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