EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 8.6.2023

COM(2023) 309 final

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

2023 EU Justice Scoreboard

   1.    Introduction 

Effective justice systems are essential for the application and enforcement of EU law and upholding the rule of law and other values the EU is founded on and which are common to the Member States. National courts act as EU courts when applying EU law. It is national courts in the first place that ensure that the rights and obligations set in EU law are enforced effectively (Article 19 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU)).

In addition, effective justice systems are also essential for mutual trust and for improving the investment climate and the sustainability of long-term growth. This is why improving the efficiency, quality and independence of national justice systems features among the priorities of the European Semester – the EU’s annual cycle of economic policy coordination. The 2023 annual sustainable growth survey ( 1 ), which sets out the economic and employment policy priorities for the EU, confirms the link between effective justice systems and Member States’ business environment, and an economy that works for people. Well-functioning and fully independent justice systems can have a positive impact on investment and are key for investment protection, and therefore contribute to productivity and competitiveness. They are also important for ensuring the effective cross-border enforcement of contracts, administrative decisions and dispute resolution, essential for the functioning of the single market ( 2 ).

In this context, the EU Justice Scoreboard gives an annual overview of indicators focusing on the essential parameters of effective justice systems:

-efficiency;

-quality;

-independence.

The 2023 Scoreboard further develops the indicators for all three aspects, including on accessibility to justice for persons at risk of discrimination and older persons, and again on the digitalisation of justice, which has played a crucial role in keeping the courts functioning during the COVID-19 pandemic and supporting their recovery in its aftermath, as well as more generally, to promote efficient and accessible justice systems ( 3 ). This edition of the Justice Scoreboard strengthens the business dimension on all three aspects by including new data on efficiency in the area of the fight against corruption ( 4 ), an updated chart on the legal safeguards in relation to administrative decisions and continues to present the data on the confidence in investment protection. Finally, the 2023 Scoreboard presents how the justice systems started their recovery from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the efficiency of these systems.

 The Annual Rule of Law Cycle –

As announced in President von der Leyen’s political guidelines, the Commission has established a comprehensive Annual Rule of Law Cycle to deepen its monitoring of the situation in Member States. The Rule of Law Cycle acts as a preventive tool, deepening dialogue and joint awareness of rule of law issues. At the centre of the new cycle is the annual Rule of Law Report, which provides a synthesis of significant developments – both positive and negative – in all Member States and the Union as a whole. The Reports, including its 2022 edition, published on 13 July 2022, draw on a variety of sources, including the EU Justice Scoreboard ( 5 ). Moreover, as announced by President von der Leyen in her 2021 State of the Union Speech, the 2022 Rule of Law Report includes recommendations to Member States. The 2023 EU Justice Scoreboard has also been further developed to reflect the need for additional comparative information identified during the preparation of the 2022 Rule of Law Report, so as to support forthcoming Rule of Law Reports, including in the area of the fight against corruption.

2.    Context: Developments in justice reforms in 2022

In 2022, a large number of Member States continued their efforts to further improve the effectiveness of their justice systems. Figure 1 presents an updated overview of adopted and planned measures across several areas of justice systems in Member States engaged in reforming their justice systems.

Figure 1: Legislative and regulatory activity concerning justice systems in 2022 (adopted measures/initiatives under negotiation in each Member State) (source: European Commission ( 38 ))

In 2022, procedural law continued to be an area of particular focus in many Member States, with a significant amount of ongoing or planned legislative activity. Reforms concerning the status of judges, the rules for legal professionals, as well as rules for public prosecution service, also saw significant activity. Following the process of introducing legislation for the use of information and communication technologies (ICT) in a number of Member States in 2021, a large number of the proposed legislation has been adopted in 2022. The momentum from preceding years for measures concerning the administration of courts continued in 2022. Four Member States are planning to use artificial intelligence in their justice systems, however, no legislation was adopted in 2022. The overview confirms the observation that justice reforms require time – sometimes several years – from their announcement, until the adoption of the legislative and regulatory measures and their implementation on the ground.

3.    Key findings of the 2023 EU Justice Scoreboard

Efficiency, quality and independence are the main parameters of an effective justice system, for all three of which the Scoreboard presents indicators.

3.1. Efficiency of justice systems

The Scoreboard presents indicators for the efficiency of proceedings in the broad areas of civil, commercial and administrative cases and in specific areas where administrative authorities and courts apply EU law ( 39 ). 

The efficiency related indicators in 2021, in particular the number of incoming cases, clearance rate and disposition time, show the first signs of recovery from the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, which affected Member States in different ways (e.g. in terms of timing or severity) ( 40 ).

3.1.1. Developments in caseload

The caseload of national justice systems decreased notable in three Member States, compared to the previous year, while increasing in four or remaining stable in 14. Overall, it continues to vary considerably between Member States (Figure 2). This is testament to how important it is to remain attentive to caseload developments to ensure the effectiveness of justice systems.

Figure 2: Number of incoming civil, commercial, administrative and other cases in 2012, 2019 – 2021 (*) (1st instance/per 100 inhabitants) (source: CEPEJ study ( 41 ))

(*) Under the CEPEJ methodology, this category includes all civil and commercial litigious and non-litigious cases, non-litigious land and business registry cases, other registry cases, other non-litigious cases, administrative law cases and other non-criminal cases.

Figure 3: Number of incoming civil and commercial litigious cases in 2012, 2019 – 2021 (*) (1st instance/per 100 inhabitants) (source: CEPEJ study)

(*) Under the CEPEJ methodology, litigious civil/commercial cases concern disputes between parties, e.g. disputes about contracts. Non-litigious civil/commercial cases concern uncontested proceedings, e.g. uncontested payment orders. Methodology changes in EL and SK. Data for NL include non-litigious cases.

Figure 4: Number of incoming administrative cases in 2012, 2019 – 2021 (*) (1st instance/per 100 inhabitants) (source: CEPEJ study)

(*) Under the CEPEJ methodology, administrative law cases concern disputes between individuals and local, regional or national authorities. DK and IE do not record administrative cases separately. Removal from judicial procedure of some administrative procedures occurred in RO in 2018. Methodology changes in EL, SK and SE. In SE, migration cases have been included under administrative cases (retroactively applied for 2017).

3.1.2. General data on efficiency

The indicators on the efficiency of proceedings in the broad areas of civil, commercial and administrative cases are: (i) estimated length of proceedings (disposition time), (ii) clearance rate, and (iii) number of pending cases.

 Estimated length of proceedings –

The length of proceedings indicates the estimated time (in days) needed to resolve a case in court, meaning the time taken by the court to reach a decision at first instance. The ‘disposition time’ indicator is the number of unresolved cases divided by the number of resolved cases at the end of a year multiplied by 365 (days) ( 42 ). It is a calculated quantity that indicates the estimated minimum time that a court would need to resolve a case while maintaining the current working conditions. The higher the value, the higher is the probability that it takes the court longer to reach a decision. Figures mostly concern proceedings at first instance courts and compare, where available, data for 2012, 2019, 2020 and 2021 ( 43 ). Figures 7 and 9 show the disposition time in 2021 in civil and commercial litigious cases, and administrative cases at all court instances.

Figure 5: Estimated time needed to resolve civil, commercial, administrative and other cases in 2012, 2019 – 2021 (*) (1st instance/in days) (source: CEPEJ study)

(*) Under the CEPEJ methodology, this category includes all civil and commercial litigious and non-litigious cases, non-litigious land and business registry cases, other registry cases, other non-litigious cases, administrative law cases and other non-criminal cases. Methodology changes in SK. Pending cases include all instances in CZ and, until 2016, in SK. LV: the sharp decrease is due to court system reform, error checks and data clean-ups of the information system.

Figure 6: Estimated time needed to resolve litigious civil and commercial cases at first instance in 2012, 2019 – 2021 (*) (1st instance/in days) (source: CEPEJ study)

(*) Under the CEPEJ methodology, litigious civil/commercial cases concern disputes between parties, e.g. disputes about contracts. Non-litigious civil/commercial cases concern uncontested proceedings, e.g. uncontested payment orders. Methodology changes in EL and SK. Pending cases include all instances in CZ and, up to 2016, in SK. IT: the temporary slowdown of judicial activity due to strict restrictive measures to address the COVID-19 pandemic affected the disposition time. Data for NL include non-litigious cases.

Figure 7: Estimated time needed to resolve litigious civil and commercial cases at all court instances in 2021 (*) (1st, 2nd and 3rd instance/in days) (source: CEPEJ study)

(*) The order is determined by the court instance with the longest proceedings in each Member State. No data are available for first and second instance courts in BE and BG, for second instance courts in NL, for second and third instance courts in AT or for third instance courts in DE and HR. There is no third instance court in DE and MT. IT: The temporary slowdown of judicial activity due to strict restrictive measures to address the COVID-19 pandemic affected the disposition time. Access to a third instance court may be limited in some Member States.

Figure 8: Estimated time needed to resolve administrative cases at first instance in 2012, 2019 – 2021 (*) (1st instance/in days) (source: CEPEJ study)

(*) Administrative law cases concern disputes between individuals and local, regional or national authorities, under the CEPEJ methodology. Methodology changes in EL and SK. Pending cases include courts of all instances in CZ and, until 2016, in SK. DK and IE do not record administrative cases separately. CY: in 2018, the number of resolved cases increased because cases were tried together, 2 724 consolidated cases were withdrawn and an administrative court was set up in 2015.

Figure 9: Estimated time needed to resolve administrative cases at all court instances in 2021 (*) (1st and, where applicable, 2nd and 3rd instance/in days) (source: CEPEJ study)

(*) The order is determined by the court instance with the longest proceedings in each Member State. No data available for second instance courts in BE, CZ, HU, MT, AT, RO, SI, SK and FI, for third instance courts in CY, LT, LU, MT and PL. The supreme, or other highest court, is the only appeal instance in CZ, IT, CY, AT, SI and FI. There is no third instance court for these types of cases in LT, LU and MT. The highest Administrative Court is the first and only instance for certain cases in BE. Access to third instance courts may be limited in some Member States. DK and IE do not record administrative cases separately.

 Clearance rate –

The clearance rate is the ratio of the number of resolved cases over the number of incoming cases. It measures whether a court is keeping up with its incoming caseload. When the clearance rate is around 100% or higher, it means the judicial system is able to resolve at least as many cases as come in. When the clearance rate is below 100%, it means that the courts are resolving fewer cases than the number of incoming cases.

Figure 10: Rate of resolving civil, commercial, administrative and other cases in 2012, 2019 – 2021 (*) (1st instance/in % — values higher than 100% indicate that more cases are resolved than come in, while values below 100% indicate that fewer cases are resolved than come in) (source: CEPEJ study)

(*) Under the CEPEJ methodology, this category includes all civil and commercial litigious and non-litigious cases, non-litigious land and business registry cases, other registry cases, other non-litigious cases, administrative law cases and other non-criminal cases. Methodology changes in SK. IE: the number of resolved cases is expected to be underreported due to the methodology. IT: different classification of civil cases introduced in 2013.

Figure 11: Rate of resolving litigious civil and commercial cases in 2012, 2019 – 2021 (*) (1st instance/in %) (source: CEPEJ study)

(*) Methodology changes in EL and SK. IE: the number of resolved cases is expected to be underreported due to the methodology. IT: different classification of civil cases introduced in 2013. Data for NL include non-litigious cases.

Figure 12: Rate of resolving administrative cases in 2012, 2019 – 2021 (*) (1st instance/in %) (source: CEPEJ study)

(*) Past values for some Member States have been reduced for presentation purposes (CY in 2018 = 219%; IT in 2012=279.8%); Methodology changes in EL and SK. DK and IE do not record administrative cases separately. In CY, the number of resolved cases has increased because cases were tried together, 2 724 consolidated cases were withdrawn and an administrative court was set up in 2015.

 Pending cases –

The number of pending cases expresses the number of cases that remains to be dealt with at the end of the year in question. It also affects disposition time.

Figure 13: Number of pending civil, commercial and administrative and other cases in 2012, 2019 – 2021 (*) (1st instance/per 100 inhabitants) (source: CEPEJ study)

(*) Under the CEPEJ methodology, this category includes all civil and commercial litigious and non-litigious cases, non-litigious land and business registry cases, other registry cases, other non-litigious cases, administrative law cases and other non-criminal cases. Methodology changes in SK. Pending cases include cases before courts of all instances in CZ and, until 2016, in SK. IT: different classification of civil cases introduced in 2013.

Figure 14: Number of pending litigious civil and commercial cases in 2012, 2019 – 2021 (*) (1st instance/per 100 inhabitants) (source: CEPEJ study)

(*) Methodology changes in EL and SK. Pending cases include cases before courts of all instances in CZ and, until 2016, in SK. IT: different classification of civil cases introduced in 2013. Data for NL include non-litigious cases.

Figure 15: Number of pending administrative cases in 2012, 2019 – 2021 (*) (1st instance/per 100 inhabitants) (source: CEPEJ study)

(*) Past values for some Member States have been reduced for presentation purposes (EL in 2012 = 3.5). Methodology changes in EL and SK. Pending cases include cases before courts of all instances in CZ and, until 2016, in SK. DK and IE do not record administrative cases separately.

3.1.3. Efficiency in specific areas of EU law

This section complements the general data on the efficiency of justice systems and presents the average length of proceedings ( 44 ) in specific areas of EU law. The 2023 Scoreboard builds on previous data for competition, electronic communications, the EU trademark, consumer law and anti-money laundering. A sixth area is added, to include data on anti-corruption proceedings, in light of the recent proposal on this topic ( 45 ). The now six areas have been selected because of their relevance for the single market and the business environment. This edition continues with the overview of efficiency of administrative authorities with updated figures on the areas of competition and consumer protection. In general, long delays in judicial and administrative proceedings may have negative impacts on rights stemming from EU law e.g. when appropriate remedies are no longer available or serious financial damages become irrecoverable. For business in particular, administrative delays and uncertainty in some cases can lead to significant costs and undermine planned or existing investments ( 46 ).

– Competition –

The effective enforcement of competition law is essential for an attractive business environment as it ensures a level playing field for businesses. It encourages enterprise and efficiency, creates a wider choice for consumers and helps reduce prices and improve quality. Figure 17 presents the average length of cases against the decisions of national competition authorities applying Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) ( 47 ). Figure 18 presents the average length of proceedings before the national competition authorities when applying Articles 101 and 102 of the TFEU.

Figure 16: Competition: average length of judicial review in 2013, 2019 – 2021 (*) (1st instance/in days) (source: European Commission with the European Competition Network)

(*) IE and AT: the scenario is not applicable as the authorities do not have powers to take respective decisions. AT: data include cases decided by the Cartel Court involving an infringement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU, but not based on appeals against the national competition authority. An estimation of length was used for IT. An empty column can indicate that the Member State reported no cases for the year in question. The number of cases is low (below five a year) in many Member States. This can make the annual data dependent on one exceptionally long or short case (e.g. MT were there was only one case).

Figure 17: Competition: average length of proceedings before the national competition authorities in 2020-2021 (*) (in days) (source: European Commission with the European Competition Network)

(*) In 10 Member States the number of cases is limited. It must be taken into account that some Member States count the days for the length of proceedings from different starting points. With a few exceptions below, most Member States consider a case open when the investigation is open. In the NL, the case is considered open when the Statement of Objection is sent, while in CZ and SK a case is considered open when the administrative proceedings open. In the latter case, this is an intermediate phase between the opening of the investigation and the sending of the Statement of Objection. There are also a number of factors that may impact the length of proceedings before the national competition authorities. These include the nature and complexity of the case, the time it takes to collect the economic data and the conclusion of the economic analysis, the deadline extensions at the requests of the parties, the repetition of hearings and court actions. The COVID-19 pandemic also had an impact on the length of proceedings.

– Electronic communications –

The objective of EU electronic communications legislation is to raise competition, to contribute to the development of the single market and to generate investment, innovation and growth. The positive effects for consumers can be achieved through effective enforcement of this legislation which can lead to lower prices for end users and better quality services. Figure 18 presents the average length of judicial review cases against the decisions of national regulatory authorities applying EU law on electronic communications ( 48 ). It covers a broad range of cases, ranging from more complex ‘market analysis’ reviews to more straightforward consumer-focused issues. 

Figure 18: Electronic communications: average length of judicial review in 2013, 2019 – 2021 (*) (1st instance/in days) (source: European Commission with the Communications Committee)

(*) The number of cases varies from one Member State to another. An empty column indicates that the Member State reported no cases for the year (except PT for 2019-20, and RO no data). In some instances, the limited number of relevant cases (BG, CY, MT, NL, SK, FI, SE) can make the annual data dependent on one exceptionally long or short case and result in wide variations from one year to the next. DK: quasi-judicial body in charge of 1st instance appeals. EE: The average length of judicial review cases in 2013 was 18 days. ES, AT, and PL: different courts in charge depending on the subject matter.

– EU trademark –

Effective enforcement of intellectual property rights is essential to stimulate investment in innovation. EU legislation on EU trademarks ( 49 ) gives the national courts a significant role to play, in acting as EU courts and taking decisions that affect the single market. Figure 19 shows the average length of EU trademark infringement cases in litigation between private parties.

Figure 19: EU trademark: average length of EU trademark infringement cases in 2013, 2019 – 2021 (*) (1st instance/in days) (source: European Commission with the European Observatory on infringements of intellectual property rights)

(*) FR, IT, LT, LU: a sample of cases used for data for certain years. DK: data from all trademark cases (not only EU) in Commercial and Maritime High Courts; for 2018 and 2019, no data on average length due to changes in data collection system. EL: data based on weighted average length from two courts. ES: cases concerning other EU IP titles are included in the calculation of average length.

– Consumer protection –

Effective enforcement of consumer law ensures that consumers benefit from their rights and that companies infringing consumer laws do not gain an unfair advantage. Consumer protection authorities and courts play a key role in enforcing EU consumer law ( 50 ) within the various national enforcement systems. Figure 20 illustrates the average length of judicial review cases against decisions of consumer protection authorities applying EU law.

For consumers or companies, effective enforcement can involve a chain of actors, not only courts but also administrative authorities. To shed more light on this enforcement chain, the length of proceedings by consumer authorities is presented. Figure 21 shows the average length of time it took for administrative decisions by national consumer protection authorities in 2014, 2019-2021 from the moment a case is opened. Relevant decisions include declaring infringements of substantive rules, interim measures, cease and desist orders, initiation of court proceedings or case closure.

Figure 20: Consumer protection: average length of judicial review in 2013, 2019 – 2021 (*) (1st instance/in days) (source: European Commission with the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network)

(*) DE, LU, AT: scenario is not applicable as consumer authorities are not empowered to decide on infringements of relevant consumer rules. The number of relevant cases for 2020 is low (fewer than five) in IE and FI. An estimate of average length was provided by EL and RO for certain years.

Figure 21: Consumer protection: average length of administrative decisions by consumer protection authorities in 2014, 2019 – 2021 (*) (1st instance/in days) (source: European Commission with the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network)

(*) DE, LU, AT: scenario is not applicable as consumer authorities are not empowered to decide on infringements of relevant consumer rules. An estimate of average length was provided by DK, EL, FR, RO and FI for certain years.

– Money laundering –

In addition to depriving criminals of resources for perpetrating their illicit acts, the fight against money laundering is crucial for the soundness, integrity and stability of the financial sector, confidence in the financial system and fair competition in the single market ( 51 ). Money laundering can discourage foreign investment, distort international capital flows and negatively affect a country’s macroeconomic performance, resulting in welfare losses, thereby draining resources from more productive economic activities ( 52 ). The Anti-money laundering Directive requires Member States to maintain statistics on the effectiveness of their systems to combat money laundering or terrorist financing ( 53 ). In cooperation with Member States, an updated questionnaire was used to collect data on the judicial stages in national anti-money laundering regimes. Figure 22 shows the average length of first instance court cases dealing with money laundering criminal offences.

Figure 22: Money laundering: average length of court cases in 2014, 2019 – 2021(*) (1st instance/in days) (source: European Commission with the Expert Group on Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism)

(*) No data for 2021: BE, DE, FR, HR, IT and RO. BG: The average length of the cases is calculated from the day of opening the court case to the day of the court decision in months. PT: the database was filtered, for each and every judicial county, by the relevant criteria to reach the information related to money laundering files; regarding the average number of days, the dates of infraction and the date of final decision or closure were considered. CY: Serious cases, before the Assize Court, are on average tried within a year. Less serious offences, before the District Courts, take longer to be tried. SK*: data correspond to average length of the whole proceedings, including at appeal court.

– Anti-corruption –

Corruption is an impediment to sustainable economic growth, diverting resources from productive outcomes, undermining the efficiency of public spending and deepening social inequalities. It hampers the effective and smooth functioning of the single market, creates uncertainties in doing business and holds back investment. Corruption is particularly complex to tackle since, unlike most crimes, both parties involved in a corruption case are interested in maintaining secrecy about it, contributing to a general difficulty to quantify the magnitude of corruption cases in any country. Corruption is a particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension addressed in Article 83(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union that can only be effectively tackled by common minimum rules across the European Union. On 3 May 2023, the Commission adopted a proposal for a Directive on combating corruption by criminal law and a joint communication on the fight against corruption ( 54 ). The proposal for a directive updates and harmonises EU rules on the definitions of and penalties for corruption offences, to ensure high standards against the full range of corruption offences (i.e. bribery, but also misappropriation, trading in influence, abuse of functions, as well as obstruction of justice and the illicit enrichment related to corruption offence) to better prevent corruption and to improve enforcement. In cooperation with Member States, a new questionnaire was developed to collect data on the length of court proceedings before first instance courts in bribery cases, which is presented in Figure 23 below ( 55 ). 

Figure 23: Corruption (bribery): average length of court cases in 2021 (*) (1st instance/in days) (source: European Commission with the National Contact Points for Anti-corruption)

(*) No reply on this question from MT and CY. For BE, EE, DE, IE, EL, ES and IT the exact number of days is not available. NL: The average processing time for the 27 cases is 443 days. However, the indictment/subpoena at this starting point is not yet final, and often the case is not yet ready for trial, so it takes some time before it is placed in a hearing. If the starting point is the first hearing and the endpoint is the date of the final verdict (by a first instance judge), then the average processing time for the abovementioned cases is 100 days.

3.1.4. Summary on the efficiency of justice systems

3.2. Quality of justice systems

There is no single way of measuring the quality of justice systems. The 2023 EU Justice Scoreboard continues to examine factors that are generally accepted as relevant for improving the quality of justice. They fall into four categories:

1) accessibility of justice for citizens and businesses;

2) adequate financial and human resources;

3) putting in place of assessment tools;

4) digitalisation.

3.2.1. Accessibility

Accessibility is required throughout the whole justice chain to enable people to obtain relevant information – about the justice system, about how to initiate a claim and the related financial aspects, about the state of play of proceedings up until their end – and to access the judgment online.

– Legal aid, court fees and legal fees –

The cost of litigation is a key factor that determines access to justice. High litigation costs, including court fees ( 58 ) and legal fees ( 59 ), may hinder access to justice. Litigation costs in civil and commercial matters are not harmonised at EU level. Governed by national legislation, they vary from one Member State to another.

Access to legal aid is a fundamental right enshrined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU ( 60 ). It allows access to justice to people who would not otherwise be able to bear or advance the costs of litigation. Most Member States grant legal aid based on the applicant’s income ( 61 ).

Figure 24 shows the availability of full or partial legal aid in a specific consumer case involving a claim of EUR 6 000. It compares the income thresholds for granting legal aid, expressed as a percentage of the Eurostat poverty threshold for each Member State ( 62 ). For example, if the threshold for legal aid appears to be at 20%, it means that an applicant with an income 20% higher than the Eurostat poverty threshold for their Member State will still be eligible for legal aid. However, if the threshold for legal aid appears to be below 0, this means that a person with an income below the poverty threshold may not be eligible for legal aid.

Nine Member States operate a legal aid system that provides for 100% coverage of the costs linked to litigation (full legal aid), complemented by a system covering partial costs (partial legal aid), the latter applying eligibility criteria different from that of the former. Ten Member States operate only a full or partial legal aid system. In three Member States, the courts have a discretion over granting legal aid.

Figure 24: Income threshold for legal aid in a specific consumer case, 2022 (*) (differences in % from Eurostat poverty threshold) (source: European Commission with the Council of Bar and Law Societies in Europe (CCBE) ( 63 ))

(*) Calculations are based on 2021 at-risk-of-poverty (AROP) threshold values. BE, DE, ES, FR, HR, IE, IT, LT, LU, NL, SI, SK, FI: legal aid has to also take into account the applicant’s disposable assets. EE: decision to grant legal aid is not based on the level of the applicant’s financial resources. EL: Beneficiary of legal aid is the person whose capital annual income does not exceed the 2/3 of the lowest annual salaries as provided by the existing legislation.

21 Member States require parties to pay a court fee when starting judicial proceedings. Recipients of legal aid are often exempt from paying court fees. Only in six Member States (Bulgaria, Estonia, Ireland, the Netherlands, Poland and Slovenia) are recipients of legal aid not automatically exempt from paying court fees. In Czechia, the court decides on a case-by-case basis whether or not to exempt a legal aid recipient from paying court fees. In Luxembourg, litigants who benefit from legal aid do not have to pay bailiff fees. Figure 25 compares, for two scenarios, the amount of the court fee presented as a proportion of the value of the claim. If, for example, in the figure below the court fee is 10% of a EUR 6 000 claim, the consumer will have to pay a EUR 600 court fee to start judicial proceedings. The low value claim is based on the Eurostat at-risk-of-poverty (AROP) threshold for each Member State.

Figure 25: Court fee to start judicial proceedings in a specific consumer case, 2022 (*) (amount of court fee as a proportion of the value of the claim) (source: European Commission with the Council of Bar and Law Societies in Europe (CCBE) ( 64 ))

(*) Calculations are based on 2021 at-risk-of-poverty (AROP) threshold values. ‘Low value claim’ is a claim corresponding to the Eurostat poverty threshold for a single person in each Member State, converted to monthly income (e.g. in 2021, this value ranged from EUR 242 in RO to EUR 2124 in LU).EE, PT: No data on the court fee for a low value claim. NL: Court fees values correspond to a litigant with less than EUR 29400 annual income.

– Accessing alternative dispute resolution methods –

Figure 26 shows Member States’ efforts to promote the voluntary use of alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods with specific incentives. These may vary depending on the area of law ( 65 ).

Figure 26: Promotion of and incentives for using ADR methods, 2022 (*) (source: European Commission ( 66 ))

(*) Maximum possible: 68 points. Aggregated indicators based on the following indicators: 1) website providing information on ADR; 2) media publicity campaigns; 3) brochures for the general public; 4) provision by the court of specific information sessions on ADR upon request; 5) court ADR/mediation coordinator; 6) publication of evaluations on the use of ADR; 7) publication of statistics on the use of ADR; 8) partial or full coverage by legal aid of costs ADR incurred; 9) full or partial refund of court fees, including stamp duties, if ADR is successful; 10) no requirement for a lawyer for ADR procedures; 11) judge can act as a mediator; 12) agreement reached by the parties becomes enforceable by the court; 13) possibility to initiate proceedings/file a claim and submit documentary evidence online; 14) parties can be informed of the initiation and different steps of procedures electronically; 15) possibility of online payment of applicable fees; 16) use of technology (artificial intelligence applications, chat bots) to facilitate the submission and resolution of disputes; and 17) other means. For each of these 17 indicators, one point was awarded for each area of law. IE: administrative cases fall into the category of civil and commercial cases. EL: ADR exists in public procurement procedures before administrative courts of appeal. ES: ADR is mandatory in labour law cases. PT: for civil/commercial disputes, court fees are refunded only in the case of justices for peace. SK: the Slovak legal order does not support the use of ADR for administrative purposes. FI: consumer and labour disputes are also considered to be civil cases. SE: judges have procedural discretion on ADR. Seeking an amicable dispute settlement is a mandatory task for the judge unless it is inappropriate due to the nature of the case. 

– Specific arrangements for access to justice –

The 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard presented a dedicated figure on specific arrangements to facilitate equal access to justice of persons with disabilities. This edition continues a deeper exploration of selected specific arrangements that facilitate equal access to justice to persons at risk of discrimination overall and two specific groups: older persons and victims of violence against women and domestic violence.

The two figures below show what steps each Member State undertook to facilitate the access to justice for the respective groups. Figure 27 displays selected specific arrangements with regard to persons who are at risk of discrimination, as well as older persons. These are, among others, the availability of information in accessible formats, ensuring physical access to court buildings and court rooms, or enabling participation of non-governmental organisations and equality bodies in judicial proceedings on behalf or in support of the victim(s).

Figure 27: Specific arrangements for access to justice of persons at risk of discrimination and older persons, 2022 (source: European Commission ( 67 ))

Figure 28 shows the effort of Member States to protect and support victims of violence against women/domestic violence 68 and facilitate their access to justice. Access to justice plays an important role in combating violence against women and domestic violence. A coordinated and integrated justice response contributes to the safety and well-being of victims and to preventing re-victimisation.

Figure 28: Specific arrangements for victims of violence against women/domestic violence, 2022 (*) (source: European Commission ( 69 ))

- Selected powers of equality bodies to help victims of discrimination to access justice -

For the first time, the 2023 EU Justice Scoreboard provides an overview of selected specific powers of equality bodies to assist victims of discrimination to access justice. Figure 29 below shows which powers the equality body(ies) – or in certain cases other specific bodies – hold in each Member State to resolve cases of discrimination. These are, among others, offering the parties the possibility to seek an alternative resolution to their dispute (for example mediation or conciliation procedures), issuing binding decisions in discrimination cases, acting in court in cases of discrimination either on behalf of victims or in its own name, or submitting observations to the court as amicus curiae or expert in cases of discrimination. The exercise of those powers in practice varies depending on the Member State.

Figure 29: Selected powers of equality bodies to help victims of discrimination to access justice, 2022 (*) (source: information compiled based on data collected from Equinet (the European network of equality bodies), national equality bodies and the European Network of legal experts)

(*) A dot reflects that at least one equality body in the Member State has the relevant power. In some Member States, the powers studied are exercised by another entity than the equality body, in which case the table does not contain a dot. BG: According to Act 15/2022, adopted on 12 July 2022.CZ: The Public Defender of Rights is empowered to act as amicus curiae only before constitutional court. It is not formaly empowered to submit observation before courts deciding on discrimination cases. ES: According to Ley 15/2022, adopted on 12 Julio 2022, but not fully implemented yet. 

– Judicial control over public administration in business-related scenarios –

The 2023 EU Justice Scoreboard further develops the overview of selected legal safeguards regarding acts or omissions of administrative authorities in business-related scenarios 70 , started in the 2022 edition of the Scoreboard. Relevant safeguards include the court review of administrative decisions and interim measures, or possibility for financial compensation in the case of administrative silence or an ill-founded decision. All of these contribute to the quality of the justice system, of particular relevance for the business and investment environment and the functioning of the single market.

Figure 30: Legal safeguards regarding decisions or inaction of administrative authorities, 2022 (*) (source: European Commission ( 71 ))

(*) ‘●’: The specific form of state liability is recognised under the legal regime of the Member State and it was applied in practice in at least one court case in the past ten years; ‘○’: The specific form of state liability is recognised under the legal regime of the Member State but it has not been applied in practice in at least one court case in the past ten years. A blank cell should not be understood as a statement related to the existence of requirements under EU law. FR: While in general, administrative silence means tacit approval, in certain exceptional cases listed by law, it means tacit refusal. SK: Court may stay the enforcement of an administrative decision upon proposal in most cases. National references to cases establishing state liability in case of EU law infringement by a decision of the court adjudicating in the last instance (Köbler): CZ: Cases establishing such liability of the state might exist. In several cases concerning such liability of the state, the Supreme Court refered the case back to the first instance for a new hearing but the results of the new proceeding are not publicly available (see, for example, judgment of the Supreme Court of 26 July 2019, No. 30 Cdo 3856/2017, ECLI:CZ:NS:2019:30.CDO.3856.2017.1); DK: The legal basis for financial compensation claims would have to be found in normal Danish legal principles, - namely on the ‘culpa’ principle - requiring for the company to inter alia provide proof of liability. In certain exceptional cases of administrative silence where the failure to act is deemed to be an illegal omission, an authority within the State Administration may order municipalities to act. EE: Supreme Court of Estonia (20.05.2022) judgment of the Administrative Chamber of the Supreme Court in administrative case no 3-20-1684; EL: Council of State decisions of the plenary 799-803/2021; ES: Judgment of the National Audience 415/2009 - Sentencia de la Audiencia Nacional AN 415/2009 - ECLI:ES:AN:2009:415, Audiencia Nacional. Sala de lo Contencioso. Sección:3 10/02/2009, Nº de Recurso:553/2007; FR: Tribunal administratif de Paris, 21 April 2021, n° 1823994 ; HU : Kúria, Pfv. III. 22.112/2012/13. (doctrine confirmed, claim rejected) Kúria, Pfv.III.21.591/2013/5 ; NL: ECLI:NL:HR:2018:2396, ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2021:15447, ECLI:NL:HR:2018:2396; FI : KKO2013:58 ; State liability in case of EU law infringement by legislative or administrative acts (Brasserie du Pêcheur): BE: Civ. Fr. Brussels (4ème ch.) 17 June 2021. Decision of 09.03.2021 of the Brussels Court of Appeal (Fernand Ullens de Schooten v Belgian State); BG: Judgment No. 16 of 2.03.2021 of the SCC in Case No. 1914/2020; CZ: Cases establishing such liability of the state might exist. For example, in several cases concerning such liability of the state, the Supreme Court refered the case back to the first instance for a new hearing but the results of the new proceeding are not publicly available (see, for example, judgment of the Supreme Court of 25 April 2018, No. 30 Cdo 1945/2016, ECLI:CZ:NS:2018:30.CDO.1945.2016.1).; EE: Tallinn Circuit Court 31.10.2017 judgment in an administrative case no 3-13-366; IE: Ogieriakhi v MJE and others (Case C-244/13); EL: Council of State decisions 607/2016, 4403/2015; ES: Supreme Court, Administrative Section, judgment 26 May 2021, application nº 352/2019, ECLI:ES:TS:2021: 2143; Supreme Court, Administrative Section, judgment 29 October 2021, application nº 3409/2016, ECLI:ES:TS: 2021:4019; FR: TA Rouen, 28 June 2022, n°2001360; TA Clermont-Ferrand, 14 December, 2021, n°2000090 (5 different cases) ; TA Poitiers, 26 November 2020, n° 1901176 ; CAA Versailles, 24 November 2020, IP Celimo SAS, n° 15VE02812); IT: Italian Supreme Court (Cassation Court), Section III, 24.11.2020 n. 26757 and Cassation Court, 29.9. 2021 n. 26302; Cassation Court, United Sections, 23.6.2022, n. 20278; Cassation Court, Section III, 13.5.2020 n. 8889, Cassation Court, Section I, 30.10.2018, n. 27690; Cassation Court, III Section, 16.10.2020 n. 22631; HU: Fővárosi Ítélőtábla, 3. Pf. 20.182/2014/2. Fővárosi Ítélőtábla, 5.Pf.21.081/2016/6. Fővárosi Ítélőtábla Pf. 21.340/2017/5.3. Fővárosi Ítélőtábla Pf.20.602/2017/5/II; MT: Daniel James Cassar vs. Direttur tas-Sahha Istituzzjonali et; NL: ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2013:3791 (cassatieberoep: ECLI:NL:HR:2015:2722 en ECLI:NL:HR:2015:2723); ECLI:NL:RVS:2020:898, ECLI:NL:RVS:2020:899, ECLI:NL:RVS:2020:900 and ECLI: NL:RVS:2020:901; ECLI:NL:HR:2018:1973; ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2013:3791.

– Child-friendly justice – 

The 2023 EU Justice Scoreboard continues the analysis of child friendly-justice. Figure 31 looks at specific arrangements available when a child is involved as a victim or as a suspect/accused person.

Figure 31: Specific arrangements for child-friendly proceedings with children involved as victims or suspects or as accused persons, 2022 (*) (source: European Commission ( 72 ))

(*) Children: persons under 18 years of age.

3.2.2. Resources

Sufficient resources, including the necessary investments in physical and technical infrastructure, and well qualified, trained and adequately paid staff of all kinds, are necessary for the justice system to work properly. Without adequate facilities, tools or staff with the required qualifications, skills and access to continuous training, the quality of proceedings and decisions is undermined.

– Financial resources –

The figures below show the actual government expenditure on the operation of the justice system (excluding prisons), both per inhabitant (Figure 32) and as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) (Figure 33).

Figure 32: General government total expenditure on law courts in EUR per inhabitant, 2012, 2019 – 2021 (*) (source: Eurostat)

(*) Member States are ordered according to their expenditure in 2021 (from highest to lowest). While a significant effort was undertaken to harmonise the recording of government measures to mitigate the economic and social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, a full harmonisation of data for the reference years 2020 and 2021 was not yet achieved. The likelihood of future revisions is thus higher than usual and EU and euro area data is provisional for 2021. Further, data for other years is provisional for DE, ES, FR and PT.

Figure 33: General government total expenditure on law courts as a percentage of GDP, 2012, 2019 – 2021 (*) (source: Eurostat)

(*) Member States are ordered according to their expenditure in 2020 (from highest to lowest). While a significant effort was undertaken to harmonise the recording of government measures to mitigate the economic and social impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, a full harmonisation of data for the reference years 2020 and 2021 was not yet achieved. The likelihood of future revisions is thus higher than usual and EU and euro area data is provisional for 2021. Further, data for other years is provisional for DE, ES, FR and PT.

Figure 34 presents the ratio of annual salaries of judges and prosecutors compared to the average annual salary in the country. For each country, the first two columns present the salaries of judges and prosecutors at the beginning of their respective careers, and at their peak. By virtue of Article 19(1) TEU, Member States have to ensure that both their courts as a whole and the individual judges are independent in the fields covered by Union law. While temporary reduction in remuneration in the context of austerity measures has not been considered in violation of this provision, the European Court of Justice has stated that the receipt by members of the judiciary of a level of remuneration conmensurate with the importance of the functions carried out constitutes an essential guarantee of judicial independence ( 73 ).

Figure 34: Ratio of annual salaries of judges and prosecutors with annual average gross salary in the country in 2021 (*) (per 100 000 inhabitants) (source: Council of Europe’s European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) study)

– Human resources –

Adequate human resources are essential for the quality of a justice system. Diversity among judges, including gender balance, adds complementary knowledge, skills and experience and reflects the reality of society.

Figure 35: Number of judges, 2012, 2019 – 2021 (*) (per 100 000 inhabitants) (source: Council of Europe’s European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) study)

(*) This category consists of judges working full-time, in accordance with the CEPEJ methodology. It does not include the Rechtspfleger/court clerks that exist in some Member States. AT: data on administrative justice have been part of the data since 2016. EL: since 2016, data on the number of professional judges include all the ranks for criminal and civil justice as well as administrative judges. IT: Regional audit commissions, local tax commissions and military courts are not taken into consideration. Administrative justice has been taken into account since 2018.

Figure 36: Proportion of female professional Supreme Court judges 2020 – 2022 (*) (source: European Commission ( 74 ))

(*) The data are sorted by 2022 values, from the highest to the lowest. MT: No women on the highest court 2020.

Figure 37: Number of lawyers, 2012, 2019 – 2021 (*) (per 100 000 inhabitants) (source: Council of Europe’s European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) study)

(*) In accordance with the CEPEJ methodology, a lawyer is a person qualified and authorised by national law to plead and act on behalf of their clients; to engage in the practice of law; to appear before the courts or advise and represent their clients in legal matters (Recommendation Rec (2000)21 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on the freedom of exercise of the profession of lawyer). DE: no distinction is made between different groups of lawyers in Germany, such as between solicitors or barristers. FI: since 2015, the number of lawyers provided includes both the number of lawyers working in the private sector and the number of lawyers working in the public sector. 

– Training –

Judicial training makes an important contribution to the quality of judicial decisions and the justice service delivered to citizens. The data set out below cover judicial training on communication with parties and on social media.

Figure 38: Availability of training in communication for judges, 2022 (*) (source: European Commission ( 75 ))

(*) Maximum possible: 12 points. Member States were given 1 point if they have initial training and 1 point if they have continuing training (maximum of 2 points for each type of training) on the topics displayed above.

3.2.3. Assessment tools

Regular evaluation could make the justice system more responsive to current and future challenges, thereby improving its quality. Surveys (Figure 39) are essential for assessing how justice systems operate from the perspective of legal professionals and court users.

Figure 39: Topics of surveys conducted among court users or legal professionals, 2021 (*) (source: European Commission ( 76 ))

(*) Member States were given one point per survey topic indicated regardless of whether the survey was conducted at national, regional or court level. ‘Other topics’ included the impact of Covid-19, how to minimise disruptions to the court and the expansion of video-links as a solution (IE), satisfaction of victims of criminal offenses who use the victim assistance offices of the judicial courts (FR), main issues that should be addressed in order to make justice more accessible to victims of domestic violence (MT), the use of alternative sanctions and their effectiveness , and trust in the system of preventing domestic violence, including intervention (PL), general aspects of the courts; access to information on the courts; court facilities; functioning of the courts; judge responsible for the case; resources available; and loyalty (PT). In (SE), the Swedish National Courts Administration (SNCA) has created a digital questionnaire with a series of different types of questions, which the courts can use when performing their own surveys. In addition to the above-mentioned questions, the template also includes questions if the courthouse building and the courtrooms within the courthouse are easy to find. Another set of questions refers to the court users ‘perception of their personal safety and security both inside and outside the courtroom and outside the immediate premises of the court building.

3.2.4. Digitalisation

The use of information and communication technologies (ICT) can strengthen the Member States’ justice systems and make them more accessible, efficient, resilient and ready to face current and future challenges. The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted a number of challenges affecting the functioning of the judiciary and showed the need for the national justice systems to further improve their digitalisation.

Earlier editions of the EU Justice Scoreboard provided comparative data on certain aspects of the ICT in justice systems. As announced in the Commission’s Communication on the digitalisation of justice in the EU of 2 December 2020 ( 77 ), the Scoreboard has been substantially augmented with further data on digitalisation in the Member States. This should allow for more in-depth monitoring of progress areas and outstanding challenges.

Citizen-friendly justice requires that information about national judicial systems is not only easily accessible but is also tailored to specific groups of society that would otherwise have difficulties in accessing the information. Figure 41 shows the availability of online information and specific public services that can help people access justice.

Figure 40: Availability of online information about the judicial system for the general public, 2022 (*) (source: European Commission ( 78 ))

(*) DE: Each federal state as well as the federal level decide individually which information to provide online.

– Digital-ready rules –

The use of digital solutions in civil/commercial, administrative and criminal cases often requires appropriate regulation in national procedural rules. Figure 41 illustrates the possibilities set out by law for various actors to use distance communication technology (such as videoconferencing) for court and court related procedures, and reflects the current situation on the admissibility of digital evidence.

Figure 41: Procedural rules allowing digital technology in courts in civil/commercial, administrative and criminal cases, 2022 (*) (source: European Commission ( 79 ))

(*) For each Member State, the first column presents procedural rules for civil/commercial cases, the second column for administrative cases and the third column for criminal cases. Maximum possible: 12 points. For each criterion, two points were given if the possibility exists in all civil/commercial, administrative and criminal cases, respectively (in criminal cases, the possibility of hearing the parties was split to cover both defendants and victims). The points are divided by two when the possibility does not exist in all cases. For those Member States that do not distinguish between civil/commercial and administrative cases, the same number of points has been given for both areas CY, LU: none for administrative cases.

– Use of digital tools –

Beyond digital-ready procedural rules, courts and prosecution services need to have appropriate tools and infrastructure in place for distance communication and secure remote access to the workplace (Figure 42). Adequate infrastructure and equipment is also needed for secure electronic communication between courts/prosecution services and legal professionals and institutions (Figures 43 and 44).

ICT, including innovative technology, plays an important role in supporting the work of judicial authorities. It therefore contributes significantly to the quality of justice systems. The availability of various digital tools at the disposal of judges, prosecutors and judicial staff can streamline work processes, ensure fair workload allocation and lead to a significant time reduction.

Figure 42: Use of digital technology by courts and prosecution services, 2022 (*) (source: European Commission ( 80 ))