The challenge of comparing EU Member States judicial data

Autores

  • Alina Ontanu IRSIG-CNR
  • Marco Velicogna IRSIG-CNR

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1151

Palavras-chave:

EU Justice Scoreboard, CEPEJ data, comparability of datasets, courts’ caseload, categories of cases

Resumo

The number of cases is measured through a broad range of quantitative variables used in various studies and policy papers as key indicators of the volume of activity of national courts. Additionally, these variables, together with other data (e.g. time needed to resolve a case, number of judges, etc.) are part of a broader discourse on the efficiency of justice systems. However, such discourse can be problematic when data is not actually comparable. To raise the attention on this very relevant but poorly explored topic, this paper analyses the comparability of the caseload data by focusing on apparently simple categories like civil and commercial litigious or non-litigious cases and administrative cases. The EU Justice Scoreboard and CEPEJ data and national case definitions in France, Italy, and Romania are used to assess the most relevant justice EU datasets. The findings point towards significant differences between analysed systems that suggest extreme caution should be exercised when using such data for scholarly, legislative or policy discourses.

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

        Metrics

Views 896
Downloads:
PDF (English) 897
XML (English) 417


Referências

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]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3917/rfap.161.0059

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]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2752571

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]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2307/3053697

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]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/001041407500800203

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. DOI: https://doi.org/10.4337/9781781006108.00051

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]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1787/5k41w04ds6kf-en

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]. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/14782804.2018.1534729

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). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1163/30504856-00101007

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). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ijlit/eal009

Zweigert, K., and Kötz, H., 1998. Introduction to Comparative Law. Trans.: T. Weir. 3rd ed. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Publicado

2021-04-01

Como Citar

Ontanu, A. e Velicogna, M. (2021) “The challenge of comparing EU Member States judicial data”, Oñati Socio-Legal Series, 11(2), p. 446–480. doi: 10.35295/osls.iisl/0000-0000-0000-1151.

Edição

Seção

Methodology, data and numbers: Too much litigation?