The challenge of comparing EU Member States judicial data
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1151Palabras clave:
indicadores de justicia de la UE, datos de la CEPEJ, comparabilidad de datos, carga de trabajo judicial, categorías de casosResumen
El número de casos se mide mediante una amplia gama de variables cuantitativas que se utilizan en varios estudios y documentos de política como indicadores claves del volumen de actividad en tribunales nacionales. Además, esas variables, junto con otros datos (por ej., tiempo que se ha necesitado para resolver un caso, número de jueces, etc.), son parte de un discurso más amplio sobre la eficacia de los sistemas judiciales. Sin embargo, ese discurso puede ser problemático cuando los datos no son comparables. Para llamar la atención sobre este tema, tan importante como poco explorado, este artículo analiza la comparabilidad de los datos sobre la carga de trabajo. Para ello, se centra en categorías aparentemente sencillas, como casos litigiosos o no litigiosos civiles y comerciales, y casos administrativos. Se utilizan los datos del indicador de la justicia de la UE y de la CEPEJ y definiciones de casos nacionales de Francia, Italia y Rumanía para evaluar los conjuntos de datos más importantes de la UE. Los hallazgos apuntan a diferencias significativas entre los sistemas analizados, las cuales hacen pensar que se deben utilizar esos datos con la máxima cautela ya sea en discursos académicos, legislativos o políticos.
Descargas
Metrics
Downloads:
PDF (English) 864
XML (English) 417
Citas
Bencze, M., Kovács, Á., and Ződi, Z., 2017. The evaluation and development of the quality of justice in Hungary. In F. Contini, ed., Handle with care. Assessing and designing methods for evaluation and development of the quality of justice (HWC) (JUST/2015/JACC/AG/QUAL/8547) [online]. Available from: https://www.lut.fi/hwc [Accessed 21 September 2020].
Cappellina, B., 2017. Évaluer l’Administration de la Justice dans les Pays Européennes. Une Co-Construction entre l’Union Européenne et Conseil de l’Europe. Revue Française d’Administration Publique [online], 161(2017)1, 59–72. Available from: [Accessed 21 September 2020].
Contini, F., and Mohr, R., 2008. Judicial Evaluation: Traditions, Innovations and Proposals for Measuring the Quality of Court Performance. Saarbrücken: VDM.
Contini, F., ed., 2017. Handle with Care: Assessing and Designing Methods for Evaluation and Development of the Quality of Justice (HWC) (JUST/2015/JACC/AG/QUAL/8547) [online]. Available from: https://www.lut.fi/hwc [Accessed 21 September 2020].
Contini, F., Mohr, R., and Velicogna, M., 2014. Formula over function? From algorithms to values in judicial evaluation. From Algorithms to Values in Judicial Evaluation. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 4(5). Available from: http://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/view/311/493 [Accessed 21 September 2020].
Contini, F., Onţanu, E.A., and Carnevalli, D., 2017. The common research methodology for the analysis of the quality of justice at national level. In: F. Contini, ed., Handle with Care: Assessing and Designing Methods for Evaluation and Development of the Quality of Justice (HWC) (JUST/2015/JACC/AG/QUAL/8547) [online]. Available from: https://www.lut.fi/hwc [Accessed 21 September 2020].
Dori, A., 2015. The EU Justice Scoreboard – Judicial Evaluation as a New Governance Tool. MPI Luxembourg Working Paper Series [online], 2. Available from: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2752571 [Accessed 21 September 2020].
Dubois, E., Schurrer, C., and Velicogna, M., 2013. The functioning of judicial systems and the situation of the economy in the European Union Member States, CEPEJ-CoE [online]. Report prepared for the European Commission (Directorate General JUSTICE), Strasbourg, 15 January. Available from: https://issat.dcaf.ch/download/38802/577451/cepej_study_justice_scoreboard_en.pdf [Accessed 21 September 2020].
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), 2012. European judicial systems, edition 2012 (2010 data). Study Nº 18 [online]. Strasbourg: CEPEJ. Available from: https://rm.coe.int/to-fausto-de-santis-president-of-the-cepej-from-2007-to-2010-/16807882a2 [Accessed 21 September 2020].
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), 2013. Explanatory Note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems, 2012–2014 Cycle (CEPEJ(2012)13Rev) [online]. Strasbourg: CEPEJ, 23 May. Available from: https://rm.coe.int/16807476a3 [Accessed 21 September 2020].
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), 2014. Study on the functioning of judicial systems in the EU Member States, Facts and figures from CEPEJ evaluation exercises, CEPEJ 2012–2014 (CEPEJ(2014)4 final). Strasbourg: CEPEJ.
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), 2015a. Explanatory Note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems, 2014–2016 Cycle (CEPEJ(2015)2) [online]. Strasbourg: CEPEJ, 2 June. Available from: https://rm.coe.int/16807474b8 [Accessed 21 September 2020].
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), 2015b. Study on the functioning of judicial systems in the EU Member States. Facts and figures from the CEPEJ questionnaires 2010-2012-2013 (CEPEJ(2014) 17final (v2.0 – 16 feb. 2015)). Strasbourg: CEPEJ, 16 February.
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), 2016a. Report on “European judicial systems – Edition 2016 (2014 data): efficiency and quality of justice”, Study Nº 23 [online]. Strasbourg: CEPEJ. Available from: https://rm.coe.int/european-judicial-systems-efficiency-and-quality-of-justice-cepej-stud/1680786b58 [Accessed 21 September 2020].
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), 2016b. Study on the functioning of judicial systems in the EU Member States, Facts and figures from the CEPEJ questionnaires 2010-2012-2013-2014, Part 1 (CEPEJ(2015)15Part1rev2). Strasbourg: CEPEJ, 14 March.
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), 2017. Explanatory Note to the Scheme for Evaluating Judicial Systems, 2016–2018 Cycle (CEPEJ(2017)3rev1) [online]. Strasbourg: CEPEJ, 20 November. Available from: https://rm.coe.int/explanatory-note-to-the-scheme-for-evaluating-judicial-systems/1680767c02 [Accessed 21 September 2020].
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), 2018a. Report on “European judicial systems. Efficiency and quality of justice”, Study Nº 26 [online]. Strasbourg: CEPEJ. Available from: https://rm.coe.int/rapport-avec-couv-18-09-2018-en/16808def9c [Accessed 21 September 2020].
European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), 2018b. Study on the functioning of judicial systems in the EU Member States: Facts and figures from the CEPEJ questionnaires 2010-2012-2013-2014-2015-2016 (CEPEJ(2017)12 rev) [online]. Study prepared under the authority of the Working Group on the evaluation of judicial systems (CEPEJ-GT-EVAL) for the attention of the European Commission (Directorate General Justice). Strasbourg: CEPEJ, 4–5 April. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/20180405_-_eu_scoreboard_-_indicators.pdf (part 1) and https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/20180404_-_eu_scoreboard_-_country_fiches.pdf (part 2) [Accessed 21 September 2020].
European Commission, 2013. The EU Justice Scoreboard, A tool to promote effective justice and growth. 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(2013) 160 final) [online]. Brussels, 27 March. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/justice_scoreboard_2013_en.pdf [Accessed 21 September 2020].
European Commission, 2016. 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 — The 2016 EU Justice Scoreboard (COM(2016) 199 final) [online]. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/justice_scoreboard_2016_en.pdf. [Accessed 21 September 2020].
European Commission, 2018. The 2018 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(2018) 364 final) [online]. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. Available from: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/justice_scoreboard_2018_en.pdf [Accessed 21 September 2020].
Fabri, M., 2017. Methodological issues in the comparative analysis of the number of judges, administrative personnel, and court performance collected by the Commission for the Efficiency of Justice of the Council of Europe. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 7(4), 616–639. Available from: http://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/viewFile/876/1021 [Accessed 21 September 2020].
Fabri, M., and Langbroek, P.M., eds., 2000. The Challenge of Change for Judicial Systems: Developing a Public Administration Perspective. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
Ietswaart, H.F.P., 1990. The international comparison of courts caseloads: The experience of the European Working Group. Law & Society Review [online], 24(2). Available from: https://doi.org/10.2307/3053697 [Accessed 21 September 2020].
Koeijers, E., 2005. Sharp increase in civil court cases. Centraal Bureau voor de Statistik (CBS) [online], 12 July. Available from: https://www.cbs.nl/en-gb/news/2005/28/sharp-increase-in-civil-court-cases [Accessed 21 September 2020].
Lijphart, A., 1975. II. The comparable-cases strategy in comparative research. Comparative political studies [online], 8(2), 158–177. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1177/001041407500800203 [Accessed 21 September 2020].
Mohr, R., and Contini, F., 2014. Conflicts and Commonalities in Judicial Evaluation. Oñati Socio-Legal Series [online], 4(5). Available from: http://opo.iisj.net/index.php/osls/article/view/312 [Accessed 21 September 2020].
Onţanu, E.A., Velicogna, M., and Contini, F., 2018. How many cases? Assessing the comparability of EU Judicial datasets. Presented at the Conference Ius Dicere in a Globalized World XXIV Bi-Annual Colloquium of the Italian Association of Comparative Law (AIDC), Naples, 15–17 June 2017. In: C.A. d’Allessandro and C. Marchese, eds., Jus Dicere in a Globalised World (vol. 2). Rome: Tre-Press, 497–537.
Örücü, E., 2012. Methodology of comparative law. In: J. M. Smits, ed., Elgar Encyclopedia of Comparative Law. 2nd ed. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, 560–576.
Palumbo, G., et al., 2013. The Economics of Civil Justice. New Cross-Country Data and Empirics. OECD Economics Department Working Papers [online], nº 1060. Available from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/5k41w04ds6kf-en [Accessed 21 September 2020].
Pauliat, H., et al., 2017. The evaluation and development of the quality of justice in France. In: F. Contini, ed., Handle with Care: Assessing and Designing Methods for Evaluation and Development of the Quality of Justice (HWC) (JUST/2015/JACC/AG/QUAL/8547) [online]. Available from: https://www.lut.fi/hwc [Accessed 21 September 2020].
Pekkanen, P., Puolakka, T., and Pirttilä, T., 2017. The evaluation and development of the quality of justice in Finland. In: F. Contini, ed., Handle with Care: Assessing and Designing Methods for Evaluation and Development of the Quality of Justice (HWC) (JUST/2015/JACC/AG/QUAL/8547) [online]. Available from: https://www.lut.fi/hwc [Accessed 21 September 2020].
Strelkov, A., 2019. EU Justice Scoreboard: A New Policy Tool for “Deepening” European Integration? Journal of Contemporary European Studies [online], 27(1). Available from: https://doi.org/10.1080/14782804.2018.1534729 [Accessed 21 September 2020].
Stretton, H., 2013. The Political Sciences: General Principles of Selection in Social Science and History. Abingdon: Routledge.
Uzelac, A., 2012. Efficiency of European Justice Systems. The strength and weaknesses of CEPEJ evaluations. International Journal of Procedural Law, 1(1).
Velicogna, M., 2013. The EU Justice Scoreboard and the challenge of investigating the functioning of EU justice systems and their impact on the economy of the Member States. Paper presented at the XXVII Convegno annuale della Società Italiana di Scienza Politica (SISP), 12–14 September 2013, Firenze, Italy.
Velicogna, M., 2015. Study on Council of Europe Member States Appeal and Supreme Courts’ Lengths of Proceedings Edition 2015 (2006–2012 data) (CEPEJ(2015)7Rev) [online]. Strasbourg, 7 September. Available from: https://rm.coe.int/168074823b [Accessed 21 September 2020].
Velicogna, M., and Ng, G.Y., 2006. Legitimacy and Internet in the Judiciary: A Lesson from the Italian Courts’ Website Experience. International Journal of Law and Information Technology, 14(3).
Zweigert, K., and Kötz, H., 1998. Introduction to Comparative Law. Trans.: T. Weir. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Descargas
Publicado
Cómo citar
Número
Sección
Licencia
Derechos de autor 2021 Alina Ontanu, Marco Velicogna
Esta obra está bajo una licencia internacional Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-SinDerivadas 4.0.
Los autores conservan el copyright de sus trabajos, que se publicarán en OSLS bajo una licencia Creative Commons Reconocimiento NoComercial SinObraDerivada. Puede consultar más detalles en: http://es.creativecommons.org/licencia/. Si no está de acuerdo con esta licencia, por favor, póngase en contacto con nosotros.
El autor concede los permisos necesarios para difundir la información bibliográfica del artículo, incluyendo el resumen, y autorizar a otros, incluyendo las bases de datos bibliográficas, de índices y servicios de alerta de contenidos, a copiar y comunicar esta información.
Para más información sobre los permisos para distribuir su artículo en cada fase de la producción, por favor, lea nuestra Política de Autoarchivo y Divulgación (en inglés).
Las condiciones de copyright con el nombre de autores y co-autores, y la licencia Creative Commons se mostrarán en el artículo. Estas condiciones se deben aceptar como parte del proceso de envío de un artículo a la revista. Por favor, asegúrese de que todos los co-autores se mencionan correctamente, y que entienden y aceptan estos términos.
