close

Вход

Забыли?

вход по аккаунту

?

Evaluation of Nordic countries

код для вставкиСкачать
Nordic countries and CEPEJ
Conclusions on the peer evaluation work
Strasbourg, 7 April 2011
Domstoladministrasjonen
1
Introduction
•
Introductory remarks
•
Demarcations
–
Based on the work we laid down prior to, and during the meeting in Oslo last year, as
well as the CEPEJ evaluation report, Edition 2010
•
•
Comparative element: France, Netherlands, Austria, Switzerland.
Plan:
• Budget
• Number of judges and prosecutors
• Legal aid
• Non-litigious civil cases (timeframes)
• What's going on?
Domstoladministrasjonen
2
Budgets in general
Table 2.1 (Q6, Q13): Nordic countries:
Public budget allocated to courts, legal aid and public prosecution in 2008, in EURO
700 000 000
600 000 000
500 000 000
Public prosecution
Legal aid
Courts
400 000 000
300 000 000
200 000 000
100 000 000
0
Denmark
Domstoladministrasjonen
Finland
Iceland
Norway
Sweden
3
Budgets in general
Distribution of public budget allocated to courts, legal aid and public
prosecution in 2008 (Table 2.1, Q6, Q13, Q16)
Sweden
Norway
Iceland
Finland
Denmark
Switzerland
Austria
Netherlands
France
0%
10 %
20 %
Courts
Domstoladministrasjonen
30 %
40 %
Public prosecution
50 %
60 %
70 %
80 %
Courts and public prosecution
90 %
100 %
Legal aid
4
Budgets in general
Table 2.1 (Q6, Q13): Comments:
•
Norway:
– Only the budget for the higher prosecuting authority is reported.
• The lowest tier of public prosecutor forms part of the police, similar to Denmark
– Justice expenses in the courts: rule based. The courts charge a
centralized budget pool in the Ministry of Justice.
– The justice expenses for the police and the public prosecutor however are
covered by the budget of each police precinct.
• Illustration: Expert opinions from the National Institute of Public Health in
criminal cases involving driving while being intoxicated from drugs, amounts to
approximately 1 400 000 Euro. Part of the budget for the police and thus not
part of our report.
Domstoladministrasjonen
5
Court budgets
Table 2.6 (Q8): Break-down by component of court budget in 2008:
Break-down by component of court budgets in 2008, in EURO
450 000 000
400 000 000
Other
Training and education
Investment new buildings
350 000 000
300 000 000
250 000 000
Court buildings
Justice expenses
200 000 000
Computerisation
Salaries
150 000 000
100 000 000
50 000 000
0
Denmark
Domstoladministrasjonen
Finland
Norway
Sweden
6
Court budgets
Distribution of the main budgetary posts of the courts by country, in %
(Figure 2.7, Q6, Q8)
Sweden
Salaries
Norway
Iceland
Computerisation
Finland
Justice expenses
Denmark
Court buildings
Investment new buildings
Switzerland
Austria
Training and education
Netherlands
Other
France
0%
Domstoladministrasjonen
20 %
40 %
60 %
80 %
100 %
7
Court budgets
Table 2.6 (Q8): Comments:
– The budget to the courts in Norway is significant lower than the budget of
the courts in Sweden, Denmark, and Finland. Why?
• Salaries:
– Number of judges (Table 7.1): Finland (980), Denmark (380), Norway (537), Sweden
(1039). Deputy judges in Denmark.
– Number of non-judge court staff: Denmark (2000), Finland (2514), Norway (792),
Sweden ( 3418).
– Salaries for judges (Q118): Denmark ( 78348 ), Finland ( 53 000), Norway (83 239),
Sweden ( 56 104).
– The difference between Norway and Denmark can mainly be explained by the number
of non-judge staff, c.f. above. The difference is approx. 50 000 000 Euro and approx
1000 more court staff. = 50 000 Euro. This equals an average gross annual salary for
non-judge staff.
– So, why does Denmark have a higher number of non-judge staff than Norway? I will
come back to that later.
Domstoladministrasjonen
8
Judges
Figure 8.3 (Q55): Number of professional judges per 100 000 inhabitants
25
19,9
20
17,4
14,7
15
14,1
13,3
11,3
11,3
9,1
10
6,9
5
Domstoladministrasjonen
tri
Sw
a
it z
er
la
nd
Au
s
s
Ne
th
er
la
nd
an
ce
Fr
Sw
ed
en
ay
w
No
r
Ic
el
an
d
nl
an
d
Fi
De
n
m
ar
k
0
9
Occasional judges
Table 7.4 (Q 49,50): Number of occasional judges per permanent judge
0,6
0,5
0,5
0,4
0,4
0,3
0,2
0,2
0,1
0,1
0,1
0
0
0
Domstoladministrasjonen
tri
Sw
a
it z
er
la
nd
Au
s
s
Ne
th
er
la
nd
an
ce
Fr
Sw
ed
en
ay
w
No
r
Ic
el
an
d
nl
an
d
Fi
De
n
m
ar
k
0
10
Judges
Number of non-judge staff per one professional judge
(Figure 8.3, Q55):
6
5
4
3
2
1
De nm ark
Finland
Ice land
Norw ay
0
Num be r of non-judge
s taff pe r one
profe s s ional judge s
Domstoladministrasjonen
Sw e de n
11
Rechtspfleger/deputy judges/associate judges
Number of rechtspfleger/associate/deputy judges:
500
400
Denm ark
300
Finland
200
Iceland
100
Norw ay
0
Num ber of deputy
judges/rechtspfleger
…
Domstoladministrasjonen
Sw eden
12
Rechtspfleger/deputy judges/associate judges
Deputy judges/ as percentage of professional judges
50
40
Denm ark
30
Finland
20
Iceland
10
Norw ay
0
Sw eden
Percentage of
professional judges
Domstoladministrasjonen
13
Judges in Norway, 2010
Categories of judges in Norway, 2010:
600
Permanent judges
500
Occasional judges
400
300
Temporary appointed
judges, LT
200
Temporary appointed
judges, ST
100
Deputy judges
0
Number of judges
Domstoladministrasjonen
14
Judges
• Terminology
– Permanent vs temporary appointed judges
• occasional judges, rechtspfleger, associate judges, assistant judges,
deputy judges, extraordinary judges
– What implications or significance has the use of temporary
judges?
– Independence (Norwegian experiences, Iceland)
– Flexibility ( court management and judicial structural reforms)
– Training and recruitment, or cheap judges?
• Applied to the CEPEJ report (judges, non-judge staff)
–
–
–
–
Norwegian deputy judges are excluded from the Norwegian report
Danish deputy judges form part of non-judge staff in the EVAL.
Sweden: Associate judges are not included in the number of judges (table 7.1). They
are further not included in the number of non-judge staff? Only Fiskal and assessor
(Notarie (first two years) are not included?
Austria: the number of professional judges includes “substitute judges”. What
characterize these judges compared to occasional judges?
• Returning to the difference in salaries between Denmark and
Norway: Non-judge staff: Land registry cases?
Domstoladministrasjonen
15
Judges
Conclusions:
• Different models – with the exception of Iceland, all countries
appoint temporary judges
• The use of temporary judges is closely linked to
recruitment/career
– The systems for recruitment and career are not homogenous in
the Nordic countries.
Domstoladministrasjonen
16
Prosecutors
Figure 10.2 (Q58) Number of public prosecutors per 100 000 inhabitants
18,0
15,4
16,0
14,0
12,0
11,1
9,0
10,0
8,0
6,2
6,0
5,5
4,6
3,1
4,0
3,8
3,0
2,0
Domstoladministrasjonen
er
la
nd
a
it z
A
us
nd
s
tr
i
Sw
N
et
he
rla
Fr
an
ce
Sw
ed
en
ay
N
or
w
d
el
an
Ic
an
d
Fi
nl
D
en
m
ar
k
0,0
17
Prosecutors
Comments/conclusions:
– Finland:
• The role of the prosecutor differs from the rest of the Nordic countries
• Structural reforms
• Separate governing body
–
Norway:
• High number of prosecutors + low budget
• Only budget for higher prosecuting authority is reported. Salaries for lower
prosecuting authority, including staff, is part of the police budget.
• But – why the high number?
– Chief of Police is also part of the prosecuting authorities, and thus included ( 29)
• Some thoughts on reforms related to the prosecuting authorities (Norway).
Domstoladministrasjonen
18
Legal aid
• Professor Jon T. Johnson´s presentation in Oslo
– Norway versus Finland
• We spend more money, but get less out than Finland.
• Legal aid reform in the horizon
Domstoladministrasjonen
19
Annual public budget allocated to legal aid
as part (in %) of the GDP per capita, in 2008
(Figure 2.16, Q3, Q13)
Finland
0,03 %
Denmark
0,03 %
Sweden
0,05 %
Norway
0,05 %
Iceland
Austria
France
Switzerland
0,11 %
0,01 %
0,02 %
0,02 %
Netherlands
0,00 %
Domstoladministrasjonen
0,07 %
0,05 %
0,10 %
0,15 %
20
Legal aid
Norway: Annual budget allocated to legal aid per inhabitant, in EURO
35,0
30,0
25,0
20,0
15,0
10,0
5,0
0,0
2004
Domstoladministrasjonen
2006
2008
21
Non-litigious cases
• The term ”non-litigious cases”
– How is the term understood?
• From the explanatory note: ” Non-litigious cases concern for example
uncontested payment orders, request for the change of names, divorce cases
with mutual consent (for some legal systems), etc.”
• Finland: A vast amount of the non-litigious cases are non-contested claims, like
payment order cases. Non-litigious divorce cases.
• Norway: We have defined non-litigious cases as bankruptcy and probate cases.
– NAP: Non-litigious divorce, non contested payment order
• Sweden: Non-litigious divorce cases.
• Denmark: Paternity, adoption, guardianship and other cases.
– The term as an indicator on the development of the role of
the judiciary
• Recent reforms and future reforms
– Internal discussions in the Norwegian Courts Administration
– Finland, c.f. below.
Domstoladministrasjonen
22
Extract from figure 9.9
Clearance rate of civil litigious and
non-litigious cases
in 2008, in % (Q90)
84,4
Norway
105,1
99,3
Sweden
99,0
102,5
Denmark
97,8
95,2
Finland
96,9
0
20
40
Civil litigious cases
Domstoladministrasjonen
60
80
100
120
Civil non-litigious cases
23
Extract from figure 9.11
Disposition time of litigious and nonlitigious civil (and commercial) cases in 1st
instance courts in 2008, in days (Q90)
241,0
Norway
148,0
153,0
Sweden
197,0
244,0
Denmark
206,0
84,0
Finland
230,0
0
50
100
Civil (and commercial) litigious cases
Domstoladministrasjonen
150
200
250
300
Civil (and commercial) non-litigious cases
24
Number of incoming civil (and commercial)
non-litigious cases at 1st instance courts
in 2008 (Q90)
300 000
268 554
250 000
200 000
150 000
100 000
50 000
12 019
21 098
5 049
0
Norway
Domstoladministrasjonen
Sweden
Denmark
Finland
25
Non-litigious cases
Conclusions:
– The term non-litigious seems to be applied differently.
– Non-litigious cases, land registry cases and business register cases as an
indicator on court development/the role of the judiciary in society
• Cultivation of the adjudicatory function
• With the exception of Denmark, all Nordic countries have moved land registry
cases and business register cases out of the courts.
– Denmark established the Land Registry Court in 2008.
• Discussions in Finland (and Norway) regarding non-litigious cases, c.f. below.
Domstoladministrasjonen
26
What's going on?
• Denmark – recent developments (1)
– ”A mayor budget cut is on the table. We are going to negotiate with the
Ministry of Finance, since it is our opinion that such a cut in the budget
will have a major influence on both the number of pending cases and
case processing time”.
– After four years of challenges, the Danish Court Reform of 2007 is
gradually falling in place. 82 district courts were merged into 24, and with
the financial crisis creating a surge of incoming cases (+ 30 %) in the
district courts, processing times had to go up.
– In 2010, Danish district courts for the first time since 2007 managed to
reduce the pile of court cases, and the first signs of reduced processing
times were seen. Most new district courts have moved into new buildings
and more will follow in 2012. A recent survey showed a huge increase in
employee motivation and satisfaction, which adds to the picture of a
reform process coming to an end.
Domstoladministrasjonen
27
What's going on?
• Denmark – recent developments (2)
–
The new digitized and semi-automated land registration system has experienced
numerous problems after its introduction in September 2009. Today, most of the
initial problems have been solved. All two million cases a year are handled
electronically, and 70 % of the cases are handled automatically without human
intervention. In the remaining 30 % of the cases, the process is partly automated. 90
% of all cases are processed within 10 days – automated cases within a few
minutes.
- In November 2010 the system was extended to registration of vehicles, and in
March 2011 cooperative housing and the remaining individual and commercial rights
requiring registration will be added, thereby completing the system.
- All cases that are not handled automatically are dealt with by The Court of Land
Registration in the northern part of Denmark (Hobro). Total staff working on land
registration has been reduced by two thirds.
Domstoladministrasjonen
28
What's going on?
• Denmark – recent developments (3)
–
The Danish Court Administration is conducting a renewal of all case handling
systems in the Danish court system. The existing seven different case handling
systems developed in the 90’s will be replaced by a single system based on modern
standard technologies. The new system will enable systematic (and secure)
electronic communication between courts, citizens, and professional users. The
system is developed in small steps (“sprints”) replacing parts of the old system with
building blocks of the new system. To reduce risk and allow for involvement of users
in the test of pilots and prototypes, the change will come gradually, and the old
system is expected to co-exist with parts of the new system for several years to
come.
Domstoladministrasjonen
29
What's going on?
•
Finland:
•
”In Finland we are having election within fortnight. The new government will adopt a new program.
The MoJ in Finland has proposed that we would adopt an approach that would mean moving nonlitigious cases out of the court. (Renodling av domaryrke).
We took the first step into this direction by moving land registry cases out of the
courts at the beginning of 2010. Some 300 000 cases were moved to the
National Land Survey.
•
One of the biggest group of current cases in the court system is non-contested civil cases.
In Sweden this kind of cases are taken care of by execution system (Kronofogde).
But it remains to be seen what the new government thinks about this.
•
Hottest topic for the judicial system is the working group report published last wednesday:
the working group proposes that two appeal courts should merge. Today we have
six court of appeal and in the future there would be one less that is five of them if the proposal is
adopted by the new government. At the time being we have eight administrative courts.
The same working group proposes that we should merge for of them and have two less
administrative courts. However, also this reform requires that it is included in the program of
the new government.”
Domstoladministrasjonen
30
What's going on?
• Iceland
–
“We are now, more than ever, discussing the establishing of the third instance in the
court system, that is an Appeal Court. We have only had two instances, the District
Courts and the Supreme Court, and now because of the economical crisis the
workload of the courts, and especially in the Supreme Court, is increasing rapidly”.
Domstoladministrasjonen
31
What's going on?
• Norway:
–
The follow up to the White Paper to the Parliament on legal aid run by the MoJ: pilots
on a first line legal aid service, preparation of new legislation on legal aid.
•
Objectives: Resolving conflicts at the earliest stage possible and thus reducing the burden of
living in conflicts, financial consequences for the parties, and pressure on the courts.
–
A Project led by the Head of the Department of Information and Communication
Technology in the NCA that involve all parts of the justice sector as well as the
immigration authorities, is about to finalize a draft strategy for a common initiative on
ICT, with a special focus on interoperability.
–
The structural reform in the courts that has commenced in 2004,ended on 1 January
2011 when the last affected first instance courts were merged together.
–
Cultivation of the courts adjudicate role. Has been and still is a hot topic.
Domstoladministrasjonen
32
What's going on?
• Sweden:
– “The work with digital exchange of information between eleven authorities
in the chain handling information about criminal cases continues. The
project is called Information Management in the Judiciary. Among the
eleven authorities are the National Police Board, The Swedish
Prosecution Authority, the general courts (the project is for the courts
handled by The National Courts Administration) and the Swedish Prison
and Probation Service. One part of the increased electronic flow of
information between authorities is the new reporting system which will be
an efficient way for courts to report information on criminal judgments
directly to the relevant authorities. The new reporting system should be
introduced, tested and commissioned by December 10, 2012. The work
therefore is intensified.”
Domstoladministrasjonen
33
FIN
Domstoladministrasjonen
34
Документ
Категория
Презентации
Просмотров
2
Размер файла
625 Кб
Теги
1/--страниц
Пожаловаться на содержимое документа