecution offices; to acquire data and information
from lower prosecution offices). It should be noted that other authorities may have a role in the above listed management powers (e.g. a
disciplinary court may decide on certain disciplinary measures).
Figure 55 presents only a factual overview of certain aspects of the organisation of the prosecution services and does not assess their
effective functioning, which requires a qualitative assessment taking into account the specific circumstances of each Member State.
The percentage represents the distribution of the seven management powers referred to above among the four possible authorities, without
any weighting in terms of the importance of each point.

3. Key findings of the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

51

3.3. Independence

3.3.2. Structural independence Safeguards relating to the functioning of national prosecution services in the EU

Figure 55
Distribution of main management powers over national prosecution services (*) 					
Prosecutor General

Minister of justice/Government/President

Council for the Judiciary/Prosecutorial Council

Parliament

Source: European Commission with the Expert Group on Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism

100%

NO DATA

50%

0%
BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK

Prosecutor General

Council for the Judiciary/Prosecutorial Council

(*)	The Member States appear in the alphabetical order of their geographical names in the original language. The main management powers of the Prosecutor General are described
offorjustice/Government/President
Parliament
in FigureMinister
56. BE: Council
the Judiciary: power to decide on promotion of prosecutors. Minister
of Justice: power to issue general guidance regarding prosecution policy on
advice of the Board of prosecutors general and to give instructions regarding prosecution in individual cases (a right of positive injunction to prosecute is foreseen in art. 364
of the Code of Criminal Procedure and art. 151 (1) of the Constitution). BG: Council for the Judiciary (Prosecutor’s college of the Supreme Judicial Council): powers to decide on
a disciplinary measure regarding a prosecutor, on individual evaluation and on promotion of prosecutors. Minister of Justice may propose the appointment, promotion, demotion,
transfer and release from office of judges, prosecutors and investigating magistrates. CZ: Minister of Justice: power to decide on the promotion of prosecutors; power to transfer
prosecutors without their consent only in case of organisational changes based on the law. DK: Minister of Justice: powers to decide on disciplinary measures regarding prosecutors and to decide on promotion of prosecutors. DE: Minister of Justice: power to issue general guidance regarding prosecution policy and to give instructions regarding prosecution in individual cases. EE: Disciplinary proceedings shall be initiated at the request of an interested person or on their own initiative by the Minister of Justice against the
Prosecutor General, chief state prosecutor or chief prosecutor. EL: Supreme Judicial Council: power to promote and transfer public prosecutors, effected by Presidential decree.
Minister of Justice is exceptionally allowed to issue general information directives to prosecutors in relation to the application of the legal instruments adopted within the Council
of the European Union concerning the judicial cooperation of the Member States in the fields of the prevention and combating of certain types of crimes. ES: Fiscal Council
(Prosecutorial Council) has the power to review decisions made by the Prosecutor General in cases set in law. FR: Minister of Justice: power to issue general guidance regarding
prosecution policy; power to decide on disciplinary measures regarding prosecutors on the opinion of the High Council for the Judiciary (Conseil Supérieur de la Magistrature)
(Article 65 of the French Constitution and Articles 48, 58-1 and 59 of the Statutory Order). If the Minister intends to take a decision that is more serious than the one proposed
by the High Council for the Judiciary, the Council must be consulted again (section 58 (1) of the Statutory Order). The President of the Republic issues a decree to promote a
prosecutor on the opinion of the Council for the Judiciary. High Council for the Judiciary gives opinion on disciplinary measures, transfers of prosecutors without consent, and
promotion of prosecutors. HR: State Attorneys Council: power to decide on disciplinary measures and to promote prosecutors. IT: Council for the Judiciary: powers to decide on
a disciplinary measure regarding a prosecutor, to transfer prosecutors without their consent, to decide on individual evaluation of a prosecutor, and to promote a prosecutor. CY:
Council for the Judiciary dismisses the Prosecutor General. LV: Council of the Prosecutor General: according to the Article 29, part 2 of the Law on Prosecution Office, the Council
as a collegiate advisory institution reviews the main issues related to the organization and operation of the Prosecution Office and performs other functions provided in the law
(e.g. develops and adopts statutes governing selection, traineeship and qualification examination of applicants to the Prosecutor’s position and statutes for evaluation of prosecutors’ professional performance). LT: Parliament (Seimas) sets the operational priorities of the Prosecution Service and conducts parliamentary scrutiny of non-procedural
actions. LU: Minister of Justice may instruct prosecution services to prosecute in a case (but cannot instruct not to prosecute). However, there have not been any instructions
since more than 20 years. There is no legal requirement to consult a prosecutor or seek the opinion of the Prosecutor General on such an instruction. The Grand-Duke, as the
Head of State, has the competence to decide on promotion of prosecutors, on the basis of a favourable opinion by the state prosecutor / General Prosecutor. MT: The police have
the exclusive competence to institute and undertake criminal proceedings and act as prosecutors before the inferior courts; the Attorney General acts as a prosecutor before the
Superior Courts when the compilation of evidence before the Inferior Courts is concluded. NL: Attorney General’s Council (College van procureurs-generaal): power to issue general
guidance regarding prosecution policy. Minister of Justice: power to issue general guidance regarding prosecution policy and to decide on certain disciplinary measure on prosecutors; it may instruct prosecution services to prosecute or not to prosecute in a case, but needs to beforehand obtain a written reasoned opinion of the Attorney General’s Council
(College van procureurs-generaal) on the suggested instructions, and notification to Parliament is required. However, so far, there has only been one such case more than twenty
years ago. The Head of the Public Prosecution Service within the district where the Public Prosecutor is working has the power to decide on disciplinary measures and on the
evaluation of prosecutors. AT: Minister of Justice: power to issue general guidance regarding prosecution policy and to give instructions regarding prosecution in individual cases
with the approval of an independent body (Weisungsrat) established at the General Prosecutors office. The powers of the Prosecutor General do not include direct management
over the prosecution service as referred to in the chart. The other management powers shown in the chart are held either by the Superior Prosecutor or by the Independent
Personnel Board (Personalkommission), consisting of four members, who must be public prosecutors (see comments under Figure 56). As regards the promotion of a prosecutor,
it requires an application for a higher position and follows the rules applicable to an appointment as a prosecutor (i.e. proposal by the independent Personal Board
(Personalkommission), appointment by the Federal President delegated to the Minister of Justice). The power to decide on a disciplinary measure regarding a prosecutor resides
with the Disciplinary Courts, which also have the power to transfer a prosecutor as a sanction. PL: Prosecutor General is also the Minister of Justice. PT: Council for Judiciary:
power to decide on a disciplinary measure regarding a prosecutor, to transfer prosecutors without their consent, to decide on individual evaluation of a prosecutor and on promotion of a prosecutor. Parliament can issue general guidance regarding prosecution policy. RO: Council for Judiciary: power to decide on a disciplinary measure regarding a
prosecutor and to decide on promotion of a prosecutor (according to Article 40 par 2 letter i) of the Law no 317/2004, the Prosecutorial Section within the Superior Council of
Magistracy (SCM) issues the promotion decision of the prosecutors, but the promotion is decided only after a competition (Article 43 of the Law no 303/2004)). Minister of
Justice, according to the recently amended article 69 of Law no. 304/2004 on judicial organisation, may ask the General Public Prosecutor of the Public Prosecutor’s Office next
to the High Court of Cassation and Justice, or, as the case may be, the General Public Prosecutor of the National Anti-Corruption Public Prosecutor’s Office, for information on
the activity of the Public Prosecutor’s Offices and may issue written guidelines about the steps to be taken in crime prevention and control. According to Article 40 par 2 letter
h) of the Law no 317/2004 on SCM, the Prosecutorial Section within the SCM is competent to decide on complaints against the final decision of the evaluation committee (the
rating). According to Article 39 par 3 of the Law no 303/2004 on the judges and prosecutors statute, the individual evaluation of the prosecutors is performed by special committees constituted on the decision of the SCM. SI: State Prosecutorial Council: powers to transfer prosecutors without their consent, to decide on individual evaluation of a
prosecutor, to decide on promotion of a prosecutor. Moreover, the State Prosecutorial Council is responsible for the appointment and dismissal of the heads of district state
prosecutor’s offices, performance assessment and promotion, transfers, secondments and participation in the appointment procedure of state prosecutors, providing opinions
on the policy of prosecution, performance assessment and efficiency of functioning of the state prosecutor’s offices, the protection of self-dependence in the performance of
state prosecutorial service and the performance of other matters in accordance with the State Prosecutor’s Office Act. SK: The powers of the Prosecutorial Council (Prosecutors’
Board) do not include direct management over the prosecution service as referred to in the chart. The Prosecutors’ Board has other powers (e.g. decides on the objections of a
prosecutor against the content of the evaluation, which the Head of the Public Service Office has not complied with, and expresses its opinion on the temporary assignment of
a prosecutor to another Prosecution Office). SE: Government can issue general guidance regarding prosecution policy.

52

The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

3.3. Independence

3.3.2. Structural independence Safeguards relating to the functioning of national prosecution services in the EU

Figure 56 presents a factual overview of the main management powers of the Prosecutor General over prosecutors: 1) to issue general
guidance regarding prosecution policy, 2) to give instructions regarding prosecution in individual cases, 3) to evaluate a prosecutor,
4) to promote a prosecutor, 5) to remove an individual case which was assigned to a prosecutor (transfer a case), 6) to decide on a
disciplinary measure regarding a prosecutor, and 7) to transfer prosecutors without their consent. In addition to these powers, the
Prosecutor General may have other powers, which are not shown in the figure (137).

Figure 56
Management powers of the Prosecutor General (*) 								
Transfer without consent

Removal of an individual case assigned
to a prosecutor

Individual evaluation

Decision on disciplinary measures

Promotion

Instructions in individual cases

General guidance on prosecution policy

NO DATA

Source: European Commission with the Expert Group on Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism

BE BG CZ DK DE EE IE EL ES FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE UK
Transfer without consent
Decision on disciplinary measures
Removal
ofgeographical
an individual
assigned
(*)	The Member States appear in the alphabetical
order of their
names incase
the original
language.to
BE:aAsprosecutor
to the power to give instructions regarding prosecution in
individual cases, a right of injunction to prosecute
upon the Prosecutor of the King is provided by art. 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Articles 150 (2) and 138 (2) of the
Promotion
Code of Civil Procedure provide a general right to exercise authority upon the Prosecutor of the King. CZ: power to give instructions regarding prosecution in individual cases
evaluation
only within the Prosecutor General Office andIndividual
towards high public
prosecutor offices. EL: The Public Prosecutor of the Supreme Court (i.e. General Prosecutor) has the right to
address to all prosecutors of the country general
directions and recommendations
to the performance of their duties, without of course the addressees of its directives
Instructions
in individualrelating
cases
and recommendations being bound by the formulation and the expression of their opinion. ES: The Attorney General sets internal orders and instructions appropriate to the
General
guidance
on
prosecution
policyThe general guidelines are essential in order to maintain the principle
service and to the exercise of prosecuting functions, which may be general or related to specific matters.

of unity of action and are fundamentally defined through circulars, instructions and consultations. As to the transfer without consent just in cases of high workload. IT: The
Prosecutors General at the Court of Appeal have the powers to remove an individual case which was assigned to a territorial prosecutor, in case of inaction; in addition to this,
they have the power to acquire data and information from the prosecution offices of the district (or territorial) and to send to the Prosecutor General at the Court of Cassation,
in order to verify the correct and uniform functioning of the prosecution offices and compliance with the rules on due process. The Prosecutor General at the Court of Cassation
is in charge by Law of the control over the National Anti-Mafia Directorate; moreover, he is in charge of resolving the conflicts of competence between two or more territorial
prosecution offices. CY: The Attorney General has the power to decide on disciplinary measures regarding prosecutors in case of minor disciplinary violations. In case of serious
disciplinary offences, the Attorney General does not propose sanctions but recommends the initiation of disciplinary measures by the Public Service Commission. LT: As to the
power to give instructions on individual cases, the Prosecutor General cannot instruct on which decision to make; as to the power to decide on promotion of prosecutors, the
Prosecutor General decides on the conclusions of the Prosecutor Selection Commission or the Chief Prosecutor Selection Commission. LU: The Prosecutor General has the power
to instruct prosecution services to prosecute in a case (but cannot instruct not to prosecute). As to the promotion of a prosecutor, the state prosecutor / Prosecutor General,
with a favourable opinion, suggests the promotion to the executive and the Head of State signs the nomination. AT: The powers of the Prosecutor General do not include direct
management over the prosecution service as referred to in the chart. Superior Prosecutors have the following powers: to issue general guidance regarding prosecution policy
within their respective districts, to give instructions regarding prosecution in individual cases, to transfer prosecutors without their consent for organisational reasons (e.g. having
to cope with excessive workload or long term sick leaves at one prosecution authority-only within his or her district and for a limited time). Head of the respective prosecution
authority has the power to give instructions regarding prosecution in individual cases and to remove an individual case, which was assigned to a prosecutor (transfer a case). The
Independent Personnel Body (Personalkommission), consisting of four members, who must be public prosecutors, has the power to evaluate a prosecutor. PL: The Prosecutor
general is also the Minister of Justice. RO: The General Prosecutor has the power to transfer an individual case from a prosecution unit to another prosecution unit and to issue
general guidance regarding prosecution policies (recommendations), in order to guarantee a unitary approach on criminal investigations. SI: Both the Prosecutor General and
the head of State Prosecutor’s Offices have the powers to issue general guidance on prosecution policy and to remove an individual case assigned to a prosecutor.

137 F or example, the Prosecutor General may play a role in bodies responsible for decisions regarding prosecutors, even if not taking such decisions directly.
3. Key findings of the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

53

3.3. Independence

3.3.2. Structural independence Safeguards relating to the functioning of national prosecution services in the EU

Figure 57 presents an overview of the authorities (Council for the Judiciary/Prosecutorial Council/Court, Ministry of Justice, Prosecutor
General/prosecution service) dealing with the appointment and the dismissal of national prosecutors, and does not show the
appointment and dismissal of Prosecutors General or other assimilated management positions. The figure shows the diversity of
models of organisation of the prosecution service across Member States gathering around the executive power or the judiciary. The
Nactors both in
figure also shows the role of the Prosecutor General and Councils for the Judiciary/Prosecutorial Councils as important
the appointment and in the dismissal of prosecutors.
O
Figure 57
D
Appointment and dismissal of national prosecutors (*) 								

A
Prosecutorial General/senior prosecutor/a body within prosecution service
T
Minister of justice on the opinion of the Council for the Judiciary/Prosecutorial Council/Prosecutor
Minister of justice/Government/Head of State
General/senior prosecutor
A
Source: European Commission with the Expert Group on Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism
Council for the judiciary/Prosecutorial Council/court/other independent body

BE BG CZ DK EE IE ES EL FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE DE UK
Prosecutor
General/prosecution service
DISMISSING
Council for the judiciary/Prosecutorial Council/court/other independent body
PROPOSING
Minister
of justice
DISMISSAL
Prosecutor General/senior prosecutor/a body within prosecution service
APPOINTING
PROPOSING
CANDIDATES

N
O
D
A
T
A

BE BG CZ DK EE IE ES EL FR HR IT CY LV LT LU HU MT NL AT PL PT RO SI SK FI SE DE UK
Prosecutor General/prosecution service
Council
for
the judiciary/Prosecutorial
independent
body for dismissal: disciplinary court. Decision
(*)	
BE: Proposal for appointment: Council
for the
Judiciary.
Decision on appointment: Head Council/court/other
of State on advice of the Minister
of Justice. Proposal
on dismissal: Head of State on advice of the Minister of Justice. BG: Decision on appointment and dismissal: the Prosecutors’ Chamber of the Council for the Judiciary. CZ: Proposal for
justice
appointment: Prosecutor General.Minister
Proposal forof
dismissal:
Prosecutor General, Chief Public Prosecutors and Minister of justice. Decision on dismissal: Court. DK: Proposal for appointment:
Prosecutor General proposes the final candidates for the position of prosecutor trainees (for the duration of approximately three years) to the Ministry of Justice who appoints the candidates. If a prosecutor trainee passes
the examination
and subsequently
the training, thebody
candidate
will become
a prosecutor.
EE: Proposal for appointment: prosecutors’ competition
Prosecutor
General/senior
prosecutor/a
within
prosecution
service
committee for specialised prosecutors, district prosecutors and assistant prosecutors; chief prosecutors for senior prosecutors. Decision on appointment and dismissal: Prosecutor General.
IE: Proposal for appointment: a recruitment competition under a recruitment licence issued by the Commission on Public Service Appointments (CPSA) held normally by the Office of the
Director of Public Prosecutions (or potentially by the Public Appointment Service). Decision on appointment: Director of Public Prosecutions. Proposal for dismissal: Office of the Director
of Public Prosecutions, in accordance with terms and conditions set by the Minister of Finance, Public Expenditure & Reform. Decision on dismissal: Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions
(Director of Public Prosecutions for prosecutors graded as principal officers and upwards). ES: Proposal for appointment: National Prosecutor following a report from the Fiscal Council,
after hearing the Superior Fiscal Council of the respective Autonomous Community in the case of posts in the Public Prosecutor’s Offices of its territorial scope. Decision on appointment:
the Government. Proposal for dismissal: Attorney General. Decision on dismissal: Minister of Justice, after a favourable report form the Fiscal Council. EL: Proposal for appointment:
Ministry of Justice annually issues a ministerial decision concerning the entrance examination to the National School of Judges for candidate Public Prosecutors. The selection process
-held by a five-member committee- currently consists of written and oral exercises. Once they enter the Greek National School of Judges, the successful candidates, start a 16-month
course of study in both theory and practice. This training is followed by an examination used to rank them by order of merit. Depending on their rank, they will be appointed to the
competent court. Decision on appointment: Candidates are appointed as Public Prosecutors by a Presidential decree. Proposal for dismissal: Minister of Justice. Decision on dismissal: a
court judgment by Disciplinary Councils provided for in Article 91 § 2 of the Constitution and are composed of professionals judges. FR: Proposal for appointment: Minister of Justice on
non- binding advice of the Council of the Judiciary. Decision on appointment: President of the Republic. Proposal for dismissal: Minister of Justice on non-binding advice of the Council of
the Judiciary. Decision on dismissal: President of the Republic. IT: Decision on appointment: after the proposal of the Council, the Minister of Justice issues a ministerial decree, without any
discretion not to appoint or to appoint any other candidate than the proposed candidate prosecutor. CY: Proposal for appointment/dismissal: Attorney General. Decision on appointment/
dismissal: Public Service Commission with the opinion of the Attorney General. LT: Proposal for appointment: Prosecution Selection Commission (composed by two prosecutors nominated
by the Collegiate Council, two prosecutors nominated by the Prosecutor General and one member nominated by each the President of the Republic, the Speaker of the Seimas and the
Prime Minister). Decision on appointment: Prosecutor General. Proposal for dismissal: Prosecutors’ Ethics (same composition as the Prosecution Selection Commission). LU: Proposal for
appointment: The Minister of Justice, on the favourable opinion of the Prosecutor General, proposes a nomination to the Grand-Duke. Decision on appointment: Head of State. Proposal
for dismissal: Prosecutor General. Decision on dismissal: Court. HU: Proposal/decision on appointment: Senior Prosecutor. Proposal for dismissal: Senior Prosecutor. Decision on dismissal:
Prosecutor General. MT: The police have the exclusive competence to institute and undertake criminal proceedings and act as prosecutors before the inferior courts; the Attorney General
acts as a prosecutor before the Superior Courts when the compilation of evidence before the Inferior Courts is concluded. NL: Proposal for appointment: Minister of Justice. Decision on
appointment is taken by royal decree (the appointing authority has an obligation by constitutional practice to follow the proposal to appoint the candidate for the post of prosecutor).
Proposal for dismissal: Minister of Justice on advice of the Head of the prosecution office. Decision on dismissal is taken by royal decree. AT: Proposal for appointment: Independent
Personnel Body (Personalkommission) consisting of four members, who must be public prosecutors. Decision on appointment: Federal President delegates the decision to the Minister
of Justice. Proposal and decision on dismissal: Disciplinary Court. PL: Proposal for and decision on appointment: Prosecutor General - who is also the Minister of Justice - upon a motion
of the National Public Prosecutor. A competent public prosecutor’s office’s board gives an opinion on a candidate for the post of prosecutor. Proposal for dismissal: National prosecutor.
Decision on dismissal: Disciplinary court; in very limited situations, also the Prosecutor General can dismiss a prosecutor at the request of the National Prosecutor. The opinion on dismissal of a prosecutor is given by the meeting of public prosecutors of the National Public Prosecutor’s Office or competent Regional Prosecutor’s Office. RO: Proposal for appointment:
Superior Council of Magistracy. Decision on appointment: President (the appointing authority has an obligation by law to follow the proposal to appoint the candidate for the post of
prosecutor). SI: Proposal for appointment: Minister of Justice on the opinion of the Council for the Prosecution Service. Decision on appointment: Council for the Prosecution Service (the
appointing authority has not an obligation to follow the proposal to appoint the candidate for the post of prosecutor). Proposal for dismissal: Council for the Prosecution Service. Decision
on dismissal: Government on the proposal from the Minister of Justice. SK: Proposal for appointment: Chairman of the Selection Board of the General Prosecutor´s Office. Appointment
and dismissal: Prosecutor General. FI: Appointment and dismissal: Prosecutor General. SE: Proposal for, decision on appointment: Director of human resources of the Swedish prosecution
authority, on the opinion of the Prosecutor General. Proposal for dismissal: Director of human resources of the Swedish prosecution authority. Decision on dismissal: Court on the opinion
of the Prosecutor General.

54

The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

3.3. Independence

3.3.3.

3.3.3. Summary on judicial independence

Summary on judicial independence

Judicial independence is a fundamental element of an effective justice system. It is vital for upholding the rule of law, the
fairness of judicial proceedings and the trust of citizens and businesses in the legal system. For this reason, any justice
reform should uphold the rule of law and comply with European standards on judicial independence. The Scoreboard
shows trends in perceived judicial independence among the general public and businesses. This edition also presents some
selected indicators concerning legal safeguards in relation to the bodies involved in disciplinary proceedings regarding
judges and of the management of the prosecution services. The structural indicators do not in themselves allow for
conclusions to be drawn about the independence of the judiciaries of the Member States, but represent possible elements
which may be taken as a starting point for such an analysis.
• The 2019 Scoreboard presents the developments in perceived independence from surveys of citizens (Eurobarometer)
and companies (Eurobarometer and World Economic Forum):
- All surveys generally show similar results, in particular as regards the composition of the two groups of Member
States that have the highest and the lowest perceived judicial independence.
- The World Economic Forum survey (Figure 51), presented for the seventh time, shows that businesses’ perception
of independence has improved or remained stable in about three-fifths of the Member States when compared to
2010. Also among the Member States facing specific challenges (138), the perception of independence improved or
remained stable in nearly three-fifths of those countries looking over the eight-year period. However, compared to
2016-17, businesses’ perception of independence decreased in about three-fifths of all Member States.
- The Eurobarometer survey among the general public (Figure 47), presented for the fourth time, shows that the
perception of independence has improved in about two-thirds of the Member States when compared to 2016. The
general public’s perception of independence has improved in more than two-thirds among the Members States facing
specific challenges looking over the four-year period. However, compared to last year, the general public’s perception
of independence decreased in about three-fifths of all Member States (in more than two-thirds of Members States
facing specific challenges, and about half of other Member States).
- The Eurobarometer survey among the companies (Figure 49), presented for the fourth time, shows that the perception
of independence has improved in about two-thirds of the Member States both compared to 2016 and to the last year
(compared to last year this was the case in more than two-thirds of Members States facing specific challenges, and
about three-fifths of other Member States).
- Among the reasons for the perceived lack of independence of courts and judges, the interference or pressure from
government and politicians was the most stated reason, followed by the pressure from economic or other specific
interests. Both reasons are still notable for several Member States where perceived independence is very low (Figures
48 and 50).
- Among the reasons for good perception of independence of courts and judges, nearly four-fifth of companies and of
citizens (equivalent to 40 % or 44 % of all respondents, respectively) named the guarantees provided by the status
and position of judges.
• The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard presents overviews on the disciplinary authorities dealing with proceedings regarding
judges as well as competence of the judiciary, the executive and the parliament in the selection of judges-members of
the Councils for the Judiciary, and some managerial and organisational aspects of the prosecution services:
- Figure 52 presents an overview of the authorities in charge of disciplinary proceedings regarding judges. In the
majority of Member States, the authority deciding on disciplinary sanctions is an independent authority such as a
court (Supreme Court, Administrative Court or Court President) or a Council for the judiciary, while in some Member
States it is a special court whose members are specifically selected or appointed (by the Council for the Judiciary, by
Judges or, in one Member State, by the Minister of Justice) to act in disciplinary proceedings.
- Figure 53 presents an overview of who is the investigator in charge of disciplinary investigations regarding
judges. In the majority of Member States, the investigator is a Court President or a Council for the Judiciary. In some
Member States the investigator is specifically selected either by judges or by the Council of the Judiciary or, in one
Member State, by the Minister of Justice.

138 See footnote 70.
3. Key findings of the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

55

3.3. Independence

3.3.3. Summary on judicial independence

- Figure 54 shows the involvement of the judiciary in the appointment of judges-members of the Council for
the Judiciary. It is up to the Member States to organise their justice systems, including whether or not to establish
a Council for the Judiciary. However, where a Council for the Judiciary has been established by a Member State, the
independence of the Council must be guaranteed in line with European standards. In almost all Member States, the
judges-members of the Councils are proposed and elected or selected by judges.
- Figure 55 presents an overview of the distribution, among different authorities, of the main management powers
over national prosecutors. Figure 56 presents a factual overview of the main management powers of the
Prosecutor General over prosecutors. These figures show that in some Member States there is a certain level of
concentration in one single authority of the main management powers relating to the prosecution services. Figure
57 presents an overview of the authorities involved in the appointment and dismissal procedures for national
prosecutors. While the situation varies widely among Member States, in most countries the Council for the Judiciary/
Prosecutorial Council or the prosecution service is involved.

56

The 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard

4. Conclusion

This seventh edition of the EU Justice Scoreboard shows that a large number of Member States have continued their efforts to
further improve the effectiveness of national justice systems. However, challenges remain to ensure full trust of citizens in the
legal systems of those Member States where guarantees of status and position of judges might be at risk and so their independence. The Commission has taken the necessary action and continues to monitor the situation in Member States. It is committed
to ensure that any justice reform respects EU law and European standards on rule of law.

4. Conclusion

57

Getting in touch with the EU
In person

All over the European Union there are hundreds of Europe Direct information centres. You
can find the address of the centre nearest you at: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

On the phone or by email

Europe Direct is a service that answers your questions about the European Union. You can
contact this service:
– by freephone: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11 (certain operators may charge for these calls),
– at the following standard number: +32 22999696 or
– by email via: https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en

Finding information about the EU
Online

Information about the European Union in all the official languages of the EU is available on
the Europa website at: https://europa.eu/european-union/index_en

EU publications

You can download or order free and priced EU publications from EU Bookshop at: https://
publications.europa.eu/
bookshop. Multiple copies of free publications may be obtained by contacting Europe Direct
or your local information centre (see https://europa.eu/european-union/contact_en).

EU law and related documents

For access to legal information from the EU, including all EU law since 1952 in all the official
language versions, go to EUR-Lex at: http://eur-lex.europa.eu

Open data from the EU

The EU Open Data Portal (http://data.europa.eu/euodp/en) provides access to datasets from
the EU. Data can be downloaded and reused for free, both for commercial and non-commercial purposes.

DS-AG-19-001-EN-N
ISBN 978-92-76-03165-9
doi: 10.2838/569