Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Overview 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 : Size matters! According to productivity: Courts smaller or bigger than 300 FTEs are less productive And in Austria ?
Statistic analysis • Analysis of length of proceedings – factors and measures • Background: People complain most about length of proceedings and difficult wording of decisions – results of opinion poll • Background: The KSV – a private institution of creditors which is one of the big players found out that a limitation of proceedings with one year could save 1 billion Euro per year
AT: Size scaled per score I (Clearance Rate, Efficiency, Disposition Time)
AT: Size scaled per score “C”(Clearance Rate, Efficiency, Disposition Time)
Factors and Measures I • Experts: Deeper analysis showed, that most of work is dedicated to the same experts, overloaded • Solution: Internet database on experts and interpreters – transparency, spread the workload – knowledge of special expertise
Factors and Measures II • Judges change during the proceeding: Judges often applied for another post after a very short period of time • Measure: Judges are not appointed for another position before having served at least 18 months
Factors and Measures III • Mutual legal assistance: • Measures: • Translations of forms (Intranet) • Translations of relevant provisions (Intranet) • Direct contact between courts within EU