Brussels, 11 April 2016
Today, the European Commission
publishes the 2016 EU Justice Scoreboard which gives a comparative overview of
the efficiency, quality and independence of justice systems in the EU Member
States. The aim of the Scoreboard is to assist national authorities in their
efforts to improve their justice systems, by providing this comparative data.
For the first time, the Justice Scoreboard also includes the results of
Eurobarometer surveys conducted to examine the perception of judicial
independence in the EU among citizens and businesses in more detail. This
edition of the Scoreboard also uses new indicators, in particular on judicial
training, the use of surveys, the availability of legal aid and the existence
of quality standards.
"The fourth EU Justice Scoreboard shows that Member States' efforts to
improve justice systems continue to bear fruit. The key role of national
justice systems in upholding the rule of law, enforcing EU law and establishing
an investment-friendly environment deserve these efforts" saidVĕra Jourová, EU Commissioner for
Justice, Consumers and Gender Equality. "The Scoreboard serves as a
tool to learn from each other to render European justice systems more
effective."
Key findings from
the 2016 EU Justice Scoreboard include:
·
Shorter duration
of litigious civil and commercial cases: While there is overall stability on pending cases, improvement can be
observed in several Member States that faced particular challenges with a high
number of pending cases.
·
Better accessibility
of justice systems, in
particular in matters like electronic submission of small claims or promotion
of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) methods. However, there is still room
for improvement in online availability of judgements or electronic
communication between courts and parties.
·
Further efforts
are still needed to improve the training in judicial skills and
the use of information and communication technologies (ICT)for case management systems.
·
Most Member States
have standards covering similar aspects of their
justice systems, but there are significant differences as regards their
content. For example, less than half of Member States have standards on
measures to reduce existing backlogs and even fewer define the maximum age that
pending cases should have.
·
The Scoreboard
incorporates the results of different surveys on the perception of judicial independence. For Member
States where perceived independence is very low, the most notable reasons given
included interference or pressure from government and politicians, and from
economic or other specific interests.
Next steps
The findings of
the 2016 Scoreboard are being taken into account for the ongoing
country-specific assessment carried out in the context of the 2016 European
Semester process. The country reports for 26 Member States were published on 26
February 2016 and include findings on the justice systems of a number Member
States (BE, BG, HR, ES, HU, IE, IT, LV, MT, PL, PT, RO, SI and SK) (see for
latest reports on the 2016 European Semester, IP/16/332 and MEMO/16/334).
The Commission
will continue to encourage the judicial networks to deepen their assessment of
the effectiveness of legal safeguards aimed at protecting judicial
independence.
Background
This is the fourth edition of the Justice Scoreboard. The 2016 EU Justice
Scoreboard brings together data from various sources, in particular data
provided by the Council of Europe Commission for the Evaluation of the
Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), which collects data from Member States. It also
uses information obtained from other sources, for example Eurostat, the group
of contact persons on national justice systems, the European judicial networks
such as the European Network of Councils of the Judiciary (ENCJ), the Network
of the Presidents of the Supreme Judicial Courts of the EU or the European
Judicial Training Network.
The Scoreboard focuses on three main aspects:
·
Efficiency of
justice systems: indicators on the efficiency
of proceedings: length of proceedings, clearance rate and number of pending
cases.
·
Quality indicators: training, monitoring and evaluation of court activities, the use of
satisfaction surveys, budget, and human resources.
·
Independence: the Scoreboard incorporates data from different surveys on the perceived
judicial independence by companies and the general public.
The EU Justice Scoreboard contributes to the European Semester process by
helping to identify justice related issues that deserve particular attention
for an investment, business and citizen-friendly environment. It focuses on
civil and commercial cases as well as administrative cases.
Together with the
specific assessment of the situation in Member States, the 2015 EU Justice
Scoreboard contributed to the proposal of the Commission the Council to address
Country Specific Recommendations to four Member States (Croatia, Italy, Latvia
and Slovenia) to render their justice system more effective. The Commission
also closely monitors the efforts in this area in other Member States such as
Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Spain, Ireland, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Romania and
Slovakia (see factsheet).
The findings of
the Scoreboard are also taken into account when deciding the funding priorities
under the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) as regards justice reforms.
While the Scoreboard does not present an overall single ranking, it gives
an overview of the functioning of all justice systems based on various indicators,
which are of common interest for all Member States. It does not promote any
particular type of justice system and treats all Member States on an equal
footing. Whatever the model of the national justice system or the legal
tradition in which it is anchored, timeliness, independence, affordability, and
user-friendly access are some of the essential parameters of what constitutes
an effective justice system.
For more
information
Press pack on DG
Justice website
Full document
available: http://ec.europa.eu/justice/effective-justice/files/justice_scoreboard_2016_en.pdf
Annotated graphs with full figures
Questions and answers on the 2016 EU Justice Scoreboard
No comments:
Post a Comment