EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 4.6.2026

COM(2026) 273 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
 

2026 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 (see the obligation of Member States to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law under 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 EU Competitiveness Compass ( 1 ) and the 2026 Annual Single Market and Competitiveness Report ( 2 ) recall that respect for the rule of law is central for the functioning of the Single Market, as it provides a stable operating environment that gives the EU and its Member States a global competitive edge. The respect for the rule of law ensures a business environment in which laws apply effectively and uniformly, businesses can work in another Member State on an equal footing with local companies, and budgets are spent on a transparent and objective basis.

Well-functioning and fully independent justice systems can have a positive impact on investment and are key for investment protection. They are associated with greater productivity and competitiveness. They are also important for ensuring the effective cross-border enforcement of contracts, administrative decisions and dispute resolution, essential for a well-functioning single market ( 3 ).

In this context, the EU Justice Scoreboard provides an annual overview of indicators measuring the three essential parameters of effective justice systems:

-efficiency; 

-quality; 

-independence. 

The 2026 Scoreboard also contains new and updated figures on accessibility to justice for people with disabilities, selected powers of equality bodies, specific arrangements for child-friendly justice/proceedings, prevention of corruption and the digitalisation of justice ( 4 ). As started in the 2025 edition, the 2026 Scoreboard also continues to develop indicators of specific relevance for the functioning of the single market for which effective justice systems and respect for the rule of law are central. It solidifies the business and single market dimension by presenting new indicators on first instance public procurement review bodies, supreme audit institutions and national competition authorities.

 The Annual Rule of Law Cycle –

In 2020, the Commission set up the comprehensive Annual Rule of Law Cycle to deepen its monitoring of the rule of law situation in Member States. The Rule of Law Cycle acts as a preventive tool, promoting dialogue and joint awareness of rule of law issues. At the centre of the cycle is the annual Rule of Law Report, which provides a synthesis of significant developments – both positive and negative – in all Member States and in the EU as a whole. The report, whose latest edition was published on 8 July 2025, draws on a variety of sources, including the EU Justice Scoreboard ( 5 ). The 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard has also been further developed to reflect the need for additional comparative information identified during the preparation of the 2025 Rule of Law Report.

2.    Key findings of the 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard

Efficiency, quality and independence are the main parameters of an effective justice system. The Scoreboard presents indicators for each of these parameters.

2.1. 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 ( 47 ).

2.1.1. Summary on the efficiency of justice systems

2.1.2. Developments in caseload

The caseload of national justice systems decreased in five Member States, in two of which by a large amount compared to the previous year. It increased or remained stable in 20 Member States. Overall, it continues to vary considerably between Member States (Figure 1).

Figure : Number of incoming civil, commercial, administrative and other cases in 2014, 2022 – 2024 (*) (at first instance/per 100 inhabitants) (source: CEPEJ study ( 50 ))

(*) 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 : Number of incoming civil and commercial litigious cases in 2014, 2022 – 2024 (*) (at first 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.

Figure : Number of incoming administrative cases in 2014, 2022 – 2024 (*) (at first 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. Methodology changes in EL, SK and SE. PT: The increase of incoming cases in 2024 was in part due to the very high number of applications for authorisation or renewal of the residence permit that were lodged with the Lisbon Administrative Court.

2.1.3. 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 estimated 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. ‘Disposition time’ indicates the estimated minimum time that a court would need to resolve a case while maintaining its current working conditions. This indicator is calculated as the number of unresolved cases divided by the number of resolved cases at the end of a year, multiplied by 365 (days) ( 51 ). The higher the value, the higher the probability that it takes the court longer to reach a decision. The data mostly concern proceedings at first instance courts and compare, where available, data for 2014, 2022, 2023 and 2024 ( 52 ). Figure 6 shows the disposition time in 2024 in civil and commercial litigious cases at all court instances, and Figure 8 for administrative cases at all court instances.

Figure : Estimated time needed to resolve civil, commercial, administrative and other cases in 2014, 2022 – 2024 (*) (at first 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. For LV, the sharp decrease is due to court system reform, error checks and data clean-ups of the information system. In PT, the new Code of Civil Procedure, which creates a new enforcement regime, entered into force on 1 September 2013. It is based on a new paradigm, which states that court proceedings must be clearly distinguished from out-of-court proceedings. However, so far it has not been possible to adjust the collection of data accordingly and provide the necessary data for this Figure.

Figure : Estimated time needed to resolve litigious civil and commercial cases at first instance in 2014, 2022 – 2024 (*) (at first 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. For 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 : Estimated time needed to resolve litigious civil and commercial cases at all court instances in 2024 (*) (at first, second and third instance/in days) (source: CEPEJ study)

(*) The order of Member States in the figure is determined by the court instance with the longest proceedings in each Member State. No data are available for first, second and third instance courts in IE, nor for third instance courts in SK. There is no third instance court in DE and MT. Access to a third instance court may be limited in some Member States.

Figure : Estimated time needed to resolve administrative cases at first instance in 2014, 2022 – 2024 (*) (at first instance/in days) (source: CEPEJ study)

(*) Under the CEPEJ methodology, administrative law cases concern disputes between individuals and local, regional or national authorities. 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. PT: The increase in disposition time in 2024 was in part due to the very high number of applications for authorisation or renewal of the residence permit that were lodged with the Lisbon Administrative Court.

Figure : Estimated time needed to resolve administrative cases at all court instances in 2024 (*) (at first and, where applicable, second and third instance/in days) (source: CEPEJ study)

(*) The order of Member States in the figure is determined by the court instance with the longest proceedings in each Member State. No data available for second instance courts in BE, CZ, IT, MT, AT, PL, RO, SI, SK and FI, for third instance courts in LT, LU and MT. The supreme, or other highest court, is the only appeal instance in CZ, IT, 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. In CY, the organisation of the justice system underwent a significant reform in July 2023, including the establishment of a Court of Appeals and a third instance.

– Clearance rate –

The clearance rate is the ratio of resolved cases to incoming cases. It measures whether a court is keeping up with its incoming caseload. The clearance rate is around 100% or higher when the outflow of cases is equal or higher compared to the inflow of cases. When the clearance rate is below 100%, it means that the courts are resolving fewer cases than the number of incoming cases.

Figure : Rate of resolving civil, commercial, administrative and other cases in 2014, 2022 – 2024 (*) (at first 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. In IE, the number of resolved cases is expected to be underreported due to the methodology.

Figure : Rate of resolving litigious civil and commercial cases in 2014, 2022 – 2024 (*) (at first instance/in %) (source: CEPEJ study)

(*) Methodology changes in EL and SK. In IE, the number of resolved cases is expected to be underreported due to the methodology. Data for NL include non-litigious cases.

Figure : Rate of resolving administrative cases in 2014, 2022 – 2024 (*) (at first instance/in %) (source: CEPEJ study)

(*) 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. PT: The decrease of clearance rate in 2024 was due to the very high number of applications for authorisation or renewal of the residence permit that were lodged with the Lisbon Administrative Court.

– Pending cases –

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

Figure : Number of pending civil, commercial, administrative and other cases in 2014, 2022 – 2024 (*) (at first 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.

Figure : Number of pending litigious civil and commercial cases in 2014, 2022 – 2024 (*) (at first 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. Data for NL include non-litigious cases.

Figure : Number of pending administrative cases in 2014, 2022 – 2024 (*) (at first 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. DK and IE do not record administrative cases separately. PT: In 2024, there was a very high number of applications for authorisation or renewal of the residence permit that were lodged with the Lisbon Administrative Court.

2.1.4. Efficiency in specific areas of EU law

The data in this section complements the general data on the efficiency of justice systems. It shows the average length of proceedings ( 53 ) in specific areas of EU law. The 2026 Scoreboard builds on previous data for competition, electronic communications, the EU trademark, consumer law, anti-money laundering and anti-corruption.

The six areas of EU law were selected because of their relevance for the single market and the business environment. The overview of the efficiency of administrative authorities continues in this edition of the Scoreboard, 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 businesses in particular, administrative delays and uncertainty in some cases can lead to significant costs and undermine planned or existing investments ( 54 ).

– Competition –

The effective enforcement of competition law is essential for an attractive business environment, as it ensures a level playing field for businesses. It promotes economic initiative, innovation and efficiency, and leads to a wider choice for consumers, lower prices and better quality. Figure 15 presents the average length of cases brought against decisions of national competition authorities applying Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) ( 55 ). Figure 16 presents the average length of proceedings before the national competition authorities applying Articles 101 and 102 TFEU.

Figure : Competition: average length of judicial review in 2014, 2022 – 2024 (*) (at first instance/in days) (source: European Commission with the European Competition Network)

(*) The average is weighted by the number of cases in the respective year. AT: data for 2014 include decisions of the Cartel Court on the substance, not the judicial review of these decisions by the Supreme Court. Since the 2024 EU Justice Scoreboard, the decisions of the Cartel Court are included in the length of proceedings before the national competition authorities (see below). IT: an estimation of length was used for 2014 and 2022. 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. FI where there was only one case). ES: The number of appeals corresponds to the number of companies that filed an appeal against each CNMC decision. IE: Not applicable for 2020, 2021 and 2022, as before 2023 the CCPC was not empowered to make decisions of the relevant type capable of being judicially reviewed.

Figure : Competition: average length of proceedings before the national competition authorities in 2020, 2022 – 2024 (*) (in days) (source: European Commission with the European Competition Network)

(*) The average is weighted by the number of cases in the respective year. Since the 2024 EU Justice Scoreboard, the average length of proceedings before the national competition authorities has been calculated as follows: the number of days between the first formal investigative measure and the adoption of a final decision by the national competition authority (by the administrative authority or, in Member States with a judicial system, by the court that has the power to adopt a prohibition decision and/or impose or confirm fines). For this reason, the data since the 2024 edition in the above figure cannot be compared to the data published in earlier editions. This calculation method allows for comparable data at EU level for the sole purpose of the EU Justice Scoreboard and may differ from the reporting at national level in certain Member States. CZ and SK have a two-instance administrative procedure. When appealed, first instances decisions are reviewed by the second instance body of the authority, which may prolong proceedings. DK: In 2021, following the transposition of the ECN+ Directive, Denmark moved from a purely criminal enforcement system to a system where the Danish competition authority can now directly apply for the imposition of a fine before a civil court and adopt settlement decisions in its own administrative proceedings. This has led to an increase in decisions since 2022. For AT, DK and FI, the length of proceedings covers the combined duration of proceedings before the administrative and judicial national competition authorities. AT: data include proceedings involving to a large-scale cartel in the construction sector. Due to the size of this case, proceedings triggered by the same first investigative measure were (and still are) being led and concluded successively, gradually distorting the average length of proceedings. ES and IT: data excludes commitment decisions adopted by the national competition authority. IE: Not applicable for 2020, 2021 and 2022, as the CCPC did not have the power to make its own binding administrative decisions in antitrust cases until September 2023 (prior to that date, it could only take enforcement action in such cases through the courts). SK: Article 102: 4 decisions of first instance and 0 decisions of appellate body (total: 1 117 days); Article 101: 0 decisions of first instance and 1 decision of appellate body (total: 1 730 days). Average length of proceedings is therefore 1 423 days.

– Electronic communications –

The objective of EU electronic communications legislation is to encourage competition, contribute to the development of the single market and 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 17 presents the average length of judicial review cases against the decisions of national regulatory authorities applying EU law on electronic communications ( 56 ). It covers a broad range of cases, from more complex ‘market analysis’ reviews to more straightforward consumer-focused issues.

Figure : Electronic communications: average length of judicial review in 2014, 2022 – 2024 (*) (first instance/in days) (source: European Commission with the Communications Committee)

(*) Values for some Member States have been reduced for presentation purposes (PT in 2023 = 2.830; CY in 2023 = 3.285). The average is weighted by the number of cases in the respective year. 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. Sometimes, the limited number of relevant cases (BE, CY, HU, NL, SK, SE) can cause the annual data to rely heavily on a single case that is exceptionally long or short; this may result in wide variations in the data from one year to the next. In DK, a quasi-judicial body is in charge of first instance appeals. In ES, AT, and PL, different courts are in charge, depending on the subject matter. NL: one case withdrawn, one case declared unfounded. ES: Out of 13 cases, 10 concerned telecoms. BE: In the specific case of electronic communications, the Market Court of Brussels is the first instance court. The only possibility for appeal is before the Court de Cassation on the basis of legal arguments (not merits). FI: The Regulator's decisions on significant market power (SMP), including decisions related to the supervision and enforcement of SMP obligations -  such as compliance with pricing obligations — as well as decisions designating a universal service provider - can be appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court which is the first and only appeal Court in these cases. HR: Includes cases of first instance before the administrative courts and cases before the High Administrative Court.

– EU trademark –

Effective enforcement of intellectual property rights is essential to stimulate investment in innovation. EU legislation on EU trademarks ( 57 ) gives the national courts a significant role to play, empowering them to act as EU courts and take decisions that affect the single market. Figure 18 shows the average length of EU trademark infringement cases in litigation between private parties.

Figure : EU trademark: average length of EU trademark infringement cases in 2014, 2022 – 2024 (*) (at first instance/in days) (source: European Commission with the European Observatory on infringements of intellectual property rights)

(*) The average is weighted by the number of cases in the respective year. 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 2023, 372 cases concerning intellectual property law were finalised. 53 were regular civil cases, 275 were handled as small claim procedures and 44 were prohibition proceedings and injunction proceedings. No information is available on what the case processing times is. 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. PL: For 2023, the weighted average was calculated on the basis of the number of cases resolved. FI: For 2023, a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice was requested in one of the two cases. The time during which the case was pending before the Court of Justice was included in the calculation of the average number of days.

– Consumer protection –

Effective enforcement of consumer law ensures that consumers’ rights are protected 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 ( 58 ) within the various national enforcement systems. Figure 19 illustrates the average length of judicial review cases against decisions of consumer protection authorities applying EU law.

Figure : Consumer protection: average length of judicial review in 2014, 2022 – 2024 (*) (first instance/in days) (source: European Commission with the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network)

(*) The average is weighted by the number of cases in the respective year. DE, LU, AT: scenario is not applicable as consumer authorities are not empowered to decide on infringements of the relevant consumer rules. An estimate of average length was provided by EL and RO for certain years.

– Money laundering –

In addition to depriving criminals of resources for perpetrating their illicit acts and effectively dismantling organised crime networks, preventing and combating money laundering ( 59 ) is crucial for the soundness, integrity and stability of the financial sector, confidence in the financial system and fair competition in the single market ( 60 ). 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 ( 61 ). Article 44(1) of Directive (EU) 2015/849 requires Member States to maintain statistics on the effectiveness of their systems to combat money laundering and terrorist financing ( 62 ). In cooperation with Member States, an updated questionnaire was used to collect data on the judicial aspects in national anti-money laundering regimes. Figure 20 shows the average length of first instance court cases dealing with money laundering criminal offences.

Figure : Money laundering: average length of court cases in 2014 and 2022 – 2024(*) (at first instance/in days) (source: European Commission with the Expert Group on Money Laundering and Financing of Terrorism)

(*) The average is weighted by the number of cases in the respective year. For PT: The database was filtered, for each judicial county, by the relevant criteria to reach the information related to money laundering files; the dates of infringement and the date of final decision or closure were taken into account in calculating the average number of days 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. SI: The 2024 data show a slightly longer length, calculated from the receipt of the cases at the trial court until they are classified as finished. SK: Data correspond to the 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. Moreover, corruption represents a major threat to our security and democracies. Corruption is particularly complex to tackle since, unlike most crimes, both parties involved in a corruption case are generally interested keeping it secret. This also contributes to a general difficulty in quantifying the true magnitude of the corruption phenomenon across the EU. Corruption is a particularly serious crime with a cross-border dimension, as referred to in Article 83(1) TFEU, and can only be effectively tackled by common minimum rules across the European Union.

On 29 April 2026, the European Parliament and Council adopted the new Directive on combating corruption ( 63 ). The Directive updates and aligns EU rules on the definitions of and penalties for corruption offences, to ensure high standards in the fight against the full range of corruption offences (going beyond bribery and covering misappropriation, trading in influence, the unlawful exercise of public functions, as well as obstruction of justice and enrichment related to corruption offences). It also includes provisions aimed at strengthening preventive and integrity measures in Member States, and contributes to making investigations and the prosecution of corruption more effective. In cooperation with Member States, a questionnaire was developed in 2022 to collect data on the length of court proceedings before first instance courts in bribery cases, which is presented in Figure 21 below ( 64 ).

Figure : Corruption (bribery): average length of court cases from 2021 – 2024 (*) (at first instance/in days) (source: European Commission with the National Contact Points for Anti-corruption)

(*) The average is weighted by the number of cases in the respective year. No reply to this question from DE, IE, ES, IT, CY, MT. NL: In this calculation for 2022, the period starts to run from the date the public prosecution service summons the defendant to appear in court; the period ends on the day when the judge of first instance delivers the final verdict. The average processing time for the aforementioned 35 cases is 645 days. However, account must be taken of the fact that a case is often not ready for the hearing at the moment the period starts to run. As a result, it takes some time before the case is presented for hearing. The average length from first hearing until delivery of the final verdict is 194 days. FR: Data from 2024 were calculated using a new method, therefore the multiannual average is not possible. The average delay is calculated from the prosecution decision by the prosecutor and not from the referral to the trial court. The opening of the judicial information is considered as a decision to initiate prosecution. The figure provided corresponds to the average duration reported by the French authorities (which reflects the duration from prosecution to judgment, excluding and including the “instruction” proceedings). It is not possible in all cases to calculate a timeframe by taking as the starting point the moment when the charges become final, as certain procedures (particularly those involving an “instruction”) can take several years and may sometimes result in the case being dropped.

2.2. Quality of justice systems

There is no single way to measure the quality of justice systems. The 2026 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) access to justice for the public and businesses;

2) adequate financial and human resources;

3) digitalisation.

2.2.1. Summary on the quality of justice systems

2.2.2. Access to justice

Accessibility is required throughout the whole justice chain to enable all people, including people at risk of discrimination, older persons and victims of crime, to obtain relevant information – about the justice system, about how to make a claim and the related financial aspects, and about how proceedings are advancing (up until they are complete) – and to access the judgments 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 ( 65 ) and legal fees ( 66 ), may hinder access to justice. Litigation costs in civil and commercial matters are not aligned at EU level. They are governed by national legislation and 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 ( 67 ). 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 ( 68 ).

Figure 22 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 ( 69 ). For example, if the threshold for legal aid is 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 is below zero, this means that a person with an income below the poverty threshold may not be eligible for legal aid.

In 13 Member States there is 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) which applies different eligibility criteria. In 10 Member States there is both a full or partial legal aid system, but not both. In two Member States, the courts have discretion over granting legal aid.

Figure : Income threshold for legal aid in a specific consumer case, 2025 (*) (differences in % from Eurostat poverty threshold) (source: European Commission with the Council of Bar and Law Societies in Europe (CCBE) ( 70 ))

(*) Calculations are based on 2023 at-risk-of-poverty (AROP) threshold values. BE, DE, ES, FI, FR, IE, IT, LT, LU, NL, SE, SI, SK: Legal aid also has to take into account the applicant’s disposable assets. EL: Beneficiary of legal aid is a person whose capital annual income does not exceed 2/3 of the lowest annual salaries as provided for by the existing legislation. EE, CY and CZ: no legal aid in scenario. AT and PL: Court's discretion. HR, LV and DK: No data provided.

Recipients of legal aid are often exempt from paying court fees. Only in five Member States 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 23 compares, for two scenarios, the amount of the court fee presented as a proportion of the value of the claim. For example, if the court fee in the figure below 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 : Court fee to start judicial proceedings in a specific consumer case, 2025 (*) (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) ( 71 ))

(*) Calculations are based on 2024 at-risk-of-poverty (AROP) threshold values. A ‘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 2022, this value ranged from EUR 326 in BG to EUR 2 381 in LU). BE: EUR 26 contribution to the Fund for the second line legal aid; Court registry fees: EUR 50 or EUR 165. Afterwards, if dismissed/convicted: possibly EUR 1 350 for procedural indemnity. NL: Court fees values correspond to a litigant with an annual income of less than EUR 30 200. SE: The court fee applies if the value of the claim exceeds EUR 2 673. LV: Court fee calculated for a claim of up to EUR 1000.

Figure 24 presents the rate of legal aid paid to criminal defence lawyers in a specific criminal case based on a case study ( 72 ). Respondents have indicated how much lawyers would be paid from the public budget in the fictional scenario described.

Figure : Rate of legal aid paid to criminal defence lawyers in a specific criminal case, 2025 (*) (source: European Commission with the Council of Bar and Law Societies in Europe (CCBE) ( 73 ))

(*) The data are gathered based on a specific case study. The amounts are all in EUR, and where needed they were converted from national currencies 74 . To take account of the economic differences between Member States the added value of the fee and expense were divided by the comparative price level indices expressed in percentage where the EU average is 100%, DK is 141%. This adjusts the sum of fees and expenses that the lawyers receive. IE: In Ireland, legal representation is divided between solicitors and barristers. Under the Legal Aid Scheme, their fees are calculated separately (solicitors have a fixed case fee structure for family law matters, while barristers (Junior or Senior Counsel) have their own case fees and additional allowances for interim or enforcement applications). This distinction is relevant when determining the total claim under the legal aid system. The calculation is based on the Legal Aid Board Schedule of Fees for counsel (barristers) in the Circuit Court, which is the court of jurisdiction for divorce proceedings in Ireland. Solicitors are not paid expenses or outlays, barristers receive driving expenses. AT: The Austrian legal aid system is state funded and based on the solidarity of all Austrian lawyers who all participate on a rotation-based system in the legal aid system. In general, the individual lawyer does not receive any direct remuneration for legal aid services. Instead, the Austrian state pays a yearly lump sum to the Austrian Bar for the total of legal aid services rendered by all lawyers. The Austrian Bar distributes this sum to the regional bars on the basis of the number of registered lawyers who provided legal aid services and on the basis of the number of legal aid cases which were handled by the regional bars. The money is used for the lawyers’ social security and pension scheme, which is not state funded. The legal aid for access to the services of each of the professions differs. The figure above presents the maximum that could be charged as a fee under the legal aid scheme in the particular scenario. ES: Fees calculated for free legal aid in Spanish regions that have not been transferred competence for justice matters. The other regions may provide different compensations. RO and SK: Reimbursement of expenses requires the submission of receipts, for SK it is capped at EUR 240.

Figure : Rate of legal aid paid to lawyers in a specific civil case, 2025 (*) (source: European Commission with the Council of Bar and Law Societies in Europe (CCBE) ( 75 ))

(*) BG, CY, SE: no legal aid in scenario. LV, AT, FI: no data provided. DE: the fee is calculated based on a ‘value in dispute’ of EUR 2 000 net per month. IE: The legal profession is split into barristers and solicitors. The legal aid fees each of the professions are entitled to differs. The figure above represents the sum of the fees charged by one junior solicitor and one junior barrister as counsel fee under the legal aid scheme in the particular scenario. ES: the fee is calculated without considering the execution of measures after the divorce or the compulsory mediation. Only some regions that have been transferred competence for justice matters cover them. RO, SK: Reimbursement of expenses requires the submission of receipts, for SK capped at EUR 250. CZ: According to § 30 of Act No. 99/1963 Coll., Civil Procedure Code, the court can appoint a representative at the request of a court hearing participant who meets the conditions for being exempted from court fees by the court, if this is absolutely necessary to protect their interests. If it is required to protect the interests of the participant or if it concerns the appointment of a representative for proceedings in which representation by an attorney (notary) is mandatory, the court appoints a representative from among the attorneys. For a lawyer (an attorney) appointed by the court for divorce proceedings, the fee for one legal act, according to the law, is EUR 95, plus additional administrative expenditures fee of EUR 18.60 for each legal act performed. The lawyer made six legal acts: 1) acceptance of representation and advising client, 2) drafting and filing divorce petition, 3-4) attending court hearings, 5) drafting and filing an enforcement claim and 6) attending enforcement court hearing. The rest of the acts above remain unpaid. The travelling expenses for each half hour, even if only begun, are EUR 6.20, provided the lawyer travels to a place that is not in the city/town of their workplace. However, we cannot calculate the total amount of expenses, because we do not know exact electricity consumption of the electric car. EE: Remunerations: For pre-trial proceedings - EUR 104, for court proceedings phase in this case limit is reached (attorney receives max EUR 720), for court hearings – EUR 216. If preparing for a client meeting was in pre-trial phase, then maximum limit will not be met and then the attorney would receive a total of EUR 1 260 as a fee. Also, enforcement court hearing and trips related are not taken into account as in Estonia there are no court hearings for enforcement proceedings. IE: In Ireland, legal representation is divided between solicitors and barristers. Under the Legal Aid Scheme, their fees are calculated separately (solicitors have a fixed case fee structure for family law matters, while barristers (Junior or Senior Counsel) have their own case fees and additional allowances for interim or enforcement applications). This distinction is relevant when determining the total claim under the legal aid system. The calculation is based on the Legal Aid Board Schedule of Fees for counsel (barristers) in the Circuit Court, which is the court of jurisdiction for divorce proceedings. Solicitors are not paid expenses or outlays, (additional costs or disbursements incurred by the lawyer in handling a case, separate from the lawyer’s professional fee) barristers receive driving expenses. EL: From the legal aid scheme it can be claimed the lowest lawyer fees as provided in the Code of Lawyers. Moreover, proven expenses (expenses with receipts) can be claimed. There is also fee for extrajudicial employment 80 euro/per hour according to the Code of Lawyers which can be claimed. ES: The tables do not include either the enforcement of measures after the divorce or mandatory mediation (which is covered by some regions but still not in the common territory). CY: The scenario does not apply in Cyprus, because the Legal Aid Law does not cover civil and/or commercial cases. According to the Law, legal aid is not granted in civil proceedings in Cyprus between consumer and companies. LT: In divorce proceedings where there is no dispute, the statutory legal fee is 175 EUR. HU: The fee of legal aid counsel is based on 11/2004 (III.30.) IM decree on the remuneration of legal aid counsel: HUF 7000 hourly fee and 25% expenses, plus VAT. SE: In Sweden, legal aid is not usually granted in divorce cases. It is only granted if more extensive assistance from a legal representative is required, which is unusual. PL: The divorce fee is fixed (lump-sum) and does not depend on hours spent. For a divorce case, the fixed legal-aid fee is PLN 720 (EUR 169.65.). Enforcement after the decree (egzekucja): under legal-aid rules this is generally value-linked (it is calculated as a percentage of the fee table that depends on the value of the claim). Because the case description does not give the value of what is being enforced, there is no single ‘certain’ amount without an assumption.

Non-contentious judicial procedures, such as in the area of divorce law, are frequently done by notaries, aiming at unburdening courts and in that way potentially enhancing the efficiency and quality of the justice system. Figure 26 serves as an initial exploration in this regard, mapping which authorities are involved in consensual divorce procedures in the Member States.

Figure : Authorities involved in non-contentious divorce procedures, 2025 (*) (source: European Commission and Council of the Notariats of the European Union (CNUE) ( 76 ))

(*) Data are based on the Justice Without Litigation II project, which covers the 22 Member States in which the profession of civil law notaries is established. Among the Member States that replied to the questionnaire PL and SK do not have a consensual divorce procedure. EE: Notary, civil registrar and as concerns courts: a consensual divorce before the court is only possible when the parties cannot submit a joint application for the divorce (for example when one of the spouses is abroad and does not have an Estonian digital identity). ES: court, notary or the Council of the administration of justice. FR: the consensual divorce is only dealt with by the court when a hearing for a minor child is requested. RO: court, notary or civil registrar.

– Accessing alternative dispute resolution methods –

Figure 27 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 ( 77 ).

Figure : Promotion of and incentives for using ADR methods, 2025 (*) (source: European Commission ( 78 ))

(*) 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 only refunded for justices of the 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 dedicated figures on specific arrangements to facilitate equal access to justice of persons with disabilities. The 2023 EU Justice Scoreboard continued to further explore selected specific arrangements that facilitate equal access to justice for persons at risk of discrimination, and also for two specific groups: older people and victims of violence against women and domestic violence. The 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard again presents data on access to justice for persons with disabilities.

The chart below outlines the digital solutions accessible for persons with disabilities at first instance courts. The chart shows the accessibility of different solutions in civil and commercial, criminal, and administrative justice.

Figure : Digital solutions at first instance courts accessible for persons with disabilities, which comply with the relevant accessibility standards and legislation (source: European Commission ( 79 ))

Figure 29 complements Figure 19 on the efficiency of proceedings in the area of consumer law by showing specific selected measures undertaken by EU Member States to increase awareness on the new European model of collective redress ( 80 ) aimed at improving consumers’ access to justice in mass harm situations.

Figure : Specific arrangements for representative action protecting the collective interests of consumers, 2025 (*) (source: European Commission ( 81 ))

(*) Representative actions as set out by Directive (EU) 2020/1828. They are actions brought by qualified entities before national courts or administrative authorities on behalf of groups of consumers to seek injunctive measures (i.e. to stop a trader’s unlawful practices, similarly to what is provided for in the Injunctions Directive 2009/22/EC), redress measures (such as refund, replacement, repair) or both injunctive and redress measures. This question intends to collect information on specific practices, which are not necessarily directly linked to the implementation of the Directive. Data are not reported for HR, LU, RO. BE: there is no registry but certain decisions have to be published on the website of the Ministry of Economy and the official journal. DK: Currently, the qualified entities are the Danish Consumer Ombudsman (Forbrugerombudsmanden) and the Danish Medicines Agency (Lægemiddelstyrelsen) which are both supported by public funding. EE: consumer disputes are heard at the Consumer Disputes Committee which is an independent and impartial entity resolving consumer disputes. IE: the Citizens Information website has published an article on representative actions as part of their ‘How to complain’ information page for consumers. EL: Law 5019/2023 puts in place a new system of representative actions. LV: There is one cross-border qualified entity designated in Latvia. There have not been any representative action cases yet. LT: Public awareness measures on consumer representative actions are mainly implemented by providing relevant information on the websites of the State Consumer Rights Protection Authority (SCRPA) and consumer associations (e.g. memo published on the website of SCRPA, https://vvtat.lrv.lt/media/viesa/saugykla/2024/2/o2moBOazC4c.pdf ). PT: The list of the representative actions brought before PT courts is available on the Directorate-General for Consumers’ website, as well as the contact of the entity and any relevant document for consumers: https://www.consumidor.gov.pt/consumidor_4/acoes-coletivas/informacoes-sobre-acoes-coletivas . SK: consumers are able to join the collective action through any notary. The application form is available at the following link https://static.slov-lex.sk/pdf/prilohy/SK/ZZ/2023/289/20230725_5563264-2.pdf .

The 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard extends the analysis of child-friendly justice. Figure 30 looks at a broader variety of specific arrangements for child-friendly justice (both civil and criminal/juvenile justice proceedings). Figure 31 explores a broader range of specific arrangements available when a child is involved as a victim or as a suspect/accused person in judicial proceedings.

Figure : Specific arrangements for child-friendly justice/proceedings (both civil and criminal/juvenile justice proceedings), 2025 (*) (source: European Commission ( 82 )).

(*) Children: people under 18 years.

Figure : Specific arrangements for children involved in criminal proceedings as victims or suspects and accused persons, 2025 (*) (source: European Commission ( 83 ))

(*) Children: people under 18 years.

For the second time, the 2026 EU Justice Scoreboard provides an overview of selected specific powers of equality bodies to assist victims of discrimination to access justice. Figure 32 below shows which selected powers the equality body/bodies – or in certain cases other specific bodies – hold in each Member State to resolve cases of discrimination. These include 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 to defend the public interest, or initiating proceedings in support of victims. The exercise of those powers in practice varies depending on the Member State.

Figure : Selected powers of equality bodies to help victims of discrimination to access justice, 2025 (source: European Commission ( 84 ))

2.2.3. Resources

Sufficient resources are necessary for the justice system to work properly. This includes the necessary investment in physical and technical infrastructure and well qualified, trained and adequately paid staff of all kinds. 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 33) and as a proportion of gross domestic product (GDP) (Figure 34).

Figure : General government total expenditure on law courts in EUR per inhabitant, 2014, 2022 – 2024 (*) (source: Eurostat (online data code gov 10a exp))

(*) Member States are ordered according to their expenditure in 2024 (from highest to lowest). Data for BE (2024), DE (2022-2024), ES (2024), FR (2023-2024) PT (2024), SK (all years) is provisional. Data for BE (2024), DE (2022-2024), ES (2024), FR (2023-2024) PT (2024), SK (all years) is provisional.

Figure : General government total expenditure on law courts as a percentage of GDP, 2014, 2022 – 2024 (*) (source: Eurostat (online data code gov_10a_exp ))

(*) Member States are ordered according to their expenditure in 2024 (from highest to lowest). Data for BE (2024), DE (2022-2024), ES (2024), FR (2023-2024) PT (2024), SK (all years) is provisional.  Data for PL have a break in series in 2022. Source: Eurostat (online data code gov_10a_exp )

Figure 35 presents the ratio of the annual salaries of judges and prosecutors to the average annual salary in the country. For each country, the bars present these ratios for 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 EU law. While temporary reduction in remuneration in the context of austerity measures, have not been deemed to violate this provision, the Court of Justice of the EU has stated that the receipt by members of the judiciary of a level of remuneration commensurate with the importance of the functions carried out constitutes an essential guarantee of judicial independence ( 85 ).

Figure : Ratio of annual salaries of judges and prosecutors to annual average gross salary in the country in 2024 (*) (source: CEPEJ study)

(*) Member States specific comments on the data are accessible in the CEPEJ study ( 86 ). This figure does not take into account any additional benefits provided to judges and prosecutors, such as special pensions, housing benefits or other financial benefits.

– 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 : Number of judges, 2014, 2022 – 2024 (*) (per 100 000 inhabitants) (source: CEPEJ study)

(*) This category consists of judges working full-time, according to the CEPEJ methodology. It does not include the Rechtspfleger/court clerks that exist in some Member States. 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. AT: data on administrative justice have been part of the data since 2016.

Figure : Proportion of female professional Supreme Court judges 2023 – 2025 (*) (source: European Commission ( 87 ))

(*) The data are sorted by 2024 values, from the highest to the lowest.

Figure : Number of lawyers, 2014, 2022 – 2024 (*) (per 100 000 inhabitants) (source: CEPEJ study)

(*) According to 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. 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.

2.2.4. Digitalisation

The use of information and communication technologies (ICT) can strengthen 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 revealed the need for national justice systems to further improve their digitalisation.

Earlier editions of the EU Justice Scoreboard provided comparative data on certain aspects of ICT in justice systems. As announced in the Commission’s Communication on the digitalisation of justice in the EU of 2 December 2020 ( 88 ), 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 challenges that remain.

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, including persons with disabilities. Figure 39 shows the availability of online information about the judicial system for the general public that can help persons access justice.

Figure : Availability of online information about the judicial system for the general public, 2025 (*) (source: European Commission ( 89 ))