COURT PERFORMANCECOURT PERFORMANCE

Does size matter?Does size matter?

OverviewOverview Are smaller courts inefficient? Are bigger courts

serving as highly specialized units or working like inflexible dinosaurs?

Austrian findings on length of procedures and CEPEJ’s benchmarks… Does size matter?

Netherlands : Average ProductivityNetherlands : Average Productivity

Netherlands : Productivity per branchNetherlands : Productivity per branch

Netherlands : Size matters!Netherlands : Size matters!

According to productivity: Courts smaller or bigger than 300 FTEs are less productive And in Austria ?

Statistic analysisStatistic analysis Analysis of length of proceedings – factors Analysis of length of proceedings – factors

and measures and measures Background: People complain most about Background: People complain most about

length of proceedings and difficult wording length of proceedings and difficult wording of decisions – results of opinion pollof decisions – results of opinion poll

Background: The KSV – a private institution Background: The KSV – a private institution of creditors which is one of the big players of creditors which is one of the big players found out that a limitation of proceedings found out that a limitation of proceedings with one year could save 1 billion Euro per with one year could save 1 billion Euro per yearyear

Austria: Length and size in “C”Austria: Length and size in “C”

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

av length of proceeding (months)

Siz

e (fte) in

"C

"

No relationship between size of court and quick solution No relationship between size of court and quick solution of casesof cases

Length of proceedings and Size of Court

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Small Courts Medium Courts Big Courts

Average of the 5 slowest

Average of the 5 quickest

AT: Size scaled per score I AT: Size scaled per score I (Clearance Rate, Efficiency, Disposition Time)(Clearance Rate, Efficiency, Disposition Time)

Ratedeviation from

averagedeviation from

average Score

101,10% -2,72% -8,06% 106,44%

96,93% -12,06% 6,33% 78,54%

101,56% 8,37% -15,17% 125,10%

100,74% 0,27% 8,45% 92,56%

98,52% -45,83% -10,28% 62,96%

95,82% -2,75% -22,66% 115,72%

100,90% -13,30% -24,38% 111,98%

98,19% 103,41% -0,27% 201,86%

97,42% 3,69% 13,63% 87,48%

105,97% 23,92% 2,67% 127,23%

Clearance Rate Efficiency

Disposition time

Civil total ( C )

AT: Size scaled per score “C”AT: Size scaled per score “C”(Clearance Rate, Efficiency, Disposition Time)(Clearance Rate, Efficiency, Disposition Time)

0,00

10,00

20,00

30,00

40,00

50,00

60,00

1 9 17 25 33 41 49 57 65 73 81 89 97 105 113 121 129 137

FTE C

10*Scaled Score

No relationship between workload of No relationship between workload of court and quick solution of casescourt and quick solution of cases

Relationship between Workload and Quick Solution of Cases

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

Court

Court Proportion of caseslasting more then 1 year

Court Workload accordingPAR in %

COURT PERFORMANCECOURT PERFORMANCE

Size does not matter at all!Size does not matter at all!What else…?What else…?

FactorsFactorsAverage Input of Judge's work in Civil Cases

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500Ave

rage

Writ

ten

verd

ict

Exp

ert

Mut

ual leg

al a

ssis

tanc

e

Judg

e ch

ange

d

litig

ious

factor

Min

ute

s of w

ork

of ju

dge

Average input of work ofthe judge in civil cases inminutes per case C civil atdistrict court

Average input of work ofthe judge in civil cases inminutes per case Cgcivilat County court

Average input of work ofthe judge in civil cases inminutes per case CgaLabour case

Factors and Measures IFactors and Measures I

Experts: Deeper analysis showed, that most Experts: Deeper analysis showed, that most of work is dedicated to the same experts, of work is dedicated to the same experts, overloaded overloaded

Solution: Internet database on experts and Solution: Internet database on experts and interpreters – transparency, spread the interpreters – transparency, spread the workload – knowledge of special expertise workload – knowledge of special expertise

Factors and Measures IIFactors and Measures II Judges change during the proceeding: Judges change during the proceeding:

Judges often applied for another post Judges often applied for another post after a very short period of timeafter a very short period of time

Measure: Judges are not appointed for Measure: Judges are not appointed for another position before having served another position before having served at least 18 monthsat least 18 months

Factors and Measures IIIFactors and Measures III Mutual legal assistance: Mutual legal assistance:

Measures: Measures: Translations of forms (Intranet)Translations of forms (Intranet) Translations of relevant provisions Translations of relevant provisions

(Intranet)(Intranet) Direct contact between courts within EUDirect contact between courts within EU