LESS IS MORE? ON THE NUMBER OF JUDGES AND JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY
Sažetak
In this paper, we deal with the relationship between the relative number of judges within a jurisdiction and the efficiency of the judiciary. To determine how the number of judges influences efficiency, we compare data on the judiciary from six countries: Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, France, Austria and Norway. The analysis is based on data collected within the 2020 Evaluation cycle (2018 data) of CEPEJ and World Justice Report Rule of Law Index for 2018. We conclude that judicial efficiency does not increase with an increase in the number of judges in a jurisdiction.
Reference
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Akutsu, L., Aquino Guimarães, T. de, 2015, Governança Judicial: Proposta de Modelo Teórico-Metodológico, Revista de Administração Pública, Vol. 49, No. 4.
2. Bełdowski, J., Dąbroś, L., Wojciechowski, W., 2020, Judges and Court Performance: A Case Study of District Commercial Courts in Poland, European Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 50, pp. 171–201.
3. Blank, J. S. T., Heezik, A. A. S. van, 2016, Policy Reforms and Productivity Change in the Judiciary System: A Cost Function Approach Applied to Time Series of the Dutch Judiciary System between 1980 and 2016, Health and Other Public Services, Vol. 27, Issue 4, pp. 2002–2020.
4. Božović, M., 2021, Judicial Efficiency and Loan Performance: Micro Evidence from Serbia, European Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 52, Issue 1, No 2, pp. 33–56.
5. Castro, M. F., Guccio, C., 2014, Searching for the Source of Technical Inefficiency in Italian Judicial Districts: An Empirical Investigation, European Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 38, Issue 3, pp. 369–391.
6. Ceretto, J., 2017, Formula za vrednovanje predmeta po težini za sudove u Republici Srbiji, Beograd, Judicial Efficiency Project British Council.
7. Cornu, P., Valancius, V., 2010, Podrška reformi pravosuđa u Srbiji u svetlu standarda Saveta Evrope, Final Report for Council of Europe, (http://www.wolfgang-tiede.de/1931_konacni_izvestaj-_fin.pdf"> lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 24px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 24px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">).
8. Cross, F. B., Donelson, D. C., 2010, Creating Quality Courts, Journal of Empirical Legal Studies Vol. 7, Issue 3, pp. 490–510.
9. Dejuan-Bitriaa, D., Mora-Sanguinetti, J. S., 2021, Which Legal Procedure Affects Business Investment Most, and Which Companies Are Most Sensitive? Evidence from Microdata, Economic Modeling, Vol. 94, pp. 201–220.
10. Deyneli, F., 2011, Analysis of Relationship between Efficiency of Justice Services and Salaries of Judges with Two-stage DEA Method, European Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 34, Issue 3, pp. 477–493.
11. Dimitrova-Grajzl, V. et al., 2012, Court Output, Judicial Staffing, and the Demand for Court Services: Evidence from Slovenian Courts of First Instance, International Review of Law and Economics Vol. 32, Issue 1, pp.19–29.
12. Djankov, S. et al., 2003, Courts: The Lex Mundi Project, Quarterly Journal of Economics Vol. 118, pp. 453–517.
13. Društvo sudija Srbije, 2017, Jačanje nezavisnosti i integriteta sudija u Srbiji, Beograd, Društvo sudija Srbije.
14. Fabbri, D., 2010, Law Enforcement and Firm Financing: Theory and Evidence, Journal of the European Economic Association 8, Issue 4, pp. 776–816.
15. Falavigna, G., Ippoliti, R., Manello, A., 2019, Judicial Efficiency and Immigrant Entrepreneurs, Journal of Small Business Management, Vol. 57, Issue 2, pp. 421–449.
16. Fauvrelle, T. A., Almeida, A. T. C., 2018, Determinants of Judicial Efficiency Change: Evidence from Brazil, Review of Law & Economics, Vol. 14, Issue 1.
17. Ippoliti, R., Tria, G., 2020, Efficiency of Judicial Systems: Model Definition and Output Estimation, Journal of Applied Economics, Vol. 23, Issue 1, pp. 339–360.
18. Jappelli, T., Pagano, M., Bianco, M., 2005, Courts and Banks: Effects of Judicial Enforcement on Credit Markets, Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, Vol. 37, Issue 2, pp. 223–244.
19. Lepore, L., Paolone, F., Cambrea, D. R., 2018, Ownership Structure, Investors’ protection and corporate valuation: the effect of judicial system efficiency in family and non-family firms, Journal of management and governance Vol.22 (4), pp. 829-862.
20. Melcarne, A., Ramello, G., 2015, Judicial Independence, Judges’ Incentives and Efficiency, Review of Law & Economics Vol. 11, Issue 2, pp. 149–169.
21. Piché, C., 2017, Administering Justice and Serving the People, The Tension between the Objective of Judicial Efficiency and Informal Justice in Canadian Access to Justice Initiatives, Erasmus Law Review, Vol. 10, Issue 3.
22. Rhee, C. H. van, 2007, Judicial Case Management and Efficiency in Civil Litigation, Antwerpen – Oxford, Intersentia.
23. Shah, A. et al., 2017, Judicial Efficiency and Capital Structure: An International Study, Journal of Corporate Finance Elsevier, Vol. 44(C), pp. 255–274.
24. Staats, J., Bowler, S., Hiskey, J., 2005, Measuring Judicial Performance in Latin America, Latin American Politics and Societies 47(4), pp. 77–106.
25. Vereeck, L., Mühl, 2000, An Economic Theory of Court Delay, European Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 10, pp. 243–268.
26. Voigt, S., 2016, Determinants of Judicial Efficiency: A Survey, European Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 42, pp. 183–208.
27. Voigt, S., El-Bialy, N., 2013, Identifying the Determinants of Judicial Performance: Taxpayers’ Money Well Spent?, European Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 41, Issue 2.
28. World Bank, 2019, Doing Business 2019 – Training for Reform, (https://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/doingBusiness/media/Annual-Reports/English/DB2019-report_web-version.pdf"> lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 24px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; color: windowtext; text-decoration: none;"> lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">).
LEGISLATIVE SOURCES
1. Action plan for the period 2022–2026 for the implementation of the Strategy for development of the judiciary for the period 2020-2025, Official Gazette of the RS, No. 45/22.
2. Action plan for the period 2022–2026. for the implementation of the strategy of human resources in the judiciary for the period 2022–2026, Official Gazette of the RS, No. 133/21.
3. Civil Procedure Act, Official Gazette of the RS, Nos. 72/11, 49/13 – odluka US, 74/13 – odluka US, 55/14, 87/18 and 18/20.
4. Criminal Procedure Act, Official Gazette of the RS, Nos. 72/11, 101/11, 121/12, 32/13, 45/13, 55/14, 35/19, 27/21 – odluka US and 62/21 – odluka US.
5. General Administrative Procedure Act, Official Gazette of the RS, 18/16 i 95/18 –autentično tumačenje.
6. Law on Bankruptcy Proceeding, Official Gazette of the RS, Nos. 104/09, 99/11 - dr. zakon, 71/12 - odluka US, 83/14, 113/17, 44/18 and 95/18.
7. Law on Courts’ Organisation, Official Gazette of the RS, Nos. 116/08, 104/09, 101/10, 31/11, 78/11, 101/11, 101/13,106/15, 40/15, 13/16 and 108/16.
8. Law on Enforcement and Security Interest, Official Gazette of the RS, Nos. 106/15, 106/16 - autentično tumačenje, 113/17 - autentično tumačenje and 54/19.
9. Law on the Seats and Territorial Jurisdictions of Courts and Public Prosecutor’s offices, Official Gazette of the RS, No. 101/13.
10. Non-litigation Procedure Act, Official Gazette of the RS, Nos. 25/82, 48/88, Nos.. 46/95 - dr. zakon, 18/05 - dr. zakon, 85/12, 45/13 - dr. zakon, 55/14, 6/15, 106/2015 - dr. zakon and 14/22.
11. Strategy for the Development of the Judiciary for the Period 2020–2025, Official Gazette of the RS, Nos. 101/20 and 18/22.
12. Strategy of Human Resources in the Judiciary for the Period 2022–2026, Official Gazette of the RS, No. 133/2021.
13. The Unified program for solving old cases in the Republic of Serbia for the period 2021–2025, Official Gazette of the RS (I Су 1 19/2021 05.02.2021).
CASE LAW
1. ECtHR, Botazzi v. Italy, no. 34884/97, Judgment of 28 July 1999.
2. ECtHR, Burdov v. Russia (2), no.33509/04, Judgment of 15 January 2009.
3. ECtHR, Hentrich v. France, no. 13616/88, Judgment of 22 September 1994, para. 61.
4. ECtHR, Probstmeiner v. Germany, no. 20950/92, Judgment of 1 July 1997, para. 64.
5. ECtHR, Tziovanis and Others v. Greece, no. 27462/09, Judgment of 19 January 2017.
6. ECtHR, Union Alimentaria Sanders S.A. v. Spain, no. 11681/85, Judgment of 11 December 1987.
OTHER SOURCES
1. CEPEJ, 2013, Revised Guidelines on the Creation of Judicial Maps to Support Access to Justice within a Quality Judicial System, (https://rm.coe.int/1680748151#_Toc356475576"> lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 24px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; color: windowtext; text-decoration: none;"> lang="EN-US" style="font-size: 10pt; line-height: 20px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">).
2. Dijalog.net, Vasović: Nedovoljan broj sudijskih pomoćnika dodatno umanjio efikasnost obavljanja sudijske funkcije,(https://dijalog.net/vasovic-nedovoljan-broj-sudijskih-pomocnika-dodatno-umanjio-efikasnost-obavljanja-sudijske-funkcije/"> lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 24px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;"> lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 24px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">).
3. Judicial organisation in Austria, (https://www.oesterreich.gv.at/en/themen/dokumente_und_recht/gerichtsorganisation_der_justiz.html"> lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 24px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; color: windowtext; text-decoration: none;"> lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 24px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">).
4. Judicial organisation in Croatia, (https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_judicial_systems_in_member_states-16-hr-en.do?member=1#:~:text=Judicial%20authority%20in%20the%20Republic,in%20the%20Republic%20of%20Croatia"> lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 24px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; color: windowtext; text-decoration: none;"> lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">).
5. Judicial organisation in France. (https://www.britannica.com/place/France/Justice"> lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 24px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; color: windowtext; text-decoration: none;"> lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">).
6. Judicial organisation in Norway, (https://www.advokatforeningen.no/om/om-medlemskapet/english/features-of-the-norwegian-legal-system/structure-of-the-courts/"> lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 24px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; color: windowtext; text-decoration: none;"> lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 24px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">).
7. Judicial organisation in Slovenia, (https://www.gov.si/en/policies/rule-of-law-and-justice/the-judicial-system/#:~:text=Courts%20and%20the%20court%20system&text=General%20courts%20operate%20at%20four,highest%20court%20in%20the%20country"> lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 24px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; color: windowtext; text-decoration: none;"> lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">).
8. The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), (https://www.coe.int/en/web/cepej"> lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 24px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; color: windowtext; text-decoration: none;"> lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">).
9. The World Justice Project Rule of Law Index, (https://worldjusticeproject.org/about-us/overview/our-approach"> lang="EN-GB" style="font-size: 12pt; line-height: 24px; font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif; color: windowtext; text-decoration: none;"> lang="EN-US" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman', serif;">).
10. World Bank, Business Enabling Environment, (https://www.worldbank.org/en/programs/business-enabling-environment).