94519 PERCEPTIONS OF THE JUDICIARY’S PERFORMANCE IN SERBIA Results of the survey with the general public, enterprises, lawyers, judges, prosecutors and court administrative staff Results of 2009 and 2013 in comparison December 2014 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 CONTENT INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................................... 15 SURVEY BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................................................................... 15 STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF JUDICIARY SURVEYS ....................................................................................................................... 15 STRUCTURE OF THE REPORT......................................................................................................................................................... 16 METHODOLOGY .............................................................................................................................................................. 17 OVERVIEW OF PERCEPTION OF FIVE DIMENSIONS OF JUDICIARY PERFORMANCE ........................................................... 20 I.1 PERCEPTIONS OF FIVE DIMENSIONS OF JUDICIARY PERFORMANCE ACROSS SURVEY GROUPS .................................................................... 21 I.2 PERCEPTIONS OF FIVE DIMENSIONS OF JUDICIARY PERFORMANCE ACROSS TIME (2009 AND 2013) ......................................................... 25 1. EFFICIENCY OF JUDICIARY SERVICE DELIVERY............................................................................................................... 28 1.1.PERCEPTIONS OF EFFICIENCY OF COURT SERVICE DELIVERY ............................................................................................................ 28 1.1.a General perceptions of the functioning of judicial system..................................................................................... 28 1.1.b Perceptions of efficiency of case proceedings ....................................................................................................... 30 1.1.b.1 Duration of proceedings ............................................................................................................................... 30 1.1.b.2 Efficiency of hearings.................................................................................................................................... 32 1.1.b.3 Perceptions of reasons for extended duration of the cases and inefficiency of hearings ........................... 35 1.2. EFFECTIVE ENFORCEMENT .................................................................................................................................................... 37 1.3. PERCEPTIONS OF CASELOAD AND COMFORT WITH WORKING CONDITIONS OF JUDICIARY SERVICE PROVIDERS ............................................ 39 1.3.a Perceptions of caseload of judiciary service providers .......................................................................................... 39 1.3.b Perceptions of working conditions of judiciary service providers .......................................................................... 41 2. QUALITY OF JUDICIARY SERVICES DELIVERED .............................................................................................................. 45 2.1 LEGAL QUALITY OF COURT DECISIONS ....................................................................................................................................... 45 2.1.a Estimated percentage of the cases appealed to a higher court after the first instance judgment was rendered . 45 2.1.b Decisions of the higher courts after the appeal was submitted following the first instance court judgment ....... 47 2.2 GENERAL QUALITY OF COURT SERVICES ..................................................................................................................................... 49 2.2.a Perception of the quality of justice sector services ................................................................................................ 49 2.2.b Perceived reasons why quality of work in justice sector was not higher ............................................................... 52 2.2.c Perception of the quality of the administrative services of the court related to court proceedings ...................... 54 2.3 FAIRNESS, IMPARTIALITY AND INTEGRITY ................................................................................................................................... 55 2.3.a Perception of the fairness of justice sector ............................................................................................................ 55 2.3.b Perceived reasons why fairness of justice sector was not complete ...................................................................... 59 2.3.c Equality of treatment of all citizens by judicial system .......................................................................................... 61 2.3.d Perception of corruption within the judiciary ........................................................................................................ 63 2.3.d.1 General perceptions of corruption within judiciary ...................................................................................... 63 2.3.d.2 Personal experiences with corruption of court users, court providers and lawyers ..................................... 64 2.3.d.3 Perceptions of the roles of the internal control and professional association in strengthening the integrity of judiciary ................................................................................................................................................................. 66 2.3.e Perception of court users with experience with court cases about courtesy and integrity of the judge ................ 68 2.3.f Perceived factors which undermine the integrity of the judicial system ................................................................ 69 2.4 INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM .................................................................................................................................. 70 2.5 RELEVANT LAWS AND THEIR APPLICATION ................................................................................................................................. 74 2.6 PUBLIC TRUST AND CONFIDENCE ............................................................................................................................................. 77 2.7 PERCEPTIONS ABOUT THE ROLE OF MEDIA IN CREATING THE IMAGE OF JUDICIARY ............................................................................... 78 3. ACCESS TO JUDICIAL SERVICES ..................................................................................................................................... 80 3.1 GENERAL PERCEPTION OF ACCESSIBILITY OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM ......................................................................................................... 80 3.2 FINANCIAL ACCESS............................................................................................................................................................... 84 3.2.a Perceptions of general public about the accessibility of judicial system with regards to costs ............................. 84 3.2.b Perceptions of members of the business sector about the accessibility of the judicial system with regards to costs ............................................................................................................................................................................... 86 3.2.c Perceptions of the general public and business sector about the affordability of courts in the specific case the court users participated in.............................................................................................................................................. 87 3.2.d Perceptions of court service providers and lawyers about the accessibility of the judicial system to the citizens with regards to costs ...................................................................................................................................................... 91 3.3 ACCESS TO LAWYERS / REPRESENTATION .................................................................................................................................. 92 3.3.a Share of court users represented by a lawyer and by themselves ......................................................................... 92 3.3.b Citizens’ awareness of the organizations providing legal assistance free of charge ............................................. 93 3.4 ACCESS TO INFORMATION ..................................................................................................................................................... 94 3.4.a General perceptions of accessibility of the judicial system in terms of access to information .............................. 94 3.4.b Perceptions of accessibility of information in the specific case the court users participated in ............................ 95 3.4.c Sources of information citizens used to find out what they needed in their specific case ..................................... 96 3.5 GEOGRAPHICAL / PHYSICAL ACCESS AND COMFORT OF THE COURT BUILDING ..................................................................................... 96 3.5.a Perceptions of geographical access to courts ........................................................................................................ 96 3.5.b Perceptions of the level of comfort of the court buildings ..................................................................................... 97 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 3.6 PERCEPTIONS OF THE EQUALITY OF ALL CITIZENS WITH REGARD THE ACCESSIBILITY OF THE JUDICIAL SERVICES............................................. 98 3.6.a Perceptions of general public, business sector and legal professionals about the equality of all citizens with regard to accessibility .................................................................................................................................................... 98 3.6.b Perceptions of older citizens, low educated citizens and citizens living in non-urban areas about the accessibility of judicial services ........................................................................................................................................................ 100 3.6.c Gender differences in perceptions about the accessibility of judicial services ..................................................... 101 3.7 PERCEPTIONS ABOUT MEDIATION .......................................................................................................................................... 102 3.7.a Perceptions of general public and business sector about mediation procedure .................................................. 102 3.7.b Perception of mediation procedure by court service providers ........................................................................... 104 4. COURT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ........................................................................................................................... 107 4.1. OVERALL PERCEPTIONS OF COURT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ..................................................................................................... 107 4.2. EFFICIENCY OF COURT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES..................................................................................................................... 110 4.3. PERCEPTIONS OF COURT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES PROVIDERS ABOUT CASELOAD AND COMFORT WITH WORKING CONDITIONS ................. 115 4.4. QUALITY OF COURT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ........................................................................................................................ 117 4.5. INTEGRITY OF COURT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ...................................................................................................................... 121 4.6. ACCESSIBILITY OF COURT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES ................................................................................................................. 125 5. PERCEPTIONS OF THE REFORM LAUNCHED IN JANUARY 2010 AND NEW NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM STRATEGY FOR THE PERIOD 2014-2018.................................................................................................................................................. 130 5.1. PERCEPTIONS OF REFORM LAUNCHED IN 2010 - AWARENESS, EXPECTATIONS AND PERCEIVED EFFECTS ................................................. 130 5.1.a Users of judicial system services awareness of and support to the reform launched in January 2010................ 130 5.1.b Judges, prosecutors and lawyers’ expectations and perceived effects of the reform launched in January 2010 132 5.1.c Providers’ of court administrative services expectations and perceived effects of the reform launched in January 2010 in their sector ...................................................................................................................................................... 136 5.2. PERCEPTIONS OF THE NEW NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM STRATEGY FOR THE PERIOD 2014-2018 ..................................................... 137 5.2.a Users’ of the judicial system services awareness of the new National Judicial Reform Strategy ........................ 138 5.2.b Judges’, prosecutors’ and lawyers’ perceptions of the new National Judicial Reform Strategy .......................... 139 5.2.c Providers’ of court administrative services perceptions of the new National Judicial Reform Strategy ............. 142 6. PERCEPTIONS OF THE INFLUENCE OF MEDIA IN SHAPING PUBLIC OPINION OF THE JUDICIARY SYSTEM ..................... 144 ANNEX 1 METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................................................. 147 A.1 Target groups ......................................................................................................................................................... 147 A.2. Sample design and method of data collection ...................................................................................................... 147 A.3 Weighting procedure ............................................................................................................................................. 151 A.4 Questionnaire......................................................................................................................................................... 152 A.5 Assessment of dimensions ..................................................................................................................................... 153 A.6 Data analyses ......................................................................................................................................................... 154 ANNEX 2 QUESTIONNAIRES ........................................................................................................................................... 155 Questionnaire for General public ................................................................................................................................. 155 Questionnaire for Enterprise managers from private sector ........................................................................................ 176 Questionnaire for Members of legal profession working in private practice ............................................................... 194 Questionnaire for Judges.............................................................................................................................................. 207 Questionnaire for Prosecutors ...................................................................................................................................... 222 Questionnaire for Court administrative staff ............................................................................................................... 237 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 SUMMARY OF THE KEY FINDINGS 1. This report presents the findings of two surveys1 and provides information about stakeholders’ experiences, perceptions, reform expectations and impacts of the previous judicial reforms of the justice system in Serbia. The objective of the baseline survey conducted in 2010 was to: (i) provide a baseline against which future reform results could be assessed; and (ii) help identify areas for further judiciary reform2. The objective of the follow-up survey, conducted in 2013, was to assess the initial impact of the first four years of reforms and expectations with respect to the new National Reform Strategy for the period of 2014 - 2018. 2. The survey polled members of the general population, representatives of the business sector, members of the legal profession (lawyers) working in private practice, and employees in the judiciary. In brief, this report presents a multi-dimensional, multi-stakeholder snapshot of experiences with, and views on, Serbia’s judiciary in two time periods, before and after implementation of the judicial reform of 2010. 3. The top findings of these surveys can be summarized as follows:  Only one in four citizens trusts the justice system in Serbia. The vast majority of citizens feels that trust in the judiciary is primarily undermined by long-lasting court proceedings, corruption, political influence on the judiciary, and by bad and non-transparent personnel policy.  According to all stakeholders, the efficiency – reflected in the length of court proceedings – was, and has remained, the biggest problem of the justice system. The efficiency of adminihstrative services provided by courts had a considerably more positive assessment than the efficiency of court proceedings, however almost one half of the court users still think that administrative tasks in courts should be completed in less time.  According to court users, another big problem of the justice system is the integrity of the judiciary. The majority of the citizens believes that the judiciary is not independent and that corruption is still widespread in the justice system.  In comparison to 2009, the general perception and experiences of court users have become somewhat more positive, while the opinions of service providers have become more negative.  The majority of providers of court services are disappointed with the effect of the reforms of 2010. Expectations that the reforms will improve the situation in various aspects of the court system were very high. However, when asked about the actual results of the reforms, providers of court services were very negative.  Expectations with respect to the new National Reform Strategy for the period 2014 – 2018 are very high, and exceed, considerably, the expectations with respect to the 2010 reforms. Efficiency 4. The findings in this survey point to a lack of efficiency as a key factor that was, and still is, one of the main problems and challenges in the Serbian judiciary. The findings of the survey conducted in 2010 pointed to problems related to efficiency, and the findings of the survey conducted in 2013 also show that, when it comes to efficiency of the Serbian judiciary, no major breakthrough or improvement has been recorded after the implementation of the 2010 reforms. 5. Negative opinions about the efficiency of the judicial system considerably prevail over positive opinions, both among users and providers of court services and lawyers. Personal 1 The first survey was conducted in 2010 and looked at the situation in the Serbian judiciary until December 31, 2009. The follow-up survey was conducted in 2013 and early 2014 and looked at the Serbian judiciary until December 31, 2013. 2 In this survey “the judiciary” refers to the courts and prosecutors’ offices. It does not include the police, penal system and Ministry of Justice. 7 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 experiences with the efficiency of judicial services are even more negative than general impressions of those citizens who did not have any experience with the court system. The majority of citizens who had experience with court proceedings think that their case took too long. The excessive duration of the case proceedings was aggravated by a considerable number of canceled and unproductive hearings (which did not contribute to the resolution of the case), as well as by long time intervals between the hearings, which ranged from three to four months on average. 6. In comparison with the period before implementation of the January 2010 reforms, the general perception of the efficiency of the judiciary among court users has become somewhat more positive, but court users who have experience with a court system remained equally dissatisfied with the duration of their case, while there has been an increase in the percentage of representatives of the business sector who are dissatisfied. 7. In 2013 judges and prosecutors expressed considerably more negative opinions about the efficiency of the judiciary than in 2010, so their opinions came closer to opinions of court users. Efficiency is the measurement dimension with the biggest recorded concurrence of opinions between users and providers of court services. 8. Judges and prosecutors consider the obstructive attitude of parties to be the most important reason for the prolonged duration of the cases, while the court-related issues are seen to have less of an impact. In addition, a substantial percentage of judges and prosecutors see the reasons for long duration of court cases in gaps in legislation and inefficient procedural provisions, but also in the lack of court capacities. 9. The efficiency of administrative services in courts was evaluated more positively than the efficiency of court proceedings, and the percentage of court users who are satisfied with the efficiency of the administrative services increased from 2009. According to court users, the ability to complete all tasks at one place has improved (instead of going “from door-to-door“), as has the time needed to complete the task. The number of visits to the court needed to complete the task has also somewhat decreased. Although the assessment of the efficiency of court services is more positive, around half of court users still believe that these tasks could have been completed in less time. Court staff working on these administrative services think that the efficiency could be improved through an increase in the number of staff, stimulation of unmotivated staff with higher salaries, simplified procedures, and better technical equipment. Quality of Court Services 10. The perception of the general quality of work of the judicial system by court users and lawyers on the one hand, and providers of court services on the other hand, is remarkably different. While the general population and lawyers evaluate the quality of the work of the judiciary as rather low (or average in the best case), providers of court services found the quality of services to be high (or average in the worst of case). 11. In comparison to 2009, the general impressions about the quality of work of the judiciary among court users have become somewhat more positive, but assessments of the quality of the services provided in the concrete cases in which the citizens participated did not change. Also, the opinions of lawyers in the concrete cases are more negative. However, assessments by court service providers have become somewhat more negative, so the opinions between users and providers are slightly closer, but the difference is still significant and the gap is very wide. 12. According to court users, the main cause of quality deficiencies in their court cases was poor work of judges, poor organization in the courts and poor legal solutions. Judges, however, most frequently identify unclear laws and understaffing to be the main reasons for poor quality. The 8 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 prosecutors found that the principal cause for poor quality is lack of staff, while lawyers believe that the poor quality of the judiciary is linked to the poor organization within judicial institutions. 13. In comparison to 2009, the frequency that lack of staff was mentioned as the reason for reduced quality of court services has increased in all three groups of legal professionals, particularly among judges. 14. Court users are more satisfied with the quality of administrative services than with the quality of court proceedings. Court users mainly evaluate the quality of administrative services as average, but a higher percentage of them evaluate this quality as high rather than low. The majority of court users are satisfied with the various aspects of the work of administrative services in courts (working hours, accessibility of information and staff, behavior and competence of staff, and time spent waiting in line), and the percentage of satisfied users has increased in comparison to 2009. However, the perception of quality of administrative services is considerably more positive among the service providers than among users, and this difference has remained significant despite the increase of favorable opinions of court users. Accessibility 15. The majority of court users and legal professionals found that the judicial system is generally accessible to citizens. Nevertheless, a considerably smaller percentage of court users than service providers share this opinion. In comparison to 2009, the opinions of the service providers have become somewhat more negative, so they came closer to the opinions of court users, but the difference is still considerable. 16. Court users and legal professionals found that the judicial system is most accessible to citizens when it comes to the accessibility of information, the geographical proximity of courts, and ease of use of the court buildings. They also found that the judicial system is least accessible in terms of cost of court proceedings (both those related to lawyers’ fees and court fees). 17. The majority of court users thought that, in their case, it was easy to access information. Court users drew on both formal and informal sources to seek information about their case, but mainly turned to their lawyers for help. In comparison to 2009, a change was noted only in case of citizens who have a misdemeanor case where they expressed slightly more dissatisfaction with the accessibility of information. 18. The cost of court proceedings was actually the only aspect of accessibility that the majority of court users and legal professionals perceive as a problem for citizens. Most court users who had experience with a court case believe that the costs of their court case were too high and a considerable burden to their budget. Citizens who stated that they had a dispute for which they thought it should be resolved in court but decided not to start a court case also specified that the cost of court proceedings is the main reason for that decision. 19. In comparison to the population averages, citizens with lower education and older citizens perceive the judicial system as less accessible to them in all aspects , while citizens who live outside of urban areas perceive access to information as the main problem, followed by the challenges when finding their way in the court house and problems related to the distance to the court. 20. The accessibility of administrative court services was assessed as satisfactory by both court services users and providers. In comparison to 2009, the opinions of court users about the accessibility of administrative services have become more positive, and opinions of providers of administrative court services have become more negative, so that the opinions have mainly become concurrent. The percentage of court users who believe that accessibility of information and navigating around the courthouse is not a problem was even higher than the percentage of providers of court 9 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 services who shared that opinion. The majority of the court users believe that the total cost of the court administrative services which they used was reasonable and was not a burden on their budget. Fairness 21. A majority of court users found that the judicial system was fair, at least to some extent, if not completely fair (circa one half of the general population and 60% of business sector representatives). The majority of court users with experience with a court case perceived their trial as fair (mainly or completely), but considerably less than half of them thought that it was completely fair (37% of the general population and 44% of business sector representatives). 22. The assessment of fairness was strongly affected by the outcome of the case. A considerably higher percentage of court users evaluated their trial as being completely fair when the judgment was in their favor. However, even in the case of a favorable outcome, the percentage of court users who evaluated their trial as completely fair barely exceeds one half (53%). 23. The general impressions of court users about the fairness of the judicial system, as well as assessments of fairness in a concrete case where they were a party in the case, have become more positive since 2009. While in 2009 the percentage of citizens who had negative impressions about the judiciary exceeded the percentage of those who had positive impressions, in the year 2013 this ratio has changed in favor of positive impressions. The percentage of court users who evaluated their trial as completely fair has increased as well. While almost one half of court users gave a moderate rating in 2009 for fairness, in 2013 the percentage of citizens who evaluated their trial as completely fair almost equaled the percentage of citizens who gave a moderate rating (37% and 39% respectively). 24. Positive changes in evaluations of fairness were noted in criminal and civil cases, while in misdemeanor cases the percentage of court users who rated their trial as fair has somewhat decreased. Representatives of the business sector are more satisfied with the fairness of their trial than members of the general population, but their ratings have not changed in comparison to 2009. 25. Providers of court services evaluated fairness considerably more positively than court users, while the ratings of lawyers were closer to those of court users. In comparison to 2009 the ratings have become closer to each other, as the opinions of court users and lawyers became somewhat more positive while the opinions of service providers somewhat more negative, but the difference still remains significant. 26. Legal professionals think that fairness was affected by an overburdened judiciary, poor organization and poor legal solutions. However, while almost half of the lawyers see the politicization of the judiciary as a reason for lack of fairness, and one in five point to corruption as the main issue, a considerably smaller percentage of judges and prosecutors associate a lack of fairness with these issues. Compared to 2009, the biggest changes were recorded in assessments by prosecutors. In 2013, more than 25% of prosecutors specified an overburdened judiciary and poor organization as the reason for inadequate fairness of the judiciary. The percentage of lawyers who mention corruption as the main reason has somewhat decreased. 27. At the same time, a majority of professionals believe that the judicial system treats all citizens equally regardless of their gender, age, nationality, place of residence, education, or disabilities. The socio-economic status of citizens is perceived as the dominant factor for unequal treatment: 42% of lawyers, 25% of prosecutors and 17% of judges (similar to 2009) think that citizens are not treated equally in terms of socio-economic status. At the same time, more than 60% of citizens think that socio-economic status is the source of unequal treatment, and more than 40% think that treatment varies depending on education levels and ethnicity. A considerable percentage of business sector representatives also believe that enterprises are treated unequally based on several factors. 10 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 More than a half of them believe that the treatment varies depending on ownership structure of the enterprise, and almost half of them believe that the treatment depends on the company’s size. Integrity 28. The results of both studies suggest that integrity was and still is one of the major problems of the judicial system in Serbia. Users of court services and lawyers believe that integrity is an issue, compared to the providers of court services. However, a considerable portion of judges and prosecutors also share negative views of the integrity of the judicial system, both in terms of corruption and independence of the judiciary. 29. Most court users and lawyers (almost 60%) believe that the judiciary is not independent, while one in four judges and one in three prosecutors agrees with this opinion. Compared to 2009, opinions of court users and lawyers have become somewhat more positive, while the opinions of prosecutors and judges have become more negative, so the views get closer, but the discrepancy is still significant. 30. A majority of judges and prosecutors listed politicians, political parties and the media as the main entities which threaten the independence of the judiciary. However, in their opinion, other institutions are also responsible: more than a third of judges and prosecutors believe that some ministries and the government have impaired the independence of the judicial system, one in five reports that independence is endangered by businessmen (some companies), and a somewhat higher percentage reports that NGOs have been the threatening factor. 31. The great majority of citizens and lawyers (almost 90%) perceive the presence of corruption in the judicial system, at least to some extent, and this view is shared by more than half of prosecutors and 42% of judges. Compared to 2009, the portion of those who believe that corruption is present in the judiciary is reduced in all groups, considerably more so among judges and prosecutors than among court users and lawyers. While one in four judges and prosecutors believed that the judiciary was free of corruption in 2009, in 2013 this view was shared by over half of judges and 44% of prosecutors. 32. Most judges and prosecutors believe that integrity is impaired by sensationalist media reports (78% of judges and 80% of prosecutors) and by the duration of court proceedings (73% of judges and 77% of prosecutors). A majority also believes that integrity was endangered by an inadequate and insufficiently transparent human resources policy, political influences on the judiciary and inadequate sanction policies for cases of corruption. 33. From the citizens’ point of view, the confidence in the judicial system was reduced by a number of factors. The largest portion of citizens (more than 80%) believes that trust was impaired by the duration of court proceedings, corruption, political influence on the judiciary and an inadequate and not sufficiently transparent human resources policy. 34. About a third of court users consider there to be corruption in administrative court services. This is a considerable and positive progress compared to 2009, when the portion of citizens who shared this opinion was substantially larger. 11 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Costs 35. About a half of court users found trial costs to be too high. However, perceptions of whether costs were reasonable were strongly influenced by the respondents’ assessment of the quality of court performance. The citizens who are satisfied with the quality perceive costs as more affordable and less of a burden on their budget. Compared to 2009, the portion of users who assess costs as extremely high has changed only among the citizens who have experience with misdemeanor cases - in the negative direction; the portion of citizens who assessed total costs as too extensive has risen to 18%. 36. Most of the users of administrative services assess the total cost of administrative services as reasonable and not as a particular burden on their budget. Compared to 2009, percentage of the general population who assesses the costs of administrative services as not a considerable burden on their budget has increased. Perception of Results of the Reforms Introduced in January 2010 and Expectations with respect to the New National Judicial Reform Strategy for the Period 2014 to 2018. 37. General support to the judicial reforms introduced in 2010 has decreased considerably among court users as well as providers of court services and lawyers. The reduced support among judges and prosecutors for the reforms is certainly a result of disappointment in the effects of these reforms. Expectations that the reforms will improve the situation in various aspects of the functioning of the judicial system were far higher than the actual positive effect of the reforms. 38. Judges and prosecutors had the greatest expectations in relation to fairness and integrity. More than half of them expected improvements in these areas, but the portion of those who said that improvements had already occurred is by far lower; less than 30% perceive that fairness has improved, while one in four consider that the integrity of the judicial system has improved. More than half of the prosecutors also expected improvements in efficiency, but only 27% estimated that they had actually materialized. Judges and prosecutors had low expectations regarding the improvement of working conditions (41% of judges and 37% of prosecutors) and more rational budget spending (34% of judges and 40% of prosecutors), but not many perceived positive effects of the reforms in any of the two areas. One in five judges and 15% of prosecutors believe that the reforms have improved their working conditions; 15% of judges and 13% of prosecutors think that the reforms have contributed to more rational budget spending. 39. Lawyers, compared to judges and prosecutors, had considerably lower expectations, so the extent of their disappointment is considerably smaller. While discrepancies between the lawyers and judges and prosecutors in terms of expectations towards the effects of reform were substantial, the perceptions of the actual effects of reform are similar. 40. Similarly to lawyers, providers of administrative services had considerably lower expectations towards the reforms in their sector, so their disappointment was less. The perception of the actual effects of the reforms is considerably closer to perceptions of judges and prosecutors. The employees in administrative services expected negative consequences primarily in terms of increased workload, or reduced number of employees. Only 19% expected positive results of the reforms, and a similar share assessed the reform effects as positive. 41. Knowledge of the reforms has decreased substantially among citizens, as well as support to the reforms. Those who have heard of the reforms mainly associate them with the reappointment of judges and prosecutors, which was the case with the reforms introduced in 2010. 42. At the end of 2013, providers of court services and lawyers were not well informed about the new National Judicial Reform Strategy for the period 2014 to 2018. Little more than a third of judges and prosecutors considered themselves as well informed, while more than half of lawyers and 12 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 providers of administrative services estimated that they had no or almost no information about the new judicial reform strategy. 43. In spite of insufficient knowledge, the great majority of judges and prosecutors generally support the new strategy, in the same way as they supported the introduction of the reforms in 2010. The portion of providers of administrative services and lawyers who support the new strategy is considerably higher than the share of those who supported the reforms in 2010. Concrete expectations in different aspects of the functioning of the judicial system are considerably higher than with the reforms introduced in 2010, and greater expectations are particularly tangible in the case of providers of administrative services and lawyers. 44. Most judges and prosecutors expect the new reforms to have positive effects on all aspects of the performance of the judiciary. The optimism is most extensive in terms of the efficiency of the judicial system: 62% of judges and 67% of prosecutors expect that the new reforms will improve efficiency. More than 60% of prosecutors expect improvements with regard to accessibility of the judicial system. Judges have the lowest expectations regarding the contribution of the new reforms to more rational budget spending (51%), and the prosecutors have the lowest expectations regarding quality of working conditions (56%). 45. Lawyers are less optimistic than judges and prosecutors. The biggest portion of lawyers expects improvement of efficiency (56%) and accessibility of judiciary (53%), and a smaller portion expects improvements in fairness and integrity of the judiciary (43%). 46. The employees in administrative services, similarly to lawyers, have considerably lower expectations towards the new reforms than they had with respect to the 2010 reforms. About a half expects improvements in accessibility and efficiency, and a similar portion expects improvements in the quality of working conditions and a general increase of performance. Expectations are very low when it comes to improvements of the normative framework that regulates activities of administrative services; less than half (45%) expects positive changes here. 47. Not many citizens were informed about the new National Judicial Reform Strategy at the end of 2013 (11% of general population and 26% of business sector representatives), but the great majority of those who were supported the proposed reforms. Gender-related differences 48. No gender-related differences were identified by these two surveys in experiences of men and women with the judicial system that would imply different treatment before the court. Both men and women were equally satisfied or dissatisfied with the average length of their proceedings, the quality of work of the judiciary and the fairness of the judicial system. 49. With regard to a broad perception of the performance of judiciary, evaluation does vary, but these discrepancies are not systemic and they do not point to general differences in perception of the judiciary. Women have generally more positive impressions of fairness of the judiciary than men do, and similar portions of men and women agree that citizens of both genders are treated equally before the court (72% of men and 69% of women). 13 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Effects of Personal Experiences with the Justice System 50. Those court users who had experience with court cases gave somewhat more negative ratings about the functioning of the judiciary as compared to those who had no experience with court cases. Court users with experience with court cases evaluated the efficiency and accessibility of the judicial system more negatively; in addition, business sector representatives who had experience with the court system also evaluated the quality of services more negatively than business representatives without this experience. There were no differences regarding the assessment of fairness between court users with and without experience with court cases. 51. The court users who had experience with court cases evaluated the quality and fairness in their concrete case more positively than they evaluated the quality of services and fairness of the judicial system in general. However, as would be expected, the evaluations of fairness were dependent on the outcome of the trial, so that respondents whose cases were resolved in their favor reported more positive views than those whose cases were not. 52. Compared to 2009, among the members of the general public who had experience with court cases, positive impressions of efficiency, quality of services, and fairness of the judicial system have grown to a greater extent than among users without this experience, so views have come closer to each other. As for accessibility, the views of users who had experience with court cases have not changed, and the views of users without this experience have become more positive, so the discrepancy has increased. 53. Business sector representatives who had experience with the court system have a more positive impression about efficiency, but it is still less positive than the impression of business sector representatives without this experience. Views on quality and accessibility among the business sector representatives who had experience with the court system have not changed, while views have become more positive among those business sector representatives without this experience. 54. The overall confidence in the judicial system has grown somewhat more among the citizens who had experience with court cases compared to citizens without this experience. So, while in 2009 citizens who had no experience with court cases had considerably more confidence in the judicial system than citizens who had experience with court cases, the level of confidence of these two groups have come closer to each other. 14 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 INTRODUCTION Survey background and objectives 55. With the purpose of providing assistance to Government efforts in justice sector reform and modernization, the World Bank conducted two surveys. The first survey was conducted in 2010 in order to collect baseline information on perceptions of the court and prosecutorial performance and expectations from the reform implemented in January 2010. The second, follow-up, survey was conducted in 2013 in order to identify the impact of the first four years (2010 - 2013) of reforms and the expectations from the new National strategy of reform for the period 2014-2018. 56. The surveys aimed to measure perceptions of judicial performance against five core values (efficiency, quality, fairness, accessibility, and integrity - independence and presence of corruption), and to compare the views of multiple stakeholders (court services users - general public and business sector, court services providers -judges, prosecutors and providers of court administrative services, and lawyers as intermediaries between users and providers of court services). In addition to the issue of integrity the problem of partiality of judges was included in the follow up survey. 57. The surveys also aimed to measure judicial performance from the point of view of users with personal experiences with court proceedings, as well as the influence of these personal experiences to general perceptions of the judiciary in relation to the five values. In order to achieve this goal, users of court services with experience with court cases and users without such experience were surveyed. 58. The survey also focused on costs of judicial services, with respect to perceptions of accessibility of court services, and views of cost, with respect to quality of the delivered services, from the point of view of users with experience with court cases. Finally, one of the aims of the surveys was to gain insights in the role of media in shaping the public opinion of judiciary. Strengths and Limitations of Judiciary Surveys 59. Surveys can map experiences, perceptions, and expectations from the point of view of various stakeholders, thus providing an indication of the judiciary’s popular legitimacy that cannot be measured in other ways. It is important to address the perceptions of the general public and of the users of the justice system, as perception data can point to areas where there may be a need to follow up with administrative data. 60. It is often argued, however, that there are limitations to using perception data to measure performance. First, the perceptions of members of the general public who have not had personal contact with the justice system could be influenced by media coverage of cases at the time of the survey, such that survey results could fluctuate randomly over time and measure a general mood rather than system performance. Both factors could render surveys less useful as baselines for measuring reform progress over time and as tools for identifying reform priorities. Another argument is that perceptions and reform expectations could be influenced by whether or not the respondent has received an advantageous verdict, for example. Thus, the argument goes, responses would not measure the quality of the process and the system but the respondent’s opinion of the outcome of the case. 15 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 61. In this sense, the current survey aims to measure the experiences and perceptions of changes in the past 3 years, as well as expectations for future reforms of the judicial system in Serbia. In addition, this study observes experiences, perceptions and expectations, by examining various dimensions of performance of the judicial system, comparing the perceptions of various stakeholders and recognizing the limitations of research instruments. By comparing the perceptions and expectations, it is possible to recognize similar and different trends among stakeholders and thus recognize the influence of the fact that, for example, the respondent had experience with the services of a court or didn’t have such experience, whether the verdict was delivered or not in his / her favor, how time and costs influence the perception, whether certain segments of population have different experiences with justice system - and whether and how it affects their opinions. Structure of the report 62. The review of the survey results is organized as follows: The introductory section contains an overview of perceptions of the five dimensions of judiciary performance across survey groups and across time. More detailed data on perceptions of the five basic dimensions are presented in the next three sections. The section on quality, besides perceptions of overall quality of judiciary services, encompasses the perceptions of fairness, integrity (presence of corruption and independence) and impartiality, and public trust in judiciary, while the cost issue is presented in the section on accessibility. Perceptions of performance of court administrative services alongside the five dimensions by users and providers of the services are presented in a separate section (Section 4). The penultimate section deals with expectations and perceived effects of the reform implemented in January 2010 and expectations from the new National strategy of reform. The final section deals with the perceived role of media in shaping the public opinion on judiciary system in Serbia. 16 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 METHODOLOGY 1 Introduction 63. The survey on the judicial system encompassed 4 separate surveys on different target populations, that is: (i) Survey on General Population (citizens of Serbia 18+) (users and non-users); (ii) Survey on Representatives of Business Sector (users and non-users); (iii) Survey on legal professionals who have private practice (private lawyers); and (iv) Survey on Public Officials Employed in Justice Sector. 2 Sample and method of selecting respondents 64. In order to ensure methodological consistency, that is, valid comparability of results, sample drafts and drafts of data collection methods for all target groups in the follow-up survey were based on sample drafts and drafts of data collection methods in the baseline survey. General population 65. Both the baseline and follow-up surveys on general population were based on a national representative sample. The type of sample was a three-stage random sample. Besides a representative sample for the general population, the survey was also done on a booster sample of users of court services. 66. In the follow-up survey, the users of court services are defined as members of the general population of the citizens of Serbia (18+) who participated themselves in a court case which was FINISHED (the first instance verdict was passed) in the period from the beginning of 2011 till the end of 20133. The proceedings could have started earlier, but the first instance verdict had to be passed in that period. The court proceedings could have dealt with criminal, civil or misdemeanor matters. The respondent could have participated in it ONLY as a party in proceedings (not as a witness). In both surveys the plan is to interview 1000 representatives of general population and an additional 600 users of court services. In the follow-up survey, a total of 1048 interviews were conducted on a random sample of general population and an additional 650 interviews with users of court services (Table A1 in Annex)4. Representatives of business sector 67. In the case of business sector representatives, one stage stratified sample was used both in the baseline and follow-up survey. Stratification was done by geographical regions, economic activity and size of enterprise. The sampling frame were private enterprises evidenced in Serbian Business Registers Agency. In the majority of cases the questionnaire was filled out by two persons in the enterprise: the highest positioned manager available and the person who is the best informed about judicial proceedings and administrative services. Namely, questions on perception could be answered by a manager or lawyer within or outside of the enterprise who is included in a court case. 68. Both in the baseline and follow-up survey, it was planned to cover 800 randomly selected registered enterprises and a booster sample of 200 enterprises – users of court services. In the follow-up survey, a total of 810 interviews were conducted on a representative random sample of 3 In the baseline survey conducted in 2010, first instance judgment had to be made in the period from the beginning of 2007. till the end of 2009 4 Total of 1035 interviews was conducted in the baseline survey on a random sample of general population and additional 555 interviews with users of court services. 17 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 private enterprises population and 210 interviews with users of court services5 (Table A.2.2a in Annex). The method of selecting respondents for the booster sample of users of court services was the same as in case of random sample of enterprises; that is, the enterprises were randomly selected from the register of Serbian Business Registers Agency, whereas the interviews were applied only to the enterprises which the screening telephone interview identified as users of court services. Lawyers 69. The sample frame for the survey on lawyers was the list of private lawyers registered in the Bar Association of Serbia. Respondents were chosen randomly from 8 regional associations: Belgrade, Čačak, Kragujevac, Niš, Požarevac, Zaječar, Šabac and Vojvodina. 800 lawyers were interviewed. The employed in judiciary Judges and prosecutors 70. The questionnaire was distributed to all judges, prosecutors and deputy prosecutors employed in the judicial and prosecutor’s institutions during the survey. Given that the universe, by definition, encompassed judges and prosecutors who were active in these positions during the survey fieldwork, the main survey conducted in 2010 encompassed only judges and prosecutors who were reappointed in 2009, while the 2013 survey encompassed also judges and prosecutors who were not reappointed during the main survey, but who were returned to work by the decision of the Constitutional Court, as well as judges and prosecutors hired in between the two surveys (Table A.2.2c,d and e in the Appendix). In order to provide full privacy and confidentiality of the collected data, the questionnaires were self-administered. Given the method, huge differences between questionnaires in regard to response rate can be observed. This report includes results for the judges and prosecutors who answered the given question. The employed in administration 71. The questionnaires were distributed to administrative staff in 43 courts chosen for the main survey. The sample was created in such a way that the number of the chosen administrative staff in each of these three regions is proportional to the number of judges in the given region. In collaboration with the head of the government sector in each town, questionnaires were distributed to all departments. The number of questionnaires was proportional to the number of those employed in each department, so most of the questionnaires were distributed to the employed in the registry office in each court. The data collection method was a self-administered questionnaire. A total of 900 questionnaires each were distributed in both the basic survey and follow-up survey; in the main survey, 571 administrative employees completed the questionnaire (response rate 63%), and 579 in the follow-up survey (response rate 64%). 5In the baseline survey, 853 interviews were conducted on a representative random sample in the population of private enterprises and 212 with users. 18 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 3 Data collection method 72. The applied data collection method is F2F for all interviewed groups, except for those employed in the judiciary who filled out a self-administered questionnaire in order to be provided with stronger guarantees in regard to anonymity of interviews. Members of the general population were interviewed in their households. Business sector representatives and lawyers were interviewed at work, after answering a screening questionnaire over the phone. Those employed in the judiciary filled out self-administered questionnaire, since it was identified in the 2010 survey that they felt uneasy being interviewed by interviewers, while self-administering suited them better as it added a new layer of confidentiality. 4 Fieldwork timeline 73. The survey was conducted during the second half of 2013. Respondents were asked about their perceptions and experiences with the judiciary system, with the focus on the period prior to 2013, in order to obtain information about the situation after implementation of the reform of the judiciary system. The survey on the general population, the business sector and lawyers was conducted in November and December 2013. Interviews in prosecutor’s offices and courts were conducted from November 2013 till February 2014. 74. Detailed methodology is described in this report’s Appendix. 19 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 OVERVIEW OF PERCEPTION OF FIVE DIMENSIONS OF JUDICIARY PERFORMANCE Summary 75. As an illustrative summary of the general perceptions of judicial performance among court users and justice service providers, a brief summary of perceptions of the court system in 2013 and changes in perception compared with the 2009 survey is presented through five dimensions of court services (efficiency, quality, fairness, accessibility and integrity). For a clearer layout, presented first are net scores (obtained by subtracting the percentage of negative scores from the percentage of positive scores) (Tables i.1 and i.2). A more detailed overview of the comparison of evaluations of the five dimensions between target groups obtained in the survey conducted in 2013 is shown in Figures I.1.1 to I.1.66, and changes in perception compared with the survey conducted in 2009 for each individual target group is shown in Figures I.2.1 to I.2.7.7 The obtained results show the following:  Efficiency, quality and integrity (independence and presence of corruption) are the main issues of the court system in the opinion of users of court services, but from the point of view of the overall results obtained with all target groups, efficiency is the main problem.  Users of court services are more likely to evaluate efficiency, quality and integrity of the court system with negative than with positive grades, while fairness and accessibility are aspects which users are more likely to evaluate positively than negatively.  There are substantial differences between users and providers of court services with regard to perceptions of performance of the court system. Providers of court services, particularly judges, are considerably more likely to evaluate all dimensions more positively, so, with the exception of efficiency and prosecutors’ opinion on presence of corruption, positive evaluation prevails over negative.  As for perceptions of efficiency, this is where the opinions of users and of providers of court services match most, and this is also the only dimension with evenly distributed positive and negative judges’ evaluation, while prosecutors are a lot more likely to give negative than positive grades (even more negative than those of general population with experience with court cases).  Differences between users and providers of court services are greatest in perceptions of quality, followed by perceptions of independence of judiciary.  Perceptions of judges are at least somewhat more positive than perceptions of prosecutors on all dimensions, so differences compared to users of court services are greater in the case of judges than prosecutors.  Perceptions of lawyers are much closer to perceptions of users than to providers of court services, but lawyers’ evaluations of efficiency and quality of court services are a lot more negative than users’ evaluations, and somewhat more negative in regard to presence of corruption.  Users with experience with court cases, as compared to users without this experience, evaluate most dimensions more negatively, with just a few exceptions of dimensions which were similarly 6All dimensions were evaluated on 4-point scales, except the presence of corruption which was evaluated with 5 point scale with users of the services and 3 point scale with providers of the services and lawyers. Due to this discrepancy in measurement scale, the evaluations of the presence of corruption can be only roughly compared to the evaluations of other dimensions, and between users and providers of the services 7 In the survey in 2009, the 5-point scales were used for evaluations of efficiency and quality and due to this variation in measurement scales used for different dimensions, the comparisons between dimensions were less precise. In order to make the comparisons between dimensions more precise, and at the same time comparable with the results obtained in the 2009 survey, in the survey 2013, the respondents were first asked to evaluate efficiency and quality on 5 point scale (same as in 2009), and then, the respondents who selected the middle ratings were asked to opt for either positive or negative grades (But if expressing your opinion you should opt only between negative and positive, which side your opinion would be closer to?). In this way the evaluations were obtained on both, the 5-point scale (used for comparisons with evaluations for year 2009) and the 4 point scale (used for comparisons with evaluations on other dimensions for year 2013) 20 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 evaluated (quality and presence of corruption in general population and fairness both in general population and among business sector representatives)  Compared to 2009, perceptions of users and providers of court services became closer, since perceptions of users of services have become more positive (with some exceptions of accessibility and quality where there were no changes), and perceptions of providers of court services have become more negative (with the exception of perceptions of presence of corruption, which become more positive). However, with the exception of efficiency, perceptions of providers of court services are still significantly more positive than perceptions of users of court services  The major positive change among users of court services is in perceptions of independence of the judiciary, and the major negative change among providers of court services is in perceptions of accessibility of the judiciary  Lawyers’ opinions have become more negative in regard to efficiency, quality and accessibility, and more positive in regard to fairness, independence and presence of corruption Table i.1: 2013 NET SCORES ON FIVE DIMENSIONS General General Business Business public with public sector with sector experience without experience without Lawyers Judges Prosecutors with court experience with court experience case with court case with court case case Efficiency -19 -7 -25 -7 -61 +1 -25 Quality -30 -30 -34 -9 -64 +54 +49 Accessibility +2 +19 +15 +28 +21 +60 +48 Fairness +5 +4 +23 +23 +24 +67 +63 Integrity - independence -28 -18 -22 -9 -12 +48 +30 Integrity- corruption -37 -38 -21 -10 -43 +9 -8 Table i.2: 2009 AND 2013 DIFFERENCES IN NET SCORES8 ON FIVE DIMENSIONS General General Business Business public with public sector with sector experience without experience without Lawyers Judges Prosecutors with court experience with court experience case with court case with court case case Efficiency +15 +11 +13 +19 -6 -16 -30 Quality +12 +4 0 +17 -12 -15 -20 Accessibility 0 +5 0 +11 -29 -20 -32 Fairness +11 +6 +15 +13 +10 -15 -12 Integrity - independence +28 +30 +12 +33 +18 -8 -18 Integrity- corruption +9 +8 +14 +26 +22 +36 +46 I.1 Perceptions of five dimensions of judiciary performance across survey groups 76. Efficiency is the only dimension where negative opinions prevail over positive opinions in all groups, with the exception of judges whose positive and negative opinions are evenly distributed. Users of court services with experience with court cases share more negative opinions than users without this experience, while negative opinions are most present among lawyers. (Figure I.1.1) 8Differenceswere calculated by simple subtraction of net scores obtained in 2013 from the net score obtained in 2009. As already noted above, in order to make the evaluations obtained in the 2013 survey comparable with those obtained in the 2009 survey, for all comparisons the five point scales for the evaluations of efficiency and quality were used 21 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure I.1.1: 2013 perceptions Of Efficiency Negative Positive Net effect 40% 46% 37% 46% 47% 35% 19% 1 -7 -7 -19 -25 -25 54% 80% 46% 60% 63% 54% 60% -61 General public General public Business sector Business sector Lawyers Judges Prosecutors with court without court with court without court experience experience experience experience Note: Question: General public and business sector: What is your general opinion of how the judicial system in Serbia functioned over the past few years? Judges, prosecutors and lawyers: What do you think in general of the work of the judicial system in Serbia over the past few years; Scale: 1. Very negative, 2. Negative, 3. Positive, 4. Very positive; Shown in the figure: 1,2=Negative, 3,4=Positive. Base: Total target population 77. As for evaluation of quality, differences are the greatest between users of court services and lawyers on one side, and providers of court services on the other. While most providers of court services give positive scores, most users, and particularly lawyers, evaluate the quality negatively. The impressions of quality of services in the general population are equally negative among users with experience with court cases and those without this experience, while business sector representatives with experience with court cases evaluate quality of services more negatively than representatives without this experience. (Figure I.1.2) Figure I.1.2: 2013 perceptions of overall quality Negative Positive Net effect 54 49 35% 35% 33% 46% 75% 73% 18% -9 21% 24% -30 -30 -34 54% 82% 65% 65% 67% -64 General public General public Business sector Business sector Lawyers Judges Prosecutors with court without court with court without court experience experience experience experience Note: Question: General public and business sector: What is your general impression of the quality of work of the judiciary in the past few years? Judges and prosecutors: What was the quality of work of the institution in which you worked in the last 12 month? Lawyers: How do you rate the quality of work the judicial system provided to the public in the last 12 months? Scale: 1=very low, 2=low; 3=high, 4=very high, Shown in the figure: 1,2=Negative, 3,4=Positive. Base: Total target population 78. Accessibility and fairness are the only dimensions with prevailing positive over negative scores in all groups. However, providers of court services are a lot more likely than users and lawyers to give positive scores, and differences are particularly striking when compared to users with experience with court cases. (Figure I.1.3) 22 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure I.1.3: 2013 perceptions of accessibility Negative Positive Net effect 60 61% 48 56% 55% 59% 78% 48% 28 21 71% 19 15 2 -18% -23% -46% -37% -40% -33% -38% General public General public Business sector Business sector Lawyers Judges Prosecutors with court without court with court without court experience experience experience experience Note: Question: General public and business sector: When you think about the last few years, to what extent was the judicial system in Serbia equally accessible to all citizens notwithstanding their age, education level, financial status, ethnicity, handicap, the language they use…? Judges, prosecutors and law yers: To what extent were the courts accessible to all citizens, notwithstanding their age, education level, financial status, ethnicity, disability… in the last 12 months? Scale:1. Very inaccessible 2. Mostly inaccessible 3. Mostly accessible, 4. Fully accessible; Shown in the figure: 1,2=Negative, 3,4=Positive. Base: Total target population 79. Fairness, similar to accessibility, is more likely to be evaluated positively than negatively among users of court services and lawyers, but the opinion of providers of court services is far more positive than the opinion of users and lawyers.(Figure I.1.4) Figure I.1.4: 2013 perceptions of fairness Negative Positive Net effect 67 63 62% 81% 80% 52% 52% 60% 60% 23 23 24 5 4 -14% -17% -47% -48% -37% -37% -38% General public General public Business sector Business sector Lawyers Judges Prosecutors with court without court with court without court experience experience experience experience Note: Question: In your opinion, how fair was the judicial system in the last 12 months (2013)? (Scale: 1=very unfair 2 =mainly unfair 3=mainly fair, 4= very fair; Shown in the figure: 1,2=Negative, 3,4=Positive). Base: Total target population 80. When evaluating the independence of the judiciary, as in the case of quality, a striking imbalance between the opinion of users and lawyers on one side, and providers of court services on the other is present. While most users of court services and lawyers do not consider the judiciary independent, most judges and prosecutors do consider it independent (Figure I.1.5) 23 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure I.1.5: 2013 perceptions of integrity - independence Negative Positive Net effect 48 63% 30 32% 33% 34% 41% 44% 71% -9 -12 24% -18 -22 33% -28 50% 51% 56% 56% 60% General public General public Business sector Business sector Lawyers Judges Prosecutors with court without court with court without court experience experience experience experience Note: Question: To what extent was the judicial system in Serbia in the last 12 months truly independent from the executive authorities - politics? Scale of 1 to 4, 1 = “Not independent”, 2= “mostly not”, 3=”mostly independent”, 4=’fully independent”; Shown in the figure: 1,2=Negative, 3,4=Positive. Base: Total target population 81. Imbalance between users of court services and lawyers on one side, and providers of court services on the other, is also great in the case of opinions on the presence of corruption in the judiciary. As it was said already, the evaluation scales were different, so this comparison is relatively rough. However, there is considerable difference between users of court services and lawyers on one side and providers of services on the other in regard to the evaluation that corruption is not present in the judiciary at all. While a relatively low percentage of users of court services and lawyers believe that corruption is not present in the judiciary, more than half of judges, and somewhat less than half of prosecutors, share this opinion. Differences are particularly striking between evaluations of the general population and judges. Figure I.1.6: 2013 perceptions of integrity - presence of corruption in judiciary Negative (there is corruption) Positive (there is no corruption) Net effect 51% 44% 14% 13% 28% 17% 9 22% -43% -10 -8 -51% -51% -21 -60% -42% -38% -37 -38 -52% -43 General public General public Business sector Business sector Lawyers Judges Prosecutors with court without court with court without court experience experience experience experience Note: Question: General public and business sector: How present is corruption in judicial system? Scale from 1 to 5, 1 =‘not at all’ and 5 =‘to a great degree’; Shown in the figure: 1,2=Positive, 4,5=Negative; Judges, prosecutors and lawyers: Was there corruption in the judicial system in the last 12 months? Scale: 1 = There was no corruption, 2=To an extent, 3=To great extent; Shown in the figure: 2,3=Negative, 1=Positive. Base: Total target population 24 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 I.2 Perceptions of five dimensions of judiciary performance across time (2009 and 2013)9 82. The opinion of members of general population with experience with court cases has become more positive on all dimensions, with the exception of accessibility, where the opinion hasn’t changed. (Figure I.2.1) Figure I.2.1: 2009 and 2013 general public with experience with court case - perceptions of justice sector performance on five dimensions Negative Positive Net effect 51% 48% 46% 52% 19% 32% 10% 17% 7% 18% 5 5 11% 14% 2 42% -6 48% 43% 46% 46% 57% 51% 56% 47% -31 -24 52% 75% -28 -37 -36 -46 -46 60% -56 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Integrity Integrity Efficiency Quality Accessibility Fairness (Independence) (Corruption) 83. The opinion of members of general population without experience with court cases has become more positive on all dimensions (Figure I.2.2) Figure I.2.2: 2009 and 2013 general public without experience with court case - perceptions of justice sector performance on five dimensions Negative Positive Net effect 54% 56% 48% 52% 14 19 33% 15% 12% 22% 12% 13% 9% 7% 4 -2 44% 38% 39% 40% 37% 48% 70% -18 49% -29 -27 50% 58% 51% -31 -40 51% -38 -46 -48 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Integrity Integrity Efficiency Quality Accessibility Fairness (Independence) (Corruption) 84. As for business sector representatives, scores for efficiency, fairness and integrity (independence and presence of corruption) have become more positive, and scores for quality and accessibility haven’t changed. (Figure I.2.3) 9As already mentioned above, efficiency, quality and presence of corruption were evaluated with 5 point scales (presence of corruption with providers with 3 point scale), while accessibility, fairness and independence were evaluated with 4 point scales 25 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure I.2.3: 2009 and 2013 members of business sector with experience with court case - perceptions of justice sector performance on five dimensions Negative Positive Net effect 60% 52% 55% 53% 23 12 15 28% 34% 22% 8% 14% 8% 15% 8 16% 47% 62% 56% 43% 51% 42% 40% 40% 45% 37% 51% 58% -22 -21 -37 -34 -32 -34 -35 -50 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Integrity Integrity Efficiency Quality Accessibility Fairness (Independence) (Corruption) 85. As in case of general population, the opinion of business sector representatives without experience with court cases has become more positive on all dimensions. (Figure I.2.4) Figure I.2.4: 2009 and 2013 members of business sector without experience with court case - perceptions of justice sector performance on five dimensions Negative Positive Net effect 61% 60% 53% 28 53% 41% 23% 17 23 25% 28% 11% 20% 9% 10 13% -41% -36% -10 -33% -9 -10 -36% -43% -37% -67% -49% -51% -21 -27 -33% -38% -40 -42 -50% -36 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Integrity Integrity Efficiency Quality Accessibility Fairness (Independence) (Corruption) 86. The opinion of lawyers has become more negative in regard to efficiency, quality and accessibility, and more positive in regard to independence of judiciary and presence of corruption. (Figure i.2.5) Figure I.2.5: 2009 and 2013 lawyers - perceptions of justice sector performance on five dimensions Negative Positive Net effect 50 59% 62% 57% 74% 21 24 33% 44% 14 17% 5% 6% 6% 6% 7% 39% 51% 24% 38% 38% -12 43% -30 60% 62% 69% -33 72% -45 56% -43 -57 -63 63% -65 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Integrity Integrity Efficiency Quality Accessibility Fairness (Independence) (Corruption) 26 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 87. Changes in the opinions of judges and prosecutors are negative on all dimensions, with the exception of presence of corruption, where their opinions have become considerably more positive. (Figures I.2.6 and I.2.7) Figure I.2.6: 2009 and 2013 judges - perceptions of justice sector performance on five dimensions Negative Positive Net effect 80 82 59 60 67 54 44 88% 78% 89% 81% 76% 48 61% 71% 50% 51% 22% 16% 24% 9 3 2% 7% 8% 18% 8% 14% 35% 21% 24% 18% -19 69% 42% -45 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Integrity Integrity Efficiency Quality Accessibility Fairness (Independence) (Corruption) Figure I.2.7: 2009 and 2013 prosecutors - perceptions of justice sector performance on five dimensions Negative Positive Net effect 80 75 65 63 45 86% 48 87% 48 63% 68% 80% 71% 73% 30 44% 53% 23% 16% 10% -6 3% 8% 6% 11% 17% -8 21% 23% 25% 46% 33% -36 76% 52% -54 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Integrity Integrity Efficiency Quality Accessibility Fairness (Independence) (Corruption) 27 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 1. EFFICIENCY OF JUDICIARY SERVICE DELIVERY 1.1.Perceptions of efficiency of court service delivery 1.1.a General perceptions of the functioning of judicial system 88. Efficiency of the justice system is the biggest problem of the judiciary, both according to court users and providers of court services. Negative opinions about the efficiency of the functioning of the justice system prevail considerably over positive opinions of both court users, providers of court services, and lawyers. Perceptions of efficiency of the justice system’s functioning by court services providers have become close to the perception of the court services users, since the opinions of court users have become somewhat more positive, while the opinions of providers of court services have become considerably more negative. Personal experiences with court efficiency are even more negative than the general impressions of citizens without such experience, but the general assessment of efficiency has somewhat improved in both cases. 89. General opinions about the functioning of the judicial system are considerably more negative than positive, both among the court users, providers of court services and lawyers. More than 40% of the general population and representatives of the business sector have a negative opinion about overall functioning of judicial system, and less than 20% have a positive opinion; more than one third of the judges and almost a half of the prosecutors express negative opinions, while only 16% of the judges and 10% prosecutors express positive opinions. The most negative opinion was expressed by the lawyers, among whom even 69% have a negative opinion and only 6% have a positive opinion. (Figure 1.1.a1) 90. Opinions of the citizens who have experience with a court case are even more negative than opinions of those without such experience, and this difference is particularly striking in business sector (a negative opinion was expressed by 51% of the members of business sector who have experience with a court case, and 41% of those without such experience). (Figure 1.1.a1) Figure 1.1.a1: 2013 general perceptions of the functioning of judicial system Negative Positive 17% 15% 14% 20% 16% 10% 6% 48% 44% 41% 35% 46% 51% 69% General public General public Business sector Business sector Lawyers Judges Prosecutors with court without court with court without court experience experience experience experience Note: Question: General public and business sector: What is your general opinion of how the judicial system in Serbia functioned over the past few years? Judges, prosecutors and lawyers: What do you think in general of the work of the judicial system in Serbia over the past few years; Scale: 1. Very negative, 2. Negative, 3. Satisfactory 4. Positive,5. Very positive. Base: Total target population 28 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 91. In comparison with 2009, opinions of both the general population and representatives of the business sector have become more positive, and opinions of the judges are considerably more negative, which resulted in much a bigger concurrence of the attitudes of court users and providers of court services. (Figures 1.1.a2 and 1.1.a3) Figure 1.1.a2: 2009 and 2013, general perception of efficiency of judicial system Negative Positive 10% 17% 9% 15% 8% 14% 11% 20% 56% 48% 49% 44% 58% 51% 51% 41% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 General public with General public without Business with court Business without court court experience court experience experience experience Note: Question: What is your general opinion of how the judicial system in Serbia functioned over the past few years? Scale: 1. Very negative, 2. Negative, and 3. Satisfactory 4. Positive, 5. Very positive Base: General public and business sector total target population 92. The increase of negative opinions among judges and prosecutors is striking: the number of judges who expressed negative opinions increased by 19% in comparison with 2009, and the number of prosecutors who expressed negative opinions increased by 25% in comparison with 2009. The percentage of negative opinions also increased among the lawyers, but to a considerably lesser extent: 7%. (Figure 1.1.a3) Figure 1.1.a3: 2009 and 2013, perception of efficiency of judicial system Negative Positive 22% 16% 16% 10% 5% 6% 16% 21% 35% 46% 62% 69% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Note: Question: What do you think in general of the work of the judicial system in Serbia over the past few years; Scale: 1. Very negative, 2. Negative, and 3. Satisfactory 4. Positive, 5. Very positive, Base: Legal professionals total target population 29 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 1.1.b Perceptions of efficiency of case proceedings Summary 93. Court users with experience with court cases and providers of court services do not agree in their assessment of the length of court processes: while a majority of court users think that their cases lasted too long, according to judges just circa one fourth of the cases on which they worked, on average, lasted more than they should have lasted, and according to prosecutors circa one third of the cases lasted longer than they should have. According to information obtained from the court users, duration of misdemeanor and civil cases has not changed since 2009, and in criminal cases it has even been prolonged. The number of canceled and unproductive hearings, as well as too big time span between two hearings (which, on average, ranged from three to four months) substantially contributed to too long duration of cases. 94. Total efficiency of hearings (percentage of hearings contributing to resolution out of the total number of scheduled hearings) calculated based on data obtained from court users, court services providers and lawyers is relatively matching, range between 55% and 65%, with some exception of the efficiency based on prosecutors’ estimates which is somewhat lower than 50%, and court users in misdemeanor cases, which is somewhat above 70%. The percentage of productive hearings has increased somewhat in civil and business sector cases, while it remained at the same level in criminal and misdemeanor cases. The percentage of productive hearings was shown to decrease with extended duration of court proceedings, indicating that lengthy duration is very likely not a consequence of specificities of the cases, requiring a larger number of hearings in order to reach quality solution, but on the contrary, just leading to an increased number of canceled and unproductive hearings. 95. According to court service providers the reasons for extended duration of cases are more often obstructions from the parties in the proceedings, gaps in legislation and inefficient procedural provisions, than errors of the court. 1.1.b.1 Duration of proceedings 96. Most court users are not satisfied with duration of their court proceeding. More than 70% of citizens with experience in criminal, civil, and business sector cases, and almost 60% of citizens with experience in misdemeanor cases consider their court proceeding longer than necessary. The percentage of dissatisfied citizens hasn’t changed since 2009, while business sector representatives are now even more likely to be dissatisfied with duration of their court proceeding. (Figure 1.1.b.1.1) Figure 1.1.b.1.1 Share of court users in general population and business sector who perceive their cases to lasted longer than they should 69% 74% 69% 71% 67% 72% 64% 56% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Criminal Misdemeanor Civil Business GENERAL PUBLIC Note: Question: Difference between duration of the case in months reported by court users and their estimations of the number of months the case should have lasted: When was the case filed -month and year - when was the first instant judgment render? / How long do you think the first instance proceeding should have lasted - in months? Base: General public and members of business sector with experience with court cases 30 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 97. According to judges and prosecutors, however, a far lower percentage of cases lasted longer than necessary: in judges’ estimations, on average, about one fourth of their cases lasted longer than necessary, and in prosecutors’ estimation about one third. Lawyers’ estimations matches citizens’ estimations a lot more, since they estimated that about 55% of their typical cases lasted longer than necessary. Judges’, prosecutors’ and lawyers’ perception of duration of their cases hasn’t changed since 2009. (Figure 1.1.b.1.2) Figure 1.1.b.1.2 Average percentage of cases that lasted longer than they should have based on data reported by judges, prosecutors and lawyers 2009 2013 55% 35% 24% 32% 23% Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Note: Question: Please estimate the percentage of your cases in the last 12 months that lasted longer than they should have for any reason? Base: Judges, prosecutors and lawyers who provided data (Judges 2009 79%, 2013 81%; Prosecutors 2009 76%, 2013 74%; Lawyers 2009 99, 2013 100%) 98. Dissatisfaction with the efficiency of court proceedings is not surprising given their duration. As reported by the citizens10 in 2013, the average duration of court proceeding from case filing to first- instance judgment in criminal and civil cases was about 15 months, in misdemeanor cases 8 months, and in business sector cases 13 months. Compared with the data reported in 2009, the only change occurred in criminal cases, and this change is negative: on average, cases lasted 3 months longer. (Figure 1.1.b.1.3) Figure 1.1.b.1.3 2009 and 2013 Average number of months from case filing to first-instance judgment as reported by court users 2009 2013 16 15 15 13 12 12 8 6 Criminal Misdemeanor Civil Business GENERAL PUBLIC Note: Question: When was the case filed -month and year? / When was the first instance judgment rendered- month and year)? General public and members of business sector with experience with court cases who reported data (Criminal cases 2009 87%, 2013 88%; Misdemeanor 2009 92%, 2013 96%; Civil 2009 92%, 2013 96%; business 2009 83%, 2013 91%) 99. Striking are, however, great variations in duration of cases. According to data reported in 2013, the duration of criminal cases ranged from less than one to 70 months; in misdemeanor cases it ranged from less than one to 46 months, in civil and business cases from less than one to more than 100 months. 10Information obtained from citizens and business sector representatives about duration of their court case is based on recollections and may somewhat differ from reality. However, consistency of the information obtained in surveys conducted in 2009 and 2013indicates that the results are reliable, so it may be assumed that the average values are in the range of actual with reasonable size of deviations. 31 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 100. As well, several months usually passed from the case filing to the first appearing before court. In criminal cases, citizens usually waited about 4 months, in civil and misdemeanor cases about 3 months, while business sector representatives waited somewhat more than 2 months. Compared to 2009, the interval from case filing to the first appearing before the court decreased only with business sector cases, while with other types of cases it remained the same. (Figure 1.1.b.1.4) Figure 1.1.b.1.4: 2009 and 2013 Average number of months that passed between a case being filed and a party appearing in court, as reported by court users (for follow up are selected only those whose case was filed after January 2010) 2009 2013 3.9 3.7 3.4 2.9 3.0 2.7 2.7 2.4 Criminal Misdemeanor Civil Business GENERAL PUBLIC Note: Question: When was the case filed (month and year)?/When did one of the parties appear before a judge for the first time (month and year)?) Base: General public and members of business sector with experience with court cases who reported data (Criminal cases 2009 94%, 2013 73%; Misdemeanor 2009 93%, 2013 87%; Civil 2009 94%, 2013 78%%; business 2009 79%, 2013 79%) 1.1.b.2 Efficiency of hearings i) Number of scheduled hearings 101. According to information obtained from citizens who have experience with a court case in 2013, the number of scheduled hearings in first-instance proceedings is not big. Based on information obtained from citizens-court users in 2013, on average, five hearings were scheduled in criminal and civil cases, two hearings in misdemeanor cases, and four hearings in business cases. Average number of scheduled hearings hasn’t changed since 2009. (Figure 1.1.b.2.1) Figure 1.1.b.2.1: 2009 and 2013 average number of scheduled hearings based on data reported by court users 4.9 2009 2013 5.3 4.9 4.8 4.2 4.2 2.0 1.9 Criminal Misdemeanor Civil Business GENERAL PUBLIC Note: Question: How many total hearings were scheduled in the first-instance court, including those that were scheduled but not held? Base: General public and members of business sector with experience with court cases who reported data (Criminal cases: 2009 90%, 2013 96%; Misdemeanor 2009 88%, 2013 92%; Civil 2009 89%, 2013 93%; Business 2009 83%, 2013 91%) 32 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 102. However, there are great variations within all types of cases present. The number of scheduled hearings in criminal cases range from 1 to 32 hearings, in misdemeanor cases from 1 to 10 hearings, in civil cases from 1 to 50 hearings, and in business cases from 1 to 30 hearings. 103. Hearings are usually scheduled with big time intervals in between them, on average from three to four months. This wide distribution of hearings in time hasn’t changed since 2009. ii) Percentage of canceled hearings 104. According to 2013 estimates of both court users, court service providers, and lawyers, a significant percentage of scheduled hearings in their cases was canceled. According to citizens’ estimates, in criminal and civil cases, as well as in business cases, on average, somewhat more than one fifth of scheduled hearings were canceled, while the percentage of canceled hearings in misdemeanor cases was lower, 12%. Judges’ and lawyers’ estimates of the percentage of canceled hearings in cases they worked on match citizens’ estimates, while prosecutors think that a somewhat higher percentage of hearings was canceled in cases they worked on - one third of scheduled hearings on average. In comparison to 2009, the only change took place in civil cases, where the average percentage of canceled hearings was reduced for 5% (from 26% to 21%). (Figure 1.1.b.2.3) Figure 1.1.b.2.3: 2009 and 2013 Average percentage of hearings unheld out of total scheduled hearings, as reported by court users (Ratio between the reported number of scheduled hearings and number of canceled hearings in their proceedings), and court service providers and lawyers 2009 2013 36% 34% 27% 26% 26% 26% 23% 26% 22% 21% 23% 25% 15% 12% Criminal Misdemeanor Civil Business Judges Prosecutors Lawyers GENERAL PUBLIC Note: Question: Estimate the percentage of hearings scheduled for your cases in the last 12 months that were not held)Base: Users of court services, providers of court services (without Appellate), and lawyers, who reported data (Criminal cases: 2009 87%, 2013 94%; Misdemeanor 2009 77%, 2013 88%; Civil 2009 82%, 2013 87%; Business 2009 94%, 2013 100%; Judges 2009 79%, 2013 80%; Prosecutors 2009 65%, 2013 74%; lawyers 2009 99%, 2013 99%) iii) Percentage of inefficient hearings (hearings that did not contribute to resolution of the case) 105. A substantial percentage of hearings was also evaluated as inefficient by the citizens in their court cases, and also by judges, prosecutors and lawyers in cases they worked on. According to court users, in 2013, about one fifth of the hearings, on average, were inefficient, i.e. didn’t contribute to resolution of their case11. According to judges, the percentage of inefficient hearings was somewhat lower, 16% on average, and according to prosecutors and lawyers, somewhat higher, 28% on average. In comparison to the year 2009, the percentage of inefficient hearings has changed only in 11Although the average number of inefficient hearings varies somewhat by type of case (from 17% in misdemeanor cases to 22% in criminal cases), probability of error that there is a difference between types of cases is bigger than 5%, so such conclusion would be unreliable according to accepted standards of statistical concluding 33 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 misdemeanor cases, and in the negative direction: the average percentage of inefficient hearings has risen for 11% (from 6% to 17%). (Figure 1.1.b2.4) Figure 1.2.b.2.4: 2009 and 2013 average percentage of hearings not contributing to resolution, as reported by court users court service providers and lawyers 2009 2013 30% 28% 28% 22% 23% 23% 22% 17% 18% 17% 20% 16% 16% 6% Criminal Misdemeanor Civil Business Judges Prosecutors Lawyers GENERAL PUBLIC Note: Court users: Ratio between the reported number of scheduled hearings and number of hearings not contributing to case resolution in their proceedings; Court providers: Estimate the percentage of hearings held in the last 12 months that did not contribute to progress in resolution of court cases Base: Users of court services, providers of court services (without Appellate), and lawyers, who reported data (Criminal cases: 2009 64%, 2013 83%; Misdemeanor 2009 59%, 2013 71%; Civil 2009 63%, 2013 79%; Business 2009 92%, 2013 85%; Judges 2009 63%, 2013 72%; Prosecutors 2009 55%, 2013 65%; lawyers 2009 96%, 2013 100%) iv) Efficiency index 106. Based on the information on the number of canceled and inefficient hearings, an efficiency index was calculated, showing the share of efficient hearings (hearings contributing to the resolution of a case) in the total number of scheduled hearings.12 107. Efficiency indexes show that, on average, 55% of hearings were productive in criminal cases, and 58% in civil cases; the efficiency index is somewhat higher in business cases, 63%, while it is over 70% in misdemeanor cases. Efficiency indexes are based on information obtained from judges, prosecutors and lawyers belong to the same range as indexes calculated based on information obtained from court users. However, the efficiency index based on data provided by judges is higher than the one based on data provided by prosecutors (63% and 47% respectively), while the index based on data reported by lawyers is in between (55%). Compared to 2009, the efficiency index increased in civil cases for 8% and in business cases for 7%, while it stayed at the same level in criminal and misdemeanor cases. (Figure 1.1.b.2.5) 12Efficiencyindexes were calculated on the basis of court user data as follows: (total number of scheduled hearings – number of canceled hearings – number of hearings failing to contribute to the resolution of a case) / total number of scheduled hearings * 100. Efficiency indexes were calculated on the basis of data reported by judges, prosecutors and lawyers as follows: 100% - % of canceled hearings in the course of 2009/2013 - (% unproductive hearings*% held/100) in the course of 2009/2013. Indexes are presented as average values (arithmetic means). 34 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 1.2.b.2.5: 2009 and 2013 efficiency index - mean percentage of hearings contributing to process resolution, out of total scheduled based on data reported by court users, court providers and lawyers 2009 2013 73% 63% 55% 69% 58% 63% 55% 56% 52% 50% 53% 54% 47% Criminal Misdemeanor Civil Business Judges Prosecutors Lawyers GENERAL PUBLIC Note: Base: Users of court services, providers of court services (without Appellate), and lawyers, who reported data (Criminal cases: 2009 62%, 2013 83%; Misdemeanor 2009 54%, 2013 72%; Civil 2009 62%, 2013 77%; Business 2009 91%, 2013 77%; Judges 2009 63%, 2013 72%; Prosecutors 2009 85%, 2013 82%; lawyers 2009 96%, 2013 100%) 108. Correlations between the efficiency index and the number of scheduled hearings, (i.e. duration of court case)13, show that as the number of hearings increases, (i.e. as the case lasts longer) the number of productive hearings decrease. 14 This indicates that extended duration of court proceedings is very likely not to be a consequence of specificities of given cases requiring a larger number of hearings in order to reach quality solution, but on the contrary, that the number of canceled and unproductive hearings is only rising with extended duration of proceeding. 1.1.b.3 Perceptions of reasons for extended duration of the cases and inefficiency of hearings 109. Judges and prosecutors primarily see the reasons for extended duration of cases and canceled hearings in the obstruction by the parties to the proceedings, and gaps in legislation or procedural provisions, and to a considerable less extent in court or court staff errors. The lawyers, however, think that the reasons should equally be sought in the court as well as among parties to the proceedings. Circa one half of the judges, prosecutors and lawyers think also that the objective lack of court capacity (lack of staff and equipment - courtrooms, computers, cameras, etc.) was at least occasional, if not frequent reason for longer duration of the cases. This reason was also the only one which all three groups mentioned in higher percentage than in 2009 (8% more judges, 5%, more lawyers, and as much as 15% more prosecutors). (Figures 1.1.b.3.1 and 1.1.b3.2) 13Correlationbetween duration of the case and number of scheduled hearings Pearson r =0.62, Sig 0.001 14Correlation between number of scheduled hearings and efficiency index Pearson r =-0.35, Sig 0.001; Correlation between duration of the case and efficiency index Pearson r =-0.34, Sig 0.001 35 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 1.1.b.3.1: 2013 share of judges, prosecutors and lawyers who think that listed reasons are occasional or often cause why cases they worked on lasted longer than they should have 79% Obstruction by the parties to the 88% proceedings 73% 69% Gaps in legislation 67% 41% Court or court staff errors 64% 74% 48% Objective lack of capacity of the court 53% Judges 53% Prosecutors 47% Unintentional mistakes by the parties to the 33% Lawyers proceedings 48% Note: Question: How often, if at all, each of these reasons was the cause of the longer duration of the cases? Base: Judges and prosecutors (without Appellate) (Judges 97%, prosecutors 94%), lawyers total population15 Figure 1.1.b.3.2: 2013 share of judges, prosecutors and lawyers who think that listed reasons are occasional or often cause why hearings in the cases they worked were canceled Reasons caused by a party to the 81%78% 83%83% 78% proceedings 71%71% 60% Reasons caused by other participants in the proceedings 47% (witnesses, court experts…) 39% Reasons caused by the court 8% Reasons caused by inefficient procedural provisions Judges Prosecutorss Lawyers Note: Question: How often, if at all, each of these reasons was the cause why the hearings were not held? Base: Judges and prosecutors (without Appellate) (Judges 97%, prosecutors 2013 94%), lawyers total population16 15 In the questionnaires for lawyers the option “Gaps in legislation” was not included 16 In the questionnaires for lawyers the option “Reasons caused by inefficient procedural provisions” was not included 36 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 1.2. Effective enforcement Summary 110. More than one third of judges and prosecutors reported not having enough information on the enforcement process in cases they worked on, and this percentage has even increased compared to 2009. Among the judges and prosecutors who stated their opinion on the issue of enforcement, a higher percentage was satisfied than dissatisfied with enforcement process, while among the lawyers the percentage of dissatisfied was considerably higher. Compared to 2009, from the point of view of prosecutors and lawyers the situation was somewhat improved, while from the point of view of judges there were no changes. Judges and prosecutors had far greater expectations in terms of the effects of The Law on Enforcement and Security of Court Judgments before it was launched in 2011, than in their opinion, this law actually contributed to increased efficiency of enforcing judgments. 111. A substantial percentage of judges and prosecutors reported having no information on the enforcement process in cases they worked on. This percentage has increased by 6% compared to 2009 (from 32% to 38%). (Figure 1.2.1) 112. Judges and prosecutors who did evaluate the situation with regard the enforcement were more likely to be satisfied than dissatisfied: about one third of judges and prosecutors were satisfied with judgment enforcement, while one in five judges and 14% of prosecutors were dissatisfied. In contrast to providers of judicial services, a higher percentage of lawyers tend to be dissatisfied with judgment enforcement (55%) than satisfied (41%) (Figure 1.2.1) 113. Compared to 2009, according to prosecutors and lawyers, the situation is improved at least somewhat: 5% more prosecutors were satisfied with judgment enforcement, while the percentage of satisfied lawyers has increased by 11%. (Figure 1.2.1) Figure 1.2.1: 2009 and 2013 judges, prosecutors’ and lawyers’ satisfaction with the procedure for enforcing the court judgment in the cases they worked on 11% 11% 11% 11% 3% 1% 3% Don't know/Refused 30% 32% 41% 38% 32% 38% Did not have enough information about the 31% 28% enforcment procedure 31% 33% 67% 55% Satisfied 25% 21% 22% 14% Lawyers 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Dissatisfied Judges Prosecutors Note: Question: How satisfied were you with the procedure for enforcing the court judgments in cases you worked on, in last three years? Base: Judges and prosecutors (2013 without Appellate) (Judges 2013 97%, prosecutors 2013 94%), lawyers total population 37 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 114. According to data reported by court users whose cases at the time of the survey had a final judgment that was rendered and enforced, the situation regarding judgment enforcement has improved somewhat only in business cases. The percentage of enforcing judgments within legal deadline, as compared to 2009, has increased in business sector by 8% (from 80% to 88%). (Figure 1.2.2) Figure 1.2.2: 2013 share of court users with judgment enforced within the legal deadline and after the legal deadline 8% 10% 8% 6% 6% 13% 6%6% Not aware of legal deadline After legal deadline 83% 86% 80% 88% Judgment enforced within legal deadline 2009 General public 2013 2009 Business sector 2013 Base: Court users in whose cases the final judgment was rendered and judgment was enforced at the time of survey (General public 56% 2009 and 66% 2013; Business sector 55% 2009 and 49% 2013) 115. Finally, judges and prosecutors had much greater expectations in terms of the effects of The Law on Enforcement and Security of Court Judgments launched in 2011, than, in their opinion, this law actually contributed to increased efficiency of enforcing judgments. While in 2009 more than half of judges and almost half of the prosecutors thought that the new law would increase efficiency of enforcing judgments, in 2013 only 27% of judges and 16% of prosecutors estimated that efficiency was really increased owing to this law. (Figure 1.2.3) Figure 1.2.3: Judges, prosecutors, and layers expectations in 2009 of the effects of the law on enforcement and security of court judgments launched in 2011, and evaluations of the actual effects of this law in 2013 13% 5% Don't know/refused 20% 22% 27% 31% 29% 52% 27% 16% It will increase / it has 46% 53% increased the efficiency 54% 45% 51% 32% It will remain / it has 31% 8% 11% 17% remained the same 3% 1% 6% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 It will reduce / it has reduced the efficiency Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Note: Question: In your opinion, how the enactment of the new Law on enforcement and security of court judgments launched in 2011 will affect the efficiency of the judicial system (2009) / has affect the efficiency of the judicial system ( 2013 ) Base: Judges, prosecutors and lawyers total population 38 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 1.3. Perceptions of caseload and comfort with working conditions of judiciary service providers Summary 116. Problems of judicial system efficiency are surely connected with working conditions of providers of court services. According to judges and prosecutors their working conditions are far from optimal:  A majority of judges and prosecutors feel overburdened with their caseload, which in 2013 sometimes numbered more than 1.000 cases, and even more than 10.000 cases with some of the judges.  According to judges and prosecutors, the difference between actual caseload and optimal caseload has increased in comparison with 2009, so that actual caseload in 2013 was assessed, on average, as more than twofold in comparison with the optimal one.  Judges and prosecutors were quite divided in their opinions about the effects of the system of assignment of the cases on the efficiency of judges’ work, but the share of those who think that it improved the efficiency is just somewhat more than one of ten.  Besides the excessive caseload, a considerable percentage of judges and prosecutors are dissatisfied with the general organization of work, premises and equipment, and a salary, and satisfaction with working conditions has, in general, considerably decreased. 1.3.a Perceptions of caseload of judiciary service providers 117. A majority of the judges and prosecutors evaluated their caseload to considerably exceed the optimal one, and the perceptions of being overburdened with caseload have increased in comparison with 2009 by 11% with prosecutors, and 3% with judges (Figure 1.3.a1) Figure 1.3.a1: Share of prosecutors and judges who evaluated their caseload above the optimal 78% 80% 83% 67% 2009 2013 Prosecutors Judges Note: Question: Estimate the number of cases you worked on in the last 12 months. If you do not have precise information currently please provide your best estimate. Please include all cases opened, worked on and completed in the last 12 months. /What would have been the optimal annual caseload given the conditions you worked in in the last 12 months? Base: Judges and prosecutors who reported data (Prosecutors 2009, 82%, 2013, 82%; Judges 2009, 88%, 2013, 91%) 118. The difference between the actual caseload and the caseload which judges and prosecutors perceive as optimal is considerable, and it even increased in comparison with 2009: according to prosecutors the actual caseload in 2009 exceeded the optimal by 34% on average, and in 2013 by 52%; according to the judges, the actual caseload in 2009 exceeded the optimal one by 44% on average, and in 2013 by 60%. (Figure 1.3.a2) 119. According to data obtained in the survey, the number of cases that the judges worked on in 2013 was on average somewhat less than 600, and an average caseload of prosecutors was somewhat below 300. In comparison with 2009 the caseload on average increased by 25% with judges and by 38% with prosecutors (Figure 1.3.a2) 39 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 1.3.a2: Average number of cases worked on in 2009 / 2013 (12 months) and average number of optimal annual caseload given the conditions they worked in this period - based on data reported by judges and prosecutors 2009 2013 1,278 957 588 537 366 281 509 241 Prosecutors actual Prosecutors optimal Judges actual caseload Judges optimal caseload caseload caseload Note: Question: Estimate the number of cases you worked on in the last 12 months. If you do not have precise information currently please provide your best estimate. Please include all cases opened, worked on and completed in the last 12 months. /What would have been the optimal annual caseload given the conditions you worked in in the last 12 months? Base: Judges and prosecutors who reported data (Prosecutors 2009, 82%, 2013, 82%; Judges 2009, 88%, 2013, 91%) 120. The range of caseload, however, is extremely big among both judges and prosecutors. More than half of judges and prosecutors reported to have been working on 600 cases at most in 2013, but some, especially among judges, were extremely overloaded: 17% of judges and 7% of prosecutors reported to have worked on between 1.000 and 5.000 cases, and 4% of judges mentioned to be working on more than 5.000 cases (out of whose 2% reported to be working on even more than 10.000 cases). None of the prosecutors reported in 2009 to have worked on more than 1000 cases, while in 2013 7% reported to have worked on more than 1000 cases. (Figure 1.3.a3) Figure 1.3.a3: Distribution of cases worked on in 2009 / 2013 (12 months) among prosecutors and judges - based on data reported by judges and prosecutors 12% 9% Don't know 1% 2% 2% 18% 18% 17% 6% 7% Over 10000 21% 19% 5001 to 10000 17% 16% 37% 1001 TO 5000 28% 76% 31% 601 TO 1000 27% 54% 56% 301 TO 600 50% 39% UP TO 300 23% 26% 25% 2009 2013 2009 2013 Judges Prosecutors Note: Question: Estimate the number of cases you worked on in the last 12 months. If you do not have precise information currently please provide your best estimate. Please include all cases opened, worked on and completed in the last 12 months.Base: Total population of judges and prosecutors 121. Judges and prosecutors were quite divided in their opinions about the effects of the system of assignment of the cases on the efficiency of judges’ work, but the share of those who think that it improved the efficiency is just somewhat more than one of ten. 30% of judges reported that the system did not affect efficiency, yet an equal number (30%) reported that it reduced efficiency. A substantially smaller percent think that it boosted the efficiency (15%). In comparison to 2009, the share of judges who think that the system reduced the efficiency has increased by 8%. Among the prosecutors, 28% were of the opinion that the system of assignment of the cases did not affect the efficiency, 19% that it reduced efficiency, and only 12% that it boosted the efficiency. Interesting 40 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 enough, each fifth judge and over one third of the prosecutors stated that they are not familiar enough with the system of assignment of the cases to be able to state an opinion on the matter. (Figure 1.3.a4) Figure 1.3.a4: 2009 and 2013 perceptions of the effects of the system of assignment of the cases to judges on efficiency of judicial work 5% 5% 11% 5% Don’t know/Refused 20% 20% 36% I am not familiar with 36% 31% that 38% 28% It did not affect 28% efficiency 22% 30% It reduced efficiency 15% 19% 14% 15% 10% 12% It boosted efficiency 2009 2013 2009 2013 Judges Prosecutors Note: Question: In your view, did the system of assignment of the cases to judges affect the efficiency of judicial work? If yes, how did it affect - did it boost or reduce efficiency? Base: Judges and prosecutors (without Appellate) (Judges 97%, prosecutors 94%), 1.3.b Perceptions of working conditions of judiciary service providers 122. A substantial share of judges and prosecutors perceive their working conditions to be far from optimal. Most judges and prosecutors were satisfied with cooperation with other sectors and with organization of work in their own sector, but the percentage of the satisfied decreases considerably with regard to organization of work in general, premises and equipment, as well as amount of salary. More than 40% of judges and prosecutors were dissatisfied with organization of work in general, with premises and equipment, and with amount of salary. While judges are least satisfied with amount of salary (48% are dissatisfied), prosecutors are extremely dissatisfied with premises and equipment (74%are dissatisfied). (Figures 1.3.b1 and 1.3.b2) Figure 1.3.b1: 2013 Judges’ perceptions of working conditions Dissatisfied Satisfied Don't know 4% 3% 4% 19% 3% 3% 4% 56% 52% 49% 80% 70% 66% 62% 41% 45% 48% 16% 27% 29% 20% Cooperation Work climate Organization Cooperation Organization Premises and Amount of with of work in with the of work in equipment salary administrative your sector prosecution general sectors office Note: Question: How satisfied were you with the following aspects of your job in the institution in which you worked in the last 12 months? Scale: 1. Very dissatisfied, 2. Dissatisfied, 3. Satisfied, 4. Very satisfied. Base: Total population of judges 41 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 1.3.b2 2013 prosecutors’ perceptions of working conditions Dissatisfied Satisfied Don't know 3% 4% 3% 5% 4% 4% 2% 23% 60% 51% 51% 80% 68% 80% 74% 35% 45% 45% 17% 29% 16% Cooperation Cooperation Work climate Organization Amount of Organization Premises and with courts with of work in salary of work in equipment administrative your sector general sectors Note: Question: How satisfied were you with the following aspects of your job in the institution in which you worked in the last 12 months? Scale: 1. Very dissatisfied, 2. Dissatisfied, 3. Satisfied, 4. Very satisfied. Base: Total population of prosecutors 123. Compared to 2009, satisfaction with working conditions has decreased on all aspects, with the exception of judges’ satisfaction with cooperation with administrative sectors that stayed at the same level. Increase of dissatisfaction is especially striking among prosecutors. The percentage of those satisfied with premises and equipment has decreased by 30%, and percentage of the satisfied with amount of salary and organization of work in general has decreased by more than 20% (Figure 1.3.b3 and 1.3.b4) Figure 1.3.b3 2009 and 2013 share of judges who were satisfied with listed aspects of working conditions % SATISFIED AND VERY SATISFIED 2009 2013 81% 80% 74% 70% 71% 66% 69% 62% 64% 60% 56% 52% 54% 49% Cooperation Work climate Organization of Cooperation Organization of Premises and Amount of with work in your with the work in general equipment salary administrative sector prosecution sectors office Note: Question: How satisfied were you with the following aspects of your job in the institution in which you worked in the last 12 months? Scale: 1. Very dissatisfied, 2. Dissatisfied, 3. Satisfied, 4. Very satisfied. Base: Total population of judges 42 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 1.3.b4 2009 and 2013 share of prosecutors who were satisfied with listed aspects of working conditions % SATISFIED AND VERY SATISFIED 2009 2013 86% 80% 78% 79% 68% 74% 73% 60% 51% 51% 53% 23% Cooperation with Work climate Organization of Amount of salary Organization of Premises and administrative work in your work in general equipment sectors sector Note: Question: How satisfied were you with the following aspects of your job in the institution in which you worked in the last 12 months? Scale: 1. Very dissatisfied, 2. Dissatisfied, 3. Satisfied, 4. Very satisfied. Base: Total population of prosecutors17 124. As for satisfaction with working conditions gender-wise, the only difference between men and women was shown regarding amount of salary. Women are a lot less likely to be satisfied with their salary than men, and this difference is greater among prosecutors than among judges: 13% of women judges less than men judges are satisfied with their salary, while 19% of women prosecutors less than men prosecutors are satisfied with their salary. (Figure 1.3.b5) Figure 1.3.b5: 2013 share of male and female judges and prosecutors who were satisfied with amount of salary % SATISFIED and VERY SATISFIED 58% 62% 45% 43% Male Female Male Female2 Judges Prosecutors Note: Question: How satisfied were you with the amount of salary in the last 12 months? Scale: 1. Very dissatisfied, 2. Dissatisfied, 3. Satisfied, 4. Very satisfied. Base: Total population of judges 125. On the other hand, however, a great majority of men and somewhat less women, both among judges and prosecutors, believe that men and women in their profession have equal income. This opinion share 89% of men judges and 81% women judges, and 88% of men prosecutors and 80% of women prosecutors. As for the percentage that considers income unequal, almost all women believe that this difference is at the expense of women, while men are divided in this opinion. (Figure 1.3.b6) 17 In 2009, prosecutors were not asked to evaluate their satisfaction with cooperation with courts 43 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 1.3.b6: 2013 perceptions of gender equality among judges and prosecutors with regards to income 3 4% 4 3 5% 4 Don't know 14% 15% Men have higher income 89% 81% 88% 80% Women and men have equal 4% 1% 4% 1% income Male Female Male Female Women have higher income Judges Prosecutors Note: Question: Thinking about total income of people employed in your profession, which beside salary includes other forms of income-travel expenses, bonuses, and similar receipts, would you say that there are differences between men and women, or they are equal from that aspect? Base: total population of judges and prosecutors 126. With regard the chances for professional promotion, however, differences between men and women are a lot more visible, especially among prosecutors. Although, similar to the case of income, most women and men believe that they have equally chance of being promoted, the percentage of those who share this attitude is much lower and differences between perceptions of men and women are more visible: 18% of men judges and prosecutors believe that women have better chances to be promoted, while 19% of women judges and 31% of women prosecutors believe that men have better chances to be promoted. (Figure 1.3.b7) Figure 1.3.b7: 2013 perceptions of gender equality among judges and prosecutors with regards to chances for professional promotion 7 12 8 10 Don't know 3% 6% 19% 31% No, men have more chances than 73% 68% women 68% 59% Yes, they have equal chances 18% 18% 1% 1% No, women have more chances Male Female Male Female than men Judges Prosecutors Note: Question: Do you think that both men and women in your profession have equal chances for professional promotion? Base: total population of judges and prosecutors 44 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 2. QUALITY OF JUDICIARY SERVICES DELIVERED 2.1 Legal quality of court decisions 2.1.a Estimated percentage of the cases appealed to a higher court after the first instance judgment was rendered 127. According to users of court services, circa one third of first-instance proceedings end up with appeal. According to data reported by users of the court services, around one third of court proceedings with the general public, where first instance judgment was rendered between January 2011 and November 2013, were appealed, and 38% in the case of the business sector. In comparison with cases, where first instance judgment was rendered in the period starting January 2007 up to the end of 2009, the percentage of appeals decreased by 3% with the general public, while it increased by 5% with the business sector. (Figure 2.1.a1) 128. Decision to file an appeal was found to be related to a party’s perception of the fairness of the trial: citizens who evaluated the trial to be fully fair filed an appeal substantially less frequently in spite of the fact that the judgment was not in their favor. (For more detail see section 2.3.a) Figure 2.1.a1: 2009 and 2013 percentage of appeals to a higher court filed by respondent or other party in the proceeding reported by court users 35% 32% 31% 38% 2009 2013 2009 2013 General public Business sector Note: Question: Did you / your company or the other party appeal to a higher court? Base: General public and business sector with experience with court cases 129. The appeals were most frequent in the civil cases (37%), then in criminal cases (29%), and the least frequent in misdemeanor cases (19%). But while the percentages of appeals reported in the survey in 2013 have decreased with criminal and civil cases, it has increased with misdemeanor cases (Figure 2.1.a2) Figure 2.1.a2: 2009 and 2013 percentage of appeals to a higher court filed by respondent or other party in the proceeding as reported by general public with different type of cases 38% 42% 37% 29% 14% 19% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Criminal Misdemeanor Civil Note: Question: Did you or the other party appeal to a higher court? Base: General public with experience with court cases 130. The estimated percentage of appealed judgments reported by court providers are, on average, quite close to those reported by court users: 39% according to judges estimates of the cases they worked on in the last 12 months, and 36% according to prosecutors estimates. In comparison to 2009, on average, the percentage of appealed cases reported by judges did not change, while the percentage reported by prosecutors decreased by 7%. (Figure 2.1.a3) 45 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 2.1.a3: 2009 and 2013 average percent of judgments appealed to higher court based on data reported by judges and prosecutors Average percent 37% 39% 43% 36% 2009 2013 2009 2013 Judges Prosecutors Note: Question: Estimate the percentage of judgments in cases you worked on in the last 12 months that were appealed? If you do not have precise information currently, please provide your best estimate. Base: Court service providers without judges who work in appellate court and prosecutors who work in appellate prosecution, and who provided data (74% of judges 2009 and 77% 2013; 70% of prosecutors 2009 and 74% 2013) 131. On the other hand, substantially higher percentages of appealed cases were found, on average, with judges who worked in Criminal and Civil departments, than with the general public who had a criminal or civil case in the court. According to judges’ estimates, around half of the criminal cases as well as civil cases were appealed, while, as shown above, 29% of court users with criminal cases reported the case to have been appealed, and 37% with civil cases. On the other hand, based on information obtained from the judges who worked on misdemeanor cases, average percentage of appealed cases was somewhat lower than the percentage obtained from members of the general population who were a party in misdemeanor proceedings – according to judges’ estimates, an appeal was lodged in 12% of misdemeanor cases, while 19% of users stated that the their case was appealed. (Figure 2.1.a4) Figure 2.1.a4: 2009 and 2013 average percent of judgments appealed to higher court based on data reported by judges who worked in criminal, misdemeanor and civil departments 51% 49% 52% 49% 12% 12% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Criminal department Misdemeanor department Civil department Note: Question: Estimate the percentage of judgments in cases you worked on in the last 12 months that were appealed? If you do not have precise information currently, please provide your best estimate. Base: Judges who worked in Criminal, Misdemeanor and Civil departments; Percent out of total sample of judges: Criminal - 2009, 24%, 2013, 26%; Misdemeanor - 2009, 26%, 2013, 20%; Civil - 2009, 32%, 2013, 29%. 132. Finally, in comparison to users of the court services, as well as providers, lawyers reported a much higher percentage of cases they worked on in 2009 and 2013 to have been appealed. According to lawyers, out of the cases they worked on, on average, as high as 70% of cases were appealed (in 2009 as well as in 2013). But the lawyers’ estimate is in accordance with the finding that people more frequently decide to file an appeal if they hired a private lawyer, than if they represent themselves. Among the appealed cases, 74% were cases in which a private lawyer was hired, and 24% the cases in which people represented themselves; among the cases which were not appealed, 52% were cases in which a private lawyer was hired, and 45% were cases in which people represented themselves. (Figure 2.1a5) 46 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 2.1.a5: share of cases in which a private lawyer was hired among appealed cases (Joint 2009 and 2013 24% Repsresented himself/herself 3% 45% 3% State assigned the lawyer 74% 52% Private lawyer hired Case appealed Case not appealed Note: Question: Did a lawyer represent you in the proceedings?/Did you file an appeal? Base: General public with experience with court cases 2.1.b Decisions of the higher courts after the appeal was submitted following the first instance court judgment 133. According to data reported by court users, the higher court most frequently upheld the judgment (in around 40% of cases), but in 28% of cases with the general public, and 23% with the business sector the judgment was overturned and a retrial was ordered. (Figure 2.1.b1) Figure 2.1.b1: 2009 and 2013 share of decisions of the higher courts after the appeal was submitted following the first instance court judgment according to data reported by court users 24% 24% The case is still in process 30% 27% 7% 10% 6% 6% The higher court altered the judgment 36% 40% 44% 44% The judgment was upheld 28% 28% 22% 23% The judgment was overturned and a retrial ordered 2009 2013 2009 2013 General public Business sector Note: Question: What was the decision of the higher court after the first appeal was submitted following the first instance court judgment? Base: General public and business sector in whose case an appeal was filed either by the respondent or other party in the proceeding, (General public: 2009, 35%, of general public with court case, 2013, 32%; Business sector: 2009, 31%, 2013, 38% of business sector with court case) 47 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 134. In comparison to court users, judges reported substantially smaller percentage of cases in which retrial was ordered, while the estimates of prosecutors were in accordance with court users. According to judges, on average, in 2013 the retrial was ordered in 14% of cases (similar in 2009), and according to prosecutors, in 29% of cases (similar in 2009). (Figure 2.1.b2) 135. According to estimates of lawyers, the percentage of cases they appealed and in which retrial was ordered was again higher than those reported by users and providers of the court services. On average, lawyers estimated that 36% of cases they have appealed in 2013 were referred back and the retrial was ordered (similar n 2009). Figure 2.1.b2: average percent of appealed cases which were referred back and a retrial ordered, based on data reported by judges and prosecutors Average percent 32% 29% 13% 14% 2009 2013 2009 2013 Judges Prosecutors Note: Question: What percentage of appealed cases were referred back and ordered a retrial by a higher instance court in the last 12 months? If you do not have precise information currently, please provide your best estimate. Base: Court service providers without judges who work in appellate court and without prosecutors who work in appellate prosecution, and who provided data (74% of judges 2009 and 77% 2013; 70% of prosecutors 2009 and 74% 2013 - out of total target population) 136. Finally, the court users with experience with court cases are divided in their trust of the appellate system. The trust is higher with members of the business sector (57% have trust) than with the general public (48% have trust). In comparison to 2009, trust in the appellate system has somewhat increased. (Figure 2.1.b3) Figure 2.1.b3: 2009 and 2013 court users with experience with court cases trust in appellate system 3% 1% 2% 3% Don't know 43% 48% 54% 57% Trust 54% 51% 45% 40% Don't trust 2009 2013 2009 2013 General public Business sector Note: Question: Do you trust the appellate system? Base: General public and business sector with experience with court case 48 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 2.2 General quality of court services 2.2.a Perception of the quality of justice sector services Summary 137. Perceptions of users and providers of the overall quality of the court services are noticeably different. Users - the general public and business sector, as well as lawyers, evaluate quality as rather low (or average at best), while providers (judges and prosecutors) evaluate it as quite high (or average at worse). The views became somewhat closer in 2013 in comparison with 2009, as positive perceptions among users somewhat increased, and perceptions of providers became more negative - but the gap is still huge. Personal experiences with court services are more positive than the overall impressions of the quality of the justice sector, and in the case of the general public, the overall impressions of the quality are more positive with people with experience with court cases as well. But while overall impressions of the quality of the justice sector become more positive, the evaluations of the quality of court service in the specific case one participated in did not change over time. 138. Users and providers of court services have drastically different perceptions of quality of work of the judicial system. The users – general population and business sector, as well as lawyers, evaluate the quality of the judicial system as rather low (or average in the best case), while providers of court services (judges and prosecutors) evaluate the quality of the same services as rather high (or average in the worst case). The most striking difference in evaluations of the quality of the court services was found between service providers and lawyers. Half of the judges and prosecutors evaluated the quality of court services as high, and less than 10% as low, while in the case of lawyers it is completely the opposite. General public and business sector evaluations are closer to lawyers, but more positive. (Figure 2.2.a1) 139. Overall impressions of the quality of the general public with experience with court proceedings are more positive than the impressions of the general public without such experience. But, interestingly enough, it is vice versa in the case of the business sector. Almost half of the members of business sector with experience with court cases evaluated the general quality of court services as low, and only 15% as high, while one third of those without such experience perceived the quality as low, and 23% as high. (Figure 2.2.a1) Figure 2.2.a1: 2013 general perception of quality of Justice Sector Low quality High quality 50% 53% 18% 12% 15% 23% 6% 7% 8% 42% 39% 33% 47% 51% General public General public Business with Business Lawyers Judges Prosecutors with court without court court experience without court experience experience experience Note: Question: General public and business: What is your general impression of the quality of work of the judiciary in the past few years? Judges and prosecutors: What was the quality of work of the institution in which you worked in the last 12 month? Lawyers: How do you rate the quality of work the judicial system provided to the public in the last 12 months? Scale from 1 to 5: 1=very low, 2=low;3=average;4=high, 5=very high Base: Total target population 49 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 140. On the other hand, members of the business sector with experience with court cases, similar to the general public with such experience, evaluated much better the quality of court service in the proceedings they participated in than the quality of justice sector services in general. Quite substantial differences were found in evaluations of the overall quality of the justice sector and the quality delivered in the specific court case one participated in. While around one third of the general public as well as members of the business sector evaluated the quality of court service in their specific case as high, and approximately the same number as low, only 18% of the general public and 15% of the members of the business sector evaluated the overall quality of the justice sector as high, and over 40% as low. (Figure 2.2.a2) Figure 2.2.a2: 2013 general perception of quality of Justice Sector, and perception of quality of the court service in that specific case Low quality High quality 32% 34% 18% 15% 42% 32% 30% 47% In general In that specific case In general In that specific case General public with court experience Business with court experience Note: Question: What is your general impression of the quality of work of the judiciary in the past few years?/In Your opinion what was the quality of judicial work in that specific case? Scale from 1 to 5: low=1,2 high=4,5 Base: General public and business sector with experience with court cases 141. Not surprisingly, the evaluations of the quality of judicial work in a court case one participated in are related to the outcome of the trial: citizens whose judgment was in their favor were more satisfied with the quality of judicial work. But judgment was not the closing criterion: around one third of those whose judgment was in their favor evaluated delivered quality as low, and about a fourth of those whose judgment was not in their favor evaluated the quality as high (Figure 2.2.a3) Figure 2.2.a3: 2013 perception of quality of the court service in that specific case in dependence of the judgment Low quality High quality 46% 24% 32% 42% Judgment not in favor Judgment in favor Note: Question: In Your opinion what was the quality of judicial work in that specific case? Scale from 1 to 5: low=1,2 high=4,5 Base: General public with experience with court cases 142. General impressions of the quality have somewhat improved with court users in the last four years, and again, more positive gains were found with members of the general public with experience with court proceedings than with those without such experience, and vice versa in the case of the business sector. (Figure 2.2.a4) 50 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 2.2.a4: 2009 and 2013, general perception of quality of Justice Sector Low quality High quality 18% 12% 8% 15% 9% 23% 7% 7% 43% 42% 38% 39% 42% 47% 36% 33% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 General public with General public without Business with court Business without court court experience court experience experience experience Note: Question: What is your general impression of the quality of work of the judiciary in the past few years? Scale from 1 to 5: low=1, 2 high=4, 5 Base: General public and business sector total target population 143. But while general impressions of the quality of the justice sector have improved, the evaluations of the quality of the court service in a specific court case one participated in did not change after the implementation of the reforms in 2010. (Figure 2.2.a5) Figure 2.2.a5: 2009 and 2013,perception of quality of the court service in that specific case Low quality High quality 32% 32% 33% 34% 34% 32% 34% 30% 2009 2013 2009 2013 General public with court experience Business with court experience Note: Question: In Your opinion what was the quality of judicial work in that specific case? Scale from 1 to 5: low=1,2 high=4,5 Base: general public and business sector with experience with court cases 144. From the point of view of different types of cases, the least satisfied with the quality of judicial work are people with experience in criminal cases (each fifth evaluated the quality as high), while the most satisfied are people who participated in the civil cases (37% evaluated the quality as high). No changes in evaluations of the quality were found before and after the implementation of the reforms in 2010 with people who participated in criminal or civil cases, while the percentage of positive evaluations in misdemeanor cases decreased by 10% (Figure 2.2.a6) Figure 2.2.a6: 2009 and 2013 perception of the quality of the court service in that specific case Low quality High quality 23% 36% 26% 35% 37% 20% 34% 36% 27% 28% 27% 32% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Criminal Misdemeanor Civil 51 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Note: Question: In Your opinion what was the quality of judicial work in that specific case? Scale from 1 to 5: low=1,2 high=4,5 Base: General public with experience with court cases 145. Finally, evaluations of the quality became more negative with service providers, as well as with lawyers. In 2013, in comparison with 2009, the percentage of court service providers who evaluated the quality of court services as high has decreased by 11% with judges and by 15% with prosecutors. The positive evaluations among lawyers in 2013 stayed as low as in 2009, while the percentage of lawyers who evaluated the quality as low, increased by 11%. (Figure 2.2.a7) Figure 2.2.a7: 2009 and 2013,perception of quality of Justice Sector Low quality High quality 61% 50% 68% 53% 2% 7% 3% 8% 6% 6% 40% 51% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Note: Question: Judges and prosecutors: What was the quality of work of the institution in which you worked in the last 12 month? Lawyers: How do you rate the quality of work the judicial system provided to the public in the last 12 months? Scale from 1 to 5: low=1,2 high=4,5 Base: Legal professionals total target population 2.2.b Perceived reasons why quality of work in justice sector was not higher 146. Court users most frequently named three reasons why the quality of court service in the specific case one participated in was not higher: poor job done by the judge, poor organization, and bad laws. Other listed reasons (poor job done by prosecutor, lack of staff, contempt of court, improper conduct and non-fulfillment of obligations to the court by the parties in the proceedings, poor working conditions, poor infrastructure) were chosen by less than 5% of court service users (with the exception of lack of staff which was selected by 7% of members of the business sector). In comparison to 2009, the percentage of the general public who named the bad laws as the main reason increased by 10% (from 15% in 2009 to 25% in 2013), while the percent of those who selected the poor job done by judge slightly decreased (from 31% to 28%). (Figure 2.2.b1) Figure 2.2.b1: 2009 and 2013 perceived main reason why the quality of the court service was not higher in that specific case; most often selected reason Bad laws 15 25 23 24 27 28 26 27 Poor organization 31 28 27 28 The judge did not 2009 2013 2009 2013 do his/her job well General public with court Business sector with court experience experience Note: Question: Which of the following would you identify as the main reason explaining why you did not rate the quality of judicial work more highly? Base: general public and business sector with experience with court cases who evaluated quality of court service in that specific case less than high (68% of general population and 67% of business sector in 2009, and 68% of general public and 66% of business sector in 2013) 52 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 147. The reasons lying behind the assessments of the quality of judicial services as less than high varied across judges, prosecutors and lawyers, and more agreement among the three groups of legal professionals was found across time (similarity in trends) than in the frequency of selection of each particular reason as an obstacle to the higher quality of court services. Unclear laws, along with the lack of staff, were the reasons most frequently named by judges: 21% of judges selected lack of staff and the unclear laws as the main reasons why the quality of judicial work was not higher. For prosecutors, lack of staff is the predominant reason: 37% of prosecutors selected this reason as the main one, while only 9% opted for unclear laws. On the other hand, lawyers most frequently selected poor organization (29%), followed by unclear laws (19%), while the lack of staff was named by only 11%. Other reasons (lack of opportunity for additional education and training, poor coordination of judicial bodies, poor professionalism and preparedness of legal representatives, lack of regulations pre-empting contempt of court, improper conduct and non-fulfillment of obligations to the court) were mentioned by a smaller percentage of the court service providers (between 4% and 8%). (Figure 2.2.b2) Figure 2.2.b2: 2013, perceived main reason why the quality of the court service was not higher; most often selected reason 37% Poor organization 29% Unclear laws 21%21% 19% 15%15% Lack of staff 12% 12% 11% 9% 9% 6% 7% Poor infrastructure (lack of 3% office space, equipment) Poor working conditions Judges Prosecutors Lawyers (including low remuneration) Note: Question: Which of the following reasons that explain why the quality of work was not higher would you select as the most important one? Base: legal professionals total target population 148. In comparison with 2009, importance of some reasons decreased in 2013 (unclear laws, lack of regulations), while the importance of other reasons increased (lack of staff, poor infrastructure). In comparison to 2009, the frequency of naming the lack of staff as the reason for reduced quality increased with all three groups. The increase is especially noticeable in the cases of judges: 13% of judges selected lack of staff before the implementation of reforms in 2010, and 21% in 2013, while in the case of prosecutors it was 32% and 37% (respectively), and in the case of lawyers 6% and 11% (respectively). Some decrease in frequency of naming the unclear laws was also found with all three groups; 25% of judges, 16% of prosecutors, and 25% of lawyers named unclear laws in 2009, while it was 21%, 9%, and 19% in 2013 (respectively). Frequency of naming poor organization increased with judges and prosecutors (from 7% to 12% among judges, and from 5% to 9% among prosecutors), and lack of regulations pre-empting contempt of court decreased (from 12% to 9%among judges and from 8% to less than 1% among prosecutors). The frequency of selecting poor working conditions and poor infrastructure increased among prosecutors (from 10% to 15% and from 8% to 14%, respectively), while the percent of judges who selected these reasons stayed the same. 53 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 2.2.c Perception of the quality of the administrative services of the court related to court proceedings 149. Perception of quality of administrative services of the court pertaining to the given court case has improved in comparison with 2009. Members of the general population and business sector who had to complete some administrative task related to their court case were more satisfied with the quality of court administrative services, than with quality of court work related to the court proceedings. A majority of the users of court administrative services were satisfied the quality of administrative services, and satisfaction increased after the reforms in 2010. (Figure 2.2.c1) Figure 2.2.c1: satisfaction with the quality of the court administrative services related to court case Dissatisfied Satisfied 58% 66% 59% 70% 42% 34% 37% 26% 2009 2013 2009 2013 General public Business sector Note: Question: How satisfied were you with the efficiency of the court administrative service? Efficiency entails no waste of time and the fast and quality completion of the task? Scale from 1 to 4: dissatisfied=1,2 Satisfied=3,4 Base: General public and business sector who had to complete some administrative tasks relevant to their case in the court. General public, those who complete the administrative tasks themselves (General public: 27% of population with court experience 2009, and 25% 2013; Business sector: 52% with court experience 2009 and 48% 2013) 150. However, the increased satisfaction reported in 2013 was hardly due to increased efficiency. The number of visits to the courthouse needed to accomplish the task did not change before and after the reforms launched in 2010. Members of the general public reported that, on average, they had to go to the courthouse 4 to 5 times to complete the task, and members of business sector, 3 times. The average time spent in the courthouse (every time one came to complete the task) was somewhat reduced based on data reported by the general public (from 45 minutes to 39 minutes, on average), but it stayed the same based on data reported by members of the business sector (between 40 and 44 minutes on the average). 54 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 2.3 Fairness, impartiality and integrity 2.3.a Perception of the fairness of justice sector Summary 151. General perceptions of the fairness of justice sector are mainly positive with all surveyed groups, but a substantially higher percentage of court service providers than court services users and lawyers evaluated justice sector as fair. Perceptions between users and lawyers on one side, and providers on the other, became somewhat closer in 2013 compared to 2009 as positive perceptions among users and lawyers somewhat increased, while perceptions of judges became somewhat more negative, and perceptions of prosecutors have not changed - but the gap is still quite high. Users with experiences with court services have more positive opinions about the fairness in that specific case than about the fairness of the justice sector in general, and in these general perceptions of the fairness there is no difference between users with and without experience with court cases. But while overall impressions of the fairness of justice sector become systematically more positive among the users (either with or without experience with court cases), the evaluations of the fairness of court service in the specific trial one participated in somewhat improved with general public, but did not change with business sector. Attitudes towards the fairness of the trial are influencing the decision to file an appeal. Out of those whose judgment was not in favor, an appeal was filed by 8% of general public and 6% of business sector among those who felt their trial was fully fair, while it was filed by 63% of general public and 63% of business sector among those who felt that their trial was not fair. 152. The majority of members of all target groups shared the opinion that the judicial system was fair, although providers of court services evaluated the fairness with considerably more positive grades than users of court services and lawyers. The most striking difference in evaluations of the overall fairness was found between members of the general public and court services providers: While the members of the general public are closely divided into those who evaluate the justice sector as fair (52%), and those who view it as unfair (somewhat less than 50%), 80% of service providers evaluate the judiciary sector as fair, and only 14% of judges and 17% of prosecutors see it as unfair. Interesting enough, but lawyers' perceptions of the fairness of justice sector are more positive than the views of general public, and quite similar to those of business sector. (Figure 2.3.a1) Figure 2.3.a1: 2013 general perception of fairness of Justice Sector Unfair Fair 81% 80% 52% 52% 60% 60% 62% 14% 17% 47% 48% 37% 37% 38% General public General public Business sector Business sector Lawyers Judges Prosecutors with court without court with court without court experience experience experience experience Note: Question: In your opinion, how fair was the judicial system in the last 12 months (2013)? Scale from 1 to 4: 1=very unfair 2 =mainly unfair 3=mainly fair, 4= very fair Base: Total target population 153. In the general impressions about fairness, no differences were found between people with and without experience with court cases. However, people with experience with court cases evaluate the fairness of their own trial more positively that the fairness of the justice sector in general (Figure 2.3.a2) 55 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 2.3.a2: 2013 perception of fairness in that specific case 23% 18% No Yes, mostly 39% 38% 37% 44% Yes, fully General public Business sector Note: Question: Notwithstanding the outcome of the court proceedings, what do you think of the first-instance proceedings themselves? Did you have a fair trial? Scale from 1 to 3: Fully, mostly, no. Base: General public and business sector with experience with court cases 154. Not surprisingly, the evaluations of the fairness of one’s own trial are related to the judgment. A substantially higher percentage of the members of the general public evaluates that they had a fair trial if the judgment was in their favor (87%), and more than half evaluate the trial as fully fair. But still, a majority of those for whom the judgment was not in favor (66%) evaluates the trial as fair, and each fifth as fully fair. (Figure 2.3.a3) Figure 2.3.a3: 2013 perception of fairness in that specific case in dependence of the judgment 13 34 No Yes, mostly 34 42 53 Yes, fully 24 Judgment in favor Judgment not in favor Note: Question: Notwithstanding the outcome of the court proceedings, what do you think of the first-instance proceedings themselves? Did you have a fair trial? Scale from 1 to 3: Fully, mostly, no. Base: General public with experience with court services 155. General perceptions of users of court service with regards to fairness became more positive. In 2009, a bigger share of the general public had negative than positive opinions, while the distribution became vice versa in 2013; positive opinions have increased with business sector as well. (Figure 2.3.a4) Figure 2.3.a4: 2009 and 2013, general perception of fairness of Justice Sector Unfair Fair 46% 52% 48% 52% 53% 60% 53% 60% 52% 47% 50% 48% 45% 37% 43% 37% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 General public with General public without Business with court Business without court court experience court experience experience experience Note: Question: In your opinion, how fair was the judicial system in the 2009 / last 12 months (2013)? Scale from 1 to 4: 1=very unfair 2 =mainly unfair 3=mainly fair, 4= very fair. Base: General public and business sector total target population 56 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 156. With regards to evaluations of fairness in the specific court case, the percentage of the general public who evaluated their trial to be fully fair has increased, while no changes were found with business sector. (Figure 2.3.a5) Figure 2.3.a5: 2009 and 2013 perception of fairness in that specific case 23% 23% 18% 18% No Yes, mostly 33% 38% 49% 39% 37% 48% 44% 27% Yes, fully 2009 2013 2009 2013 General public Business sector Note: Question: Notwithstanding the outcome of the court proceedings, what do you think of the first-instance proceedings themselves? Did you have a fair trial? Scale from 1 to 3: Fully, mostly, no. Base: General public with experience with court services 157. Improvements in evaluations of the fairness of the trial were found in criminal cases (10% more evaluated to have had a fully fair trial), and in civil cases (12% more evaluated to have had a fully fair trial), while the percentage of people who evaluated their trial as fair in misdemeanor cases has decreased. (Figure 2.3.6) Figure 2.3.a6: 2009 and 2013 perception of fairness in that specific case 26% 28% 13% 27% 25% 20% No 58% 36% 54% 43% 46% 43% Yes, mostly 29% 29% 31% 43% 19% 27% Yes, fully 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Criminal Misdemeanor Civil Note: Question: Notwithstanding the outcome of the court proceedings, what do you think of the first-instance proceedings themselves? Did you have a fair trial? Scale from 1 to 3: Fully, mostly, no. Base: General public with experience with court cases 158. Perceptions of the fairness of the trial also have an influence on the decision to file an appeal. An appeal was filed by substantially higher percentage of those whose judgment was not in favor and who alongside felt that their trial was not fair (63%), than by those whose judgment was not in favor but who felt that the trial was fully fair (8% of general public and 6% of business sector) . (Figure 2.3.a7) Figure 2.3.a7: share of appeals filed among participants in court proceedings whose judgment was not in their favor, in dependence of perceptions of the fairness of the trial % who filed an appeal 63% 63% Fully fair trial 8% 6% Did not have fair trial General public Businaess sector Note: Base: General public, 12% of target population, Business, 15% 57 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 159. In 2013, each fifth member of the general public reported to file an appeal. In comparison to 2009, the percentage of appeals decreased by 4%. On the other hand, each fourth member of business sector reported that they filed an appeal, and the percentage of appeals increased by 5%. (Figure 2.3.a8) Figure 2.3.a8: 2009 and 2013 percentage of appeals filed by respondent in that specific case 23% 24% 19% 19% 2009 2013 2009 2013 General public Business sector Note: Question: Did you/your company file an appeal? Base: General public and business sector with experience with court cases 160. According to court users’ statements, appeals were most frequent in criminal cases , where the users themselves lodged the appeal, and least frequent in misdemeanor cases. But in comparison with 2009, the percentage of appeals in criminal and civil cases has somewhat decreased, while it has increased in misdemeanor cases. (Figure 2.3.a9) These trends are in accordance with the trends of perceived farness, as shown above (Figure 2.3.a6) Figure 2.3.a9: 2009 and 2013 percentage of appeals filed by respondent in that specific case 32% 22% 23% 17% 19% 13% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Criminal Misdemeanor Civil Note: Question: Did you file an appeal? Base: General public with experience with court cases 161. On the other hand, trends in perceptions of fairness of the justice sector varied among professionals. In comparison with 2009, evaluations of fairness became more negative with judges, did not change with prosecutors, and became more positive with lawyers. The percentage of judges who feel that the justice sector is fair has decreased by 8%, but nevertheless, over 80% of judges and prosecutors still evaluate justice sector as fair. On the other hand, the percentage of lawyers who evaluated the justice sector as fair increased by 5%, but still lags substantially behind the one of judges and prosecutors. (Figure 2.3.a10) 58 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 2.3.a10: 2009 and 2013, perception of fairness of Justice Sector Unfair Fair 89% 81% 87% 82% 57% 62% 8% 14% 11% 15% 43% 38% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Note: Question: In your opinion, how fair was the judicial system in the last 12 months (2013)? Scale from 1 to 4: Unfair=1 very, 2 mainly Fair=3 mainly, 4 very. Base: Legal professionals total target population 2.3.b Perceived reasons why fairness of justice sector was not complete Summary 162. Legal professionals - court service providers, as well as lawyers, agreed that reasons for incomplete fairness of the justice sector lie primarily in the overload and poor organization of the justice system and poor legal provision. But while almost half of lawyers view politicization of the justice sector as the reason for inadequate fairness, and one fifth name corruption as the reason. A substantially smaller percentage of judges and prosecutors connects these matters with the problem of fairness. 163. Legal professionals – providers of court services and lawyers, agree that reasons for lack of fairness of judicial system is primarily the result of overburdened providers of services and poor organization of judiciary, as well as poor legal regulations. Over 50% of judges and prosecutors, and 60% of lawyers named the overload and poor organization as the reason for inadequate fairness; more than one third of judges and prosecutors, and 45% of lawyers named the poor legal provision. The agreement was also found with regards to access of the judiciary to citizens: approximately one fifth member of all three groups of legal professionals named it as the reason. (Figure 2.3.b1) 164. However, substantial differences were found between justice service providers and lawyers with regards to politicization and corruption of the judicial system as the reasons why fairness of justice sector was not complete. While 45% of lawyers see politicization of justice system as the reason for inadequate fairness, only one fifth of the service providers share this opinion. While 43% of lawyers think that corruption of the judicial system is the reason, only 4% of judges and 6% of prosecutors share this opinion. (Figure 2.3.b1) 59 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 2.3.b1: 2013 perceived reasons why the fairness was not complete 60% Overload/poor organization 56% of the judicial system 52% 45%43% Poor legal provisions 37% 34% The judicial system is politicized 21% 20% 17% 19%18% 18% Corruption in the judicial system 6% 4% Insufficient access of judiciary to citizens Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Note: Multiple choice; most often selected reason Question: What is the chief reason why you did not grade fairness of the judicial system as totally fair? Base: Legal professionals who did not evaluate fairness with the highest grade (81% of judges, 87%prosecutors; 89% of lawyers) 165. In comparison to 2009, the most striking differences were found with prosecutors. In 2013, 25% more prosecutors named overload and poor organization as the reason for insufficient fairness in judicial system (31% in 2009, and 52% in 2013); 8% more prosecutors named poor legal provisions (26% in 2009 and 34% in 2013). On the other hand, the frequency of naming corruption somewhat decreased with all three groups: by 2% with judges (from 6% to 4%), by 5% with prosecutors (form 11% to 6%), and by 6% with lawyers (from 25% to 19%). Access to the judiciary was the reason also named by somewhat fewer judges (23% in 2009, and 17% in 2013), but by an increased percent of lawyers (9% in 2009, and 18% in 2013). 60 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 2.3.c Equality of treatment of all citizens by judicial system Summary 166. Quite a substantial percentage of the general public feel that the judicial system does not treat all citizens equally and a considerable number of the members of the business sector shares the same feelings with regards to the equality of treatment of the legal entities. In comparison with general public, the number of judges and prosecutors who feel that all citizens are not treated equally is considerably smaller, especially in the case of prosecutors. The amount of lawyers who think that all citizens are not treated equally is between that of general public on one side and judges on the other, but closer to the latter one. 167. A considerable percentage of the general population thinks that the judicial system does not treat all citizens equally. According to citizens’ opinions, the unequal treatment is predominant with regards to socio-economic status. As high as 61% of the citizens believe that people with different socio-economic status are not equally treated. More than 40% think that different treatment is provided to people dependent on their education and ethnicity; around one third believe that disabled people are treated unequally, and that treatment differs dependent on age and place of residence; 29% feels that males and females are treated unequally. (Figure 2.3.c1) Figure 2.3.c1: 2013 share of general public who think that the judicial system do not treat all members of the general public equally, in dependence of their socio economic and demographic characteristics 61% 2013 42% 41% 34% 32% 31% 29% Socio- Education Ethnicity Disability Age Place of Gender economic residence status Note: Question: In your view , do the judicial system in Serbia equally treat all citizens notwithstanding their…Base: General public total target population 168. Similar to the general public, judges and prosecutors see socio-economic status and education as predominant areas of unequal treatment, but in a substantially smaller percentage; 25% of judges and 17% of prosecutors think that people are treated unequally dependent on their socio-economic status, and 20% of judges and 12% of prosecutors believe that people are treated differently in dependence of their education. Lawyers’ attitudes are between those of the users and providers, but closer to the latter one. (Figure 2.3.c2) 169. The most striking difference between lawyers on one side, and judges and prosecutors on the other, is in perception of political affiliation as a factor of the unequal treatment of the citizens. Almost all lawyers, 98%, think that citizens are treated differently dependent on their political affiliation, while only 1% of judges and 1% of prosecutors share this opinion. 61 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 2.3.c2: 2013 share of judges, prosecutors and lawyers who think that the judicial system do not treat all members of the general public equally, in dependence of their socio economic and demographic characteristics 42% Judges Prosecutors Lawyers 25% 26% 20% 18% 15% 18% 17% 15% 11% 13% 11% 12% 8% 10% 9% 11% 7% 7% 6% 5% Socio- Education Place of Ethnicity Age Disability Gender economic residence status Note: Question: In your view , do the judicial system in Serbia equally treat all citizens notwithstanding their… Base: Legal professionals total target population 170. In 2013, in comparison with 2009, judges and prosecutors somewhat more frequently selected the place of residence and gender as the characteristics based on which citizens were unequally treated (5% more judges and 11% more prosecutors named place of residence, and 2% more judges and 4% more prosecutors named gender). Judges also selected socio-economic status and education somewhat more frequently, while prosecutors named disability, age, and ethnicity somewhat more frequently. 171. When the inequality of the treatment of legal entities is in question, the views are similar to those related to the inequality of the citizens. A considerable percentage of the members of the business sector think that companies are unequally treated on several bases. More than half feel that treatment varies dependent on the ownership structure of the company, and almost half think that company size makes a difference. Almost one third believe that treatment varies dependent on the company’s activity and its geographical location. (Figure 2.3.c3) Figure 2.3.c3: 2013 share of members of business sector who think that the judicial system do not treat equally all legal entities equally 53% 49% 32% 30% Ownership structure of Company size Company activity Geographic location of the company the company Note: Question: In your view, do the judicial system in Serbia equally treat all legal entities notwithstanding their… Base: Members of business sector total target population Similar to lawyers, all members of the business sector (100%) believe that companies are treated differently dependent on their political affiliation. 62 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 2.3.d Perception of corruption within the judiciary Summary 172. A majority of the citizens (51%) think that corruption is present in the judiciary to a considerable extent, and with regard to the presence of corruption, the judiciary is positioned as the second highest among the state institutions (following the health system). Quite a substantial percentage of the judges (41%), and majority of prosecutors (52%) agree that corruption is present in judiciary, but, contrary to the citizens, only 3% of judges and 2% of prosecutors think that it is present to a considerable extent. Lawyers’ views are somewhat closer to the views of court service providers than to those of users. In 2013, in comparison with 2009, percentage of those who believe that corruption is present in the judicial system decreased with all groups, but substantially more with judges and prosecutors than with court users and lawyers, so the gap in opinions became even bigger 173. Contrary to the widely stated opinions that corruption is present in judiciary, (not surprisingly) a relatively small percentage of court users reported that they personally resorted to informal means in the course of proceedings, but according to lawyers, as high as 40% of their clients asked them to use some informal means to influence the work of judge. 174. Opinions about the contribution of internal control to strengthening the integrity of the judiciary were divided. A substantial part of court services providers think that internal control did not exist at all, and out of those who think that it existed, just somewhat over half believe that it improved the integrity. With regard the support to integrity coming from professional associations (Bar Association, Association of Judges, and Association of Prosecutors), opinions are divided again, but in general, the views are hardly very enthusiastic. 2.3.d.1 General perceptions of corruption within judiciary 175. According to citizens’ views, by the presence of corruption, the judicial system is positioned as the second highest among the six state institutions. With the presence of corruption, the judicial system follows the health system, and these are the only two institutions for which majority of the citizens believe that corruption is present to a considerable degree (51% and 59% respectively). In 2013, as compared to 2009, the share of citizens who think that corruption is present in the judicial system decreased (from 58% to 51%), while the percentage of those who think that corruption is present in the health system increased (from 53% to 59%); so in 2013, the judicial system handed over its leading position to the health system. (Figure 2.3.d1) Figure 2.3.d1: citizens’ general perception of the presence of corruption in state institutions Not at all/a little (1+2) Present quite/to a great degree (4+5) 12% 13% 15% 13% 16% 13% 12% 18% 11% 19% 28% 27% 58% 51% 53% 49% 49% 53% 37% 50% 39% 35% 36% 59% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Judicial Health Police National Government Education system system assembly system Note: Question: General public: How present is corruption in the following sectors and institution? Scale from 1 to 5, 1 =‘not at all’ and 5 =‘to a great degree’; 1, 2=there is no corruption, 4, 5= there is corruption. Base: General public total target population 63 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 176. Similar to views of the general public, quite a substantial percentage of judges (42%), and as high as 52% of the prosecutors agreed that corruption is present in judiciary. But great discrepancy was found with regards to degree of its presence: while a majority of the citizens think that corruption is present to a considerable degree, just 2% to 3% of court service providers share this opinion. Opinions of lawyers are somewhat closer to that of court service users than to judges and prosecutors. (Figure 2.3.d2)18 Finally, quite a substantial percentage of judges (51%) and a somewhat less percentage of prosecutors (44%) think that corruption in the judiciary is not present at all, while this opinion is shared by a substantially smaller percentage of court service users and lawyers. (Figures 2.3d2)19 Figure 2.3.d2: 2009 AND 2013, perception of corruption in justice sector - court service providers and lawyers 8% 8% 2% 16% 4% 3% 3% 4% 20% 23% Don't know/Ref 40% 48% 18% 13% 65% 72% To great extent 54% 47% 51% 44% To an extent 24% 23% 17% 7% No corruption 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Note: Question: Was there corruption in the judicial system in the last 12 months? Scale: 1 = There was no corruption, 2=To an extent, 3=To great extent. Base: legal professionals total target group 177. In comparison to 2009, the percentage of those who believe that corruption is present in the judiciary decreased among all groups, but substantially more with judges and prosecutors than with court users and lawyers (by 7% of general public, by 10% of members of business sector, by 12% of lawyers, and by as high as 28% of judges, and 24% of prosecutors). (Figures 2.3d2 and 2.3.d3) Figure 2.3.d3: 2009 and 2013, general perception of corruption in justice sector There is corruption There is no corruption 11% 14% 12% 13% 16% 22% 13% 28% 57% 51% 58% 51% 51% 43% 49% 38% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 General public with General public without Business with court Business without court experience court experience experience court experience Note: Question: In your opinion, how present is corruption in judicial system? Scale from 1 to 5, 1 =‘not at all’ and 5 =‘ to a great degree’; 1,2=there is no corruption, 4,5 there is corruption; Scale from 1 to 5, 1 =‘not at all’ and 5 =‘to a great degree’; 1, 2=there is no corruption, 4, 5= there is corruption. Base: General public and business sector total target population 2.3.d.2 Personal experiences with corruption of court users, court providers and lawyers 178. Comparing to the widely stated opinions that corruption is present in the judiciary, a relatively small percentage of court users reported that they personally resorted to informal means; but still, as high as 9% reported to have resorted to informal means in the course of misdemeanor 18Itis noticeable that more than 20% of lawyers did not want to state their opinions with regards to presence of corruption 19Considerable number of the citizens, 27%, and business sector 22% opted for grade 3 on the scale from 1 meaning that corruption is not present at all, to 5 meaning to a great extent. 64 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 proceedings, 4% in civil proceedings, and 2% in criminal proceedings. But the discrepancy is not surprising, knowing that it is generally assumed that survey respondents are reluctant to volunteer information on actual corrupt behavior.20 (Figure 2.3.d4) Figure 2.3.d4: 2009 and 2013, share of users with experience with court cases who reported to have resorted to informal means in the course of proceedings % reported to have resorted to informal means 10% 9% 2% 2% 2% 2% 3% 4% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Criminal Misdemeanor Civil Business General public Note: Question: Did you ever find yourself in circumstances in which you resorted to informal means -made an additional payment, offered a gift, pulled strings…- to have your case adjudicated more efficiently. Base: General public and business sector with experience with court cases 179. In comparison to court users, a higher percentage of both judges and prosecutors claimed to be approached by someone who tried to bribe them. Almost one fifth judge and prosecutor stated to be offered a bribe in 2009, but this percentage has decreased in 2013 by 6% with judges and 8% with prosecutors. (Figure 2.3.d5) Figure 2.3.d5: 2009 and 2013 share of judges and prosecutors who claimed to find themselves in a situation in which someone tried to resort to informal means to affect their work 19% 19% 13% 11% 2009 2013 2009 2013 Judges Prosecutors Note: Question: Did you find yourself in a situation in which someone tried to resort to informal means to affect your work?. Base: Judges and prosecutors total target population 180. According to lawyers, as high as 40% of their clients asked them to use some informal means, and this percentage did not change in comparison to 2009. But 3% of lawyers also claimed that a judge or a prosecutor offered them an agreement which implied some pecuniary advantage to make a judgment in favor of their client (Figure 2.3.d6) 20For example, in the SOSAC (Social assessment survey Serbia) survey commissioned by the World Bank and conducted by Ipsos Strategic Marketing in 2004, only 11 percent of citizens responded that they had to pay informally for health services, while 88 percent stated that informal payments are occasionally, often, or very often present in the health system. For more on socially desirable answering in surveys, see for example Roger Tourangeau, Lance J. Rips, and Kenneth Rasinski. 2000.The Psychology of Survey Response. Cambridge University Press. 65 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 2.3.d6: share of lawyers who claimed that some of the clients, judges or prosecutors asked them to use some informal means in order to influence the work of judge 41% 40% 2% 3% 1% 3% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Clients Judges Prosecutors Note: Question: Did you find yourself in a situation in which your client asked you to use some informal means to influence the work of judges? Did you find yourself in a situation in which a judge / prosecutor offered you an agreement which implied some pecuniary advantage to make a judgment in favor of your client. Base: Lawyers total target population 2.3.d.3 Perceptions of the roles of the internal control and professional association in strengthening the integrity of judiciary 181. Providers of court services were quite divided in their opinions about the contribution of the internal control to integrity of judiciary, but the share of those who think that it helped strengthen the integrity is not encouraging. 182. Interesting enough, among providers of court services there was no agreement if the internal control within judiciary existed at all. A majority of the judges and prosecutors think that an internal control existed in the judicial system, but quite a substantial part thinks that it was not present at all. Out of those who thought that internal control existed, just slightly more than half believe that it contributed to the integrity of the judiciary. As for the lawyers, more than one third of them are not aware if there was an internal control at all, and half believe that it was not. Out of those who think that there was an internal control, less than half believe that it improved the integrity of judiciary. But the percentage with this opinion has increased in comparison to 2009 by as high as23%. (Figures 2.3.d7. and 2.3.d8). Figure 2.3.d7: 2009 and 2013 judges, prosecutors and lawyers awareness of the existence of an internal control within judicial system in 2009 and 2013 8% 5% 8% 5% 39% 31% 35% 35% 36% Don't know 46% 50% 49% No 56% 61% 60% 46% 14% 16% Yes 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Note: Question: Was there any form of internal control within the judicial system in the last 12 months?. Base: Judges, prosecutors and lawyers total target population 66 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 2.3.d8: 2009 and 2013 share of judges, prosecutors and lawyers who think that internal control contributed to the integrity of judiciary 2009 2013 57% 60% 55% 53% 45% 22% Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Note: Question: To what degree did the internal control that existed contribute to the integrity of the judiciary? Base: Judges, prosecutors and lawyers who believe that an internal control existed (Judges 2009 46%, 2013 56%; prosecutors 2009 61%, 2013 60%; lawyers 2009 14%, 2913 16%) 183. But a great majority judges, prosecutors and lawyers agreed that internal control is important for strengthening the integrity of the judicial system (86%, 89% and 95% respectively). 184. With regard to the support to strengthen the integrity coming from professional associations (Bar Association, Association of Judges, and Association of Prosecutors), opinions are divided again, but in general, the opinions are hardly very enthusiastic. Slightly more than half of the prosecutors believe that Associations of judges and Associations of prosecutors did help strengthen the integrity of their professions, but only 17% share this opinion with regards to Bar association. Judges perceive their association to be most helpful (51%), but only 36% think that Association of prosecutors was helpful. Similar to prosecutors, the smallest percentage of judges thinks that the Bar association was helpful (20%). On the other hand a majority of lawyers believe that none of the tree association helped strengthening the integrity, but while in the case of Bar Association and Association of judges this opinion is shared by slightly more than half of lawyers, over 60% think that the Association of prosecutors was not helpful. In comparison with 2009, the Association of judges and Association of prosecutors were perceived by judges and prosecutors as more supportive with regards to the strengthening of the integrity, while lawyers expressed more positive opinions with this regard about all three associations. (Figure 2.3.d9) Figure 2.3.d9: 2013 perceptions of prosecutors, judges and lawyers about the extent to which professional associations helped strengthen the integrity of the profession they represent Prosecutors Judges Lawers 11 11 3 10 3 13 17% 20% 39% Don't know 52% 51% 48% 45% 52% 36% Fairly/greatly 72% 70% 61% 45% 46% 51% 52% 55% 37% Not at all/a little Association Association Association Association Association Association Prosecutors Prosecutors Prosecutors Association Association Association of Judges of Judges of Judges Bar Bar Bar of of of Note: Question: To what extent did professional associations - Bar Association , Association of Judges , Association of Prosecutors - help strengthen the integrity of the profession they represent? Base: Judges, prosecutors and lawyers total target population 67 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 2.3.e Perception of court users with experience with court cases about courtesy and integrity of the judge Summary 185. A majority of the court users agreed that during court proceedings judges showed courtesy and integrity. But still, a substantial part of the general public, and somewhat fewer members of the business sector were not satisfied with judge’s attitude. It is noticeable that over 20% of court users stated that they do not know if the judge was corrupt. 186. The general public as well as the members of business sector were most satisfied with politeness of the judge (74% and 83% respectively). A somewhat smaller percentage reported that the judge was impartial (67% of genera public and 69% of business sector) and that he/she generated trust (66% and 70% respectively), as well as that the judge was efficient (64% of general public and 62% of business sector) and not corrupt ( 61% of general public and 65% of business sector). (Figures 2.3.e1 and 2.3.e2) 187. It is noticeable that respondents were most indecisive (or least ready to state their opinions) with regards to corruption; as high as 22% of general public, and 24% of the members of the business sector answered that they do not know if the judge was corrupted or not. (Figures 2.3.e1 and 2.3.e2) Figure 2.3.e1: 2013, perceptions of courtesy and integrity of judge in the course of proceedings - general public with experience with court cases 3% 4% 4% 1% 23% 29% 31% 35% 22% Don't know 17% 74% 67% 66% 64% 61% Disagree Agree The judge was The judge was The judge The judge was The judge was polite and impartial, fair generated trust efficient not corrupt pleasant and objective and respect Note: Question: To what extent do you agree with the following assertions…? Scale of 1 to 4, 1= ‘fully disagree’ 2 ‘disagree’, 3=agree, 4 = ‘fully agree’; presented: 1,2=agree, 3,4=disagree. Base: General public with experience with court services Figure 2.3.e2: 2013, perceptions of courtesy and integrity of judge in the course of proceedings - business sector with experience with court cases 6% 8% 7% 3% Don't know 12% 23% 24% 24% 35% 11% Disagree 83% Agree 70% 69% 65% 62% The judge was The judge The judge was The judge was The judge was polite and generated trust impartial, fair not corrupt efficient pleasant and respect and objective Note: Question: To what extent do you agree with the following assertions…? Scale of 1 to 4, 1= ‘fully disagree’ 2 ‘disagree’, 3=agree, 4 = ‘fully agree’; presented: 1,2=agree, 3,4=disagree. Base: Members of business sector with experience with court services 188. In comparison with 2009, the percentage of court users who evaluated the judge’s behavior as polite and pleasant increased by 5% among members of the business sector and by 7% among the general public, but no changes were found in other domains of judge’s attitude. 68 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 2.3.f Perceived factors which undermine the integrity of the judicial system 189. According to court service providers, as well as lawyers, several factors undermined the integrity of the judicial system. Judges and prosecutors think that integrity was primarily undermined by sensationalist media reports (78% of judges and 80% of prosecutors), and by length of proceedings (73% of judges and 77% of prosecutors). But a majority of judges and prosecutors also think that poor, non-transparent personnel policy, political influence and inadequate penalties for corruption undermine the integrity of the judicial system. More than half of judges think that selective initiation of cases by prosecution weaken the integrity, while more than half of prosecutors think that these are court decisions. While prosecutors agreed the least that integrity is harmed by selective initiations of cases, the judges agreed the least that partiality of judges undermine the integrity. It is noticeable that just somewhat more than one third of the court service providers agreed that corruption and lack of fairness undermine the integrity of judicial system, and just somewhat more than one third of prosecutors, and 28% of judges thought that the integrity was harmed by partiality of judges. (Figure 2.3.f1) 190. In comparison to judges and prosecutors, a considerably higher percentage of lawyers thinks that all the listed factors undermine the integrity of judiciary. Similar to judges and prosecutors, 78% of lawyers think that the media undermines the integrity of judicial system. However, lawyers think that length of proceedings, poor, non-transparent personnel policy, and political influence are factors which harm the integrity more than media. (Figure 2.3.f1) 191. In comparison to 2009, the percentage of opinions that corruption is undermining the integrity decreased with all three groups (by 14% with prosecutors, by 9% with judges, and by 7% with lawyers), while the opinions that political influence is harming factor decreased with lawyers (by 6%). Figure 2.3.f1: 2013, perceptions of factors which undermine the integrity of judicial system - judges, prosecutors, and lawyers % to an extent / to great extent Judges Prosecutors Lawyers 78% Sensationalist/exaggerated media reports 80% 78% 73% Length of proceedings 77% 89% 67% Poor, non-transparent personnel policy 62% 85% 59% Political/politicians' influence on the court and… 59% 83% 58% Inadequate penalties for corruption 61% 79% 54% Selective initiation of cases by the prosecution 25% 78% 43% Court decisions 54% 76% 37% Corruption 36% 68% 36% Lack of fairness 36% 63% 28% Partiality of judges due to improper influence of… 37% 64% Note: Question: To what extent did the following factors undermine the integrity of the judicial system in the last 12 months? Scale 1 to 4, 1= ‘not at all’ 2 ‘mostly no’, 3=’to an extent’, 4 = ‘to great extent’ Base: Legal professionals total target population Finally, big discrepancy was found between users of court services and lawyers on one side, and court services providers on the other with regards to their perceptions about the partiality of judges (due to improper influence of other judges, lawyers and other persons participating in the proceedings as 69 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 a factor) as a factor undermining the integrity of judicial system in 201321. While the great majority of court services users and lawyers think that the partiality of judges did undermine the integrity of judicial system, the great majority of judges and prosecutors share the opposite opinion. Still, 28% of judges and 37% of prosecutors agree that partiality of judges is due to improper influences of other professionals or other parties in the proceedings did undermine the integrity of judicial system. (Figure 2.3.f2) Figure 2.3.f2: 2013: perceptions about the partiality of judges (due to improper influence of other judges, lawyers and other persons participating in the proceedings) as a factor undermining the integrity of the judicial system 28% 37% Did undemine 64% 64% the integrity 76% 75% 75% 67% 59% 37% Did not 23% 23% 25% 36% undermine the integrity General General Business Business Judges Prosecutors Lawyers public with public sector with sector experience without experience without with court experience with court experience case with court case with court case case Note: Question: To what extent did partiality of judges due to improper influence of other judges, lawyers and other persons participating in the proceedings undermine the integrity of the judicial system in the last 12 months? Scale 1 to 4, 1= ‘not at all’ 2 ‘mostly no’, 3=’to an extent’, 4 = ‘to great extent’ Base: Total target population 2.4 Independence of the judicial system Summary 192. Perceptions of the independence of the judicial system are quite different between providers of the court services on one side, and users of the services and lawyers on the other. While court users and lawyers mostly think that the judicial system is not independent, a majority of providers think that it is independent. Still, one forth of the judges and each third of the prosecutors think that the judicial system is not independent. The views became somewhat closer in 2013, as a portion of those who think that the judicial system is independent somewhat increased among lawyers and users of court services and decreased among judges and prosecutors - but disparity is still quite substantial. Judges and prosecutors believe that media, followed by politicians and political parties jeopardize the most the independence of judicial system. 193. Users of court services and lawyers on one side, and providers of court services on the other, have considerably different perceptions of independence of the judiciary. Half of the members of the general public and business sector and somewhat more lawyers (56%) think that the judicial system is not independent, while just one third of the general public and somewhat more than 40% of the business sector and lawyers believe that it is independent. On the other side, over 70% of judges and over 60% of prosecutors believe that the judicial system is independent, while one forth of the judges and each third of the prosecutors think that judicial system is not independent (Figure 2.4.a1) 21 This question was not asked in 2009 70 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 2.4.a1: 2013 general perception of independence of judicial system Not independent Independent 71% 63% 32% 33% 34% 41% 44% 24% 33% 60% 51% 56% 50% 56% General public General public Business with Business Lawyers Judges Prosecutors with court without court court without court experience experience experience experience I Note: Question: To what extent was the judicial system in Serbia in the last 12 months truly independent from the executive authorities - politics? Scale of 1 to 4, 1 = “Not independent”, 2= “mostly not”, 3=”mostly independent”, 4=’fully independent” Base: Total target population 194. Opinions came closer in 2013, because the percentage of users of court services and lawyers who think that the judicial system is independent has increased, while the percentage of providers of court services with such opinion has decreased, although the differences in opinion are still considerable. In comparison with 2009, the opinions of the general public and business sector with regards to the independence of the judiciary have noticeably improved, but the views that the judicial system is not independent are still predominant. Interesting enough, in comparison with 2009, the share of judges and prosecutors who think that the judicial system is independent decreased by 5% and 10% (respectively). Nevertheless, the opinions that the judicial system is independent are still predominant. On the other hand, similar to citizens, the portion of lawyers who think that the judicial system is independent has increased, but a majority still share the opinion that the judiciary is not independent. (Figure 2.4.a2 and 2.4.a3) Figure 2.4.a2: 2009 and 2013 perception of independence of Judicial system Not independent Independent 32% 33% 34% 41% 19% 22% 28% 25% 51% 56% 50% 60% 62% 67% 75% 70% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 General public with General public Business with court Business without court experience without court experience experience experience Note: Question: To what extent was the judicial system in Serbia in the last 12 months truly independent from the executive authorities - politics? Scale of 1 to 4, 1 = “Not independent”, 2= “mostly not”, 3=”mostly independent”, 4=’fully independent” Base: General public and business sector total target population 71 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 2.4.a3: 2009 and 2013 perception of independence of Judicial system Not independent Independent 76% 71% 73% 63% 33% 44% 21% 24% 25% 33% 63% 56% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Note: Question: To what extent was the judicial system in Serbia in the last 12 months truly independent from the executive authorities - politics? Scale of 1 to 4, 1 = “Not independent”, 2= “mostly not”, 3=”mostly independent”, 4=’fully independent” Base: Legal professionals total target population 195. A majority of judges and prosecutors believe that the media, politicians and political parties are jeopardizing the independence of the judicial system the most. But other institutions have their share of the responsibility as well: More than one third of judges and prosecutors think that specific ministries and the government jeopardize the independence of the judiciary, one fifth think that independence is jeopardized by big business, and slightly more that it is endangered by NGOs (Figure 2.4.a4) 196. In comparison with judges and prosecutors, lawyers assign more responsibility for distressed independence to all listed institutions. Similar to judges and prosecutors, lawyers find the media, political parties and politicians as the most responsible, but they allocate more responsibility to politicians (77%) and political parties (75%), than to the media (65%). In comparison with judges and prosecutors, lawyers also allocate more responsibility to specific ministries (63%), the government (56%) and big businesses (50%). (Figure 2.4.a4) Figure 2.4.a4: 2013 share of judges, prosecutors and lawyers who believe that listed institutions jeopardized the independence of judicial system % to an extent / to great extent Judges Prosecutors Lawyers 60% The Media 62% 65% 52% Politicians 58% 77% 51% Political parties 57% 75% 36% Specific ministries 36% 63% 32% Government 33% 56% 19% Big business 20% 50% 22% NGOs in Serbia 29% 30% Note: Question: How much did the following institutions jeopardize the independence of the judicial system in the last 12 months? Scale of 1 to 4, 1= ‘not at all’ 2 ‘mostly no’, 3=’to an extent’, 4 = ‘to great extent’ Base: Legal professionals total target population 72 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 197. Judges and prosecutors, as well as lawyers believe that politicians and political parties jeopardize the independence of the judiciary to a much greater extent than the government and specific ministries. However, as already noted above, still one third of judges and prosecutors think that the government did jeopardize the judicial system’s independence, and somewhat more than one third think that specific ministries jeopardized the independence. Actually, just slightly more than one third of judges and 29% of prosecutors think that the government did not jeopardize the independence of the judiciary at all, and somewhat less than one third of judges and each forth prosecutor think that ministries did not jeopardize the independence at all. On the other hand, around 10% of both judges and prosecutors think that the government and ministries did jeopardize the integrity to a great extent. (Figure 2.4.a5) 198. As opposed to court services providers, a majority of lawyers think that government and ministries did jeopardize the integrity, and almost one fifth believe that they jeopardize the independence to a great extent. Only 16% of lawyers think that government did not jeopardize the independence of the judiciary at all, and 11% that ministries did not jeopardize it at all. (Figure 2.4.a5) Figure 2.4.a5: 2013 judges, prosecutors and lawyers perception of the extent to which government, ministries, politicians and political parties jeopardized the independence of judicial system Not at all Mostly no To an extent To great extent 9% 10% 10% 9% 18% 19% 20% 23% 24% 25% 23% 36% 39% 26% 23% 27% 31% 30% 38% 44% 26% 34% 33% 26% 30% 30% 39% 38% 20% 20% 20% 18% 28% 26% 35% 31% 29% 16% 17% 24% 22% 25% 16% 16% 16% 11% 9% 6% Political parties Political parties Political parties Specific ministries Politicians Specific ministries Politicians Politicians Specific ministries Government Government Government Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Note: Question: How much did the following institutions jeopardize the independence of the judicial system in the last 12 months? Scale of 1 to 4, 1= ‘not at all’ 2 ‘mostly no’, 3=’to an extent’, 4 = ‘to great extent’ Base: Legal professionals total target population In comparison to 2009, the changes of opinions about the government, ministries, politicians and political parties influence on independence of the judicial system were shown only in the case of lawyers. The percentage of lawyers who thought that these institutions have jeopardized the independence of the judicial system has somewhat decreased. The opinions of judges and prosecutors have not changed in comparison to 2009. (Figure 2.4.a6) 73 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 2.4.a6: share of judges, prosecutors and lawyers who believe that government, ministries, politicians and political parties jeopardized the independence of judicial system % to an extent / to great extent 2009 2013 84% 84% 75% 75% 77% 65% 63% 54%57% 58% 56% 51% 51% 52% 52% 52% 40% 38% 32% 32% 36% 30%33% 36% Political parties Political parties Political parties Specific ministries Politicians Government Specific ministries Politicians Specific ministries Politicians Government Government Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Note: Question: How much did the following institutions jeopardize the independence of the judicial system in the last 12 months? Scale of 1 to 4, 1= ‘not at all’ 2 ‘mostly no’, 3=’to an extent’, 4 = ‘to great extent’ Base: Legal professionals total target population 2.5 Relevant laws and their application Summary 199. A majority of legal professionals agree that laws are often imprecise and ambiguous, and not consistently fair and objective. Inconsistent interpretation of laws and inconsistent jurisprudence are perceived as frequent problems in enforcement of laws 200. The Majority of legal professionals who participated in the survey agree that the laws are often imprecise and unclear. Legal professionals are divided in their opinions about the precisions and ambiguity of the laws, but an extremely small number think that laws are generally precise, clear and unambiguous (4% of judges, 3% of prosecutors, and 5% of lawyers), and an even higher percentage think that laws were imprecise and ambiguous to high extent (14% of judges, 17% of prosecutors, and 17% of lawyers). The most frequent opinion is that laws were mostly (but not completely) precise, clear and unambiguous. In comparison with 2009, this attitude has somewhat decreased with prosecutors, but increased with lawyers. (Figure 2.5.1) 74 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 2.5.1: 2009 and 2013 perception of clearness, precision and ambiguity of Serbian laws - judges, prosecutors and lawyers 12% 14% 8% 17% 15% 17% The Laws were imprecise, 29% unclear and ambiguous to a high 33% 33% extent 33% 35% 44% The laws were mostly imprecise, unclear and ambiguous 56% 50% 48% 47% 43% 36% The Laws were mostly precise, 3% 4% 5% 3% 5% 5% clear and unambiguous 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Judges Prosecutors Lawyers The Laws were precise, clear and unambiguous to a high extent Note: Question: To what extent were Serbian laws precise, clear and unambiguous in last 12 months? Base: legal professionals total target population 201. A somewhat higher percentage of judges and prosecutors think that laws are generally fair and objective (13% of judges and prosecutors), and these percentages have increased in comparison to 2009 (by 7% with judges, and 6% with prosecutors). But a majority opted for the option that laws were mostly fair and objective (62% of judges, 66% of prosecutors, and 61% of lawyers). In comparison to 2009, the percentage of lawyers with this opinion increased by 11%. (Figure 2.5.2) Figure 2.5.2: 2009 and 2013 perception of fairness and objectivity of Serbian laws - judges, prosecutors and lawyers 3% The Laws were unfair and 5% 6% 5% 7% 6% 18% 16% 19% 14% unobjective to high extent 36% 26% The laws were mostly unfair 62% 69% 66% and unobjective 68% 61% 50% The laws were mostly fair and 13% 13% objective 6% 7% 6% 7% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 The Laws were fair and objective to a high extent Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Note: Question: To what extent were Serbian laws months fair and objective in last 12? Base: legal professionals total target population 202. Most of the judges, prosecutors and lawyers (over 80%) agree that inconsistent interpretation of laws and inconsistent jurisprudence happen at least from time to time, if not often, in the enforcement of laws. On the other hand, while a majority of lawyers think that selective enforcement of the laws and non-enforcement of the laws also were the frequent problems, less than one third of judges and prosecutors share this attitude. (Figure 2.5.3) 75 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 2.5.3: 2013 share of judges, prosecutors and lawyers who estimate the listed problems to occur from time to time or frequently in the enforcement of laws 88% 84% 82% 82% 84% 83% Judges 67% 59% Prosecutors 32% 31% 26% 27% Lawyers Inconsistent Inconsistent Selective Non-enforcement of interpretation of laws jurisprudence enforcement of laws laws Note: Question: How often did the following problems occur in the enforcement of laws? Scale: 1=never, 2=rarely, 3=from time to time, 4=frequently Base: legal professionals total target population 203. From the point of views of lawyers things are improving in comparison to 2009, while from the point of view of judges and prosecutors the changes are sporadic, and rather in the negative direction. While lawyers estimate that all four problems happen somewhat less often in 2013 than in 2009 (Figure 2.5.4), somewhat more judges (3%) think that selective enforcement of law is the frequent problem, and somewhat more prosecutors think that inconsistent jurisprudence (6%) and non-enforcement of the laws (8%) are the problems. Figure 2.5.4: 2009 and 2013 share of lawyers who estimated the listed problems to occur from time to time or frequently in the enforcement of laws 90 2009 2013 89 84 83 76 67 70 59 Inconsistent Inconsistent Selective enforcement of Non-enforcement of laws interpretation of laws jurisprudence laws Note: Question: How often did the following problems occur in the enforcement of laws? Scale: 1=never, 2=rarely, 3=from time to time, 4=frequently. Base: legal professionals total target population 204. Finally, as shown above (Section 2.2.b), substantial part of judges (20%) and lawyers (19%), and somewhat less prosecutors (9%) named unclear laws as one of the main reasons for reduced quality of the court services. Bad laws were also named by each forth court user as one of the main reasons for low quality of the court service delivered in the proceeding they participated in. 76 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 2.6 Public trust and confidence Summary 205. The judicial system is one of the least trusted institutions. Only 26% of the citizens really trust the judicial system. (Figure 2.6.1) 206. The judicial system is one of the institutions which the public trusts the least. Only 26% of citizens report that they trust the judicial system. In comparison to 2009, trust in the judicial system has increased by 7% (from 19% to 26%), but the increased trust was shown with regards to other state institutions too (with exception of health system). (Figure 2.6.1) Figure 2.6.1: Citizens’ trust in institutions Trust mostly/fully 56%58% 2009 2013 51% 47% 46%47% 42% 33% 36%33% 33%35% 31% 26% 25% 22%24% 19% 22% 14% 11% 13% Army System Government Assembly Church President Judicial Police Education NGOs Media System Health National System Note: Question: General public: Rate the degree in which you trust the following sectors and institutions in the last 12 months? Scale from 1 to 5, 1 =‘not at all’ and 5 =‘fully’ Base: General public total target population 207. The trust in the judicial system has increased among citizens with and without experience with court cases, but somewhat more with those with experience (10% and 6% respectively). So, while in 2009 somewhat more people without experience showed trust in the judiciary, the two groups became closer in 2013 (Figure 2.6.2) Figure 2.6.2: Citizens’ trust in judicial system Trust mostly/fully 2009 2013 26% 23% 20% 13% With experience with court cases Without experience Note: Question: General public: Rate the degree in which you trust the following sectors and institutions in the last 12 months? Scale from 1 to 5, 1 =‘not at all’ and 5 =‘fully’ Base: General public total target population 77 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 208. According to citizens’ views, the whole variety of factors undermines the trust in the judicial system. Over 80% selected length of proceedings, corruption, political influence, inadequate penalties for corruption, and poor, non-transparent personnel policy. Over 70% named content of court decisions, lack of fairness, and selective initiations of the cases. Finally, 70% named the sensationalist media reports. In comparison to court service providers’ estimates of the factors undermining integrity of judicial system (as shown above, Section 2.3.f), citizens allocate more responsibility for reduced trust to all of the factors, with the exception of the media. While sensationalist media reports were the most frequently named factor by judges and prosecutors (78% and 80%), it was the least frequently selected by the citizens (70%) Figure 2.6.3: 2013 share of citizens who estimate the listed factors to undermine the trust in judicial system Without experience with court cases With experience with court services % Undermine trust to an extent/ to great extent Length of proceedings 82% 85% Corruption in the judicial system 81% 81% Political/politicians' influence on the court 80% 83% Inadequate penalties for corruption 80% 83% Poor, non-transparent personnel policy - how staff… 78% 81% Content of court decisions 75% 75% Lack of fairness 74% 74% Selective initiation of cases by the prosecution 73% 75% Sensationalist/exaggerated media reports 69% 70% Note: Question: General public: To what extent did the following factors undermine the trust of the citizens in the judicial system in the last 12 months? Scale from 1 to 5, 1 =‘not at all’ 2=’mostly not’, 3=’to an extent’, 4 =‘to a great extent’ Base: General public total target population 2.7 Perceptions about the role of media in creating the image of judiciary Summary 209. Legal professionals view media as highly responsible for the negative image of the judicial system. A substantial percentage of judges and prosecutors as well as of lawyers share the attitude that the media, as a mechanism of external control, has negative influence on integrity of the judicial system, and that, in general, the media generates a negative image of the judiciary. This attitude is the least shared among the citizens. Citizens are divided in their opinions about the role of media in creating the image of the judicial system, but most frequently (36%) they think that the image created by the media is objective. 210. Judges, prosecutors and lawyers consider the media highly responsible for the negative public perception of the judicial system. As already shown above (sections 2.3.f and 2.4.a), according to legal professionals (judges, prosecutors and lawyers), the media are one of the main factors (if not the main one) that jeopardize the integrity as well as the independence of the judicial system. A great majority of judges (75%) and prosecutors (75%), and more than half of lawyers (55%) also believe that the media, as a mechanism of external control, had negative influence on the integrity of judicial system. In comparison with 2009, these attitudes did not change with judges, and even somewhat increased with prosecutors and lawyers (Figure 2.7.1) 78 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 2.7.1: 2009 and 2013 perception of the influence of media on the integrity of the judicial system as a mechanism of external control - judges, prosecutors and lawyers Negative 50% 55% 75% 75% 69% 75% Neutral 27% 27% 13% 13% 14% Positive 14% 22% 15% 18% 9% 8% 6% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Note: Question: What influence had the media on the integrity of the judicial system as a mechanism of external control? Scale: 1=Negative, 2=Neutral, 3=Positive. Base: Legal professionals total target population 211. Not surprisingly, over 80% of judges and 75% of prosecutors think that the media generates the negative image of the judiciary, while 50% of lawyers share this attitude. (Figure 2.7.2) 212. On the other hand, citizens are divided in the opinions about the role of the media in creating the image of the judicial system, but most frequently (36%) they think that the image generated by the media is objective. (Figure 2.7.2) Figure 2.7.2: 2009 and 2013 perception of the image of the judicial system generated by media 26% 26% 51% 50% Worse than reality 84% 81% 80% 75% 36% 36% Objective 26% 30% 30% Better than 28% 11% 11% 10% 10% 21% 20% reality 4% 6% 9% 7% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Citizens Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Note: Question: What image of the judicial system do media in Serbia generate in general? Scale: 1=worse than reality, 2=objective, 3= better than reality. Base: General population, judges, prosecutors and lawyers - total population 79 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 3. ACCESS TO JUDICIAL SERVICES 3.1 General perception of accessibility of judicial system Summary 213. A majority of the users of court services, with the exception of the general public with experience with court cases, think that the judicial system was in general accessible to citizens, but users as well as lawyers, still evaluate court services as less accessible than providers. The difference in perceptions of accessibility of the judicial system between users and providers of court services is especially noticeable in the case of users the general public with experience with court cases - while less than half of them view the judicial system as accessible to all citizens, over 70% of court service providers share this opinion. The views between the users and providers of court services became somewhat closer in 2013 in comparison with 2009, as perceptions of providers became more negative, but the gap is still quite large. The gap is bigger with users with experience with court cases since their opinions are more negative and have not changed over time, while the opinions of users without experience have somewhat improved. Users and providers of court services agree that the judicial system is hardly accessible to citizens in terms of costs (primarily in terms of lawyer costs, and then court costs), but mostly accessible in terms of information, geographical distance of the courthouse and courthouse layout. 214. Most users of court services consider the judicial system generally accessible to citizens, but this opinion is shared by a significantly lower percentage of users than of providers of court services. A majority of the users, with the exception of the general public with experience with court cases, think that the judicial system was in general accessible to citizens. However, positive impressions are somewhat less present with users with experience with court cases, than with users without such experience. The most negative perceptions are found with members of the general public with court experience, among which somewhat less than half have positive views (48%), and almost the same percentage have negative impressions (46%). Perceptions of members of the business sector are somewhat more positive than perceptions of the general public, but similar to the general public, perceptions of members of the business sector with experience with court cases are less positive than perceptions of those who did not have this experience (55% and 61% respectively). Perceptions of lawyers are similar to perceptions of users, while substantially higher percentage of judges (78%) and prosecutors (71%) think that the judicial system was accessible to all citizens. (Figure 3.1.1) Figure 3.1.1: 2013 perceptions of users of court services, providers of court services and lawyers about accessibility of justice sector Inaccssible Accessible 61% 78% 71% 59% 48% 56% 55% 37% 33% 38% 18% 23% 46% 40% General public General public Business sector Business sector Judges Prosecutors Lawyers with court without court with court without court experience experience experience experience Note: Question: General public and business sector: When you think about the last few years, to what extent was the judicial system in Serbia equally accessible to all citizens notwithstanding their age, education level, financial status, ethnicity, handicap, the language they use…? Judges, prosecutors and lawyers: To what extent were the courts accessible to all citizens, notwithstanding their age, education level, financial status, ethnicity, disability… in the last 12 months? Scale:1. Very inaccessible 2. Mostly inaccessible 3. Mostly accessible, 4. Fully accessible. Base: Total target population 80 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 215. In comparison with 2009, the impressions of users without court experience have somewhat improved, but the impressions of users with experience with court cases did not change. On the other hand, perceptions of court services provides became substantially less positive, and so somewhat closer to perceptions of users. The percentage of court services providers who think that the judicial system was accessible to all citizens decreased by 10 points with judges (from 88% to 78%), and by 15 points with prosecutors (from 86% to 71%). The percentage of lawyers who think that the judicial system is accessible to all citizens substantially decreased as well, but their views are closer to perceptions of the users without experience with court cases, than to users with this experience. (Figure 3.1.2 and Figure 3.1.3) Figure 3.1.2: 2009 and 2013 perceptions of users of court services about accessibility of justice sector Inaccessible Accessible 51% 48% 54% 56% 52% 55% 53% 61% 46% 46% 40% 37% 40% 40% 36% 33% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 General public with General public without Business sector with Business sector without court experience court experience court experience court experience Note: Question: When you think about the last few years, to what extent was the judicial system in Serbia equally accessible to all citizens notwithstanding their age, education level, financial status, ethnicity, handicap, the language they use…? Scale:1. Very inaccessible 2. Mostly inaccessible 3. Mostly accessible, 4. Fully accessible. Base: General public and business sector total target population Figure 3.1.3: 2009 and 2013 perceptions of providers of court services and lawyers about accessibility of the justice sector Inaccessible Accessible 88% 78% 86% 74% 71% 59% 8% 18% 6% 23% 24% 38% Judges Prosecutors Lawyers 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Note: Question: To what extent were the courts accessible to all citizens, notwithstanding their age, education level, financial status, ethnicity, disability… in the last 12 months? Scale:1. Very inaccessible 2. Mostly inaccessible 3. Mostly accessible, 4. Fully accessible. Base: Judges, prosecutors and lawyers total target population 216. Users of judicial services among general population view costs of proceedings as the biggest problem of accessibility of the judicial system to citizens. This opinion is substantially more present with users with experience with court cases, than with users without this experience: 71% of users with court experience think that the judicial system is not accessible to citizens in terms of lawyers’ expenses and 61% in terms of court-related costs. This opinion is shared by a substantially smaller percentage of users without experience (58% and 51% respectively). On the other hand, a majority of users finds the judicial system accessible in terms of information, geographical distance of courthouse and courthouse layout. (Figure 3.1.4) 81 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 3.1.4: 2013 share of general public who believe that judicial system is not accessible to them with regard to defined aspects 71% % Not accessible 61% 58% 51% With experience with court cases Without experience with court cases 26% 23% 19% 15% 11% 15% Attorney-related Court-related costs Access to Geography - Finding way and expenses information distance of the moving around the courthouse courthouse? Note: Question: How accessible is the judicial system to you personally? Scale from 1 to 4: 1=very inaccessible 2=mostly inaccessible 3=mostly accessible 4=very accessible. Base: Total target population 217. Costs are perceived as the biggest barrier to accessibility of the judicial system to companies as well. However, in comparison to the general population, a smaller percentage of members of the business sector think that the judicial system is inaccessible to their company due to expenses either related to lawyer or to court (somewhat over 40%). A minor share of members of the business sector views access to information, geographical distance of courthouse and courthouse layout as a problem. (Figure 3.1.5) Figure 3.1.5: 2013 share of members of business sector who believe that judicial system is generally not accessible to their companies with regard to defined aspects 48% % Not accessible 46% 43% 42% (very/mostly) With experience with court cases Without experience with court cases 17% 16% 15% 11% 9% 8% Attorney-related Court-related costs Access to Geography - Finding way and expenses information distance of the moving around the courthouse courthouse? Note: Question: How accessible is the judicial system to your company? Scale from 1 to 4: 1=very inaccessible 2=mostly inaccessible 3=mostly accessible 4=very accessible. Base: Total target population 218. Providers of judicial system services agree with the users that costs of court proceedings are the biggest obstacle to accessibility of the court system to the citizens. In comparison with the citizens who have experience with a court case, an even higher percentage of the judges (75%) and prosecutors (85%) think that attorney-related costs are a barrier to accessibility of the judicial system. On the other hand, a smaller percentage of the judges than the citizens who have experience with a court case evaluate that court expenses are a barrier to accessibility of judicial system (50%). As regards the prosecutors, they agree more with the citizens in that respect (65%). Finally, not surprisingly, higher percentage of attorney see the court-related costs as problem with court accessibility (76%), than attorney-related costs (70%). (Figure 3.1.6) 82 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 3.1.6: 2013 share of legal professionals who believe that judicial system is generally not accessible to citizens with regard to defined aspects % Not accessible (very/mostly) 81% 76% 75% 70% Judges Prosecutors Lawyers 65% 50% 50% 32% 35% 28% 23% 28% 15% 11% 18% Attorney-related Court-related costs Geography-distance Finding way and Access to expenses of the courthouse moving around the information courthouse Note: Question: How accessible is currently the judicial system o citizens? Scale from 1 to 4: 1=very inaccessible 2=mostly inaccessible 3=mostly accessible 4=very accessible. Base: Judges, prosecutors and lawyers total target population 219. Interesting enough, court services providers estimate the services of the institution they work for as more accessible to all citizens than the same institution in general: 78% of judges estimated courts in Serbia as accessible to all citizens, but 89% estimated the court they work for as accessible; 80% of prosecutors estimated prosecution offices in Serbia as accessible, but 87% estimated the prosecution office they work for as accessible. In the same way, higher percentage of judges estimated courts in Serbia as accessible than prosecution offices (78% and 66% respectfully), and vice versa in the case of prosecutors (80% estimated prosecution offices in Serbia as accessible, and 71% courts in Serbia as accessible). Lawyer’s views are closer to judges - 10% more lawyers perceive courts as accessible to citizens than prosecution offices. (Figures 3.1.7) Figure 3.1.7: 2013 share of court service providers and lawyers who believe that listed judicial institutions were accessible to all citizens 89% 87% 78% 80% 78% 71% 66% 69% 65% 59% Judges 49% Prosecutors Lawyers Courts in Serbia Prosecution Offices in Court Administrative Services of your Serbia Services in Serbia institution Note: Question: To what extent were the following judicial institutions accessible to all citizens in the last 12 month? Scale: 1.Very inaccessible, 2. Mostly inaccessible, 3. Mostly accessible, 4.Very accessible.22 Base: Judges, prosecutors and lawyers total target population 220. In comparison with 2009, percentages of service providers who think that listed institutions were accessible to all citizens have decreased, but much less of a decrease when it comes to services of the institution the provider of the services works for, than in the case of other institutions. (Figures 3.1.8 and 3.1.9) 22 Lawyers were not asked about services of their institution 83 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 3.1.8: 2009 and 2013 share of judges who believe that listed judicial institutions were accessible to all citizens 93% 2009 2013 89% 88% 78% 85% 78% 75% 66% Services of your Courts in Serbia Court Administrative Prosecution Offices in institution Services in Serbia Serbia Note: Question: To what extent were the following judicial institutions accessible to all citizens in the last 12 month? Scale: 1.Very inaccessible, 2. Mostly inaccessible, 3. Mostly accessible, 4.Very accessible. Base: Judges total target population Figure 3.1.9: 2009 and 2013 share of prosecutors who believe that listed judicial institutions were accessible to all citizens 2009 2013 94% 87% 97% 80% 86% 81% 71% 69% Services of your Prosecution Offices in Courts in Serbia Court Administrative institution Serbia Services in Serbia Note: Question: To what extent were the following judicial institutions accessible to all citizens in the last 12 month? Scale: 1.Very inaccessible, 2. Mostly inaccessible, 3. Mostly accessible, 4.Very accessible. Base: Prosecutors total target population 3.2 Financial access 3.2.a Perceptions of general public about the accessibility of judicial system with regards to costs 221. Costs associated with court cases are evaluated by the general population as the biggest barrier to accessibility of the judicial system. As shown above (Figure 3.4), the biggest burdens for the citizens are attorney-related expenses, followed by court-related costs. Let’s now consider changes in perception of these costs between the citizens with experience and the citizens without experience with court cases in 2009 and in 2013. 222. A higher percentage of the citizens with and without experience consider court case-related costs unaffordable in 2013. In comparison with 2009, the percentage of the citizens with experience with a court case who think that lawyer-related expenses make the judicial system inaccessible to them has increased by 7%, while the percentage of the citizens who consider court-related costs as a barrier to accessibility of the judicial system has not changed. On the other hand, the percentage of the citizens without experience with a court case who think that court-related costs make the judicial system inaccessible to them has slightly increased (by 4%), while the percentage of those who think that lawyer-related costs are a barrier has not changed in 2013 as compared to 2009. (Figure 3.2.a1) 84 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 3.2.a1: 2009 and 2013 share of general public who believe that judicial system is generally not accessible to them with regard to costs % Not accessible (very/mostly) 2009 2013 71% 64% 61% 61% 58% 55% 51% 47% Attorney-related Court-related costs Attorney-related Court-related costs expenses expenses Citizens with experience with court cases Citizens without experience with court cases Note: Question: How accessible is the judicial system to you personally? Scale from 1 to 4: 1=very inaccessible 2=mostly inaccessible 3=mostly accessible 4=very accessible. Base: Citizens and business sector with experience with court cases 223. High costs of the litigations are the most frequently mentioned reason why the high percentage of the citizens think that, if they had a dispute which they think could be settled in court, they most probably would decide against taking this dispute to the court. In a survey conducted in January 201423, as much as 63% of the citizens stated that, if they had a dispute which they think should be settled in the court, they would decide against such action (or would at least have a great dilemma). A majority of these citizens, 65%, mention the high costs as one of the top three reasons for not taking the dispute to the court. For the sake of comparison, the second most frequently mentioned reason is the excessive duration of court proceedings, which is mentioned by a considerably smaller percentage of the citizens, 49%. (Figure 3.2.a2) Figure 3.2.a2: reasons why citizens would not take the dispute to the court if they had one High costs (lawyer, court fees) 65% Court proceedings would last too long 49% I do not trust the judicial system in general 22% Corruption 17% I d'ont t like to go to court 16% This would take up too much of my time 11% Spontaneous multiple I do not expect a fair decision 9% answers Stress/ conflicts 5% Complicated procedure 3% It would be difficult to collect informations 3% The court is too far from my place of residence 3% The judgment would not be implemented anyway 2% Note: Question: Why you would not take the dispute to the courts if you had one, what are the key reasons? Please name them by the order of importance, and first tell me the most important one. Multiple Spontaneous answers, up to 3 answers. Base: 63% of general public who stated that if they had a dispute which they think could be settled in court, they would most probably decide against this action) 224. Citizens who already had a dispute they thought should be settled in the court but decided against such action (12% in 2009 and 9% in 2013), named most frequently the costs as the main reason for this decision too. One third of these citizens named high costs as the main reason for not 23Omnibus Survey with random representative sample of the citizens of Serbia, age 18+, n=1003, conducted in January 2014 by Ipsos Strategic Marketing for the World Bank 85 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 pursuing the case in the court. It is followed by distrust in the court system in general and long duration of proceedings, which was named as the main reasons by substantially less people (18% and 14% respectively). In comparison to 2009, the number of people who named costs as the main reason has increased for 12%. (Figure 3.2.a3) Figure 3.2.a3: Reasons why citizens who had a dispute did not take it to the court The court decision would not have been Choice of one answer from the list enforced anyway 6% 7% I thought the case was not significant 7% 6% 5% 11% enough to take it to the court 14% We found a solution/settled the dispute 11% in another way 18% 17% I did not expect a fair judgment 14% I distrust the court system in general 21% 33% The court proceedings would have lasted 21% too long I knew I would be unable to cover the 2009 2013 costs of the proceedings Note: Question: What was one main reason why you didn't take the case to court? Base: General public who had dispute they thought should be settled in court but decided against such action; 12% of general public in 2009, and 9% in 2013 3.2.b Perceptions of members of the business sector about the accessibility of the judicial system with regards to costs 225. Similar to the general population, as already shown above (Figure 3.1.5), representatives of the business sector also consider high costs of litigations as the biggest barrier to accessibility of the judicial system to businesses. 226. In comparison with the year 2009, the percentage of representatives of the business sector who state that the judicial system is not accessible to them because of attorney-related and court- related costs has increased considerably, particularly in the case of representatives of the business sector who do not have experience with court cases. The percentage of business sector representatives without experience with court cases who stated that the judicial system is inaccessible to their company because of costs has increased by as much as 20% (with regard to both lawyer- related costs and court-related costs), while the increase is smaller in the case of representatives of the business sector with court experience: 12% in case of attorney-related expenses, and 7% in case of court-related costs. (Figure 3.2.b1) Figure 3.2.b1: 2009 and 2013 share of business sector with experience with court cases who believe that judicial system is generally not accessible to them with regard to costs % Not accessible (very/mostly) 2009 2013 46% 43% 48% 42% 37% 34% 28% 22% Attorney-related Court-related costs Attorney-related Court-related costs expenses expenses Business with court experience Business without court experience Note: Question: How accessible is the judicial system to you personally? Scale from 1 to 4: 1=very inaccessible 2=mostly inaccessible 3=mostly accessible 4=very accessible. Base: Business sector with experience with court cases 86 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 227. However, among the members of the business sector who claimed that they already had a dispute they thought should be settled in the court but decided against such action (30% in 2009 and 24% in 2013), only 10% in 2013 and 7% in 2009 name costs as the main reason for not pursuing the case in the court. Duration of proceedings was named most often as the main reason for such decision (37% in 2009 and 28% in 2013). (Figure 3.2.b2) Figure 3.2.b2: Main reason why enterprises who had a dispute did not take it to the court We thought the case was not significant Choice of one answer from the list enough to take it to 6% 8% We did not expect a fair judgment 7% 8% 7% 10% We knew we would be unable to cover 13% 13% the costs of the proceedings 11% We distrust the court system in general 16% 16% 13% We found a solution/settled the dispute in another way 37% The court decision would not have been 28% enforced anyway The court proceedings would have lasted 2009 2013 too long Note: Question: What was one main reason why you didn't take the case to court? Base: Business sector who had dispute they thought should be settled in court but decided against such action; 30 in 2009, and 24% in 2013 3.2.c Perceptions of the general public and business sector about the affordability of courts in the specific case the court users participated in Summary 228. A majority of users of judicial services who have experience with a court case state that costs of their specific case was too high. In criminal cases the biggest share in costs were attorney-related expenses, in civil cases the costs are equally distributed between attorneys and court-related costs, while in misdemeanor cases, and in the business sector the share of court-related costs is dominant. A majority of the citizens, and more than one third of company representatives state that the cost of court cases were an excessive burden for their budget, but the burden is perceived as considerably smaller and costs as more reasonable if satisfaction with quality of proceedings is bigger. 229. Circa one half of the users of court services state that overall cost of their court case was too high. It is interesting that, in comparison with 2009, the percentage of the users of judicial services who evaluate these costs as excessive changed only in the case of citizens who had a misdemeanor case: the percentage of the citizens who had a misdemeanor case who evaluate their costs as excessive has increased by as much as 18% (from 36% to 54%). (Figure 3.2.c1). Figure 3.2.c1: 2009 and 2013 perceptions of the overall costs of the specific court case citizens and members of business sector participated in 9% 9% 8% 8% 8% 6% 5% 4% Don't know 36% 50% 51% 52% 56% 50% 54% 51% Excessive 50% Reasonable 30% 32% 36% 37% 37% 39% 39% 6% 8% 7% 7% Small 1% 4% 5% 5% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Criminal Misdemeanor Civil Business Note: Question: Do you think the costs were small, “reasonable” or excessive given the quality of court services you were provided?. Base: General public and business sector with experience with court cases 87 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 230. According to the citizens, average total costs were circa 750 Euros in criminal and civil cases, and around 140 Euros in misdemeanor cases (Figure 3.2.c2)24. In comparison with the costs reported in 2009, the costs, on average, have been reduced in criminal and civil cases, with no change in misdemeanor cases. On average, in criminal cases the costs have been reduced by 28%, and in civil cases by 32%. 231. According to the data reported by representatives of the business sector, the costs of the litigations of their companies were, on average, circa 1800 Euros. Although the costs reported in 2009 were, on average, somewhat higher in comparison to 2013, variation of reported data in 2009 is high, so the conclusion that the costs have also been reduced in cases of business sector would not be sufficiently reliable. (Figure 3.2.c2) 232. The range of reported costs in all types of court cases is rather big, as shown in Table 3.2.c1. In criminal cases in 2013, 27% of the users of court services reported costs exceeding 500 Euros (15% up to 1000 Euros, 8% up to 2000 Euros, 4% up to 4000 Euros, and 1% more than 4000 Euros). In civil cases, 25% reported costs exceeding 500 Euros (15% up to 1000 Euros, 7% up to 2000 Euros, 2% up to 4000 Euros and 1% more than 4000 Euros). In misdemeanor cases 23% of the citizens reported costs exceeding 100 Euros (14% up to 300 Euros, 3% up to 500 Euros, 3% up to 1000 Euros and 3% up to 2000 Euros). (Figure 3.2.c3) Figure 3.2.c2: 2009 and 2013 average costs of the specific court case based on reported costs by general public and members of business sector Average costs in Euro 2,206 2009 2013 1,842 640 763 753 573 456 113 511 142 Total acroos type Criminal Misdemeanor Civil Business of cases General population Note: Question: How much did the case cost you altogether? Total cost imply all costs and taxes, the lawyer’s fee and travel costs (but does not include fines). Base: Members of general public and business sector with experience who reported total costs of their case (Percent who answered out of total target population: Criminal 2009 92%, 2013 97%; Misdemeanor 2009 95%, 2013 100%; Civil 2009 83%, 2013 100%; Business sector 2009 95%, 2013 94%) 24Note that all distributions of the costs are skewed so that the median, the value separating the higher and lower 50%, are in all distributions of costs much lower than means (as shown in Table 3.1.c1). We presented means for convenience of obvious comparisons in spite that due to skewness of the distribution, means are somewhat unrealistic. For distribution of costs see also Figure 3.2.c3 88 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Table 3.2.c1 2009 AND 2013 MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM COSTS IN EURO REPORTED BY GENERAL PUBLIC AND MEMBERS OF BUSINESS SECTOR (How much did the case cost you altogether? Total cost imply all costs and taxes, the lawyer’s fee and travel costs (but does not include fines). Base: Members of general public and business sector with experience who reported total costs of their case (Percent who answered out of total target population: Criminal 2009 92%, 2013 97%; Misdemeanor 2009 95%, 2013 100%; Civil 2009 83%, 2013 100%; Business sector 2009 95%, 2013 94%) Criminal Misdemeanor Civil Business Minimum 0 0 0 20 2009 Maximum 26.000 1.100 10.000 80.000 Median* 280 30 300 800 Minimum 0 0 0 30 2013 Maximum 10.000 1.500 15.000 51.000 Median* 200 50 200 730 *Value separating the higher and lower 50% Figure 3.2.c3: 2009 and 2013 reported costs by general public of the specific court case 5% 4% 4% 3% 3%3% 3% 6% 2% Over 4000 6% 8% 3% 7% 10% 14% 8% 16% 15% 15% 2001 to 4000 14% 25% 12% 1001 to 2000 12% 13% 21% 17% 501 to 1000 29% 20% 25% 24% 301 to 500 13% 49% 47% 9% 101 to 300 12% 10% 12% 18% 51 to 100 13% 14% 17% 11% Up to 50 Euro 7% 9% 8% 3% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 None Criminal Misdemeanor Civil Note: Question: How much did the case cost you altogether? Total cost imply all costs and taxes, the lawyer’s fee and travel costs (but does not include fines). Base: Members of general public with experience who reported total costs of their case (Percent who answered out of total target population: Criminal 2009 92%, 2013 97%; Misdemeanor 2009 95%, 2013 100%; Civil 2009 83%, 2013 100%) 233. According to users of court services distribution of costs varies depending on the type of case: - In criminal cases about one half of total costs are the share of attorney-related expenses, and about one third of total costs are the share of court-related costs. - In misdemeanor cases the biggest share in total costs are court-related costs, 62% (but in comparison with 2009 this share was reduced from 74% to 62%), while the share of attorney-related costs is just 12%; - In civil cases attorney-related and court-related costs are evenly distributed (45% are attorney-related costs and 43% are court related costs, and this percentage was very similar to one reported in 2009); - In court cases of the business sector somewhat more than a half of overall costs are the share of court-related costs, 53%, and 39% the share of attorney-related costs (in comparison with 2009 the share of attorney-related costs has somewhat increased). (Figure 3.2.c4) 89 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 3.2.c4: 2009 and 2013 estimated cost breakdown -mean percentages of the court costs, lawyer costs, traveling costs, and other costs in total costs in the specific court case citizens and members of business sector participated in 5% 7% 6% 6% 13% 5% 5% 6% 7% 8% 3% 5% Other 10% 11% 4% 7% 13% 39% 45% 12% 44% 45% 33% 50% Traveling costs 74% 62% Lawyer 38% 43% 42% 55% 53% 34% Court costs 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Criminal Misdemeanor Civil Business Note: Question: Can you specify the individual costs, i.e. break the total costs down to court costs, lawyer’s fee, trave l costs and other costs if any? Base: General public and business sector with experience with court cases who reported data (Percent who answered out of total target population: Criminal 2009 85%, 2013 97%; Misdemeanor 2009 93%, 2013 100%; Civil 2009 77%, 2013 100%; Business sector 2009 95%, 2013 94%) 234. A majority of the citizens state that costs of their court case were too big for their budget: 60% in criminal cases, 57% in civil cases and 53% in misdemeanor cases. In comparison with 2009, the change has been recorded only in the case of the citizens who had a misdemeanor case, since a higher percentage of them state that costs of their court case were a big burden for their budget. Compared with the citizens, a smaller percentage of business sector representatives evaluate that costs of their court case were a big burden for their company, but this percentage is still considerable, 38%. (Figure 3.2.c5) Figure 3.2.c5: 2009 and 2013 court users evaluations of the burden of the costs of court case to their budget 1 7 4 3 4 2 2 2 DK 43% 36% 38% 67% 53% 54% 57% 60% Big burden 31% 35% 32% 24% Moderate 18% 14% 32% 25% 19% 21% 21% 31% 25% 14% 10% 17% Small burden 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Criminal Misdemeanor Civil Business Note: Question: How much of a burden for your budget were these costs? Scale: 1 to 5, 1= Hugely, 5=Negligibly; Low=4,5, Moderate=3, High=1,2. Base: General public and business sector with experience with court cases 235. It is striking, however, that the burden of these costs is perceived to be smaller, and the costs themselves more favorable proportionally to satisfaction with quality of court case. Among the citizens who claim that quality of their court case was low, 81% perceive the costs of their court case as a big burden, and 75% claim that the costs were excessive, while among the citizens who evaluated the quality of their court case as high, 38% claim that their costs were a big burden and 29% claim that their costs were excessive. (Figures 3.2.c6 and 3.2.c7) 90 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 3.2.c6: 2013 court users evaluations of the burden of the costs of court case to their budget in dependence of perceived quality of court service delivered 38% 55% Big burden 81% 35% Moderate 26% 9% 25% 10% 15% Small burden Low quality Average quality High quality Note: Question: How much of a burden for your budget were these costs? / What was the quality of judicial work in that specific case? Base: General public with experience with court cases Figure 3.2.c7: 2013 court users evaluations of the overall expenses of court case to their budget in dependence of perceived quality of court service delivered 29% 49% Excessive expences 75% 57% Reasonable 40% 14% Small expences 5% 4% 9% Low quality Average quality High quality Note: Question: Do you think the costs were small, “reasonable” or excessive given the quality of court services you were provided? / What was the quality of judicial work in that specific case? Base: General public with experience with court cases 3.2.d Perceptions of court service providers and lawyers about the accessibility of the judicial system to the citizens with regards to costs 236. Providers of court services agree with users that costs of court proceedings are the biggest obstacle to accessibility of the court system t citizens (as already shown above, Figure 3.1.6). 237. In comparison with the year 2009, the percentage of respondents who think that the judicial system is hardly accessible to the citizens because of costs has increased also among judges, prosecutors and attorneys, and even considerably more than with the general population. In 2009 less than one third of the judges and prosecutors were of the opinion that court expenses were a barrier to accessibility of the judicial system for the citizens, while in 2013 50% of the judges and 65% of prosecutors share that opinion. In comparison to 2009, in 2013 as much as 24% more of judges and prosecutors perceive attorney-related expenses as a problem in accessibility of judicial system; in case of judges this percentage has increased from 51% to 75%, and in case of the prosecutors from 57% to 81%. Percentage of those who think that costs are a problem in accessibility of the judicial system to the citizens has also increased considerably among the attorneys. It is interesting that the percentage of the attorneys who consider attorney-related expenses as a problem has increased more (from 46% to 70%) than the percentage of those who see court-related costs as a problem (from 61% to 76%). (Figure 3.2.d1) 91 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 3.2.d1: 2013 share of legal professionals who believe that judicial system is not accessible to citizens with regard to costs 2009 2013 75% 81% 76% 65% 70% 61% 51% 50% 57% 46% 28% 27% Attorney-related Court-related Attorney-related Court-related Attorney-related Court-related expenses costs expenses costs expenses costs Lawyers Judges Prosecutors Note: Question: How accessible is currently the judicial system to citizens? Scale from 1 to 4: 1=very inaccessible 2=mostly inaccessible 3=mostly accessible 4=very accessible. Base: Judges, prosecutors and lawyers, total target population 3.3 Access to lawyers / representation 3.3.a Share of court users represented by a lawyer and by themselves 238. Despite the fact that the majority of citizens think that costs of court cases are a big burden for them, according to the data reported in 2013, a majority of the citizens engaged a private attorney in criminal and civil cases. According to the citizens, in criminal cases 53% hired the private lawyer, the state assigned an attorney in 17% of cases, and in 30% of cases the citizens represented themselves; in civil cases 65% hired a private lawyer, the state appointed an attorney in 2% of cases and 33% of the citizens represented themselves. Misdemeanor cases are an exception, where 17% of the citizens engaged a private lawyer and in 1% of the cases the state appointed the attorney, while in more than 80% of cases citizens represented themselves. (Figure 3.3.a1) 239. In comparison with the year 2009, the number of users of private lawyers’ services was increased or reduced, depending on type of case: a somewhat higher percentage of the citizens who had a criminal case stated that the state assigned an attorney to them (17% against 5% in 2009), while the percentage of the citizens who engaged a private lawyer has decreased (from 63% to 53%); in misdemeanor cases percentage of the citizens who engaged a private attorney instead of representing themselves has somewhat increased (from 9% to 17%), while in civil cases the contrary has taken place, the percentage of the citizens who decided to represent themselves has increased (from 25% to 33%). (Figure 3.3.a1) Figure 3.3.a1: share of general public who hired a legal representation in the proceedings 30% 25% I did not hire a lawyer, 32% 33% 8% I represented myself 5% 17% 2% 91% 83% The state assigned me 63% 67% 65% 53% a lawyer 1% 1% 9% 17% I hired a private 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 lawyer Criminal Misdemeanor Civil Note: Question: Did a lawyer represent you in the proceedings? Base: General public with experience with court proceedings 240. A majority of the citizens decided to engage a private attorney because they realized that they were not able to cope themselves with the process, but a considerable percentage of the citizens did it out of conviction that the process will be finished faster and more easily with the help of an attorney (31% in criminal cases, 42% in misdemeanor cases and 37% in civil cases). (Figure 3.3.a2) 92 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 241. Majority of the citizens (more than 60%) have never been in the court without their attorney regarding their case. Figure 3.3.a2: Reasons for hiring private lawyer to represent court users in the proceedings 27% 31% I was able to resolve the 31% 33% 42% 37% legal dispute myself but one gets things done faster and 72% 64% 67% 68% 62% more easily with lawyer 54% I was unable to resolve the 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 legal dispute myself Criminal Misdemeanor Civil Note: Question: Why did you decide to hire a lawyer? Base: General public who hired lawyer to represent them in the court proceedings (Criminal cases: 63% 2009 and 53%; Misdemeanor: 9% 2009 AND 17% 2013; Civil: 67% 2009 and 65% 2013) 242. In the business sector one out of four to five companies did not engage an attorney for their court case, but the company was represented by its manager (Figure 3.3.a3) Figure 3.3.a3: share of legal representation in the business sector proceedings 21% 24% Manager of the company Lawyer hired just for this case 53% 53% Lawyer on a retainer 16% 16% 10% 7% Lawyer employed in the company 2009 2013 Note: Question: Did a lawyer represent you in the proceedings? Base: Business sector with experience with court proceedings 3.3.b Citizens’ awareness of the organizations providing legal assistance free of charge 243. A great majority of citizens of Serbia, 83%, are not aware of any organization or institution that provides legal assistance free of charge. Only 8% of citizens say that legal assistance is available in municipalities, and 4% mention the ombudsman; a total of 1% mention NGOs, or civil associations, or consumer associations. It is interesting that 1% mention even the Bar Association as an organization providing legal assistance free of charge. Others (about 2%) mention unions, the Faculty of Law, media, insurance companies and court. (Figure 3.3.b1)25 244. Finally, 3% of citizens say they have used free legal assistance and a great majority of these 3% (93%) were satisfied with it. 25Source: Survey with random representative sample of the citizens of Serbia, age 18+, n=1003, conducted in January 2014 by Ipsos Strategic Marketing for the World Bank 93 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 3.3.b1: share of citizens who were able to name any organization or institution providing to the citizens legal assistance free of charge Legal assistance in municipality 8% Spontaneous Ombudsman 4% answers Bar association/ lawyer 1% NGO/ Citizens Association/ Consumers 1% Association Other (Faculty of Law, unions, media, insurnce 2% companies, court…) D'ont know 83% Note: Question: Can you name any organization or institution the people in Serbia can approach for legal assistance free of charge? Base: total population 3.4 Access to information 3.4.a General perceptions of accessibility of the judicial system in terms of access to information 245. Most citizens (64%) and business sector representatives (76%) believe that information about the court system is at least mainly available to them. Compared to 2009, there is even a somewhat bigger proportion of business sector representatives who think that information is easily available (Figure 3.4.a1) Figure 3.4.a1: Perceptions of general public and business sector about the accessibility of the judicial system in terms of information 15% 13% 10% 8% Don't know 64% 64% 70% 76% Accessible 22% 23% 20% 16% Inaccessible 2009 2013 2009 2013 General public Business sector Note: Question: How accessible was the judicial system to you personally in terms of access to information? Scale from 1 to 4: 1=very inaccessible 2=mostly inaccessible 3=mostly accessible 4=very accessible Base: Total target population 246. An even bigger proportion of judges, prosecutors and lawyers than citizens think that information about the court system is at least somewhat available to citizens. This opinion is shared by the biggest proportion of judges, 87%, somewhat smaller proportion of prosecutors, 78%, and the smallest proportion of lawyers, 70%. Compared to 2009, the proportion of prosecutors who think that information is mainly available to citizens is reduced for 8%, the proportion of lawyers who share this opinion is increased by 6%, while there is no change in case of judges. (Figure 3.4.a2) 94 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 3.4.a2: Perceptions of legal professionals about the accessibility of judicial system in terms of information 4% 2% 4% 4% 3% 2% Don't know 78% 64% 70% 88% 87% 86% Accessible 18% 33% 28% Inaccessible 8% 11% 8% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Note: Question: How accessible is the judicial system to the citizens in terms of access to information? Scale from 1 to 4: 1=very inaccessible 2=mostly inaccessible 3=mostly accessible 4=very accessible Base: Total target population 3.4.b Perceptions of accessibility of information in the specific case the court users participated in 247. Similar to the general perception of availability of information, most citizens evaluated that it was easy to obtain information about their particular court case. A substantial proportion of citizens (with exception of misdemeanor cases), let their lawyer collect information, but most of those who took part in collecting information were satisfied with how easily available it was. (Figure 3.4.b1) 248. Compared to 2009, however, there is a striking negative change in terms of perception of availability of information in misdemeanor cases (for which citizens themselves usually collect necessary information). The proportion of citizens with experience in misdemeanor cases who think that it is hard to obtain information is increased for 17%, while the percentage of those who consider it easy is reduced for 23%. (Figure 3.4.b1) 249. The proportion of those who say that it was easy to obtain information is reduced also in civil cases (from 61% to 48%), but there is an increased proportion of those who let their lawyer collect information (for 8%), so they couldn’t make this evaluation (from 25% to 33%). (Figure 3.4.b1) Figure 3.4.b1: Perceptions of general public with court experience about the accessibility of information regarding their case 2% 7% I do not know because 30% 20% 25% 33% the attorney gathered 67% the information 60% 90% 57% 61% 48% Easy 13% 19% 23% 13% 16% 6% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Difficult Criminal Misdemeanor Civil Note: Question: How easy or difficult was it for you or your attorney to access information regarding the case? Scale from 1 to 4: 1=very difficult, 2=mostly difficult, 3=mostly easy, 4=very easy. Base: General population with experience with court cases 250. An even bigger proportion of business sector representatives, 83%, are satisfied with the ease of obtaining information about their case, and there are no changes compared to 2009. (Figure 3.4.b2) 95 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 3.4.b2: Perceptions of members of business sector with court experience about the accessibility of information regarding their case 84% 83% Easy Difficult 15% 13% 2009 2013 Note: Question: How easy or difficult was it for you or your attorney to access information regarding the case? Scale from 1 to 4: 1=very difficult, 2=mostly difficult, 3=mostly easy, 4=very easy. Base: General population with experience with court cases 3.4.c Sources of information citizens used to find out what they needed in their specific case 251. When searching for information about their case, citizens use several sources of information, and the most frequently used sources of information vary depending on the type of case. In criminal cases, the source of information is usually lawyer (44%), while official court sources of information are used almost equally as unofficial (friends and media). As for misdemeanor cases, unofficial sources of information prevail (50%), followed by official court sources (39%), while in civil cases the lawyer and official court sources of information are used most frequently (34%). As for the business sector, the lawyer is the prevailing source of information (63%), and somewhat less than half of companies (47%) use official court sources. (Figure 3.4.c1) Figure 3.4.c1: Sources of information citizens used to find out what they needed in that specific case 63% Official (court 50% 47% 44% information sources) 39% 39% Lawyer 33% 34% 34% 29% 30% 22% 22% 23% 16% Unofficial: Media and 12% friends Internet Criminal Misdemeanor Civil Business Note: Question: Which source of information did you use to find out what you needed to do in this specific case? Base: General population and business sector with experience with court cases; Multiple answers 3.5 Geographical / Physical access and comfort of the court building 3.5.a Perceptions of geographical access to courts 252. Most citizens (73%) and business sector representatives (85%) do not consider distance of court building a problem. Compared to 2009, however, the proportion of those who think that the court building is geographically accessible in 2013 is reduced in the case of citizens for 11%, and in the case of business sector representatives for 5%. (Figure 3.5.a1) 96 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 3.5.a1: Perceptions of general public and business sector about the accessibility of judicial system in terms of geography - distance of the court house 3% 8% 5% 3% Don't know 84% 73% 90% 85% Accessible 12% 19% 12% Inaccessible 5% 2009 2013 2009 2013 General Public Business sector Note: Question: How accessible was the judicial system to you personally in terms of geography - given the distance of the courthouse? Scale from 1 to 4: 1=very inaccessible 2=mostly inaccessible 3=mostly accessible 4=very accessible. Base: Total target population 253. The percentage of judges, prosecutors and lawyers who do not consider distance of the court building a problem is also reduced compared to 2009, and even substantially more than in the case of citizens and business sector representatives (for 24% in case of judges, for 38% in case of prosecutors and for 27% in case of lawyers). So, while in 2009 a somewhat bigger portion of judges, prosecutors and lawyers than citizens, assumed that distance of the court building was not a problem, in 2013, compared with citizens, a lot smaller of a percentage of judges (65%) and lawyers (61%), and especially prosecutors (46%) thought that it was not a problem for the citizens. (Figure 3.5.a2) Figure 3.5.a2: Perceptions of legal professionals about the accessibility of judicial system in terms of geography - distance of the court house 3% 3% 6% 4% 1% 4% Don't know 46% 65% 61% 89% 84% 88% Accessible 50% 32% 35% 11% Inaccessible 8% 10% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Note: Question: How accessible is the judicial system to the citizens in terms of geography - given the distance of the courthouse? Scale from 1 to 4: 1=very inaccessible 2=mostly inaccessible 3=mostly accessible 4=very accessible. Base: Total target population 3.5.b Perceptions of the level of comfort of the court buildings 254. Most citizens (72%) and business sector representatives (87%) do not consider finding their way in the court building a problem, and this attitude hasn’t changed since 2009. (Figure 3.5.b1) 97 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 3.5.b1: Perceptions of general public and business sector about the accessibility of judicial system in terms of layout of the court building 16% 14% 8% 5% Don't know 72% 72% 85% 87% Accessible 12% 15% 7% 8% Inaccessible 2009 2013 2009 2013 General Public Business sector Note: Question: How accessible was the judicial system to you personally in terms of layout - how easy was it to find your way and move around the courthouse? Scale from 1 to 4: 1=very inaccessible 2=mostly inaccessible 3=mostly accessible 4=very accessible. Base: Total target population 255. Judges, prosecutors and lawyers mainly agree that citizens do not have a problem with finding their way in the court building. But, unlike the citizens, the percentage of court service providers and lawyers with this attitude is reduced compared to 2009: for 8% in case of lawyers, for 9% in case of judges and for 17% in case of prosecutors. (Figure 3.5.b2) Figure 3.5.b2: Perceptions of legal professionals about the accessibility of judicial system in terms of layout of the court building 3% 2% 2% 3% 1% 2% Don't know 82% 69% 83% 75% 91% 86% Accessible 16% 28% 16% 23% Inaccessible 6% 8% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Note: Question: How accessible is the judicial system to the citizens in terms of layout - how easy was it to citizens find their way and move around the courthouse? Scale from 1 to 4: 1=very inaccessible 2=mostly inaccessible 3=mostly accessible 4=very accessible. Base: Total target population 3.6 Perceptions of the equality of all citizens with regard the accessibility of the judicial services 3.6.a Perceptions of general public, business sector and legal professionals about the equality of all citizens with regard to accessibility 256. More than 1/3 of citizens believe that the court system is not equally accessible to all. Most citizens, 56%, consider the judiciary equally accessible to all citizens, regardless of their age, socio- economic status, ethnicity, disability and language they speak. However, a significant percentage, 38%, believes that it is not equally accessible to all. (Figure 3.6.a1) 98 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 3.6.a1 Perceptions of general public about the accessibility of the judicial system equally to all citizens 6% 6% Don't know 54% 56% Accessible 40% 38% Inaccessible 2009 2013 Note: Question: When you think about the last few years, to what extent was the judicial system in Serbia equally accessible to all citizens notwithstanding their age, education level, financial status, ethnicity, handicap, the language they use…? Scale from 1 to 4: 1=very inaccessible 2=mostly inaccessible 3=mostly accessible 4=very accessible) Base: Total target population 257. Business sector representatives have a similar opinion regarding equal accessibility of the judicial system to all companies, regardless of their size, origin of capital and their ‘political connections’. Most business sector representatives, 59%, consider the judicial system equally accessible to all companies, regardless of these features, but a significant proportion, 35%, still does not share this opinion. (Figure 3.6.a2) Figure 3.6.a2 Perceptions of members of business sector about the accessibility of the judicial system equally to all companies 10% 6% Don't know 53% 59% Accessible 37% 35% Inaccessible 2009 2013 Note: Question: When you think about the last few years, to what extent was the judicial system in Serbia equally accessible to all legal entities, notwithstanding their size, origin of capital, political “connections”, headquarters……? Scale from 1 to 4: 1=very inaccessible 2=mostly inaccessible 3=mostly accessible 4=very accessible. Base: Total target population 258. Most judges, prosecutors and lawyers consider courts accessible to all citizens equally in terms of finding their way in the courthouse, as well as in terms of availability of information.26 Even 80% of judges consider finding one’s way in the courthouse equally easy for all citizens, while this opinion is shared by a somewhat smaller proportion of prosecutors (68%) and lawyers (69%). Only 18% of judges, but still more lawyers, 31%, and prosecutors, 29%, do not agree with this opinion. Compared with 2009, however, the proportion of those who consider finding one’s way in the courthouse equally easy for all is reduced somewhat in case of judges (for 9%) and lawyers (for 3%), and substantially reduced in case of prosecutors (for 17%). (Figure 3.6.a3) 26Judges, prosecutors and attorneys were asked only the questions of equality regarding these two particular aspects of accessibility of judicial system. 99 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 3.6.a3: Perceptions of legal professionals about how easy it was for all citizens, notwithstanding their age, socioeconomic status, ethnicity and disability to find their way around the court building 2% 1% 2% 3% 1% Don't know 80% 68% 72% 69% 89% 85% Easy 18% 29% 27% 31% Difficult 9% 13% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Note: Question: In the last 12 months, how easy or difficult was it, for ALL citizens, notwithstanding their age, education level, financial status, ethnicity, disability to find their way around the court building in which you worked? Scale from 1 to 4: 1=very difficult, 2=mostly difficult, 3=mostly easy, 4=very easy. Base: Total target population 259. Most providers of court services and lawyers believe that information was equally available to all citizens, but a considerable portion still does not share this opinion. As high as 75% of judges, but a significantly smaller percentage of prosecutors, 63%, and lawyers, 57%, think that it was equally easy for all citizens to obtain the information they needed in 2013. On the other hand, however, a substantial part does not share this opinion: one in four judges, 30% of prosecutors, and 43% of lawyers do not think that it was equally easy for all citizens to access information. Compared to 2009, judges and prosecutors have a somewhat less positive opinion about availability of information to all citizens (Figure 3.6.a4). Figure 3.6.a4: Perceptions of legal professionals about how easy it was for all citizens, notwithstanding their age, socioeconomic status, ethnicity and disability to access the information they needed about functioning of the judicial system 3% 2% 1% 7% 1% Don't know 56% 57% 77% 75% 74% 63% Easy 30% 43% 43% 20% 24% 25% Difficult 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Note: Question: In the last 12 months , how easy or difficult was it, for ALL citizens, notwithstanding their age, education level, financial status, ethnicity, disability to access the information they needed about functioning of judicial system? Scale from 1 to 4: 1=very difficult, 2=mostly difficult, 3=mostly easy, 4=very easy. Base: Total target population 3.6.b Perceptions of older citizens, low educated citizens and citizens living in non-urban areas about the accessibility of judicial services 260. Compared to the population average, citizens with low education (elementary school and less) and citizens over 60 years of age perceive the judicial system as less accessible to them in all aspects: in terms of costs, availability of information, distance of court building and finding one’s way in the courthouse. If they were in a situation to decide whether to take a dispute to court or not, 90% of poorly educated citizens and 82% of the elderly would consider trial costs a problem (which is 24%, and 6%, respectively, more than population average regarding lawyer-related costs, and 26%, and 5%, respectively, more in terms of court costs); 63% of the poorly educated and 58% of the elderly stated that they would have a problem with finding necessary information (18% and 13%, respectively, more than population average); 44% of the poorly educated and 40% of the elderly believe they would have problems finding their way in the courthouse (17% and 13%, respectively, more than population average), while 42% of the poorly educated and 36% of the elderly believe they would have problems 100 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 with distance of courthouse from their place of residence (15% and 9%, respectively, more than population average). (Figure 3.6.b1)27 261. Citizens who live out of urban areas, compared to the population average, see more problems in obtaining necessary information, finding their way in the courthouse and distance of the courthouse. Most citizens who live out of urban areas, 53%, think that they would have problems with accessing information (8% more than population average); 40% think they would have problems finding their way in the courthouse (13% more than average), while 43% consider distance of a courthouse a problem (16% more than population average). (Figure 3.6.b1) Figure 3.6.b1: Share of the citizens older than 60 years, low educated people and people living in non-urban area who perceive the problems of accessibility to judicial services as relevant in making decision about settling the dispute in the court 90* 90* 82* Total population Age 60+ 76 79* 74 74 74 63* Low education Non-urban area 58* 53* 45 44* 42* 43* 40* 40* 36* 27 27 I would be unable to I would be unable to I would have I would have Courthouse is too cover the attorney- cover the court- difficulties in finding difficulties to find distant from the related expenses related costs the necessary my way and move place where I live information around the courthouse *Significantly over the population average Note: Question: The following are the reasons some people named were important to them when they considered the issue of taking or not taking a dispute to the court. How relevant each of them would be for you personally if you were in position to make decision about settling or not settling the dispute in the court? Scale:1.not relevant at all 2) mostly not relevant 3) mostly relevant 4) highly relevant. Base: Total target population 3.6.c Gender differences in perceptions about the accessibility of judicial services 262. As for gender differences regarding accessibility of court system, the only significant difference between women and men was found in terms of lawyer-related costs. Considerably more women 81%, than men, 71%, stated that lawyer-related costs would be a relevant issue for them when making decision whether to take a dispute in court or not. This is also the only problem women mentioned in higher percentage comparing to population average. Women mentioned in a somewhat higher percentage than men the problem of finding their way in the court building, as well as the court distance, but differences are relatively small (5% and 4%, respectively). (Figure 3.6.c.1)28 27 Source: Survey with random representative sample of the citizens of Serbia, age 18+, n=1003, conducted in January 2014 by Ipsos Strategic Marketing for the World Bank 28 Source: Survey with random representative sample of the citizens of Serbia, age 18+, n=1003, conducted in January 2014 by Ipsos Strategic Marketing for the World Bank 101 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 3.6.c1: Share of male and female who perceive the problems of accessibility to judicial services as relevant in making decision about settling the dispute in the court 71% 81% 72% 77% Male Female 43% 47% 25% 30% 25% 29% I would be unable to I would be unable to I would have I would have Courthouse is too cover the attorney- cover the court- difficulties in finding difficulties to find distant from the related expenses related costs the necessary my way and move place where I live information around the courthouse Note: Question: The following are the reasons some people named were important to them when they considered the issue of taking or not taking a dispute to the court. How relevant each of them would be for you personally if you were in position to make decision about settling or not settling the dispute in the court? Scale:1.not relevant at all 2) mostly not relevant 3) mostly relevant 4) highly relevant. Base: Total target population 3.7 Perceptions about mediation 3.7.a Perceptions of general public and business sector about mediation procedure 263. Awareness of the mediation process, as an option for settling disputes, is rather low among the court users with experience with court cases. Only 17% of citizens with experience in court cases and somewhat more than a half of business sector representatives, 53%, know what mediation is. Compared to 2009, awareness of the mediation process hasn’t changed in general population, while it has somewhat increased among business sector representatives (from 46% in 2009, to 53% in 2013). (Figure 3.7.a1) Figure 3.7.a1: Awareness of the mediation process among general public and business sector with experience of court cases 53% % Aware of mediation process 46% 2009 17% 17% 2013 General public Business sector Note: Question: Do you know what a mediation process in resolving the disputes is? Base: general population and business sector with experience with court ceases 264. Most citizens and business sector representatives who have heard of mediation consider it useful, but they are much more likely to think that it is just partly useful, than very useful. While 43% of citizens consider mediation partly useful, only somewhat more than a third, 36%, consider it very useful. Business sector members also have different stands: 44% consider mediation only partly useful, and 40% consider it very useful. (Figure 3.7.a2) 265. It is striking that, compared to 2009, the percentage of the general public who consider mediation very useful has decreased by 15% (from 51% to 36%), while the percentage of those who consider mediation not useful at all has increased by 7%. As for business sector members, changes 102 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 in attitudes towards mediations are less considerable as compared to 2009: the percentage of those who consider mediation very useful has decreased by 6% (from 46% to 40%), while the percentage of those who consider mediation not useful has not changed. (Figure 3.7.a2) Figure 3.7.a2: Perceptions of general public and business sector with experience with court cases about the usefulness of the mediation in resolving the disputes 6% 4% 4% 5% Don't know 36% 46% 40% 51% Very useful 43% 44% Partly useful 36% 40% 7% 17% 10% 11% Not useful 2009 2013 2009 2013 General public Business sector Note: Question: How useful is a mediation process in resolving the disputes to parties to court proceedings i.e. can it helps settle a dispute? / business sector: to parties to the proceedings in cases involving legal persons.Scale:1. Not useful, 2. Partly useful 3. Very useful. Base: General population with experience with court cases who are aware of mediation, 17% of general population with court experience 2009 and 2013; Business sector with experience with court cases who are aware of mediation, 2009, 46% and 2013, 53% of business sector with court experience 266. Finally, people who claimed to have had a dispute they thought should be settled in the court but decided against such action rarely choose to settle the dispute by mediation procedure. Only 1% of general population (out of those who had a dispute but decide not to settle it in the court for any reason) opted to settle the dispute by mediation process, while in the business sector mediation was chosen by only 2% in 2009, and by no one in 2013. A somewhat higher percentage named other informal ways, and a considerably higher percentage opted for negotiating with the other party. But a majority stated that their dispute was not settled at all. (Figure 3.7.a3) Figure 3.7.a3: 2009 and 1013 models chosen to settle dispute which was decided not to be taken to the court - members of general public and business sector who reported to have had such dispute 2009 2014 68%66% 63% 52% 38% 25% 26% 17% 14% 8% 5% 8% 1% 1% 2% 0% Not settled By Another, Mediation Not settled By Another, Mediation the dispute negotiating informal way process the dispute negotiating informal way process with the of settling with the of settling other party the dispute other party the dispute General public Business sector Note: Question: How did you settle the dispute? Base: Members of general public and business sector who reported to had a dispute they thought should be settled in the court but decided against such action (General public 12% 2009, 9% 2013; Business sector 30% 2009, 24% 2013) 103 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 3.7.b Perception of mediation procedure by court service providers Summary 267. Judges and prosecutors are mainly ambivalent about the mediation process:  About a half of judges and prosecutors consider mediation partly useful, and only about a third considers it very useful  A substantial number of judges and prosecutors claimed that they are not well informed about the mediation process  One in five judges and only one in twelve prosecutors have undergone mediation training  Judges and prosecutors who had no training are much more likely to report that training would be just partly useful for them rather than very useful  Only about one third of judges and prosecutors expect the new mediation system to increase efficiency of the judiciary, and even 43% of judges and 59% of prosecutors believe they do not have sufficient information to rate the influence of this new mediation system on efficiency of the judiciary 268. Attitudes of judges and prosecutors regarding usefulness of the mediation process are similar to citizens’ attitudes: a great majority considers mediation useful, but those who share this opinion are much more likely to think that it is just partly useful (47% judges and 50% prosecutors), than very useful (33% judges and 32% prosecutors). On the other hand, however, unlike the citizens, the percentage of prosecutors who consider mediation very useful is increased somewhat compared with the year 2009 (from 25% to 32%); this percentage has slightly increase in case of judges as well (from 31% to 33%), but the proportion of judges who consider mediation not useful has slightly increase too (from 10% to 14%). (Figure 3.7.b1) Figure 3.7.b1: Perceptions of judges and prosecutors about the usefulness of the mediation in resolving the disputes 7% 7% 16% 9% Don't know 31% 33% 32% 25% Very useful 52% 47% 52% 50% Partly useful 10% 14% 7% 10% Not useful 2009 2013 2009 2013 Judges Prosecutors Note: Question: How useful is the mediation process to parties in a case, i.e. can it help settle a dispute? Scale:1. Not useful, 2. Partly useful 3. Very useful Base: total target population 104 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 269. It is interesting, however, that only about a half of judges (53%) and less than a third of prosecutors (28%) claimed to be well informed about mediation, and that this percentage has even decreased in 2013, comparing to 2009 (for 10% in case of judges and for 13% in case of prosecutors). (Figure 3.7.b2) Figure 3.7.b2: Share of judges and prosecutors who feel to be well informed about the mediation 61% 51% 41% 2009 28% 2013 Judges Prosecutors Note: Question: Would you say that you are well informed about mediation? Scale: 1.Yes 2. No. Base: total target population 270. One in five judges and only 8% of prosecutors reported in 2013 to have undergone mediation training. Compared to 2009, the percentage of judges who did undergo training is reduced for 9%. (Figure 3.7.b3) Figure 3.7.b3: Share of judges and prosecutors who did undergo training in mediation 29% 20% 2009 10% 8% 2013 Judges Prosecutors Note: Question: Did you undergo training in mediation? Scale: 1.Yes 2. No. Base: total target population 271. Both judges who underwent training and those who didn’t, consider training useful (or sufficient in the case of judges and prosecutors who underwent training). Somewhat more than a half of judges (58%) and prosecutors (55%) who have undergone training say that this training was sufficient, while others thought that they need better training. Most judges and prosecutors who did not undergo the training also stated that training would have been useful to them, but they were more likely to say that it would have been only partly useful (46% and 42% respectively), rather than very useful (31% and 22% respectively). (Figure 3.7.b4) Figure 3.7.b4: Attitudes towards the training in mediation of the judges and prosecutors who did not yet undergo the training 6% 20% 12% Don't know 29% 17% 20% 25% 11% Not useful 46% 33% 46% 42% Partly useful 28% 31% 22% 14% Very useful 2009 2013 2009 2013 Judges Prosecutors Note: Question: Would training in mediation be of use to you? Scale: 1. Very useful, 2. Partly useful, 3. Not useful. Base: Judges and prosecutors who have not undergone the training in mediation, Judges 71% 2009 and 80% 2013; Prosecutors 90% in 2009 and 82% in 2013 272. Finally, judges and prosecutors are divided in their opinions about the new law that stipulates the establishment of a completely new system of mediation. Only about one third of 105 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 judges (35%) and prosecutors (30%) expect the new system to increase efficiency of the judiciary, one in five judges and one in ten prosecutors think that efficiency will be decreased, and even 43% of judges and 59% of prosecutors stated that they still do not have enough information to be able to estimate influence of this new system on efficiency of the judiciary (Figure 3.7.b5) Figure 3.7.b5: 2014 Judges’ and prosecutors’ attitudes towards the new law stipulating establishing a new mediation system Don't know / don't not know enough to 43% be able to evaluate 59% It will increase the efficiency 35% It will remain the same 30% 21% 10% It will reduce the efficiency 2% 1% Judges Prosecutors Note: Question: Prepared is a draft of the new Law that stipulates establishing of a completely new mediation system, which includes license for mediators, founding of a chamber and standardization and accreditation of mediator training programs. In your opinion, how will enactment of the new Law on Mediation affect the efficiency of the judicial system? Scale: .1 It will reduce the efficiency, 2. It will remain the same, 3. It will increase the efficiency, 3. I do not know enough to be able to evaluate. Base: total target population 106 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 4. COURT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES Summary 4.1. Overall perceptions of court administrative services 273. A great majority of users of the court administrative services are satisfied with the efficiency and accessibility of court administrative service, and with regards to these two aspects the perceptions of users and providers of the services are quite in agreement. With regards to quality and integrity (absence of corruption) differences in perceptions between users and providers of administrative services are large: substantially higher percentage of providers than users perceive the quality of the services as high, and believe that corruption is not present in court administrative services. Perceptions of users with regards to all four aspects have improved in comparison with 2009 (with exception of perceptions of integrity among general public), while among providers of the services positive perceptions of efficiency and accessibility have somewhat decreased, and positive perceptions of quality and integrity have somewhat increased. 274. More than 70% of users of court administrative services were satisfied with the efficiency of the service delivered and over 80% evaluated the accessibility of the service as high 29. The agreements between users and providers in perceptions of these two dimensions are quite high, and just somewhat higher percentage of providers was satisfied with efficiency provided by their sector (82%). (Figure 4.1.1) 275. On the other hand, users are less satisfied with the quality30 of services - approximately four in ten evaluate the quality of the service delivered as high. Differences in perceptions of the quality between users and providers are huge, and almost 80% of providers of the services evaluated the quality of the services as high. (Figure 4.1.1) 276. Huge incompatibility between users and providers of administrative services was found with regards to perceptions of the presence of corruption as well. While a great majority of providers, 80%, stated that there is no corruption in administrative services, this opinion is shared by less than one third of the general public, and 43% of members of the business sector. (Figure 4.1.1) 29All evaluations of the users of administrative services refer to the last administrative task which they performed. Somewhat more than one half of users of administrative services from general population of the citizens stated that their last administrative task referred to verification of documents and contracts. Since the number of users of other administrative services (access to archive, registry desk, receptions and expedition of documents, giving evidence…) from the general population was small, all of them were classified in the category “other”. All representatives of the business sector are sho wn in one category since 80% of them stated that their last administrative task was verification of documents and contracts. 30However, evaluations of efficiency and accessibility on one side and quality and integrity on the other are not completely comparable since the efficiency and accessibility were evaluated on 4 point scale, quality on 5 point scale, and presence of corruption on 3 points scale. Substantial percentage of users evaluated quality as average. More in detail is presented below in related sections 107 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 4.1.1: 2013 Share of users (general public and business sector) and providers of court administrative services who positively evaluated efficiency, quality, integrity (absence of corruption), and accessibility of the services General public Business sector Providers of the services 82% 78% 80% 82% 87% 87% 74% 75% 43% 37% 41% 29% Efficiency Quality Integrity (corruption) Accessibility Note: Base: Total target population 277. In comparison to 2009, users’ views of court administrative services are somewhat improved with regards to all four dimensions. The only exception is perception of users among the general public of the presence of corruption which did not change. (Figures 4.1.2 and 4.1.3). 278. On the other hand, among members of business sector, the positive change in perceptions of corruption was the biggest improvement of all: the percentage of the users among the members of the business sector who believe that there is no corruption in administrative services has increased by 15 points (from 28% to 43%). (Figure 4.1.3) Figure 4.1.2: 2009 and 2013 share of users of court administrative services among general public who positively evaluated efficiency, quality, integrity (absence of corruption), and accessibility of the services 2009 2013 74% 75% 82% 66% 29% 37% 30% 29% Efficiency Quality Integrity (corruption) Accessibility Note: Base: Users of court administrative services among general public, total target population 108 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 4.1.3: 2009 and 2013 share of users of court administrative services among business sector who positively evaluated efficiency, quality, integrity (absence of corruption), and accessibility of the service 2009 2013 88% 83% 75% 65% 41% 43% 32% 28% Efficiency Quality Integrity (corruption) Accessibility Note: Base: Users of court administrative services among business sector, total target population 279. Changes in perceptions among service providers are less consistent: while satisfaction with efficiency and accessibility of services has somewhat decreased and so become quite close to perceptions of the users, positive perceptions of quality and integrity have increased and huge discrepancy with perceptions of users has not changed in spite the improved views of users. (Figure 4.1.4) Figure 4.1.4: 2009 and 2013 share of providers of court administrative services who positively evaluated efficiency, quality, integrity (absence of corruption), and accessibility of the service 2009 2013 89% 91% 87% 82% 80% 78% 72% 74% Efficiency Quality Integrity (corruption) Accessibility Note: Base: Providers of court administrative services, total target population 109 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 4.2. Efficiency of court administrative services Summary 280. A majority of users of court administrative services were satisfied with the efficiency of the service in their administrative task, and the percentage of satisfied users has increased in comparison with 2009. With an increase in the percentage of satisfied court users, opinions of service users and service providers have become closer, but the percentage of service providers who are satisfied with the efficiency of their work is still higher than the percentage of the court users who are satisfied with the efficiency of the service. According to court users the situation has also improved in terms of the possibility to finish the administrative task in one place, instead of going from door to door, and in terms of the time needed for completion of an administrative task. Although the assessment of the efficiency of services has become more positive, a considerable percentage of the users of administrative services still think that their administrative task could have been finished in shorter time, while just one out of five providers of administrative services agrees with this opinion. According to providers of administrative services, better efficiency in their work could be primarily achieved by stimulating the staff by higher salaries and increasing the number of staff, to a somewhat lesser extent by simplification of procedure and better equipment, to an even lesser extent through better allocation of work and informing the clients better, and the least of all through greater staff commitment and better training of the staff. 281. A majority of users of court administrative services (more than 70%), who performed some administrative task during 2013 were satisfied with the efficiency with the service provided. In comparison with 2009, the percentage of satisfied users has considerably increased among members of the general population who had some task connected with verifications (of documents, contracts), as well as among the members of business sector. (Figure 4.2.1) Figure 4.2.1: 2009 and 2013 share of the users of administrative services who were satisfied with the efficiency of the service 72% 72% 77% 75% 58% 65% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Verification General public Other Business Note: Question: How satisfied are you with the efficiency of the administrative court service? Efficiency entails no waste of time and the fast and quality completion of the task. Scale 1.Very dissatisfied, 2.Disatisfied 3.Satisfied. 4. Very satisfied. Base: Members of general public and business sector with experience with court administrative services total target population 282. In comparison with users of administrative services, a somewhat higher percentage of providers of administrative services (more than 80%) expressed satisfaction with the efficiency of the sector in which they worked. In comparison with 2009, the only change was recorded in the work of registry office, where the percentage of the employees who are satisfied with the efficiency of work in this sector has somewhat decreased (Figure 4.2.2). 110 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 4.2.2: 2009 and 2013 share of the providers of administrative services who were satisfied with the efficiency of the service 91% 80% 86% 87% 84% 84% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Verification, receptions, Registry desk Other expedition Note: Question: How satisfied are you with the efficiency of your sector in institution in which you worked in the last 12 months? Efficiency entails no waste of time and the fast and quality completion of work? Base: Providers of court administrative services total target population 283. In order to finish their administrative task in court, the users had to visit the court 2 times on average. The number of visits to the court for the purpose of verifying documents has decreased in comparison with 2009, so it ranged between 1 and 2 visits to the court in 2013. (Figure 4.2.3) Figure 4.2.3: 2009 and 2013 average number of courthouse visits required to complete administrative task as reported by users of administrative services 2009 2013 2.4 2.1 2.2 2.0 1.6 2.0 Verifications Other Business General public Note: Question: How many times did you have to go to the courthouse to complete the task? Base: Members of general public and business sector with experience with court administrative services total target population 284. The number of courthouse visits varies considerably depending on the type of administrative service, but more than one half of members of the general population of citizens, 56%, reported to have finished their verification job in the court during one visit in 2013 (14% more than in 2009), while the percentage of the citizens who stated that they had to come to the court between 3 and 7 times has decreased by 15%. Within other administrative tasks, and administrative tasks of the business sector more than three fourths of the users had to visit the courthouse between 3 and 7 times. In the business sector 7% of users of administrative services claimed to have visited the courthouse more than 8 times (some representatives mentioned to have visited the court even 20 times). Nevertheless, in comparison with 2009, the percentage of business sector members who stated to have gone to the courthouse more than 2 times has decreased. (Figure 4.2.4) 111 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 4.2.4: Number of courthouse visits required to complete administrative task as reported by users of administrative services 3% 13% 7% 7% 8 and more visits 20% 26% 28% 26% 31% 40% 27% 41% 29% 3-7 37% 24% 56% 45% 2 42% 39% 31% 29% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 1 visit Other Business Verification General public Note: Question: How many times did you have to go to the courthouse to complete the task? Base: Members of general public and business sector with experience with court administrative services total target population 285. Assessment of providers of administrative services regarding the number of visits to the courthouse required to complete an administrative task mainly coincide with the assessment of users of administrative services. (Figure 4.2.5) Figure 4.2.5: 2009 and 2013 average number of courthouse visits required to complete administrative task as reported by providers of administrative services 2009 2013 2.1 1.8 1.6 1.7 1.4 1.6 Registry desk Reception, verification, expedition Other Note: Question: How many times on average did a client need to come to your service counter/department to complete one administrative task? Base: Providers of court administrative services who interacted with clients and reported data (Registry desk 2009 70%, 2013 87%; Reception, verification and expedition 2009 82%, 2013 70%, Other 2009 78%, 2013 74%) 286. The situation has also improved in terms of the possibility to finish the administrative task at one location instead of going from door to door. In comparison with 2009, the percentage of users of administrative services who reported to have completed their verification task at one location has increased by 25% (from 49% to 74%), and among representatives of business sector by 12% (from 53% to 65%). (Figure 4.2.6) Figure 4.2.6: 2009 and 2013 share of users of administrative services who got or did not get to go from door to door 3% 13% 11% 6% Had to go from door to door 24% 16% 23% 28% 29% 35% 30% 24% Got most done at one location 74% but I did have to go from door 61% 53% 65% 49% 52% to door Got everything done at one location 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Verification Other Business General public 112 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Note: Question: While you were completing your administrative task, did you have to go from door to door or were you able to complete the task at one location? Base: Members of general public and business sector with experience with court administrative services total target population 287. According to representatives of the general population, time needed to complete one administrative task has decreased as well. Time needed to perform verification of documents has been reduced from 118 minutes in 2009 to 78 minutes in 2013; as regards other administrative tasks the time has been reduced on average from 164 minutes to 91 minutes (Figure 4.2.7) Figure 4.2.7: 2009 and 2013 average time spent (in minutes) to complete the task based on data reported by users of administrative services 178 2009 2013 164 148 118 91 78 Verifications Other Business General public Note: Question: General public: How much total time did you spend completing this task?(including paying tax in bank or post office related to this task) Business sector: Roughly estimate, how many total working hours your employees spent in the courthouse in completing this administrative task? Base: Members of general public and business sector with experience with court administrative services total target population 288. In comparison with 2009, a considerably higher percentage of the users of administrative services from the general population reported to have completed the task in maximum 30 minutes. Almost one half of the users of verification services (48%) and more than 40% of users of other administrative services finished their administrative task in maximum 30 minutes in 2013, while in 2009 only one out of four users of administrative services did the same (Figure 4.2.8) 289. However, the range of reported time is wide, and a considerable percentage of the users of administrative services reported to have spent between 90 and 180 minutes, even more than 3 hours to complete their administrative task, while some of them reported even more than 10 hours. In regards to the business sector, more than one half of representatives reported to have spent between 30 and 90 minutes to complete their administrative task, one out of four reported to have spent between 90 and 180 minutes, while 14% reported to have spent more than 3 hours in the courthouse to complete their administrative task. Some representatives of the business sector reported to have spent a number of working days on completion of one administrative task. (Figure 4.2.8) 113 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 4.2.8: 2009 and 2013 time spent (in minutes) to complete the task reported by users of administrative services 13% 7% 11% 17% 9% 13% 14% 20% Over 180 min 33% 25% 29% 24% 35% 29% 91-180 min 28% 32% 54% 48% 31-90 min 48% 41% 26% 25% Up to 30 min 9% 8% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Verifications Other Business General public Note: Question: General public: How much total time did you spend completing this task?(including paying tax in bank or post office related to this task) Business sector: Roughly estimate, how many total working hours your employees spent in the courthouse in completing this administrative task? Base: Members of general public and business sector with experience with court administrative services total target population 290. In compliance with the finding about reduction of time needed to finish an administrative task, the number of users of administrative services who think that their administrative task could have been completed in lesser time has considerably decreased as well. Nevertheless, a substantial percentage of the users still think that their task could be finished in shorter time, particularly among members of the general population who performed the task of verification (47%) and members of the business sector (41%). (Figure 4.2.9) Figure 4.2.9: 2009 and 2013 share of users of administrative services who think that their administrative task could have been completed in less time 60% 47% 45% 50% 42% 28% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Verification Other Business General public Note: Question: Could the administrative task have been completed in less time given its complexity? Scale: 1.Yes 2. No. Base: Members of general public and business sector with experience with court administrative services total target population 291. However, a considerably lower percentage of providers of administrative services in the court thought that administrative tasks in their sector could have been performed in shorter time. Approximately one out of five providers of administrative services thought that it could have been done in shorter time (Figure 4.2.10) Figure 4.2.10: 2009 and 2013 share of providers of administrative services who think that administrative tasks in their sector could have been completed in less time 22% 21% 21% 25% 17% 14% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Registry desk Reception, verification, Other expedition 114 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Note: Question: Could these administrative tasks have been completed in less time? Scale: 1.Yes 2. No. Base: Providers of court administrative services total target population 292. According to staff in the administrative sector of the court, better efficiency in performing the tasks could primarily be achieved by stimulating the employees through higher income and increased staffing, to a somewhat lesser extent through simplification of procedures and better equipment, to an even lesser extent through better informing of the clients, and finally through greater staff commitment and better training. According to a majority of the employees (53%) the main factors which could contribute to better efficiency in administrative services provisions would be increased salaries and increased staffing. Besides bigger salary, 41% mention additional financial incentives. All in all, 60% of providers of administrative services mentioned one or both of these financial moments. A considerably lower percentage, 41%, stated that simplification of procedures would reduce the time of completing the administrative tasks, while 38% stated that better technical equipment would contribute to that outcome; 29% mentioned better allocation of work and better informing of the clients, and the smallest percentage mentioned better staff commitment 18%, and better staff training, 15%. (Figure 4.2.11) Figure 4.2.11: 2013 share of provider of administrative services who named that listed factor would help cut down the time of completion of the task - multiple choice Higher salaries of staff 53% Greater number of service counters/staff 53% Simplification of the procedure 41% Additional financial incentives for staff 41% Better technical equipment (computers) 38% Better allocation of work within the sector 29% If the clients were better informed 28% Greater staff commitment 18% Better staff training 15% Note: Question: What would help cut down the time of completion of the task? Base: Providers of court administrative services (Registry desk 99%, Reception, verification, expedition 98%, Other 99%) 4.3. Perceptions of court administrative services providers about caseload and comfort with working conditions Summary 293. Providers of administrative services in the court feel overburdened with work, while at the same time not being paid enough for their effort. According to providers of administrative services, the number of daily cases they work on and the number of clients that they serve on a daily basis considerably exceeds the optimal number, both in terms of caseload and number of clients. A majority of the providers of administrative services are satisfied with cooperation with other sectors and superiors, and to a somewhat lesser extent with working climate and organization of work, but they are very dissatisfied with premises and equipment, and most of all they are dissatisfied with their salaries. 294. Judging by the reported number of cases on which they worked and their assessment of the optimal caseload under the conditions in which they worked, the providers of administrative 115 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 services in the court feel overburdened. (Figure 4.3.1) According to the data they reported, the daily caseload in 2013 in the case of registry desk and reception, verification and expedition of letters was somewhat above 100 cases on average, while in case of other administrative services it was somewhat below 50. This caseload exceeds the caseload that the staff in registry desk and office for reception, verification and expedition evaluated as optimal by 38%. In case of other administrative services the actual caseload is considered to exceed the optimal one by 17%. In comparison 2009, the caseload of providers of administrative services has not changed. (Figure 4.3.1) Figure 4.3.1: 2009 and 2013 average number of daily cases based on data reported by providers of administrative services 121 2009 2013 107 114 69 108 70 60 67 48 27 35 29 Registry desk - Registry desk - Reception, Reception, Other - actual Other - optimal actual caseload optimal caseload verification, verification, caseload caseload expedition - expedition - actual caseload optimal caseload Note: Question: How many cases did you handle on average on a daily basis in the last 12 months?/What would have been the optimal daily caseload, in your opinion, given the conditions you worked in. Base: Providers of court administrative services who reported data (Registry desk 2009 75%, 2013 81%; Reception, verification and expedition 2009 83%, 2013 68%, Other 2009 82%, 2013 92%) 295. According to information reported by providers of administrative services whose job involves contacts with the clients, the number of clients with whom they daily interacted was 20 on average in case of registry desk, 55 in case of reception, verification and expedition, and 16 clients in case of other administrative services. The estimated number of clients with whom they interacted exceeded on average the optimal one by 38% in the case of the registry office, by 27% in reception, verification and expedition, while in the case of other administrative services there was no difference on average between actual and optimal number of clients. Figure 4.3.2: 2009 and 2013 average number of clients based on data reported by providers of administrative services who interacted with clients 68 2009 2013 55 41 26 40 17 18 16 21 13 17 12 Registry desk - Registry desk - Reception, Reception, Other - actual Other - optimal actual number of optimal number verification, verification, number of clients number of clients clients of clients expedition - expedition - actual number of optimal number clients of clients Note: Question: On average how many clients did you have contact with on a daily basis in the last 12 months?/What would have been the optimal daily number of clients, in your opinion, given the conditions you worked in. Base: Providers of court administrative services who interacted with clients and reported data (Registry desk 2009 71%, 2013 79%; Reception, verification and expedition 2009 73%, 2013 53%; Other 2009 89%, 2013 86%) 116 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 296. The majority of providers of administrative services are satisfied with the cooperation of the judges, superiors and other sectors (circa 80%), and to a somewhat lesser extent with the general working climate (nearly 70%). Satisfaction with organization of work is somewhat lesser, nevertheless, considerably more than a half of providers of administrative services are satisfied: 66% are satisfied with organization of work in their sector, while 58% are satisfied with organization of work in general. However, the employees are dissatisfied with premises and equipment, and most dissatisfied with their salary. Only 38% of providers of administrative services are satisfied with premises and equipment, and only 14% are satisfied with their salary (Figure 4.3.3). In comparison with 2009, satisfaction with organization of work, both in their own sector and in general, has somewhat decreased, while the percentage of those who are satisfied with their salary has even increased to some extent (from 5% to 14%). (Figure 4.3.3) Figure 4.3.3 2009 and 2013 share of providers of administrative services who are satisfied with the listed aspects of their working conditions 2009 2013 86%84% 83% 82% 78% 78% 77%79% 73%69% 71%66% 65% 58% 35%38% 14% 5% Work climate with superiors administrative Amount of Organization of Premises and with the court with other non- work in general Organization of administrative Cooperation Cooperation Cooperation equipment work in your Cooperation with other salary sectors judges sectors sector Note: Question: Rate your satisfaction with the following aspects of your job in the institution in which you worked in last 12 months. Scale: 1. Very dissatisfied 2. Dissatisfied 3. Satisfied 4.Very Satisfied. Base: Providers of court administrative services total target population 4.4. Quality of court administrative services Summary 297. The general situation regarding the quality of administrative court services is improved, in users’ opinion. Users are likely to have a more positive opinion about the quality of services, so opinions of users and providers of services are now closer to each other, but service providers are still a lot more likely than users to assess services as of very high quality. The reasons that prevent higher quality of services mainly named by service providers are those already assessed as the main barriers for greater efficiency of the performance: poor working conditions, including low salaries, and insufficient staff. Thhe great majority of users of administrative services are satisfied with different aspects of court performance regarding administrative services (working hours, accessibility of information and staff, conduct of staff and time spent waiting for one’s turn), and the percentage of those satisfied has increased on most aspects as compared to 2009. The image of conduct and competence of service providers has also become more positive comparing to 2009. Most users evaluate service providers positively regarding efficiency, pleasantness and knowledge, and a significantly lower percentage considers them prone to corruption, indolent and negligent. 298. Users of administrative court services usually assess quality as average, but still a higher percentage evaluates quality as high than as low. Somewhat less than 40% of users from the general population of citizens, and somewhat more than 40% of the business sector representatives, evaluate the quality of administrative services in 2013 as high, and between 15% and 25% of members of the 117 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 general population and 13% of the business sector representatives evaluate quality as low. Satisfaction with quality is somewhat increased compared with the 2009 survey. (Figure 4.4.1) Figure 4.4.1: 2009 and 2013 perceptions of users of court administrative service of the quality of work in that specific administrative case Low High 28% 37% 30% 38% 32% 41% 15% 22% 25% 20% 13% 31% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Verification General public Other Business Note: Question: What is your general impression of the quality of work of the judiciary in that specific administrative case? Scale: 1. Very low quality 2. Law quality 3.Average quality 4.High quality 5. Very high quality. Base: Members of general public and business sector with experience with court administrative services total target population 299. Providers of administrative services, however, are a lot more likely than the citizens to evaluate the quality of services they provide as high: 77% at registry desk, 71% in reception, verification, expedition department and 84% in other departments. While the quality of services has increased, compared to 2009, in the opinion of those employed at the registry desk and in other services, those employed in reception, verification and expedition service think that quality has decreased. (Figure 4.4.2) Figure 4.4.2: perceptions of providers of court administrative service of the quality of services rendered to clients Low High 72% 77% 83% 71% 84% 65% 1% 3% 1% 5% 3% 3% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Registry desk Reception, verification, Other expedition Note: Question: What quality of services was rendered to clients by the sector in which you worked in the last 12 months? Scale: 1. Very low quality 2. Law quality 3.Average quality 4.High quality 5. Very high quality. Base: Providers of court administrative services total target population 300. In the opinion of providers of administrative services, the obstacles to higher quality of services derive from a series of circumstances. The highest percentage, however, indicates the same circumstances assessed as main barriers to greater efficiency of their performance: poor working conditions, including salaries, and insufficient staff. These reasons are named by 77% of the employed. Most employees also mention the problem of work space and equipment (66%), poor organization (57%) and the problem of work allocation (56%), and somewhat less than a half singles out poor inter- sectorial cooperation (49%) and insufficient staff training (45%). Compared to 2009, four reasons listed as the first are named to a somewhat lower percent. (Figure 4.4.3) 118 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 4.4.3: share of providers of court administrative services who evaluated the listed circumstances as partly or very significant reasons why the quality of the work in their sector was not higher 2009 2013 85% 82% 77% 77% 74% 66% 61% 57% 58% 56% 53% 49% 50% 45% cooperation existing staff remuneration) Lack of staff infrastructure organization Poor allocation (lack of office (including low Poor working Poor inter- Insufficient equipment) training of conditions sectoral of work space, Poor Poor Note: Question: To what extent were the following circumstances important as the reasons why quality of work of the sector you worked in was not higher? Scale: 1. Insignificant 2. Partly significant 3. Very significant. Base: Providers of court administrative services total target population 301. A great majority of users of administrative services were satisfied with different aspects of court performance regarding administrative services (court working hours, accessibility of information and staff, conduct of staff and time spent waiting for one’s turn), and the percentage of those satisfied has increased on most aspects compared with the 2009 survey. (Figures 4.4.4 and 4.4.5) 302. Compared to the other aspects, members of the general population and business sector representatives are least satisfied with time spent waiting for their turn (63% of members of general population are satisfied with this aspect and 65% of business sector members). In this aspect also, the situation is somewhat better than 2009. (Figures 4.4.4 and 4.4.5) Figure 4.4.4: 2009 and 2013 share of users of court administrative services among general public who were satisfied with listed aspects of court administrative services last time they visited court house in order to get done their administrative task 2009 2013 91% 75% 81% 89% 84% 88% 81% 71% 72% 75% 56% 63% Court working Ease of accessing Court security Ease of accessing Staff conduct Time spent hour relevant service conduct relevant staff waiting your turn offices/service counters Note: Question: Please recall the last time you went to the courthouse to get something done with respect to this concrete administrative task. Please rate your satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 represents ‘very dissatisfied’, 2 ‘dissatis fied’ 3 ‘satisfied’ and 4 ‘very satisfied’. How satisfied were you with…? Base: Members of general public with experience with court administrative services total target population 119 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 4.4.5 2009 and 2013 share of users of court administrative services among members of business sector who were satisfied with listed aspects of court administrative services last time they visited court house in order to get done their administrative task 2009 2013 89% 92% 84% 89% 83% 71% 74% 82% 81% 80% 65% 54% Court security Ease of accessing Ease of accessing Staff conduct Court working Time spent service conduct relevant relevant staff hours waiting your turn offices/service counters Note: Question: Please recall the last time you went to the courthouse to get something done with respect to this concrete administrative task. Please rate your satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 represents ‘very dissatisfied’ , 2 ‘dissatisfied’ 3 ‘satisfied’ and 4 ‘very satisfied’. How satisfied were you with…? Base: Members of business sector with experience with court administrative services total target population 303. Most users of administrative services are satisfied with efficiency, pleasantness and knowledge of service providers, and a significantly higher percentage of them assess these characteristics as being at high or very high level than as being at low level 31. (Figure 4.4.6) Compared to 2009, according to users, service providers have upgraded their knowledge, and they have become more efficient and more pleasant when communicating with users. Figure 4.4.6: 2013 perceptions of users of court administrative service of the level of efficiency, pleasantness and knowledge of the staff they interacted with 4% 2% 1% 3% 1% 1% Don't know 54% 59% 57% 52% 61% 69% High 23% 22% 28% Neutral 31% 26% 19% 8% 21% 18% 10% 20% 12% Low Knowledge Efficiency Pleasantness Knowledge Efficiency Pleasantness General public Business sector Note: Question: Please rate the staff in the court administrative services with respect to the following features. Please rate the level of ………. of the staff you interacted with on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents ‘very low level’ and 5 ‘very high level’. Base: Members of general public and business sector with experience with court administrative services total target population 304. A considerably lower percentage believes that service providers were prone to corruption, sloppy and negligent. As for the presence of negative characteristics among providers of administrative services users had contact with, approximately one in six members of the general population believes that proneness to corruption was present to a great extent, and approximately one in five that indolence and negligence were present to a great extent. An even lower percentage of business sector representatives share the opinion that these negative characteristics were present to a great extent: 5% believe that corruption is present to a great extent, 12% indolence was present to a great extent, and 11% that negligence was present to a great extent. On the other hand, it should be underlined that almost a half of general population of citizens, 48%, believe that there was no proneness to corruption among providers of administrative services, or that it was just slightly present, 31There were no significant differences between verification and other services regarding assessment of general population users, so results were presented for all services on average 120 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 and this opinion is shared by 64% of business sector representatives. (Figure 4.4.7) Compared to 2009, perceptions regarding presence of negative characteristics of staff in administrative services are improved. The percentage of general population members who believe that proneness to corruption was present to a great extent in administrative services reduced from 33% to 17%, and among business sector representatives from 17% to 5%. The percentage of users who believe that verification services, as a part of administrative services, were accompanied by indolence and negligence is also reduced significantly. Figure 4.4.7: 2013 Perceptions of users of court administrative service of the level of proneness to corruption, negligence and indolence of the staff they interacted with 12% 13% 18% 7% 7% 27% 12% 11% Don't know 22% 21% 5% 7% 18% 7% 17% 13% High 16% 9% 64% 59% 61% Neutral 48% 53% 51% Low Proneness to Indolence Negligence Proneness to Indolence Negligence corruption General public corruption Business Note: Question: Now please rate the staff in the court administrative services with respect to the following negative features, on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents ‘very low level’ and 5 represents ‘very high level’. Base: Members of general public and business sector with experience with court administrative services total target population 4.5. Integrity of court administrative services Summary 305. Compared with widespread citizens’ belief that corruption is present in the judiciary in general, a significantly lower percentage of users of administrative court services believe that corruption is present in this sector. About a third of members of the general population of users of administrative services, and a somewhat smaller number of business sector representatives, believe that corruption was present in this sector, and this percentage is reduced significantly compared to 2009. On the other hand, however, a great majority of providers of administrative services believe that there was no corruption in their sector at all, and this difference in perceptions of the presence of corruption between service users and providers remained big in spite of increase of users’ positive evaluation. Compared with the percentage of users who believe that corruption was present in administrative court services, substantially lower percentage reports resorting to informal means in order to speed up an administrative court task. Those employed in administrative court services do not agree on whether there was any form of internal control present in their sector. More than half believe that there was internal control, but a significant percentage believes there was no control 306. Compared with the perception of presence of corruption in the judiciary system in general, a significantly lower percentage of citizens believes that corruption is present in court administrative services. While more than half of the general population members32 believe that corruption is present in the judiciary, about a third of general population users believe that corruption was present in administrative court services in 2013, and approximately the same percentage that it was not. As for business sector representatives, a somewhat lower percentage considers corruption present, 26%, and somewhat higher - not present, 43%. A substantial percentage of users, however, could not estimate the potential presence of corruption. Compared to 2009, the percentage of the 32 As already shown in section 2.3.d 121 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 general population users of verification service, as well as the percentage of business sector representatives who consider corruption present in administrative services is reduced substantially (from 53% to 32% in general population and from 46% to 26% among business sector members). (Figure 4.5.1) Figure 4.5.1: 2009 and 2013 perceptions of users of court administrative service about the presence of corruption in court administrative services 24% Don't know 37% 30% 27% 32% 42% 23% 28% There was no 32% 36% 43% corruption 26% 32% To an extent 22% 37% 24% 29% 21% 24% 8% 5% 9% 9% 2% To a great extent 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Verification Other Business General public Note: Question: Was there corruption in court administrative services? Base: Members of general public and business sector with experience with court administrative services total target population 307. Unlike users of administrative services, the great majority of providers of these services believe that corruption is not present in administrative services. However, 14% of the employed at registry desk, 21% in verification, reception and expedition department, and 15% of the employed in other administrative departments believe that corruption is present. Compared to 2009, the percentage of those employed at the registry desk who believe that corruption is not present is increased, while the opinion of those employed in verification, reception and expedition department is more negative now, so the percentage of those who think that corruption is present is at least somewhat closer to citizens’ opinion. (Figure 4.5.2) Figure 4.5.2: 2009 and 2013 perceptions of providers of court administrative service about the presence of corruption in court administrative services 9% 3% 7% 9% 7% 7% Don't know There was no 72% 84% 80% 71% 75% 78% corruption To an extent 17% 11% 12% 18% 17% 15% 2% 2% 1% 3% 1% To a great extent 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Verification, reception and Other Registry desk expedition Note: Question: To what extent was corruption present in the court administrative services in the last 12 months? Base: Providers of court administrative services total target population 308. A considerably lower percentage of citizens, though, report personally resorting to informal means. As it was mentioned already, this difference is not surprising since it is well known that citizens are not prone to revealing information about their own corruptive behavior33. However, almost 10% of users of administrative services, members of general population, and 6% of business sector representatives, report resorting to informal means. Compared to 2009, this percentage is reduced. (Figure 4.5.3) 33 Refer to Section 2.3.d2 122 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 4.5.3: 2009 and 2013 statements of users of court administrative services about resorting to informal means in completing administrative tasks 4% 4% 7% 4% 4% Don't know/refusal 78% 86% 82% 76% 84% 88% No, not suggested to resort to informal means 22% 11% 13% 17% 12% 8% Yes, suggested to resort to 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 informal means Verification Other Business General public Note: Question: Did you ever find yourself in circumstances in which you resorted to informal means (made an additional payment, offered a gift, pulled strings…) to complete your administrative task in court faster? Base: Members of general public and business sector with experience with court administrative services total target population 309. A somewhat higher percentage of users says that they know someone who resorted to informal means to speed up administrative task in court (on average about 15%). But this percentage is also reduced compared to 2009, especially among those who needed verification (from 38% to 16%). (Figure 4.5.4) Figure 4.5.4: 2009 and 2013 statements of users of court administrative services about knowing someone who resorted to informal means 5% 8% 15% 1% Refused 23% 57% 78% 77% 68% 86% 62% Don't know anyone who resorted to informal 38% means 16% 17% 15% 21% 14% Yes, I know someone 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 who resorted to informal means Verification Other Business General public Note: Question: Do you know anyone who resorted to informal means -made an additional payment, gave a gift, pulled strings…- to speed up the completion of an administrative task in court? Base: Members of general public and business sector with experience with court administrative services total target population 310. On the other hand, about 20% of providers of administrative services say that they were in a situation when client tried to influence their work by resorting to informal means, but only about 3% say that they accepted informal compensation for a performed task. (Figures 4.5.5 and 4.5.6) Figure 4.5.5: 2009 and 2013 statements of providers of court administrative services about clients’ offer to resort to informal means in order to influence their work 4% 3% 5% 3% 3% 1% Don't know/Refusal 77% 79% 74% 75% 75% 77% No, I was never in situation in which client tried to resort to 19% 18% 21% 22% 21% 21% informal means Yes, I was in situation in 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 which client tried to resort to Verification, reception and informal means Registry desk Other expedition Note: Question: Did you ever find yourself in a situation in which a client tried to resort to informal means -make an additional payment, give you a gift, pull strings - to affect your work? Base: Providers of court administrative services total target population 123 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 4.5.6: 2009 and 2013 statements of providers of court administrative services about accepting some form of compensation from a client 4% 2% 5% 4% 3% 1% Don't know 90% 96% 90% 94% 90% 96% No, I have never accepted some compesation 6% 3% 6% 2% 6% 3% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Yes, I accepted some compesation Registry desk Verification, reception Other and expedition Note: Question: Did you ever find yourself in a situation in which you accepted some form of compensation for your work from a client? Base: Providers of court administrative services total target population 311. Providers of administrative services do not agree on whether there was any form of internal control in their sector. More than half said that there was internal control, but a significant percentage believed that there was no control, while some even stated to be completely unaware of it (in verification, reception, expedition department even 14%). (Figure 4.5.7) Figure 4.5.7: Providers of court administrative services awareness of any form of internal control which exists within the court administrative services 9% 4% 14% 14% 8% 3% 26% Don't know/Refusal 37% 40% 34% 35% 36% No, there was no control 56% 56% 70% 54% 52% 51% Yes, there was a control 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Verification, reception, Other Registry desk expedition Note: Question: Was there any form of internal control within the court administrative service in the last 12 months? Base: Providers of court administrative services total target population 312. The great majority, however, believes that their performance is assessed. But there is no full agreement on this matter as well. (Figure 4.5.8) Figure 4.5.8: Providers of court administrative services awareness of appraisal of their work 2% 8% 2% 3% 5% 3% 8% 2% 6% 2% Don't know/Refusal 10% 90% 95% 89% 92% 96% No, work is not appraised 85% Yes, work is appraised 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Registry desk Verification, reception, Other expedition Note: Question: Do you know if your work is appraised? Base: Providers of court administrative services total target population 124 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 4.6. Accessibility of court administrative services Summary 313. Most court services users and providers consider administrative court services easily accessible to citizens. The percentage of citizens who consider administrative services easily accessible has increased, and the percentage of service providers who share this opinion has reduced, so opinions of users and providers of the services are mainly matching. As for accessibility of information and court building layout, service users are even somewhat more likely than service providers to think that administrative services were easily accessible to citizens in those aspects. Perceptions of service users and service providers agree regarding financial accessibility as well: the percentage of service providers who consider administrative services hardly accessible financially to citizens is approximately equal to the percentage of the general population members who assess costs of administrative services as a great burden for their budget (about 25%). Most users assess the total costs of administrative services they used as reasonable, if not small (more than 70% of general population and more than 80% of business sector representatives). About a half of users among the members of the general population, and more than 70% of business sector members believe that the costs of administrative services they used was a small burden for their budget. The range of reported costs of administrative services is very extensive, starting from less than 5 Euros and all the way up to more than 1.000 Euros, but most members of the general population reported costs of up to 15 Euros, and most business sector representatives up to 50 Euros. 314. Users of administrative court services and providers of these services agree that administrative services were easily accessible to citizens. More than 80% of users among the general population, and almost 90% of business sector members and services providers share this opinion. Administrative court services are estimated as considerably more available to citizens as court services associated with court proceedings34. Compared with the 2009 survey results, the percentage of providers of administrative services who believe that these services are easily accessible to citizens is somewhat reduced, and percentage of users who share this opinion is somewhat increased, so their assessments became quite close to each other. (Figure 4.6.1) 315. Administrative court services are assessed as a lot more accessible to citizens than court services related to court proceedings.35 A great majority of users of administrative services conducted their administrative tasks on their own, without a lawyer. Only 10% of members of the general population, and 7% of members of the business sector engaged a lawyer in 2013 to help them with their administrative tasks. 34 Refer to Section 3.1 35 Refer to Section 3.1 125 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 4.6.1: 2009 and 2013 perceptions of accessibility of court administrative services by users and providers of the services Inaccessible Accessible 76% 82% 83% 88% 91% 87% 19% 16% 12% 6% 9% 23% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 General public Business Providers of administrative services Users of administrative services Note: Question: How accessible were administrative services in courts to citizens / private companies in Serbia in the last 12 months? Base: Members of general public and business sector with experience with court administrative services, and providers of court administrative services 316. Most service providers believe that administrative services are accessible in all aspects, but the highest percentage shares this opinion regarding accessibility of information (80%), somewhat lower regarding finding one’s way in the court building (75%) and the distance of court building (71%), and the lowest regarding costs of services (58%). It is striking that the percentage of providers of court services who consider administrative services accessible to citizens is reduced on all aspects compared to 2009. (Figure 4.6.2) Figure 4.6.2: 2009 and 2013 perceptions of providers of court administrative services about the accessibility of court administrative services to the public Inaccessible Accessible 84% 80% 81% 75% 82% 71% 65% 58% 5% 9% 9% 15% 6% 18% 15% 25% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Finding way around a Distance of the Access to information Finance courthouse courthouse Note: Question: How accessible are currently the judicial administrative services to the public on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 represents ‘very inaccessible’ 2 ‘inaccessible’ 3 ‘accessible’ and 4 ‘very accessible. Base: Providers of court administrative services total target population 126 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 317. It is interesting that users of administrative services are even more likely than providers of court services to assess information as easily accessible and that it was not difficult for them to find their way in the court building. It is also noticeable that the percentage of users who share this opinion, unlike service providers, has increased compared to 2009. (Figures 4.6.3 and 4.6.4) Figure 4.6.3: 2009 and 2013 perceptions of users of administrative services about the accessibility of information Difficult Easy 87% 79% 82% 87% 93% 72% 8% 16% 13% 12% 5% 22% Verification Other 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Business General public Note: Question: How easy or hard was it for you or your attorney to access information regarding your administrative task: where you should go, what you should do, what document you need..? Scale:1. Very difficult 2. Mostly difficult 3.Mostly easy 4. Very easy. Base: Members of general public and business sector with experience with court administrative services total target population Figure 4.6.4: 2009 and 2013 perceptions of users of administrative services about the accessibility of the administrative services in terms of finding their way in a court building Difficult Easy 88% 89% 93% 91% 93% 77% 12% 11% 7% 9% 7% 23% Verification Other 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 General public Business Note: Question: How easy or difficult was it for you to find a way in a court building? Scale:1. Very difficult 2. Mostly difficult 3.Mostly easy 4. Very easy. Base: Members of general public and business sector with experience with court administrative services total target population 318. Obvious is also substantial agreement between users and providers of court services in terms of financial availability of administrative services; 25% of providers of administrative services perceive administrative services as financially difficult to access by the citizens, and approximately the same percentage of users from the general population say that costs of the administrative services they used were a great burden for their budget (23% verification and 24% of users of other administrative services). As for business sector members, however, only 8% say that these costs were a great burden for their company budget. Compared to the 2009 results, the percentage of general population members who say that the costs of administrative services they used was a small burden for their budget has even increased. (Figure 4.6.5) 127 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 4.6.5: 2009 and 2013 users of the court administrative services perceptions of the burden of the costs of administrative services to their budget 5% 3% 13% 6% 2% 9% 1% 8% Don't know 26% 23% 24% 17% 19% 21% 23% 21% 34% 36% Big burden 73% 72% 50% 48% Moderate 36% 30% 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Verification General public Business Other Note: Question: How much of the burden for your budget were the costs? Base: Members of general public and business sector with experience with court administrative services total target population 319. Most users consider total costs of administrative services they used as reasonable, if not even small. Approximately one in four users, members of the general population of citizens, and 16% of business sector members, assess costs of administrative services as excessive. Compared to 2009, the evaluation of general population hasn’t changed, and the percentage of business sector representatives who assess costs of administrative services as excessive has reduced by 9%. (Figure 4.6.6) Figure 4.6.6: 2009 and 2013 users of the court administrative services perceptions of the overall the costs of administrative services 6% 3% 13% 6% 2% 1% 16% Don't know 30% 27% 25% 25% 28% 43% 49% Excessive 54% 52% 45% 53% 34% Reasonable 17% 15% 16% 31% 10% Small 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Verifications Other Business General public Note: Question: Do you think the overall costs were small, reasonable or excessive given the quality of the administrative services you were provided? Base: Members of general public and business sector with experience with court administrative services total target population 320. On average, the total costs of administrative service estimated by members of the general population with verification task was between 40 and 60 Euros and of other administrative tasks about 90 Euros. Costs were somewhat higher in the business sector, between 100 and 150 Euros (Figure 4.6.7) Figure 4.6.7: 2009 and 2013 average costs in euro of the last administrative task based on data reported by users of the court administrative services Average costs in Euro 2009 2013 144 99 116 89 58 44 Verificatios General public Other Business Note: Question: How much did the last administrative task cost you altogether? Total cost implies all court costs and taxes, lawyer fee and travel costs. Base: Members of general public and business sector with experience with court administrative 128 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 services who reported data on costs (Verification 2009 88%, 2013 97%; Other services 2009 90%, 2013 94%; Business 2009 89%, 2013 97%) 321. The range of reported costs of administrative services is very extensive, starting from less than 5 Euros and all the way up to more than 1.000 Euros. Some business sector representatives report even more than 10.000 Euros. However, most members of general population with a verification task report costs of up to 15 Euros (more than 60%), and half of them spent 5 Euros most. Also regarding other general population tasks, about a third spent up to 5 Euros, but significantly higher percentage reported extensive costs. As for the business sector, costs were usually (in 43% of cases) between 15 and 50 Euros, 36% indicated smaller costs, and 19% higher costs. (Figure 4.6.8) Figure 4.6.8: 2009 and 2013 estimated costs of the last administrative task as reported by users of the court administrative services 2 3% 6% 213% 12% 5% 10% 12 11% 6% 1 8% 4% 4 7% 31 12% 9% 7% Don't know 5% 23% 21% 10% 12% 22% Over 1000 Euro 26% 19% 43% 31% 35% 401 - 1000 11% 38% 12% 151 - 400 34% 24% 27% 51 - 150 31% 29% 14% 6% 7% 15.1-50 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 5.1-15 Business Up to 5 Euro Verifications Other General public Note: Question: How much did the last administrative task cost you altogether? Total cost implies all court costs and taxes, lawyer fee and travel costs Base: Members of general public and business sector with experience with court administrative services total target population 322. The largest share of costs, for the entire population of users on average36, are court costs: more than 80% in the tasks of verification of documents, and more than 60% in other administrative tasks. (Figure 4.6.9) Figure 4.6.9: 2009 and 2013 estimated cost breakdown -mean percentages of the court costs, lawyer costs, traveling costs, and other costs in total costs in the last administrative task completed by members of general public and business sector 2% 9% 6% 9% 5% 3% 8% Other costs 16% 7% 8% 2% 3% 1% 3% 18% 14% 6% 13% Travel costs 80% 81% 84% 86% Lawyer costs 68% 63% Court costs 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 Verifications Other Business General public Note: Question: Can you specify the individual costs, i.e. break the total costs down to court costs, lawyer’s fee, travel costs and other costs if any? Base: Members of general public and business sector with experience with court administrative services who did not engaged the lawyer and who reported data on costs (Verification 2009 76%, 2013 87%; Other services 2009 73%, 2013 82%; Business 2009 76%, 2013 90%) 36It should be taken into account that, as shown above, small percentage of users hired a lawyer to help them to complete the administrative task 129 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 5. PERCEPTIONS OF THE REFORM LAUNCHED IN JANUARY 2010 AND NEW NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM STRATEGY FOR THE PERIOD 2014-2018 5.1. Perceptions of reform launched in 2010 - awareness, expectations and perceived effects Summary 323. General support to reform of the judicial system launched in 2010 has considerably decreased, both among court users, providers of court services and lawyers. Nevertheless, somewhat more than half of the judges and public prosecutors still support this reform. Knowledge about the reform has also decreased considerably among the citizens, while those who have heard about the reform mainly associate it with reassignment of judges and prosecutors, the same as in 2010. Decrease of support of the reform among judges and prosecutors is certainly the result of disappointment in the effects of the reform. Expectations that the reform will improve the situation exceeded considerably the appraisal of the actual positive effects of the reforms. In contrast to judges and prosecutors, the lawyers had much lower expectations, so the percentage of disappointed lawyers is considerably lower. While the differences in expectations from reform effects between lawyers on one side and judges and prosecutors on the other were considerable, the evaluations of actual effects of the reform become much closer. Similar to lawyers, the providers of court administrative services had considerably smaller expectations, so their disappointment was also smaller, and the assessments of effects are considerably closer to assessments of judges and prosecutors than were their expectations. 324. Judges and prosecutors also had substantially higher expectations that mandatory seminars and new organization of courts will improve the quality and efficiency of court services, and that attendance of Court Academy would help the judges and prosecutors to be more prepared what really happened. Nevertheless, mandatory seminars are the most positively evaluated aspects of the reforms. Although the expectations of effects were considerably higher, a majority of judges and prosecutors still think that these seminars had a positive effect. 325. The majority of the judges also expected that the reform from 2010 would result in a more adequate penal policy and that it would equip the judges with more legal mechanisms to keep order in court, but less than a half of them think that this has actually been achieved. 5.1.a Users of judicial system services awareness of and support to the reform launched in January 2010 326. The percentage of court users who have heard about the reform of the judiciary in 2010 has considerably decreased both in the general population and among representatives of the business sector. While in 2010 more than 70% of the general population and nearly 90% of members of the business sector were aware of these reforms, three years later less than one half of the general population and somewhat less than 70% of representatives of the business sector claimed to have heard about these reforms. (Figure 5.1.a1) 130 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 5.1.a1: 2010 and 2013 share of users of judicial system services who are aware of the reform launched in January 2010 2010 2013 88% 72% 68% 41% General public Business sector Note: Question: Have you heard about the judicial system reform launched in January 2010? Base: general public and business sector total target population 327. Among the citizens who have heard about the reforms, the percentage of those who think that they are at least somewhat, if not well, informed about these reforms has decreased. (Figure 5.1.a2)37 Figure 5.1.a2: 2009 and 2013 perceptions of users of judicial system services about how well they are informed about the reform launched in January 2010 38% 29% 40% Not informed 45% 55% Fairly informed 52% 45% 51% 10% 10% 16% 8% Well informed 2009 2013 2009 2013 General public Business sector Note: Question: How well informed are you about the judicial system reform launched on 1 January 2010? Scale: 1. Not at all 2. Mainly not, 3.Fairly, 4.Mainly informed, 5. Very well informed. Base: Members of general public and business sector who heard about reform (General public: 2009, 72%, 2013, 41%; Business sector: 2009, 88%, 2013, 68%) 328. Since the citizens’ main source of information about judicial reforms was the media, decrease of information about the reforms among the citizens is most probably the result of reduced media coverage of the reforms from 2010. (Figure 5.1.a3) The citizens primarily associate the reforms of the judicial system from 2010 with reelection of judges and prosecutors, which is also most probably related to the way in which the media reported about the reforms. Reassignment of the judges and prosecutors has remained the best-known aspect of these reforms for the citizens in 2013 as well. (Figure 5.1a4) Figure 5.1.a3: 2010 and 2013 users of judicial system services main source of information about reform launched 2010 (out of those who heard about the reform) 2% 6% 4% 12% 9% Official (Attorney, Court bulletin boards, 14% 6% 6% liflets…) 90% Friends, acquaintances 81% 78% 82% Media (TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, websites...) 2010 2013 2010 2013 Business sector General public Note: Question: What is your main source of information about this judicial system reform? Base: Members of general public and business sector who heard about reform (General public: 2009, 72%, 2013, 41%; Business sector: 2009, 88%, 2013, 68%) 37 Since the percentage of the citizens who have heard about the reforms has decreased considerably, the percentage of the informed citizens in total population has actually decreased by 22% (from 45% of members of the general population who perceived themselves informed in 2010 to 23%in2013), and among representatives of the business sector by 22% (from 62% in 2009 to 40% in 2013) 131 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 5.1.a4: 2010 and 2013 aspects of the 2010 reform that general public recollect the best (out of those who heard about the reform) Reappointment of judges/change of judges 49% 39% Improving efficiency 11% 8% 10% Dismissals/ reduction of number of employees 7% 2010 Reduction of the number of judges 7% 4% 2013 Reduction of the number of courts 6% 5% Reorganization of judiciary 5% 4% Note: Question: Can you specify anything that has been done within the framework of this judicial reform? Base: Members of general public who heard about reform (2009 72%, 2013, 41%) 329. Support to reforms has also decreased since 2010. Among members of the general population who have heard about the reforms, the support to reforms has decreased by only 5% (from 68% to 63%), but, since the percentage of the citizens who have heard about the reforms has decreased by 29%, the decrease of support within the general population is substantially larger.38 Support among representatives of the business sector has decreased even more. Among representatives of the business sector who have heard about the reforms the support to reforms has decreased from 77% to 47%, but, once again, due to a considerable decrease of awareness of reforms, within the total population of members of business sector, the decrease is actually considerably larger.39 (Figure 51.a5) Figure 5.1.a5 2010 and 2013 share of users of judicial system services who heard about the reform and support (fully / to an extent) the reform 2010 77% 68% 63% 47% 2010 2013 General public Business sector Note: Question: Do you support the judicial system reform launched in January 2010 in general? Scale: 1. Fully support, 2. Support to an extent, 3. Do not support. Base: Members of general public who heard about the reform (2009 72%, 2013, 41%) and business sector who heard about the reform (2009, 88%, 2013, 68%) 5.1.b Judges, prosecutors and lawyers’ expectations and perceived effects of the reform launched in January 2010 330. Support of the judicial reforms from 2010 has decreased considerably among providers of judicial services as well. Among the judges the support of these reforms has decreased by 24%, and among public prosecutors by 37%. However, since in 2010 great majority of judges and prosecutors supported the reforms (79% of judges and 88% of prosecutors), despite the decrease, more than a half of judges and prosecutors still support the reforms. (Figure 5.1.b) 38 From the aspect of total population support to judicial reforms has decreased in the general population by 23% (from 49% in 2010 to 26% in 2013). 39Within the total population of business sector representatives support to judicial reforms actually decreased from 68% in 2010 to 32% in 2013. 132 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 5.1.b2 2010 and 2013 share of judges, prosecutors and lawyers who support (fully / to an extent) the reform launched 2010 88% 79% 55% 51% 55% 36% 2010 2013 Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Note: Question: Do you support the judicial system reform launched in January 2010 in general? Scale: 1. Fully support, 2. Support to an extent, 3. Do not support. Base: Judges, prosecutors and lawyers total target population 331. Decrease of support to judicial reforms is definitely the result of disappointment in the effects of these reforms.40 Judges and public prosecutors had, by far, bigger expectations of the reforms than what assessed were the actual realized positive effects. (Figures 5.1.b3 and 51.b4) It is noticeable, however, that a considerably higher percentage of the judges and prosecutors supported the reforms in general, than they expected concrete positive changes in various aspect of functioning of the judicial system. Both judges and public prosecutors had the biggest expectations regarding fairness and integrity, while the prosecutors had the biggest expectations regarding efficiency, but these expectations were also shared by no more than about one half of the judges and prosecutors (with just somewhat higher expectations of prosecutors with regards to fairness). However, less than 30%, think that the reforms really had positive effects on these dimensions of the functioning of the judicial system (Figures 5.1.b3 and 5.1.b4). More rational sending of the budget was the least expected to be improved among judges. Only one third of the judges had positive expectations, and only 7% estimated that the reform had positive effect. (Figures 5.1.b3) Figure 5.1.b3 Share of judges who in 2010 believed that reform will improve the listed dimensions of the judicial system, and who in 2013 evaluated that improvement did happen due to reform Will improve, 2010 Did improve, 2013 Fairness 53% 27% Integrity (independence, lack of corruption) 50% 25% Efficiency 46% 34% Quality of work of court staff 47% 29% Accessibility 46% 27% Quality of working conditions 41% 20% More rational spending of budget funds 34% 15% Note: Question: To what extent will/did the judicial system reform launched on 1 January 2010 improve the following dimensions of the judicial system? Scale: 1.Will / Did worsen to a great extent 2. Will / Did worsen to an extent 3. Will/Did not bring any change 4. Will /Did improve to an extent 5. Will / Did improve to a great extent. Base: Judges total target population 40Decrease of support to reforms can partially be explained by the fact that in 2010 wave judges and prosecutors who were not reappointed were not covered by the survey, but they were returned to work and included in 2013 wave. The reform support somewhat higher percentage of the reappointed judges and prosecutors than those who were not reappointed in 2009, but the differences were not big, while the decrease of support among reappointed judges is still considerable (58% of reappointed judges support the reforms, which is by 21% below the result recorded in 2010). Regarding the evaluation of reform effects on various aspects of judicial system, judges and prosecutors who were not reappointed were somewhat more negative, but the differences are small and they do not change the overall picture of perception of effects of reforms by judges and prosecutors. 133 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 5.1.b4: Share of prosecutors who in 2010 believed that reform will improve the listed dimensions of the judicial system, and who in 2013 evaluated that improvement did happen due to reform Will improve, 2010 Did improve, 2013 Fairness 60% 28% Efficiency 53% 27% 53% Integrity (independence, corruption) 25% Quality of work of court staff 47% 25% More rational spending of budget funds 40% 13% Accessibility 37% 23% Quality of working conditions 37% 15% Note: Question: To what extent will/did the judicial system reform launched on 1 January 2010 improve the following dimensions of the judicial system? Scale: 1.Will / Did worsen to a great extent 2. Will / Did worsen to an extent 3. Will/Did not bring any change 4. Will /Did improve to an extent 5. Will / Did improve to a great extent. Base: Prosecutors total target population 332. In contrast to judges and prosecutors, lawyers had much smaller expectations, so the percentage of those disappointed among the lawyers is considerably smaller. While the differences in expectations from the reforms between lawyers on one side and judges and prosecutors on the other were considerable, the evaluations have become considerably closer when it comes to effects of the reforms. (Figure 5.1.b5) Figure 5.1.b5: Share of lawyers who in 2010 believed that reform will improve the listed dimensions of the judicial system, and who in 2013 evaluated that improvement did happen due to reform Will improve, 2010 Did improve, 2013 Efficiency 25% 19% Integrity 25% 12% 24% Quality of work of court staff 17% Accessibility 23% 20% Fairness 21% 12% More rational spending of budget funds 20% 7% Note: Question: To what extent will/did the judicial system reform launched on 1 January 2010 improve the following dimensions of the judicial system? Scale: 1.Will / Did worsen to a great extent 2. Will / Did worsen to an extent 3. Will/Did not bring any change 4. Will /Did improve to an extent 5. Will / Did improve to a great extent. Base: Lawyers total target population 333. Judges and prosecutors had rather great expectations from mandatory seminars introduced with the 2010 reforms. Even 90% of judges and 84% of prosecutors expected these seminars to contribute to increased efficiency and quality of court services. Although a significantly lower percentage estimated that these seminars really did have this effect, still more than 60% of judges and 59% of prosecutors think that these seminars contributed to increased efficiency and quality. (Figure 5.1.b6) A considerably lower percentage of judges and prosecutors (51% and 55%) expected 134 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 the new organization of courts to contribute to an increase of efficiency and quality of court services, and less than a third of judges and 23% of prosecutors believed that this effect really was achieved. (Figure 5.1.b6) Finally, most judges and prosecutors (more than 60%) expected that attending the Judicial Academy would contribute to better preparedness of future judges and prosecutors for their job, but expectations were failed here as well. Only 36% of judges and 39% of prosecutors agreed that attending of the Judicial Academy really upgraded preparedness of future judges and prosecutors (Figure 5.1.b6) Figure 5.1.b6: Share of judges and prosecutors who in 2010 believed that new organization of courts and compulsory seminars introduced with the reforms will improve the efficiency and quality of judicial services, and attending judicial academy increase the preparedness of judges and prosecutors, and who in 2013 evaluated that the improvements did happen 90% Did improve, 2013 Will improve, 2010 84% 64% 64% 59% 66% 51% 55% 36% 39% 30% 23% Judges Prosecutors New Compulsory Attending the New Compulsory Attending the organization of seminars Judicial Academy organization of seminars Judicial Academy courts courts Note: Question: Will /Did the new organization of courts introduced in January 2010 help boost the efficiency of work and quality of services in the judicial system? Will the compulsory seminars introduced within the reforms help boost the efficiency of work and quality of services in the judicial system? Will / Did attending the Judicial Academy increase the preparedness of future judges and prosecutors to the extent that it made the investment really cost effective? Scale: 1. Yes to great extent, 2. Yes to an extent, 3. No) Base: Judges and prosecutors total target population 334. Lastly, most of the judges and prosecutors believed that the 2010 reforms would result in more adequate penal policy (more than 70%), as well as that they would enable judges to have more of legal mechanisms to maintain order in court (more than 60%). However, significantly lower percentage of judges and prosecutors estimated that it was achieved (about 40%). (Figure 5.1.b7) Figure 5.1.b7: Share of judges and prosecutors who in 2010 believed that implementation of the reform will result in a more adequate penal policy, and that judges will have more adequate mechanisms to maintain order in court, and who evaluated that the improvements did happen Will happen2010 Did happen 2013 70% 73% 62% 64% 39% 38% 41% 40% More adequalte penal More legal mechanisms to More adequalte penal More legal mechanisms to policy maintain ordere in a court policy maintain ordere in a court Judges Prosecutors Note: Question: Will/Did the implementation of the reforms result in a more adequate penal policy? Will/Did judges have more legal mechanisms to maintain order in the court? Base: Judges and prosecutors total target population 135 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 5.1.c Providers’ of court administrative services expectations and perceived effects of the reform launched in January 2010 in their sector 335. Those employed in court administrative services, compared with judges and prosecutors, support the reforms from 2010 to a much lesser extent. While, as already mentioned above, almost 80% of judges and almost 90% of prosecutors supported the reforms in 2010, somewhat less than 60% of the employed in administrative sector supported the reforms at the time, and support decreased to 40% in 2013. (Figure 5.1.c1) 336. This decreased support is not surprising, given that about 40% of those employed in administrative services expected negative consequences for their sector at the very beginning of the implementation of the reforms, primarily in terms of increased workload, or reduced number of employees. Just 19% expected positive consequences, and it did not change in 2013. It is noticeable though that a substantial percentage of those employed in administrative services said to have no opinion on the reforms (or at least didn’t want to express it). (Figure 5.1.c2) Figure 5.1.c1 2010 and 2013 share of court administrative services providers who support (fully / to an extent) the reform launched 2010 58% 40% 2010 2013 Note: Question: Do you support the judicial system reform launched in January 2010 in general? Scale: 1. Fully support, 2. Support to an extent, 3. Do not support Base: Court administrative services providers total target population Figure 5.1.c2: Court administrative services providers’ evaluations of changes in their sector due to reform launched in 2010 I don’t have a view on them 41% 44% As negative 40% 38% 19% 17% As positive 2009 2013 Note: Question: How do you assess these changes of the work of your sector? Base: Court administrative services providers total target population 337. Those employed in court administrative services did not expect much from the reforms on any aspect in their sector. Expectations were the greatest regarding the accessibility of services to citizens, but even on this aspect less than one third of employees expected improvement. Expectations were the smallest in terms of quality of working conditions - only 23% of the employed expected improvement. The percentage of the employed who assessed, in 2013, that the situation really was improved didn’t change much compared with the percentage of those who expected improvement. This percentage decreased only with regards to working conditions, and for only 5%. (Figure 5.1.c3) 136 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 5.1.c3: 2010 and 2013 share of court administrative services providers who believed in 2010 that reform will improve the listed dimensions of the court administrative services, and who in 2013 evaluated that improvement did happen due to reform Will improve, 2010 Did improve, 2013 Accessibility 31% 28% Efficiency 27% 25% 27% Quality of work of court administration staff 24% Integrity 23% 20% Quality of working conditions 23% 18% Note: Question: To what extent will/did the judicial system reforms launched on 1 January 2010 improve the following dimensions of the court administrative services? Scale: 1.Will / Did worsen to a great extent 2. Will / Did worsen to an extent 3. Will/Did not bring any change 4. Will /Did improve to an extent 5. Will / Did improve to a great extent. Base: Court administrative services providers total target population 5.2. Perceptions of the new National Judicial Reform Strategy for the period 2014-2018 Summary 338. Not many citizens were informed about the new National Judicial Reform Strategy at the end of 2013, but a large majority of those who were informed, supported the reform. Neither providers of court services nor lawyers were well informed about the new strategy of reform. Just somewhat more than a third of judges and prosecutors claimed to be well informed, while more than a half of lawyers and court administrative service providers stated that they knew nothing or almost nothing about it. The role of the media in informing about the new national strategy was shown to be important not only in the case of the citizens, but also in the case of court services providers and lawyers: the media was the main source of information for the majority of court administrative services providers and lawyers, while judges and prosecutors used the media as a source of information almost equally as they used official sources of information. 339. In spite of limited information, a large majority of judges and prosecutors support the new strategy of reform, just as they supported the reform in 2010, while court administrative services providers and lawyers are a lot more likely to support the new strategy of reform than they supported the reform in 2010. Expectations that the new strategy of reform will improve specific aspects of functioning of the judicial system are considerably higher than were the expectations with regards to reform in 2010, and these higher expectations are especially visible in case of court administrative services providers and lawyers. 340. Providers of court services and lawyers are even less informed about the new National strategy for fight against corruption than about the new reform strategy, and most of those who are at least somewhat informed expect it to have a positive effect, but not to a sufficient extent. 137 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 5.2.a Users’ of the judicial system services awareness of the new National Judicial Reform Strategy 341. One in ten members of the general population and one in four members of the business sector did hear about the new National Judicial Reform strategy at the end of 2013 (in time of the research). (Figure 5.2.a1) 342. The media was the main source of information about the new strategy for the citizens. However, almost half of those who have heard of the new strategy knew nothing or almost nothing more about it. (Figures 5.2.a2 and 5.2.a3) Figure 5.2.a1: 2013 share of users of judicial system services who are aware of the new reform strategy of the judicial system 2014-2018 26% 11% General public Business sector Note: Question: Have you heard about the new National Judicial Reform strategy for the period 2014 - 2018 which was adopted in Parliament in July 2013? Base: general public and business sector total target population Figure 5.2.a2: 2013 users of judicial system services main source of information about the new reform strategy of the judicial system 2014-2018 5% 11% Official (Attorney, Court bulletin 10% 8% boards, liflets…) Friends, acquaintances 85% 79% Media (TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, websites...) General public Business sector Note: Question: What is your main source of information about this reform strategy? Base: Members of general public and business sector who heard about the new strategy of reform (General public 11%; Business sector26%) Figure 5.2.a3: 2013 users of judicial system services evaluations about how well they are informed about the new reform strategy of the judicial system 2014-2018 40% Not at all / mainly not informed 48% 45% Fairly informed 38% 15% 13% Very well / mainly informed General public Busines sector Note: Question: How well informed are you about new National Judicial Reform strategy for the period 2014 - 2018? Scale: 1. Not at all 2. Mainly not, 3.Fairly, 4.Mainly informed, 5. Very well informed. Base: Members of general public and business sector who heard about the new strategy of reform (General public 11%; Business sector26%) 343. In spite of low awareness, most of those who have heard of the new reform strategy support the reform (77% of the general population and 66% of business sector representatives), while just a scarce percentage opposes them (2% of the general population and 5% of business sector representatives). 138 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 5.2.b Judges’, prosecutors’ and lawyers’ perceptions of the new National Judicial Reform Strategy 344. Judges, prosecutors and lawyers were not well informed on the new reform strategy at the end of 2013 (during the survey). Just somewhat more than one third of judges and prosecutors claimed to be well informed, while the same share claimed not to know anything or almost anything about it. Lawyers were even less informed: more than a half said that they knew nothing or almost nothing about the reform strategy. (Figure 5.2.b1) 345. Noticeable is the role of media as a source of information about the new reform strategy. Judges and prosecutors indicated media as the source of information in about the same percent as the official sources of information. The media were the main sources of information for lawyers (57%), while just a third used official sources of information. (Figure 5.2.b2) Figure 5.2.b1: 2013 providers of judicial system services and lawyers evaluations about how well they are informed about the new reform strategy of the judicial system 2014-2018 33% 35% Not at all / mainly not informed 56% 28% 24% Fairly informed 23% 35% 38% 21% Very well / mainly informed Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Note: Question: How well informed are you about new National Judicial Reform strategy for the period 2014 - 2018? Scale: 1. Not at all 2. Mainly not, 3.Fairly, 4.Mainly informed, 5. Very well informed. Base: Judges, Prosecutors and lawyers total target population Figure 5.2.b2: 2013 providers of judicial system services and lawyers sources of information about the new reform strategy of the judicial system 2014-2018 57% 48% 49% 48% 46% 37% Judges 33% 32% 28% 28% 17% 21% Prosecutors Lawyers Official information Media (TV, radio, I informed myself by Other staff, informal newspapers, reading the laws discussions magazines, websites...) Note: Question: What are your main sources of information about new National strategy of judicial system reform? Base: Judges, prosecutors and lawyers who are informed (more than ‘not at all’) about new National strategy of judicial system reform (Judges 84%, Prosecutors, 84%, Lawyers 63%)- multiple answers 346. An extensive majority of judges, prosecutors and lawyers, however, support the new National strategy of the judicial system reform. Support is, in the case of judges and prosecutors, similar to the initial support for the 2010 reforms. A somewhat higher percentage of judges support the new reform strategy (5% more), and a somewhat lower percentage of prosecutors (4% less). In the case of lawyers, however, support is considerably higher than support for the 2010 reform. (Figure 5.2.b3) 139 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 5.2.b3: 2013 share of judges, prosecutors and lawyers who support (fully / to an extent) the new reform strategy 84% 84% 79% Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Note: Question: Do you support the new National Judicial Reform Strategy adopted in July 2013 in general? Scale: 1. Fully support, 2. Support to an extent, 3. Do not support. Base: Judges, prosecutors and lawyers who are informed (more than ‘not at all’) about new National strategy of judicial system reform (Judges 84%, Prosecutors, 84%, Lawyers 63%) 347. Although general support for the new reform strategy among judges and prosecutors is similar to support at the beginning of the 2010 reform, expectations of the new reform strategy to improve the situation in the judicial system are greater than expectations of the reform implemented in 2010. A substantially higher percentage of both judges and prosecutors expect the new strategy to improve the situation on all dimensions of functioning of the judicial system, with the exception of fairness and integrity, where expectations are similar to those in 2010. (Figure 5.2.b4 and Table 5.2.b1) 348. Lawyers’ expectations that the new strategy will improve the situation in the judiciary are considerably greater than expectations from the 2010 reform, and this growth of expectations is considerably bigger than in the case of judges and prosecutors. While in the 2010 reforms, at best, 25% of lawyers expected the reforms to improve the situation on some dimensions, in the case of the new strategy more than half of lawyers expect a better situation on most dimensions. Expectations are the lowest on fairness and integrity, but even with regards to these aspects more than 40% of lawyers have positive expectations (which is 24% and 27%, respectively, more than in case of the 2010 reforms). (Figure 5.2.b4 and Table 5.2.b1) Figure 5.2.b4: Share of judges, prosecutors and lawyers41 who believe that new national judicial reform strategy will improve the listed dimensions of the judicial system Judges Prosecutors Lawyers 62% Efficiency 67% 55.6 56% Quality of working conditions 56% 58% Quality of work of court staff 59% 49.7 Accessibility 59% 64% 53.2 Fairness 57% 59% 43.4 56% Integrity (independence, corruption) 58% 42.5 51% More rational spending of budget funds 59% 45.8 Note: Question: To what extent will the new National strategy of judicial system reform improve the following dimensions of the judicial system? Scale: 1. Will worsen to a great extent 2. Will worsen to an extent 3. Will not bring any change 4. Will improve to an extent 5. Will improve to a great extent. Base: Judges, prosecutors and lawyers who are informed (more than ‘not at all’) about new National strategy of judicial system reform (Judges 84%, Prosecutors, 84%, Lawyers 63%) 41 Lawyers were not asked to evaluate quality of working conditions 140 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Table 5.2.b1: INCREASE OF EXPECTATIONS AMONG LEGAL PROFESSIONALS THAT NEW NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM STRATEGY WILL IMPROVE THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN COMPARISON TO EXPECTATIONS EXPRESSED IN 2010 WITH REGARDS TO REFORM LAUNCHED IN JANUARY 2010 Base: 2010 Judges, prosecutors and lawyers total target population; 2013: Judges, prosecutors and lawyers who are informed (more than ‘not at all’) about new National strategy of judicial system reform (Judges 84%, Prosecutors, 84%, Lawyers 63%) Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Efficiency +16% +13% +31% Quality of working conditions +15% +19% / Quality of work of court staff +11% +12% +30% Accessibility +13% +17% +30% Fairness +4% = +27% Integrity (independence, corruption) +5% = +24% More rational spending of budget funds +17% +19% +32% 349. As for the new National strategy for fight against corruption, knowledge is even somewhat lower than knowledge on the new National Judicial Reform strategy. Somewhat more than 40% of judges stated that they do not know anything or almost anything about it, while one in four claims to be well informed. Prosecutors are somewhat better informed than judges: about a third say that they do not know anything or almost anything about it, while similar share stated to be well informed. Lawyers are least informed and even half claimed not to know anything or almost anything about it. (Figure 5.2.b5) Figure 5.2.b5: 2013 providers of judicial system services and lawyers evaluations about how well they are informed about the new national strategy for fight against corruption 2014-2018 31% Not at all / mainly not informed 43% 50% 31% Fairly informed 27% 29% 24% 34% 20% Very well / mainly informed Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Note: Question: How well informed are you about new National strategy for fight against corruption for the period 2014 - 2018 which was adopted in Parliament in July 2013? Scale: 1. Not at all 2. Mainly not, 3.Fairly, 4.Mainly informed, 5. Very well informed) Base: Judges, Prosecutors and lawyers total target population 350. As for the effects of the new strategy for fight against corruption, the majority expects it to be efficient, but not to a sufficient extent (66% of judges, 68% of prosecutors and 61% of lawyers). A significantly lower percentage believes that this strategy will be very efficient (15% of judges, 12% of prosecutors and 10% of lawyers). (Figure 5.2.b6) Figure 5.2.b6: 2013 providers of judicial system services and lawyers expectations of the efficiency of new national strategy for fight against corruption DK-Ref 10% 12% 9% 9% 9% 21% Will be ineffective 66% 68% 61% Will be effective, but not to a sufficient extent 15% 12% 10% Will be very effective Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Note: Question: How efficient will be this strategy in fighting corruption in judiciary? Base: Judges, prosecutors and lawyers who are informed (more than ‘not at all’) about new National strategy for fight against corruption(Judges 75%, Prosecutors, 85%, Lawyers 65%) 141 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 5.2.c Providers’ of court administrative services perceptions of the new National Judicial Reform Strategy 351. The majority of those employed in court administrative services are not informed about the new reform strategy. Even 61% claimed that they do not know anything or almost anything about the new National Judicial Reform strategy, and only 14% claimed to be well informed. (Figure 5.2.c1) 352. Those employed in court administrative services used the media (75%) and informal conversations with their colleagues (45%) considerably more than they used official sources (25%) to gather information about the new strategy. (Figure 5.2.c2) Figure 5.2.c1: 2013 providers of court administrative services evaluations about how well they are informed about the new reform strategy of the judicial system 2014-2018 Not at all / mainly not informed 61% Fairly informed 22% Very well / mainly informed 14% Note: Question: How well informed are you about new National Judicial Reform strategy for the period 2014 - 2018? Scale: 1. Not at all 2. Mainly not, 3.Fairly, 4.Mainly informed, 5. Very well informed. Base: Providers of court administrative services total target population Figure 5.2.c2: 2013 providers of court administrative services sources of information about the new reform strategy of the judicial system 2014-2018 75% 46% 25% 15% Media (TV, radio, Other staff, informal Official information I informed myself by newspapers, magazines, discussions reading the laws websites...) Note: Question: What are your main sources of information about new National strategy of judicial system reform? Base: Court administrative services providers who are informed (more than ‘not at all’) about new National strategy for fight against corruption (54%) - multiple answers 353. In spite of low awareness, a substantially higher percentage of those employed in the administrative services support the new reform strategy than reform in 2010: 78% support the new reform strategy, while 58% supported the reform in 2010. In accordance with higher support for the new strategy of reform, expectations that it will bring improvements in a variety of aspects of administrative services’ operations are considerably greater than the 2010 reform. It is interesting that expectations are the lowest in regards to the effect of the new strategy on integrity (corruption and independence of court administrative services), but anyway, the expectations are still greater than in 2010. (Figure 5.2.c3) 142 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 5.2.c3: Share of providers of court administrative services 42 who believed that reform introduced in 2010 will improve listed dimensions of court administrative services and who believe that new reform strategy will improve the listed dimensions Will improve, 2010 Will improve, new reform 2013 Accessibility 31% 51% Efficiency 27% 50% 27% Quality of work of court administration staff 48% Integrity 23% 39% Quality of working conditions 23% 49% The accuracy of norms / rules governing the work… 45% Note: Question: To what extent will the new National strategy for judiciary reforms , launched in July 2013 improve the following dimensions of the court administrative services. Base: Court administrative services providers who are informed (more than ‘not at all’) about new National strategy for fight against corruption (54% of total target population) 354. Most of those employed in the sector of court administrative services (62%) are not informed on the new strategy for fight against corruption. As for those who have heard of this strategy, similar as in case of judges, prosecutors and lawyers, majority (64%) believe that it will have effect, but not to a sufficient extent. (Figure 5.2.c4) Figure 5.2.c4: 2013 providers of court administrative services evaluations about how well they are informed about the new national strategy for fight against corruption which was adopted in parliament in July 2013 Not at all / mainly not informed 62% Fairly informed 19% Very well / mainly informed 11% Note: Question: How well informed are you about new national strategy for fight against corruption which was adopted in Parliament in July 2013? Scale: 1. Not at all 2. Mainly not, 3.Fairly, 4.Mainly informed, 5. Very well informed. Base: Providers of court administrative services total target population Figure 5.2.c5: 2013 providers of court administrative services expectations of the efficiency of new national strategy for fight against corruption 4% DK-Ref 14% Will be ineffective 64% Will be effective, but not to a sufficient extent 17% Will be very effective Note: Question: How efficient will be this strategy in fighting corruption in judiciary? Base: Providers of court administrative services who are informed (more than ‘not at all’) about new National strategy for fight against corruption(44%) 42 The accuracy of norms was not among the dimensions evaluated with regards to reform 2010 143 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 6. PERCEPTIONS OF THE INFLUENCE OF MEDIA IN SHAPING PUBLIC OPINION OF THE JUDICIARY SYSTEM Summary 355. Opinions of court users and providers of court services about the judiciary image that the media generates differ considerably, the same as the perceptions of judiciary differ. Court users have a predominantly negative perception of the judiciary, and a majority of them think that the image of the judiciary that media creates is either objective or even more positive than reality; providers of court services have a considerably more positive perception about judiciary, and majority of them think that the image of judiciary that media create is more negative than reality. 356. As shown before43 providers of court services and lawyers think that the media are highly responsible, if not even the most responsible for the negative image of the judiciary in the public, particularly when it comes to the integrity and independence of judiciary. A great majority of providers of court services think that the image of the judiciary generated by the media is more negative than in reality, and that sensationalist media reports are the main source of threat to the integrity and independence of the judiciary. 357. On the other hand, however, at least some of the findings of the survey with the general population oppose the opinion of court services providers about predominant responsibility of the media for a negative public image of the judiciary: - General impressions about the judicial system expressed by the citizens who had experience with a court case comparing to impressions of the citizens without such experience are rather more negative, so indicating that personal experiences have enforced rather than corrected the general negative image of the judiciary existing in public.44 - Opinions of the citizens who had experience with a court case about the way in which the media reported on the judiciary do not differ substantially from opinions of the citizens without such experience: in both cases the highly prevalent opinion is that images generated by media are either objective or better than reality, while the minority opinion is that this image is more negative than reality. - Finally, although the citizens agree that sensationalist media reports downgraded the trust of the citizens in judiciary, they still consider other factors as more important to creating distrust those factors associated with the work of the courts (inefficient functioning, political pressures, corruption…)45. 358. About one third of the citizens who have experience with a court case, as well as the citizens without such experience think that the image of the judiciary generated by media is better than reality, while 29% of the citizens with court experience and 36% of the citizens without such experience think that this image is objective. On the other hand, only 29% of the citizens with experience with a court case and 26% of the citizens without such experience think that this image is worse than reality. (Figure 6.1) 43Sections 2.3f, 2.4 and 2.7 44Sections i.1.1 and i.1.2 45 Section 2.6 144 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 6.1:2009 and 2013 perceptions of citizens with and without experience with court cases about the image of the judicial system generated by media 8% 8% 10% 7% Don't know 36% 34% 28% 31% The image is better than reality 30% 29% 36% 36% The image is objective 26% 29% 26% 26% The image is worse than reality 2009 2013 2009 2013 General public with experience General public without experience with court cases with court cases Note: Question: What image of the judicial system do media in Serbia generate in general? Base: General public total target population 359. As for corruption in the judiciary, citizens who believe that corruption is present almost equally mention the media and personal experience, either their own or someone else’s, as the main source of information. Citizens without experience with court cases are somewhat more likely to single out the media as the main source of information (56%), while the citizens with experience with court cases are somewhat more likely to specify personal experience, either their own or someone else’s (52%). And as it was mentioned already46, an almost equal percentage of both groups of citizens (51%) believe that corruption is present in judiciary. (Figure 6.2) 360. Similarly, business sector representatives without experience with court cases are more likely than representatives with experience to specify the media as the main source of information about corruption in the judiciary (78% without experience and 61% with experience), but less likely than those with experience with court cases to believe that corruption is present in the judiciary (38% without experience and 43% with experience with court cases47). (Figure 6.3) 361. The conclusion is the same when comparing business sector representatives and the general public: business sector representatives are a lot more likely than representatives of the general public to indicate the media as a source of information about corruption in the judiciary, but less likely to believe that corruption is present in the judiciary. Figure 6.2:2009 and 2013 one main source of information on which citizens who think that there was corruption in the judiciary base their opinions on Based on the information in the media or 47% 47% 56% from other sources 63% Based on the direct experience of people we 38% 39% are in close touch with 30% 37% 14% 13% 6% 7% I or members of my household personally 2009 2013 2009 2013 experienced corruption in the judiciary General public with General public without experience with court experience with court services services Note: Question: Why do you think that corruption is present in judiciary? Base: Members of general public who think that corruption is present in judiciary (Citizens with court experience 2009 57%, 2013 51%; citizens without court experience 2009 58%, 2013 51%) 46Section 2.3.d 47 Section 2.3.d 145 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Figure 6.3:2009 and 2013 one main source of information on which members of business sector who think that there was corruption in the judiciary base their opinions on Based on information in the media and from other sources 59% 61% 68% 78% Based on the direct experience of a company we are in close 27% 28% 26% Based on my company’s direct 18% 13% 10% 5% 3% experience 2009 2013 2009 2013 Business sector with experience Business sector without with court cases experience with court cases Note: Question: Why do you think that corruption is present in judiciary? Base: Members of business sector who think that corruption is present in judiciary (Business sector with court experience 2009 51%, 2013 43%; Business sector without court experience 2009 49%, 2013 38%) 362. The media are also specified as the main source of information about the judiciary reforms implemented since January 2010, as well as about the National Judicial Reform Strategy for the Period 2013-2018. 363. A great majority of citizens specify the media as the main source of information about the judiciary reforms implemented since January 2010, as well as about the National Judicial Reform Strategy for the Period 2013-2018. As for the reforms implemented in 2010, citizens mainly associate them with the reappointment of judges and prosecutors, the topic that the media probably covered the most at the time. In the survey conducted in 2010, when asked to specify what was accomplished within the judicial reform, almost half of citizens singled out reappointment of judges and prosecutors and another 15% mentioned reduction of the number of judges, prosecutors and other employees. Not nearly as many citizens mentioned any other aspect of the reform (for example, 11% mentioned shortening of court proceedings), which was most probably a consequence of the way the media covered the reforms. Reappointment of judges and prosecutors is the predominantly memorized element of the 2010 reforms, but the percentage of citizens mentioning it is reduced, since it was not talked about that much (in 2013, 39% of citizens mention reappointment). 364. It is striking that the media was one of the sources of information about the reforms for judges, prosecutors and lawyers as well: 46% of prosecutors, 48% of judges and 57% of lawyers mentioned the media as a source of information about the new strategy. 365. Finally, as it was mentioned already48, citizens with experience with court cases found the media useful also as the source of information relevant for their case (about 10% mention using information from TV, about 3% from the press, and 2% the radio). 366. All these results merely confirm the undisputable importance of the media in shaping the public opinion. In addition to studies of perception, systemic analysis of the media reporting about the judicial system would enable better understanding of the perception of the judiciary by the public and facilitate the creation of a more efficient strategy for communication between the citizens and the judiciary through the media. 48Section 3.3 146 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 ANNEX 1 METHODOLOGY In order to assure methodological consistency, i.e. to secure valid comparability of the results, sample designs and methods of data collection for all target groups in the follow-up study were based on the designs and methods used in the baseline surveys A.1 Target groups a. General public a.1. The general public without experience with court proceedings. Definition: Members of the general public who were not involved in the court proceedings in the period between the beginning of 2007 till the end of 2009 (Baseline survey), and from the beginning of 2011 till the participation in the survey in November 2013 (Follow up survey). a.2 The general public with experience with court administrative services. Definition: Members of the general public who completed an administrative task in court in the last 12 months in front of the survey (members of this target group did not have experience with court proceedings, so the administrative task completed was not related to court case). a.3 The general public with experience with court proceedings. Definition: Members of the general public who were party in court proceedings in which the first-instance judgment was rendered in the period of the beginning of 2007 till the end of 2009 (Baseline survey), and from the beginning of 201149 till the participation in the survey in November 2013 (Follow up survey). b. Enterprise managers from private sector b.1 Enterprises without experience with court services. Definition: Enterprises who were not involved in the court proceedings in the period between the beginning of 2007 till the end of 2009 (Baseline survey), and from the beginning of 2011 till the participation in the survey in November 2013 (Follow up survey). Respondent: The highest available manager (Owner, Director, General Director, Executive Director, or any other person who is involved in core decisions). b.2 Enterprises with experience with court administrative service. Definition: Enterprises who completed an administrative task in court in the last 12 months in front of the survey (enterprises in this target group were not involved in court proceedings, so the administrative task completed was not related to court case). Respondent: The person most knowledgeable about the last completed administrative task. b.3 Enterprises with experience with court proceedings. Definition: Private enterprises which were a party in a court proceedings in which the first-instance judgment was rendered in the period from the beginning of 2007 till the end of 2009 (Baseline survey) and from the beginning of 2011 till the time of the survey in November 2013 (Follow-up survey). Respondent: The person most knowledgeable about the court case. c. Members of the legal profession working in private practice. Definition: Members of the legal profession listed in the register of Serbian Bar Chamber. d. Public officials and civil servants working in the justice sector. Definition: Judges, prosecutors / prosecutors’ deputies, and court administrative staff who were at this position at the time of the survey. A.2. Sample design and method of data collection 49 January 2011 (one year after the beginning of the implementation of the reforms) was taken as the earliest date of the first instance case closure in order to allow for all respondents in the sample to have had experience with the functioning of judiciary system after the implementation of the reforms. The beginning of the case was not limited, and data about the beginning of the case were recorded in the questionnaire. 147 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 a. General public Sample universe: Citizens of Serbia 18+ based on 2011 Census figures Type of sample: Three-stage random representative stratified sample; boosted sample of the citizens with experience with court cases – a combined sample based on criteria of geographical spread, and quota based on case type. Stages: Primary sampling units (PSU) - polling station territories; Secondary sampling units (SHU) - household; Tertiary sampling unit (TUS) - member of the household (respondent) Type and method of sample selection: PSU - probability proportional to size (Lechery method); SHU - simple random sampling without replacement (Systematic sample with random choice of the starting point and equal steps of choice); TUS - Simple random sampling without replacement (Kish scheme); Boosted sample -Quasi- random techniques which include snowball selection through the main survey, and selection through the survey with legal professionals. The boosted sample was selected so that the distribution by region, age, education and type of settlement respect the distribution in the universe Strata: First level strata geographical regions - Belgrade, Vojvodina, East Serbia, West Serbia, Central Serbia, South Serbia, and second level strata urban and rural settlements. Method of data collection: Face to face in respondent’s household. The interview was conducted by a trained interviewer with a structured questionnaire. Time of data collection: May 14 to June 23, 2010 (Baseline survey); November 02 to November 29, 2013 (Follow up survey) Sample size: In the period from 2010 to 2013 in total 3288 users of court services from general population were surveyed; 1349 with experience with court cases and 1939 without experience with court cases Realized sample Realized sample Planned sample size size - Baseline size - Follow-up Basic (random representative) sample of general 1000 1035 1048 public Over sample of general public with experience with 600 555 650 court proceedings TOTAL 1600 1590 1698 a.1. General public without experience with court 1000 954 985 proceedings a.2 General public with experience with court / 181 207 administrative services a.3 General public with experience with court 600 636 713 proceedings Baseline 200 a3.1 Criminal cases 146 121 Follow-up 100 a3.2 Misdemeanor 100 127 125 Baseline 300 a3.3 Civil cases 363 467 Follow up 400 148 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 b. Enterprise managers from private sector Sample universe: Private enterprises listed in the register of the Business register agency in Serbia, which submitted their annual balance sheet for the fiscal year 2012 (follow up survey) and for fiscal year 2009 (baseline survey) Type of sample: One stage random representative stratified sample, extended with enterprises with experience with court cases Strata: Geographical strata (Belgrade, Vojvodina, Central Serbia); Economic activity (production, trade, and services); Size of the enterprise defined by the number of employees: 1-19, 20-49, 50-249 and 250+ Strata allocation: Proportional to the size of the turnover presented in annual balance sheet Method of selection: Random choice from the register of the Business register agency in Serbia in defined strata Method of data collection: The screener interview was conducted by telephone. The main interview with pre-screened respondents was conducted face-to-face. The location of the interview was chosen by the respondent in order to guarantee the highest level of privacy and confidentiality. The extended sample was selected with the same method Time of data collection: May 14 to June 30, 2010 (Baseline survey) and November 04 to December 26, 2013 (Follow - up survey) Sample size: In the period from 2010 to 2013 in total 2085 users of court services from business sector were surveyed; 863 with experience with court cases and 1222 without experience with court cases Realized sample Realized sample Planned sample size size - Baseline size - Follow-up Basic (random representative) sample of 800 853 810 enterprises Over sample of enterprises with experience with 200 212 210 court proceedings TOTAL 1000 1065 1020 a.1. Enterprises without experience with court 600 615 607 proceedings a.2 Enterprises with experience with court / 583 572 administrative services a.3 Enterprises with experience with court 400 450 413 proceedings a.3.1 Litigations / 305 227 a.3.2 Economic offenses / 145 171 c. Members of the legal profession working in private practice Sample universe: Members of the legal profession working in private practice listed in the register of Serbian Bar Chamber Type of sample: One stage random representative stratified sample Strata: Geographical strata (Belgrade, Vojvodina, Central Serbia) Strata allocation: Proportional to number of members of the legal profession in the strata Method of selection of respondent: random choice from the list of the register of Serbian Bar Chamber in defined strata Method of data collection: The interview was conducted face-to-face by trained ISM interviewers. The time and place of the interview was chosen by the respondent in order to guarantee the privacy and confidentiality Time of data collection: May 14 to June 23, 2010 (Baseline survey) and November 02 to November 29, 2013 (Follow - up survey) Sample size: Baseline survey n=800; Follow-up survey n=809 149 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 d. Public officials and civil servants working in the justice sector d.1 Judges and prosecutors Universe: Surveys with judges and prosecutors were conducted with entire populations of these two target groups. So no sampling procedure was applied. All courts and prosecution offices, as well as all judges and prosecutors employed at the time of the survey were targeted. Since by definition the population included judges and prosecutors who were at this position in the time of the survey, the population of the baseline survey included only the reappointed judges and prosecutors, while the population of the follow-up survey included also the judges and prosecutors who were not reappointed at the time of the baseline study but were returned to work, as well as new employed. Method of data collection: The self-administration method was used in order to guarantee the privacy and confidentiality. The respondents were provided with questionnaire and envelope with stamp and ISM address. After filling out the questionnaire the respondent put the questionnaire in the envelope and seals the envelope. The respondents had two options to return the questionnaires: to send it by post, or to give it to the ISM representative who visited the court in agreed days and collect the questionnaires. Size of total and surveyed population, and response rate: Baseline survey Follow up survey Targeted Surveyed Response Targeted Surveyed Response population population rate population population rate Judges 2036 1075 52.8% 2824 1533 54.3% Prosecutors 417 201 48.2% 663 391 59% Judges: Response rate by type of court and region: Baseline survey Follow - up survey Type of court Court of general jurisdiction 49.5% Court of general jurisdiction 48.6% Court of special jurisdiction - economic and Commercial court 62.4% administrative 63.7% Misdemeanor authority 58.5% Court of special jurisdiction - misdemeanor 70.5% Region Belgrade 37.1% Belgrade 28.9% Vojvodina 55.4% Vojvodina 60.5% Central Serbia 59.8% Central Serbia 65.1% 150 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Prosecutors: Response rate by type of office and region: Baseline Follow-up Type of prosecution office Appellate 50.8% District 41.8% Higher 72.7% Municipal 50.2% Principal 54.7% Region Belgrade 30.6% Belgrade 43.8% Vojvodina 59.6% Vojvodina 69.9% Central Serbia 50.9% Central Serbia 61.8% d.2 Court administrative staff Sample universe: Employees in administrative services in Serbian courts at the time of the survey Type of sample: 43 courts were selected from the sampling frame of courts of General Jurisdiction, Misdemeanor and Commercial courts. The sampling frame was stratified by regions (Vojvodina, Belgrade, and Central Serbia) and type of court. The number of administrative staff in each stratum was allocated according to the size of court (where size was defined as the number of judges employed) and the need to achieve enough number of respondents in each sampling strata cell (at least 30 questionnaires in each strata cell, and at least 150 in Commercial Courts). Within each stratum, courts were selected according to the court size, so that the courts of bigger size were selected. This approach was used, because no reliable data on number of administrative stuff in each court were available. The number of administrative staff per court is allocated proportional to the courts’ sizes within each stratum. Method of data collection: The self-administration method was used in order to guarantee the privacy and confidentiality. The respondents were provided with the questionnaire and envelope with a stamp and ISM address. After filling out the questionnaire the respondent put the questionnaire in the envelope and seals the envelope. The respondents had two options to return the questionnaires: to send it by post, or to give it to the ISM representative who visited the court in agreed days and collect the questionnaires. Time of data collection: December 21, 2010 to January 25, 2011 (Baseline survey) and November 02 to December 21, 2013 (Follow - up survey) Sample size and response rate: 900 questionnaires were allocated in 2010 and 2013; 571 were fulfilled in baseline survey (response rate 63%), and 579 in follow-up (response rate 64%) A.3 Weighting procedure Weights were used in order for the sample to reflect structure of the universe, which might be disturbed due to non-response. Weighting procedures for general public Two weights were used. Rim-weighting (ranking ratio) procedure was applied to representative samples of the general public, using age, gender, education, region, and type of settlement as weighting classes. The incidence of court case experience recorded in the weighted sample was then used as a margin for weighting of the total sample for the general public (including the representative sample and the booster sample of those with court case experience), together with the already listed variables. Weighting procedures for business sector Rim-weighting (ranking ratio) procedure was applied, using geographical strata, main activity, and number of employees as weighting classes 151 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Weighting procedures for lawyers The sample of lawyers was weighted by the number of lawyers in each of the strata and in lawyers’ chambers Weighting procedures for judges and prosecutors / prosecutors’ deputies Since the surveys with judges and prosecutors were conducted with entire populations, the correction of the bias of the structure of these two populations due to incomplete response was corrected by post- stratification, in both baseline and follow-up surveys. The variables used for post-stratification were: geographical region, authority / prosecution offices the judges and prosecutors and prosecutors’ deputies worked in 2009 (for baseline survey) and 2013 (for follow-up survey), and gender figures. Weighting procedures for court administrative staff Post-stratification was applied in the follow-up survey based on allocation of surveyed population in the baseline survey. A.4 Questionnaire Data were collected with structured questionnaires. Questions for each of the measured values (efficiency, quality, fairness, integrity and accessibility) and services were selected based on experience with similar surveys in other countries, and adapted to reflect the needs of the Serbian judiciary. Questionnaires were constructed in a way to allow as much as it is possible the comparability of perceptions of users of court services, providers of court services, and lawyers. Questionnaires for users of court services consisted three modules: 1. General perception of the judiciary system and reforms (applied with all users of judiciary services); 2. Perceptions based on personal experience with court case (applied with users with experience with court proceedings); 3. Perceptions based on experience with court administrative services (applied with users with experience with court administrative services). The follow-up questionnaires were based on the baseline survey questionnaires, and further developed in a way to allow comparable tracking of the changes in perceptions of the justice sector performance, and gather additional relevant information. Note: The questions in the baseline questionnaire were all related to perceptions of the judicial system up to the end of year 2009. So, no matter that surveys were conducted in year 2010, the questions was formulated in a way to focus the respondents to the period before the implementation of the reform in January 2010. 152 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 A.5 Assessment of dimensions Court services Efficiency  Overall perception of efficiency (court services users, court services providers, and lawyers)  The average duration of proceedings before the first-instance judgment (court service users with experience with court case) / the percentage of cases that lasted longer than they should have for any reason (court services providers and lawyers)  The total (average) number of hearings (court services users with experience with court case) / average number of hearings per week in (court services providers and lawyers)  The percentage of canceled hearings and hearings that did not contribute to progress, and perceived reasons (court services users with experience with court case, court services providers and lawyers)  The percentage of judgments enforcement within the legal deadline (court users with experience with court case) / satisfaction with the procedure for enforcing court judgments (court services providers and lawyers)  Overall satisfaction with efficiency (court services users, court services providers and lawyers) Quality of services  Overall perception of quality (general public, business sector, judges, prosecutors, lawyers)  Perceived overall quality of judicial work in the reported cases (court services users with experience with court case) / perceived overall quality of the judiciary institution the employed worked for in 2009 (baseline) and 2013 (follow-up) (court services providers)  Legal quality of court decisions: Percentage of cases appealed and percentage of retrials in the cases reported by court users with experience with court case/ percentage of appeals overturned for retrial (court services providers and lawyers)  Quality of laws and their applications: Perceived quality of legislation (ambiguity of laws, objectivity, enforcement) (court services users, court services providers, lawyers) Accessibility  Perceived accessibility of the judiciary to the general public (independent of age, economic status, education, disability, and ethnicity) from the point of view of costs, geographical distance, building layout, and access to information (court services users, court services providers, and lawyers)  Experiences with accessibility in the cases reported by court users with experience with court case (difficulties with court building layout, accessibility of information, and associated costs) Fairness  Overall perception of fairness of the judiciary (court services users, court services providers, and lawyers)  Perceived fairness in cases reported by court users with experience with court case (taking the judgment into account)  Perceived fairness of the judiciary in general (court services users, court services providers, lawyers)  Perceived equality of treatment of all citizens (court services users, court services providers, lawyers) Integrity  Trust in institutions (position of the judiciary within the main state institutions, media and NGO) and factors perceived to undermine trust in the judiciary (court services users)  Overall perception of independence of the justice system (all target groups) / institutions perceived to jeopardize independence of the judiciary in 2009 and 2013 (court services providers and lawyers) 153 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013  Factors that jeopardized the independence of the judiciary in 2009 and 2013 (court services providers and lawyers)  Overall perception of corruption in the judiciary (court services users, court services providers, and lawyers)  Experience with corruption in the judiciary and perceived presence of corruption in the judiciary in 2009 and 2013 (court services users with experience with court cases, court services providers and lawyers) Court administrative services (the general public and business sector representatives with experience with court administrative services and court administrative services providers) Efficiency  Complexity of actions needed to complete the service (“windows” and locations to go)  Total time spent to complete the service  Overall satisfaction with efficiency Quality of services  Perceived overall quality of court administrative services  Evaluation of staff performance: knowledge, efficiency, pleasantness, proneness to corruption, indolence, and negligence Accessibility  How easy / difficult is it to navigate in the court building  Accessibility of information regarding administrative services  Accessibility of staff (accessing relevant offices, time spent waiting) Integrity  Personal experience with informal payments (asked and/or offered)  Perceived general presence of corruption in court administrative services A.6 Data analyses Data from the follow-up survey and baseline survey were analyzed and compared by using the appropriate statistical tests depending on the type of data. Means were compared by using appropriate models of analyses of variance (One Way analyses of variance was used for comparisons of means between two waves, and factorial models when means were compared by wave and type of cases). Parameters of relative proportions were estimated by 95% confidence intervals. For reader’s convenience, statistically significant differences on graphs are marked with an arrow. Note: An additional survey with a random representative sample of 1003 citizens 18+ (Omnibus survey) was conducted in January 2014. The objective of this survey was to collect more data on citizens’ perceptions of accessibility of judicial services to the general public. Results from this survey are presented in section “3. Access to judicial services”, and source of data is noted in the footnote. 154 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 ANNEX 2 QUESTIONNAIRES Questionnaire for General public Selection Questions S1 Did you PERSONALLY take part in a court proceeding 1. Yes I did S2 in the past three years, from the beginning of 2011 till 2. Not personally now? S6 S2 Was a first-instance judgment rendered in that case 1. Yes S4 in the period from the beginning 2011 up to now? 2. No S6 S4 Did you take part in the proceedings in the capacity 1. Physical person S5 of an authorized representative of a legal person or in 2. Authorized representative of a legal the capacity of a physical person? person S6 S5 You participated in the court proceedings in the 1. A party to the proceedings Module capacity of: P1a 2. A witness 3. An injured party 4. An observer (journalist, researcher, NGO, friend/relative...) 5. Other: _____________________________ S6 S6 Did you go to a courthouse in the in the period from 1. Yes S7 the beginning of 2011 up to now to complete any 2. No Module administrative tasks? P2 S7 Did you go to a courthouse in in the last 12 months 1. Yes Module to complete any administrative tasks? P1b 2. No Module P2 QUESTIONS IN MODULE P1A– EXPERIENCE WITH COURT CASES AND MODULE P2 – GENERAL PERCEPTION ARE TO BE ANSWERED BY RESPONDENTS WHO WERE INVOLVED IN A COURT DISPUTE WHICH WAS COMPLETED (IN WHICH AT LEAST A FIRST-INSTANCE JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED) IN THE IN THE PERIOD FROM THE BEGINNING OF 2011 UP TO TIME OF SURVEY QUESTIONS IN MODULE E1B– EXPERIENCE WITH ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES AND MODULE P2 – GENERAL PERCEPTION ARE TO BE ANSWERED BY RESPONDENTS WHO WERE NOT INVOLVED IN A COURT DISPUTE WHICH WAS COMPLETED IN PERIOD FROM THE BEGINNING OF 2011 UP TO NOW, BUT WHO HAD CONTACT WITH COURT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS QUESTIONS IN MODULE P2 – GENERAL PERCEPTION ARE TO BE ANSWERED BY RESPONDENTS WHO WERE NOT INVOLVED IN A COURT DISPUTE WHICH WAS COMPLETED IN THE PERIOD FROM THE BEGINNING OF 2011 UP TO NOW AND DID NOT HAVE CONTACT WITH COURT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS MODULE P1 a – Experience with Court Cases [Interviewer] All of the following questions regard ONE LAST CLOSED case, which ended in the past three years (IN THE PERIOD FROM THE BEGINNING OF JANUARY 2011) in which the respondent participated in the capacity of a PHYSICAL PERSON, that is, in the capacity of a DEFENDANT, PLAINTIFF/PROSECUTOR OR A PARTY IN LITIGATION (NOT as a witness, observer, damaged party...). A closed case entails the rendering of at least a first-instance judgment. This part of interview will regard first-instance proceedings. 155 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 P Experience with the Judicial System P1 Before which court were the first-instance 1. Principal proceedings conducted (IF STARTED BEFORE 2010, 2. Higher ASK: in which court the first-instance proceedings 3. Commercial Court ended)? 4. Higher Commercial Court [Interviewer] One response. Show card. 5. Misdemeanor 6. Higher misdemeanor 7. Administrative court P2 P2 What type of case was it? 1. Criminal 2. Misdemeanor 3. Civil P3 P3 What was your status in the proceedings? 1. Plaintiff/ accuser 2. Defendant 3. Party in the proceedings P4 P4 Please take a look at the list and specify what the case concerned. [Interviewer] Show card P5a. One response. Criminal Cases: Misdemeanor Cases: Civil (litigious) disputes regarding: 1. minor physical injury 1. public law and order 1. personal disputes 2. grave physical injury 2. movement of aliens 2. family disputes 3. homicide 3. traffic 3. labor disputes 4. rape 4. residence 4. commercial 5. robbery 5. other. disputes 6. theft 5. property-related 7. neglect and abuse of a disputes minor 6. other civil law 8. non-payment of disputes maintenance 9. domestic violence 10. human trafficking 11. possession of narcotics 95. Other, please specify_______________________________________________________________________________ ____________ P5 P5 Who was the other party to the proceedings? 1. Physical person 2. Private company 3. State company 4. Other state institutions 5. Other: _______________________________ ____ P6 P6 Did a lawyer represent you in the proceedings? 1. Yes, I hired a private lawyer P7 2. Yes, the state assigned me a lawyer 3. No, I did not hire a lawyer, I represented myself in the proceedings PA1 P7 Why did you decide to hire a lawyer? 1. I was unable to resolve the legal dispute myself 2. I was able to resolve the legal dispute myself but one gets everything done faster and more easily if one has a lawyer P8 P8 Did you ever go to the courthouse because of the 1. Yes case alone, without your lawyer? 2. No PA1 Efficiency of the Judicial System PA1 When was the case filed? ___________________ month _________________ year PA2 156 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 PA2 When did one of the parties appear before a judge for the first time? ___________________ month _________________ year PA3 PA3 When was the first-instance judgment rendered? ___________________ month _________________ year PA4 PA4 How long do you think the first-instance proceedings should have lasted? ___________________ months PA5 PA5 How many total hearings were scheduled in the first- instance court, including those that were scheduled ___________________ number of hearings but not held? PA6 PA6 How many of the scheduled hearings were not held i.e. cancelled? ___________________ number of hearings PA7 PA7 What was most frequently the Reasons why hearings were not held Num reason why the scheduled ber hearings were not held? Can you Reasons caused by the court approximate how many of the scheduled hearings were not Reasons caused by a party to the proceedings held for the following reasons? Reasons caused by other parties in the proceedings (witnesses, court experts...) Interviewer] The total sum must equal the number of scheduled Other reasons hearings that were not held and Total (number of hearings not held listed in PA6) specified in PA6 PA8 PA8 How many hearings would you assess as NOT HAVING SIGNIFICANTLY contributed to progress in the resolution of the case? ___________ number of hearings PA9 PA9 What were the main reasons why these hearings _____________________________ were not as efficient? _____________________________ [Interviewer] OPEN-ENDED QUESTION _____________________________ PA10 PA1 Did you or the other party appeal to a higher court? 1. Yes PA11 0 2. No PA13 PA1 What was the decision of the higher court after your 1. The judgment was overturned and a retrial 1 first appeal which you submitted following the ordered PA12 first instance court judgment? 2. The judgment was upheld 3. The higher court passed a more lenient judgment 4. The higher court passed a stricter judgment PA13 5. The case is still in process PA17 PA1 How many times was a retrial of your case ordered? ____________ times 2 PA13 Was a final judgment rendered in the case? 1. Yes, when ____________(month) PA1 ____________(year) PA14 3 2. No PA17 When was the judgment enforced? 1. __________ (months) ________ (years) PA1 PA15 4 2. The judgment has not been enforced yet PA16 PA1 Within which deadline was the judgment in your 1. Within the legal deadline 5 case enforced? 2. After the legal deadline [Interviewer] To be answered only by respondents in Don’t know whose case the judgment was enforced PA17 157 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 PA1 Has the legal deadline for the enforcement of the 1. Yes, it has expired 6 judgment expired? 2. No, it has not expired yet [Interviewer] To be answered only by respondents in Don’t know whose case the judgment was not enforced PA17 PA1 (ONLY FOR RESPONDENTS WHOSE CASES WERE FILED 1. More efficient after the beginning of 2010 7 BEFORE JANUARY 2010) 2. Less efficient after the beginning of 2010 When you think about the efficiency with which 3. No difference your case was handled by the court up to the end of 2009, and after the beginning of 2010, did you notice any difference? Was the court in handling your case after the beginning of 2010 more efficient, less efficient, or you did not notice any difference with regards to efficiency PB1 Quality of Services PB1 In Your opinion what was the quality of judicial work 1. Very low quality in that specific case? 2. Low quality 3. Average quality PB2 4. High quality 5. Very high quality PB3 PB2 [Interviewer] To be answered by Reason why you did not rate the quality of Chief Seco respondents who replied 2 or 3, judicial work more highly reason nd to Question PB1, most Which of the following would impo you identify as the main reason rtant explaining why you did not rate reas the quality of judicial work more on highly? Which was the second 1. The judge did not do his/her job well 1 1 most important reason? 2. The prosecutor did not do his/her 2 2 [Interviewer] One response. job well Show card. 3. Lack of staff 3 3 4. Poor organization 4 4 5. Poor working conditions (including low 5 5 remuneration) 6. Poor infrastructure (lack of office space, 6 6 equipment) 7. Bad laws 7 7 8. Contempt of court, improper conduct and 8 8 non-fulfillment of obligations to the court by the parties in the proceedings 9. Other: 9 9 _________________________________ 10 Other: 10 10 _________________________________ PB3 PB3 How satisfied were you with the work of the judge 1. Very dissatisfied in the first-instance court? 2. Dissatisfied 3. Satisfied 4. Very satisfied PB4 158 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 PB4 To what extent do you agree with the following assertions on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 represents ‘fully disagree’ and 4 represents ‘fully agree’? Fully Fully Don’t disagree agree know 1. The judge was efficient 1 2 3 4 9 2. The judge was polite and 1 2 3 4 9 pleasant 3. The judge was impartial, fair 1 2 3 4 9 and objective 4. The judge generated trust and 1 2 3 4 9 respect 5. The judge was not corrupt 1 2 3 4 9 PB5 PB5 How satisfied were you with the work of the other 1. Very dissatisfied court staff? 2. Dissatisfied 3. Satisfied 4. Very satisfied PB6 PB6 How satisfied were you with the facilities, technical 1. Very dissatisfied equipment (computers, cameras…) and other 2. Dissatisfied infrastructure elements in the judiciary? 3. Satisfied 4. Very satisfied PB7 PB7 (ONLY FOR RESPONDENTS WHOSE CASES WERE FILED 1. Higher quality after the beginning of BEFORE JANUARY 2010) 2010 When you think about the quality of judiciary work 2. Lower quality after the beginning of in your case up to the end of 2009 and after the 2010 beginning of 2010, did you notice any difference? 3. No difference Was the judiciary work in your case after the beginning of 2010 of higher quality, lower quality, or you did not notice any difference with regards to quality of judiciary work? PC1 Accessibility PC1 From your experience in this case, how easy or 1. Very difficult difficult was it for you to find your way around the 2. Mostly difficult court buildings? 3. Mostly easy 4. Very easy PC1a PC1 (ONLY FOR RESPONDENTS WHOSE CASES WERE FILED 1. Finding the way around court building a BEFORE JANUARY 2010) became easier When you think about finding your way around court 2. Finding the way around court building building, did you notice any changes after the became more difficult beginning of 2010? 3. I did not noticed any changes PC2 PC2 How easy or difficult was it for you or your attorney 1. Very difficult to access information regarding the case? 2. Mostly difficult 3. Mostly easy 4. Very easy 5. I do not know because the attorney gathered the information PC2a PC2 (ONLY FOR RESPONDENTS WHOSE CASES WERE FILED 1. Access to information became easier a BEFORE JANUARY 2010) 2. Access to information became more When you think about access to information, did you difficult notice any changes after the beginning of 2010? 3. I did not noticed any changes PC4 159 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 PC4 Which source of information did you use to find out what you needed to do in this specific case? [Interviewer] Accept multiple responses. How satisfied are you with those sources of information? Please rate your satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 represents very dissatisfied’ and 5 represents ‘very satisfied’. INTERVIEWER] Respondents are to rate their satisfaction only with respect to the sources they used Source of Very Dissatisfied Very Satisfi information dissatisfied satisfied ed used 1. Internet -1- 1 1 2 3 4 2. Television -2- 2 1 2 3 4 3. Radio -3- 3 1 2 3 4 4. Dailies and magazines -4- 4 1 2 3 4 5. Court bulletin boards -5- 5 1 2 3 4 6. Brochures, leaflets -6- 6 1 2 3 4 7. Information service (via -7- 7 1 2 3 4 the telephone) 8. Information counter -8- 8 1 2 3 4 9. Registry desk -9- 9 1 2 3 4 10. Archive -10- 10 1 2 3 4 11. Court staff -11- 11 1 2 3 4 12. Lawyers -12- 12 1 2 3 4 13. Friends, relatives, -13- 13 1 2 3 4 colleagues 14. Other:_________________ -14- 14 _____ PD1 Fairness If the respondent was a DEFENDANT in a court proceeding (check response P3), start with question PD1. If the respondent was a PLAINTIFF/PROSECUTOR, start with question PD4, and if s/he was a PARTY IN LITIGATION, start with question PD6. PD1 In the event the respondent was the defendant, Were 1. Acquitted PD7 you acquitted or found guilty by a first-instance court? 2. Found guilty PD2 PD2 What kind of penalty was held against you? 1. Prison sentence of …….. years/……. months/……days 2. Suspended prison sentence 3. Fine 4. Other: ____________________________ PD3 PD3 Was the penalty held against you fair, much too 1. The penalty was milder than I had harsh or did you fare better than expected? expected 2. The penalty was fair 3. The penalty was much too harsh PD7 PD4 In the event the respondent was the 1. Acquitted PD7 plaintiff/prosecutor or injured party: Was the defendant acquitted or found guilty by a first- 2. Found guilty instance court? PD5 PD5 Was the penalty milder than it should have been, 1. Milder than it should have been adequate or harsher than it should have been? 2. Adequate 3. Harsher than it should have been PD7 PD6 In the event the respondent was involved in a civil suit, 1. Yes, fully Was the first-instance judgment in your favor? 2. Yes, partly 3. No PD7 160 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 PD7 ANSWER ALL RESPONDENT: Notwithstanding the 1. Yes, fully outcome of the court proceedings, what do you 2. Yes, mostly think of the first-instance proceedings themselves? 3. No Did you have a fair trial? PD8 PD8 Did you file an appeal? 1. Yes 2. No PD9 PD9 Do you trust appellate system? 1. Yes 2. No PE1 Integrity PE1 During the proceedings, did anyone (attorney, court 1. Yes employee) suggest that your case would be 2. No adjudicated more efficiently if you resorted to Refuse to answer informal means (made an additional payment, offered a gift, pulled strings…)? PE2 PE2 (A) Did you ever find yourself in circumstances in 1. Yes PE3 which you resorted to informal means (made an 2. No PF1 additional payment, offered a gift, pulled strings…) Refuse to answer to have your case adjudicated more efficiently? PE3 What did you do? 1. I pulled strings (with an employee, exerted PF1 political influence…) 2. I made an additional payment 3. I gave a gift 4. I rendered a “service in return” 5. Other: ___________________________________ ____ Refuse to answer Cost Effectiveness PF1 How much did the case cost you altogether? Total costs imply all court costs and taxes, the lawyer's fee ________________ Euros and travel costs (but does not include fines). PF2 PF2 Can you specify the individual costs, i.e. break the 1. Court costs___________Euros total costs down to court costs, lawyer’s fee, travel 2. Lawyer’s fee ________Euros costs and other costs if any? 3. Travel costs________Euros 4. Other costs__________________Euros PF3 PF3 Do you think the costs were small, “reasonable” or 1. Small excessive given the quality of court services you 2. Reasonable were provided? 3. Excessive 4. Don’t know PF4 PF4 How much of a burden for your budget were these 1. Hugely costs? 2. Greatly 3. Moderately 4. A little 5. Negligibly PF5 PF5 Do you know what a mediation process in resolving 1. Yes, ________________ [Interviewer] PF6 the disputes is? Open-ended question 2. No PG1 PF6 How useful is a mediation process in resolving the 1. Not useful PG1 disputes to parties to court proceedings, i.e. can it 2. Partly useful help settle a dispute? 3. Very useful 4. Don’t know 161 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Administrative Affairs PG1 Did you have to complete some administrative tasks 1. Yes PG1a relevant to your case in the court? 2. No Module P2 PG1 (ONLY FOR RESPONDENTS WHOSE CASES WERE FILED 1. All before January 2010 a BEFORE JANUARY 2010) 2. Some before January 2010, some When did you complete the administrative tasks? after January 2010 3. All after January 2010 PG2 PG2 What did the administrative tasks involve? 1. Authentication (of documents and Multiple answers contracts) 2. Receipt and expedition of documents 3. Administrative task related to land registries 4. Administrative task related to archives 5. Administrative task at registry desk 6. Render a statement 7. Other PG3 PG3 Did you complete the administrative tasks yourself or 1. I completed them myself did your lawyer complete them on your behalf? 2. I completed them myself, but my lawyer accompanied me PG4 3. The lawyer completed them himself Module P2 PG4 How many times did you have to come to the _______________ times PG5 courthouse to complete the task(s) related to the case? PG5 How much time did you spend in the courthouse on ______________ minutes PG6 average every time you came to complete the task(s) related to the case? PG6 How satisfied were you with the efficiency of the 1. Very dissatisfied Module court administrative service? Efficiency entails no 2. Dissatisfied P2 waste of time and the fast and quality completion of the task(s). 3. Satisfied 4. Very satisfied MODULE P1 b – Experience with Administrative Services A Experience with Judicial Administrative Services A1 Which specific ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS led you to 1. Authentication (of documents and visit the court in the last 12 months? contracts) [Interviewer] List the three chief ones. 2. Receipt and expedition of documents 3. Administrative task related to land registries 4. Administrative task related to archives 5. Administrative task at registry desk 6. Making a statement 7. Other: A2 162 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 NOW PLEASE FOCUS ON THE LAST ADMINISTRATIVE TASK YOU COMPLETED IN THE COURTHOUSE A2 What administrative task was at issue? 1. Authentication (of documents and contracts) 2. Receipt and expedition of documents 3. Administrative task related to land registries 4. Administrative task related to archives 5. Administrative task at registry desk 6. Render a statement 7. Other A3 A3 Which courts did you go to in order to complete the 1. Principal task? 2. Superior [Interviewer] One response. If the respondent went to 3. Appellate more than one court, s/he should list the one s/he 4. Supreme court of cassation went to most often. 5. Economic court 6. Economic Appellate court 7. Administrative court 8. Misdemeanor court 9. Superior Misdemeanor court A4 A4 Did you on those occasions interact with service 1. Service counter staff counter or office staff? 2. Office staff 3. Both A5 A5 Did your lawyer assist you in the completion of this 1. Yes A6 administrative task? 2. No AA1 A6 Did you ever go alone, without your lawyer, to the 1. Yes courthouse because of this administrative task? 2. No AA1 Efficiency AA1 While you were completing your administrative task, did 1. I had to ‘go from door to door’ you have to “go from door to door” or were you able to 2. I got most done at one location but I did complete the task at one location? have to ‘go from door to door’ 3. I got everything done at one location AA2 AA2 How many times did you have to go to the courthouse to _______________ times complete the task? [Interviewer] One visit to the courthouse includes also any trips to the bank or post office to pay a tax but all the time spent during that one visit ( including any trips to the bank or post office) is to be reckoned AA3 AA3 How much total time did you spend completing this task? _____________hours ____________minutes AA4 AA4 How much of that time did you spend IN THE COURTHOUSE to _____________hours complete this administrative task? ____________minutes AA5 AA5 Could the administrative task have been completed in 1. Yes AA6 less time given its complexity? 2. No AA7 AA6 What were the reasons why this task took longer time? 1. Insufficient number of service counters/staff, 2. Staff is slow because it is not trained well 3. Staff is slow because it is indolent 4. Lack of equipment (computers), 5. The procedure is complicated 6. Lack of information 7. Other: ___________________________ AA7 AA7 How satisfied are you with the efficiency of the 1. Very dissatisfied administrative court service? Efficiency entails no waste 2. Dissatisfied of time and the fast and quality completion of the task. 3. Satisfied 4. Very satisfied AB1 163 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Quality of Services AB1 What is your general impression of the quality of 1. Very low quality work of the judiciary in that specific administrative 2. Low quality case? 3. Average quality 4. High quality [ANK] Single response. Read out the answers! 5. Very high quality AB2 AB2 Please rate the staff in the court administrative services with respect to the following features. Please rate the level of ………. of the staff you interacted with on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents ‘very low level’ and 5 ‘very high level’. Very low Very high Can’t say level level 1. Knowledge 1 2 3 4 5 99 2. Efficiency 1 2 3 4 5 99 3. Pleasantness 1 2 3 4 5 99 These were positive features. Now please rate the staff in the court administrative services with respect to the following negative features, on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents ‘very low level’ and 5 represents ‘very high level’: Very low Very high Can’t say level level 4. Proneness to 1 2 3 4 5 99 corruption 5. Indolence 1 2 3 4 5 99 6. Negligence 1 2 3 4 5 99 AC1 Accessibility AC1 How easy or difficult was it for you to find your way in 1. Very difficult the court buildings? To recall, we are talking about the 2. Mostly difficult period of the last 12 months. 3. Mostly easy 4. Very easy AC2 AC2 How easy or hard was it for you or your attorney to access 1. Very difficult information regarding your administrative task: where 2. Mostly difficult AC3 you should go, what you should do, what document you need...? 3. Mostly easy 4. Very easy AC4 AC3 [Interviewer] To be answered by respondents who said it ______________________________ was not easy to access such information, answer 1 or 2 to ______________________________ AC2 Please give an example of information that was difficult ______________________________ (or impossible) to access. ______________________________ ____ AC4 164 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 AC4 AC4a. Which source of information did you use to find out what you needed to do in this specific case? [Interviewer] Accept multiple responses. AC4b. How satisfied are you with those sources of information? Please rate your satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 represents very dissatisfied’ and 5 represents ‘very satisfied’. INTERVIEWER] Respondents are to rate their satisfaction only with respect to the sources they used Source of Very Dissatisfied Satisfied Very informatio dissatisfied satisfie n used d 1. Internet 1 1 2 3 4 2. Television 2 1 2 3 4 3. Radio 3 1 2 3 4 4. Dailies magazines 4 1 2 3 4 5. Court bulletin boards 5 1 2 3 4 6. Brochures, leaflets 6 1 2 3 4 7. Information service (via the 7 1 2 3 4 telephone) 8. Information counter 8 1 2 3 4 9. Registry desk 9 1 2 3 4 10. Archive 10 1 2 3 4 11. Court staff 11 1 2 3 4 12. Attorney 12 1 2 3 4 13. Friends, relatives, colleagues 13 1 2 3 4 14. Other: 14 1 2 3 4 ____________________ _____ AC5 AC5 Please recall the last time you went to the courthouse to get something done with respect to this concrete administrative task. Please rate your satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 represents very dissatisfied’ and 5 represents ‘very satisfied’. How satisfied were you with: Very Dissatisfie Satisfied Very Don’t dissatisfie d satisfied know/ d Can’t estima te 1. Court working hours 1 2 3 4 99 2. Ease of accessing relevant 1 2 3 4 99 offices/service counters 3. Ease of accessing relevant staff 1 2 3 4 99 4. Staff conduct 1 2 3 4 99 5. Time spent waiting your turn 1 2 3 4 99 6. Court security service conduct 1 2 3 4 99 AC6 AC6 How accessible were administrative services in 1. Very inaccessible courts to citizens in Serbia in the last 12 months? 2. Mostly inaccessible 3. Mostly accessible 4. Very accessible AE1 165 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Integrity AE1 Was there corruption in court administrative services? 1. To a great extent 2. To an extent 3. There was no corruption Don’t know Refuse to answer AE2 AE2 Did ever anyone (attorney, court employee) suggest that 1. Yes AE2a you would complete your administrative task in court 2. No faster if you resorted to informal means (made an Refuse to answer additional payment, offered a gift, pulled strings…)? AAE 3 AE2 Did anyone suggest it in the last 12 months? 1. Yes a 2. No AE3 Refuse to answer A AE3 Did you ever find yourself in circumstances in which you 1. Yes AE4 resorted to informal means (made an additional 2. No payment, offered a gift, pulled strings…) to complete Refuse to answer your administrative task in court faster? AE5 AE4 What did you do? 1. I pulled strings (with an employee, MULTIPLE CHOICE exerted political influence…) 2. I made an additional payment 3. I gave a gift 4. I rendered a “service in return” 5. Other: _____________________________ ________ AE5 AE5 Do you know anyone who resorted to informal means 1. Yes AE6 (made an additional payment, gave a gift, pulled 2. No strings…) to speed up the completion of an Don’t know administrative task in court? AF1 AE6 What did the informal means entail? 1. Pulling strings (with an employee, exerting political influence…) 2. Additional payment 3. Gift 4. Rendering “a service in return” 5. Other: _____________________________________ __ AF1 Cost Effectiveness AF1 How much did the last administrative task in the court cost you altogether? Total costs imply all court costs and ________________ Euros taxes, the lawyer's fee and travel costs (but do not include fines). AF2 AF2 Can you specify the individual costs, i.e. break the total 1. Court costs___________Euros costs down to court costs, lawyer’s fee, travel costs and 2. Lawyer’s fee ________Euros other costs if any? 3. Travel costs________Euros 4. Other costs__________________euros AF3 AF3 Do you think the OVERALL costs were small, “reasonable” 1. Small or excessive given the quality of the administrative 2. Reasonable services you were provided? 3. Excessive AF4 AF4 How much of a burden for your budget were these costs? 1. Huge 2. Great 3. Moderate 4. A little 5. Negligible MA1 166 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 MODULE P2 – general perception TILL NOW WE SPOKE ABOUT YOUR SPECIFIC EXPIRIENCE. NOW I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR VIEWS OF THE WORK OF COURTS IN SERBIA IN GENERAL MA Efficiency of the Judicial System MA1 What is your general opinion of how the judicial 1. Very negative system in Serbia functioned over the past few 2. Negative MA2 years? 3. Satisfactory MA1 a 4. Positive 5. Very positive MA2 MA1 (ASK ONLY THE RESPONDENTS WHO ANSWERED 1. Negative a ‘SATISFACTORY’ ON MA1) But if in expressing your 2. Positive opinion about functioning of judiciary system you should opt only between negative and positive, which side your opinion would be closer to? MA2 MA2 I will now read out a number of statements on the judicial system and how it may affect the life of citizens. Please rate your agreement with each statement on a scale of 1 to 4 where 1 represents ‘fully disagree’ and 4 represents ‘fully agree’: Fully Mostly Mostly Fully Don’t disagree disagree agree agree Know 1. The judicial system is fair, 1 2 3 4 -9 impartial and not corrupt 2. The judicial system is fast 1 2 3 4 -9 3. The judicial system is capable 1 2 3 4 -9 of enforcing court decisions MA3 MA3 To what extent is the judicial system is a problem Not an Small Modera Big Huge D in the life of citizens in Serbia? Please answer on a obstacl obstacl te obstac obstac K scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents ‘not an obstacle’ e e obstacl le le and 5 represents ‘huge obstacle’. e 1 2 3 4 5 9 MA4 MA4 Did you have a dispute in the period 2011-2013 1. Yes MA5 which you thought should be settled in court but you decided against such action for some reason? 2. No MB1 MA5 Why didn’t you take the case to court? 1. I distrust the court system in general What was the main reason why you didn’t take the 2. I did not expect a fair judgment case to court? 3. I knew I would be unable to cover the costs of [Interviewer] One response. Show card. the proceedings 4. The court proceedings would have lasted too long 5. I thought the case was not significant enough to take it to court 6. We found a solution/settled the dispute in another way 7. The court decision would not have been enforced anyway 8. Other: __________________________________ _______ MA6 167 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 MA6 How did you settle the dispute? 1. By negotiating with the other party MB1 2. By opting for the mediation process in resolving the disputes (formal) 3. By opting for another, informal way of settling the dispute (via a third party, decision by an informal authority…) 4. I have not settled the dispute 5. Other: _____________________________________ ______ MB Quality of Work MB1 What is your general impression of the quality of 1. Very low work of the judiciary in the past few years? 2. Low MC1 3. Moderate MB1 a 4. High 5. Very high MC1 MB1a (ASK ONLY THE RESPONDENTS WHO ANSWERED 1. Low SATISFACTORY ON MB1) But if in expressing your 2. High opinion about quality of judiciary work you should opt only between low and high, which side your opinion would be closer to? MC1 MC Accessibility MC1 Did you ever seek information on your legal rights? 1. Yes MC1a 2. No MC3 MC And did you seek information on your legal rights in 1. Yes MC2 1a last 3 years? 2. No MC3 MC2 How easy or difficult was it for you to access such 1. Very difficult information? 2. Mostly difficult 3. Mostly easy 4. Very easy MC3 MC3 What sources of information on legal rights and the 1. Internet MC4 work of the judiciary are available to citizens? 2. Television 3. Radio [Interviewer] Accept multiple responses. Show card. 4. Dailies and magazines 5. Court bulletin boards 6. Brochures, leaflets 7. Information service (via the telephone) 8. Information counter 9. Registry desk 10. Archive 11. Court staff 12. Lawyers 13. Friends, relatives, colleagues 14. Other__________________________ ___________ 168 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 MC4 How accessible is the judicial system to you personally: MC5 Very Mostly Mostly Very Don’t know inaccessi inaccessi accessibl accessibl ble ble e e 1. In terms of finances – given the court-related costs (court taxes, 1 2 3 4 9 trial costs, travel costs)? 2. In terms of finances – given the attorney-related expenses? 1 2 3 4 9 3. In terms of geography – given the distance of the courthouse? 1 2 3 4 9 4. In terms of layout – how easy was it to find your way and move 1 2 3 4 9 around the courthouse? 5. In terms of access to information 1 2 3 4 9 MC When you think about the last few years, Not in the Hardly Mostly Fully 5 to what extent was the judicial system in least Serbia equally accessible to all citizens notwithstanding their age, education level, financial status, nationality, handicap, the language they use… Please 1 2 3 4 rate it on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 represents ‘Not in the least’ and 4 represents ‘Fully’. MD1 MD Fairness MD In your opinion, how fair was the judicial system in 1. Very unfair 1 the last 12 months? Please evaluate on the scale 2. Mainly unfair from 1 to 4, where 1 means that it was very unfair, 3. Mainly fair and 4 means that it was very fair. 4. Very fair MD2 MD I will now read out a number of statements on the judicial system. Please rate your agreement with MD3 2 each statement on a scale of 1 to 4 where 1 represents ‘fully disagree’ and 4 represents ‘fully agree’: Fully Fully agree DK disagree 1. The laws are not good 1 2 3 4 9 enough 2. The laws are not enforced 1 2 3 4 9 in practice 3. The laws do not apply 1 2 3 4 9 equally to everyone MD In your view, do the judicial system in Serbia equally treat all citizens notwithstanding their: 3 Yes No 1. Gender 1 2 2. Age 1 2 3. Nationality 1 2 4. Socio-economic status 1 2 5. Place of residence 1 2 6. Education 1 2 7. Disability 1 2 8. Other______________________ 1 2 ME1 169 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 ME Integrity ME1 Please rate the degree in which you trust the following sectors and institutions on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents ‘do not trust at all’ and 5 represents ‘trust fully’. [Interviewer] Show card A1 with the scale. Ask about trust in each individual institution listed in the table. Rotate the order of institutions for each respondent. Both Do not Mostly DK/R trust Mostly Trust trust at do not efus and trust fully all trust es distrust 1. Government 1 2 3 4 5 9 2. National Assembly 1 2 3 4 5 9 3. President 1 2 3 4 5 9 4. Judicial System 1 2 3 4 5 9 5. Police 1 2 3 4 5 9 6. Church 1 2 3 4 5 9 7. Education System 1 2 3 4 5 9 8. Health System 1 2 3 4 5 9 9. Army 1 2 3 4 5 9 10. Media 1 2 3 4 5 9 11. NGOs in Serbia 1 2 3 4 5 9 ME2 ME2 To what extent was the judicial Not Mostly Mostly Fully system in Serbia in the last 12 months indepen not indepen indepen truly independent from the executive Don’t authorities (politics)? Please rate its dent indepen dent dent know independence on a scale of 1 to 4, dent where 1 is “hardly independent” and 4 is “greatly independent". 1 2 3 4 9 ME3 ME3 ME3a. To what extent did the following factors undermine the trust of citizens in the judicial system in the last 12 months? Please give your assessment on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 represents “Not at all” and 4 represents “To a great extent”. ME3b. Which of these factors undermined trust in the judicial system in the last 12 months the most? Not at all Mostly not To an extent To a great Chief extent factor 1. Corruption in the judicial system 1 2 3 4 1 2. Political/politicians’ influence on the 1 2 3 4 2 court 3. Poor, non-transparent personnel policy 1 2 3 4 3 – how staff is recruited and promoted, appointed to senior posts 4. Inadequate penalties for corruption 1 2 3 4 4 5. Length of proceedings 1 2 3 4 5 6. Content of court decisions 1 2 3 4 6 7. Sensationalist/exaggerated media 1 2 3 4 7 reports 8. Lack of fairness 1 2 3 4 8 9. Selective initiation of cases by the 1 2 3 4 9 prosecution Other: ______________________________________ 9 ME3a 170 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 ME3 To what extent did partiality of judges due to 1. Not at all a improper influence of other judges, lawyers and 2. Mostly not other persons participating in the proceedings 3. To an extent undermine the integrity of the judicial system in the 4. To a great extent last 12 months? ME4 ME4 How would you rate the reputation judges in Serbia 1. Very poor enjoy in public? 2. Mostly poor 3. Neither poor nor good 4. Mostly good 5. Very good ME5 ME5 How would you assess the 1. Very poor reputation prosecutors enjoy in the 2. Mostly poor Serbian public? 3. Neither poor nor good 4. Mostly good 5. Very good ME6 ME6 How would you assess the 1. Very poor reputation other judicial staff enjoy 2. Mostly poor in the Serbian public? 3. Neither poor nor good 4. Mostly good 5. Very good ME7 ME7 How would you assess the 1. Very poor reputation lawyers enjoy in the 2. Mostly poor Serbian public? 3. Neither poor nor good 4. Mostly good 5. Very good ME8 ME8 What image of the judicial system do media in Serbia 1. 1. The image is worse than reality generate in general? 2. 2. The image is objective [Interviewer] Show card. One response. 3. 3. The image is better than reality Don’t know ME9 ME9 How present is corruption in the following sectors and institutions on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents ‘not at all’ and 5 ‘ to a great degree’? [Interviewer] Show card A1 with the scale. Ask about corruption in each individual institution listed in the table. Rotate the order of institutions for each respondent. DK/ To a Not at Ref great all use degree s 1. Government 1 2 3 4 5 9 2. National Assembly 1 2 3 4 5 9 3. President 1 2 3 4 5 9 4. Judicial System 1 2 3 4 5 9 5. Police 1 2 3 4 5 9 6. Church 1 2 3 4 5 9 7. Education System 1 2 3 4 5 9 8. Health System 1 2 3 4 5 9 9. Army 1 2 3 4 5 9 10. Media 1 2 3 4 5 9 11. NGOs in Serbia 1 2 3 4 5 9 ME10 ME10 If the respondent replied 3, 4 or 5 with respect to 1. I or members of my household personally corruption in the judiciary, experienced corruption in the judiciary Why do you think so? ME11 171 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 2. Based on the direct experience of people we are in close touch with 3. Based on the information in the media or from other sources ME11 If the respondent replied 3, 4 or 5 with respect to 1. No, no efforts were invested ME13 corruption in the judiciary: According to information 2. Yes, minor efforts were invested you have, were any efforts made to suppress 3. Yes, major efforts were invested corruption in the judiciary in the period 2011 and DK (Don’t know – do not read out) 2013? ME12 ME12 How efficient were those efforts? 1. They were inefficient 2. They were efficient, but not to a sufficient extent 3. They were very efficient DK (Don’t know – do not read out) ME13 ME13 Have you heard about new NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR 1. 1. Yes ME14 FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION for the period 2013 to 2018 which was adopted in Parliament in July 2013? 2. 2. No MMG1 ME14 What are your expectation about how effective this 1. It will be ineffective strategy will be in fighting corruption? 2. It will be effective, but not to a sufficient extent 3. It will be very effective DK .............................................................. (Don’t know – do not read out) MG1 MG Judicial Reform launched in 2010 MG1 Have you heard about the judicial system reform 1. Yes MG2 launched in January 2010? 2. No MH1 MG2 Can you specify anything that has been done within a the framework of this judicial reform? MG3 MG3 How well informed are you about the judicial 1. Note informed at all system reform launched in January 2010? Please 2. Mainly mot informed reply on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents ‘not 3. Fairly infomred informed at all’ and 5 represents ‘very well 4. Mainly informed informed’. 5. Very well informed MG4 MG4 What is your main source of information about this 1. Media (TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, judicial system reform? websites...) 2. Court bulletin boards, brochures, leaflets for the general public 3. Official Gazette 4. Attorney, legal representative, legal department 5. Friends, acquaintances 6. Other:______________________________ ________ 7. None MG5 MG5 Do you support the judicial system reform launched 1. Fully MG6 in January 2010 in general? 2. To an extent MG6 and MG7 3. No MMG7 Don’t know, don’t have information (do not read) MG8 MG6 Why do you support the reform? ______________________________________ MG7 ______________________________________ or MG8 172 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 ______________________________________ _________________________________ MG7 Why not? _______________________________ _______________________________ _______________________________ ______________________________ MG8 MG8 To what extent did the judicial system reform launched on 1 January 2010 improve the following dimensions of the judicial system? Dimensions Impro Don’t Did not Worsene Impro ved know Worsene bring d to a ved to to a d to an any great an great extent change extent extent exten s t 1. Efficiency (e.g. duration of proceedings, -2 -1 0 1 2 9 work time spent, number of hearings...) 2. Quality of working conditions (e.g.: working conditions, organization of -2 -1 0 1 2 work, work climate...) 3. Accessibility (e.g. accessibility of judicial services notwithstanding age, -2 -1 0 1 2 9 education level, financial status, nationality….) 4. Fairness (e.g. penal policy, non-selective enforcement of the law, consistent -2 -1 0 1 2 9 enforcement of the law…) 5. Trust (e.g.: judicial independence, lack -2 -1 0 1 2 9 of corruption in the judiciary) 6. More rational spending of budget funds -2 -1 0 1 2 9 MG9 MG9 About 1/3 of the judges were not reelected during 1. Yes MG10 the reform in 2010. All of them have been recently 2. No MG11 returned to their position by decision of Constitutional court. Have you heard about this? MG10 What is your opinion of it? 1. Very bad MG11 2. Mostly bad 3. Neither bad nor good 4. Mostly good 5. Very good MG11 Have you heard that a new law on the seizure of 1. Yes, I heard that the law was adopted MG12 proceeds of crime has been adopted in April 2013, and of cases in which it was applied and of any cases in which it has been applied? 2. Yes, I heard that the law was adopted, but I haven’t heard of any cases in which it was applied 3. No MH1 MG12 What is your opinion of it? 1. I don’t support it at all MH1 2. Mostly bad 3. Neither bad nor good 4. Mostly good 5. I fully support it MH National Judicial Reform Strategy for the period from 2013 to 2018 MH1 Have you heard about the new National Judicial 1. Yes MH2 Reform Strategy for the period from 2013 to 2018 2. No Dem1 which was adopted in Parliament in July 2013? MH2 Can you specify anything that you have heard to ________________________________________ have been stipulated in this Strategy? ________________________________________ MH3 173 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 ________________________________________ ___________________________ MH3 And how well informed are you about new 1. Note informed at all National Judicial Reform Strategy adopted in July 2. Mainly mot informed 2013? Please use again a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 3. Fairly infomred represents ‘not informed at all’ and 5 represents 4. Mainly informed ‘very well informed’. 5. Very well infomrmed MH4 MH4 What is your main source of information about this 1. Media (TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, Strategy? websites...) 2. Court bulletin boards, brochures, leaflets for the general public 3. Official Gazette 4. Attorney, legal representative, legal department 5. Friends, acquaintances 6. Other: ________________________________ ________ MH5 MH5 Do you support this new National Judicial Reform 1. Fully MH6 Strategy adopted in July 2013 in general? 2. To an extent MH6 and MH7 3. No MH7 Don’t know, don’t have information (do not read) Dem1 MH6 Why do you support? ________________________________________ ________________________________________ MH7 ________________________________________ or ___________________________ Dem1 MH7 Why not? ________________________________________ ________________________________ Dem1 Demography Dem Gender: 1. Male 2. Female 1 Dem Age: ________________years old 2 Dem Marital status: 1. 1. Single, not living with a partner 4 2. 2. Married, living with a partner 3. 3. Divorced and other (used to be married) Dem Education – last FINISHED 1. Unfinished elementary school 5. Finished secondary school 5 education: 2. Finished elementary school 6. Unfinished faculty 3. Unfinished secondary school 7. Finished college [INT] Show card Dem5 4. Unfinished secondary school, but 8. Finished faculty with a trade Dem Current Employed in a company: Self-employed: Unemployed: 6a occupation: 11. Unskilled manual worker 21. Highly qualified 31. Pupil 12. Semiskilled and skilled intellectual who is self- 32. Student manual worker employed (lawyer, doctor, 33. Homemaker 13. White-collar teacher…) 34. Maternity leave (administration etc) 22. Owns a small company, 35. Pensioner 14. Highly qualified workshop etc 36. Unemployed intellectual (lawyer, doctor, 23. Owns a big company, (currently) teacher…) stockholder 40. Other:_________ 15. Mid-level executive 24. Farmer, manager fisherman/fisherwoman 16. Top-level executive 25. Earns in some other way manager Dem Type of household: 1. Lives alone 4. Married couple with grown- 6. Single parent 7a up children (over 27 years of age) 174 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 2. Married couple 5. Multigenerational family 7. Married couple, children without children live separately 3. Married couple with 95. Other children Dem Total number of household members _____________ no. of household members 7b Dem Total number of children under 18 in the household: 7c Dem Total number of family members with regular monthly 8b income: Dem Total HOUSEHOLD 1. No income in the 7. 20001 to 24000 dinars 13. 56001 to 64000 dinars 8c income in the previous previous month 8. 24001 to 30000 dinars 14. 64001 to 74000 dinars month: 2. Less than 8000 9. 30001 to 36000 dinars 15. 74001 to 86000 dinars dinars 10. 36001 to 42000 dinars 16. 86001 to 100000 3. 8001 to 10000 11. 42001 to 48000 dinars dinars dinars 12. 48001 to 56000 dinars 17. More than 100000 [INT] Show card Dem8c 4. 10001 to 13000 dinars dinars RF (Refuse to answer) 5. 13001 to 16000 dinars 6. 16001 to 20000 dinars 175 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Questionnaire for Enterprise managers from private sector Selection Question S1 What position do you hold in the company? 1. Owner, co-owner 2. Director 3. Deputy Director 4. Manager involved in company decision making S2 95. Other End MODULE E2 – General Perception I WOULD LIKE TO ASK YOU SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT YOUR VIEWS OF THE WORK OF COURTS IN SERBIA IN GENERAL MA Efficiency of the Judicial System MA1 What is your general opinion of how the judicial 1. Very negative system in Serbia functioned over the past few 2. Negative MA2 years? 3. Satisfactory MA1a 4. Positive 5. Very positive MA2 MA1 (ASK ONLY THE RESPONDENTS WHO ANSWERED 1. Negative a ‘SATISFACTORY’ ON MA1) But if in expressing your 2. Positive opinion about functioning of judiciary system you should opt only between negative and positive, which side your opinion would be closer to? MA2 MA2 I will now read out a number of statements on the judicial system and how they may affect the business sector. Please rate your agreement with each statement on a scale of 1 to 4 where 1 represents ‘fully disagree’ and 4 represents ‘fully Fully Mostly Fully Don’t Mostly disagree disagree agree agree Know 1. The judicial system is fair, 1 2 3 4 -9 impartial and not corrupt 2. The judicial system is fast 1 2 3 4 -9 3. The judicial system is capable of 1 2 3 4 -9 enforcing court decisions MA3 MA3 To what extent is the judicial system an Not an Small Modera Big Huge Do obstacle to the work of your company now? obstacl obstacl te obstacl obstacl n’t Please answer on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 e e obstacl e e Kn represents ‘not an obstacle’ and 5 represents e o ‘huge obstacle’. w 1 2 3 4 5 9 MA4 MA4 To what extent were your company’s operations burdened by 1. To a great extent the costs it sustained in interacting with judicial authorities in 2. A lot the period 2011-2013? 3. Average 4. A little 5. Negligibly MA5 176 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 MA5 Did your company have a dispute in the period 1. Yes MA6 2011-2013 which you thought should be settled in court but you decided against such an action for 2. No some reason? MB1 MA Why didn’t you take the case to court? What was the 1. We distrust the court system in general 6 main reason your company didn’t take the case to 2. We did not expect a fair judgment court? 3. We knew we would be unable to cover the costs of the proceedings [Interviewer] One response. Show card. 4. The court proceedings would have lasted too long 5. We thought the case was not significant enough to take it to court 6. We found a solution/settled the dispute in another way 7. The court decision would not have been enforced anyway 8. Other: ____________________________________ MA7 MA How did you settle the dispute? 1. By negotiating with the other party 7 2. By arbitration 3. By opting for the mediation process in resolving the disputes (formal) 4. By opting for another, informal way of settling the dispute (via a third party, decision by an informal authority…) 5. I have not settled the dispute 6. Other: ____________________________________ MB1 MB Quality of Work MB1 What is your general impression of the quality of 1. Very low quality work the judiciary offered companies like yours in 2. Low quality MC1 the past few years? 3. Average quality MB1a 4. High quality 5. Very high quality MC1 MB1 (ASK ONLY THE RESPONDENTS WHO ANSWERED 1. Low a ‘SATISFACTORY’ ON MB1) But if in expressing your 2. High opinion about quality of judiciary work you should opt only between negative and positive, which side your opinion would be closer to? MC1 MC Accessibility MC How accessible is the judicial system to your company: 1 Very Mainly Mainly Very Don’t know inaccessi inaccessi accessibl accessibl ble ble e e 1. In terms of finances – given the court-related costs (court taxes, 1 2 3 4 9 trial costs, travel costs)? 2. In terms of finances – given the attorney-related expenses? 1 2 3 4 9 3. In terms of geography – given the distance of the courthouse? 1 2 3 4 9 4. In terms of layout – how easy was it to find your way and 1 2 3 4 9 move around the courthouse? 5. In terms of access to information 1 2 3 4 9 MC2 177 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 MC When you think about the last few years, Not in the Hardly Mostly Fully 2 to what extent was the judicial system in least Serbia equally accessible to all legal persons, notwithstanding their size, origin of capital, political “connections”, headquarters… Please rate it on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 represents ‘Not in the 1 2 3 4 least’ and 4 represents ‘Fully’. MD1 MD Fairness MD In your opinion, how fair was the judicial system in 1. Very unfair 1 the last 12 months? Please evaluate on the scale 2. Mainly unfair from 1 to 4, where 1 means that it was very unfair, 3. Mainly fair and 4 means that it was very fair. 4. Very fair MD2 MD I will now read out a number of statements on the judicial system. Please rate your agreement with MD3 2 each statement on a scale of 1 to 4 where 1 represents ‘fully disagree’ and 4 represents ‘fully agree’: FOR LEGAL ENTITIES: Fully Fully agree DK disagree 1. The laws are not good 1 2 3 4 9 enough 2. The laws are not enforced in 1 2 3 4 9 practice 3. The laws do not apply 1 2 3 4 9 equally to everyone MD In your view, do the judicial system in Serbia equally treat all legal entities notwithstanding their: 3 Yes No 1. Geographic location of the company 1 2 2. Company size 1 2 3. Ownership structure of the company (state, private foreign, private domestic, 1 2 combined) 4. Company activity 1 2 5. Other__________________________________ ME1 ME Integrity ME1 To what extent was the judicial Not Mostly Mostly Fully system in Serbia in the last 12 months indepen not indepen indepen truly independent from the executive Don’t authorities (politics)? Please rate its dent indepen dent dent know independence on a scale of 1 to 4, dent where 1 is “hardly independent” and 4 is “greatly independent". 1 2 3 4 9 ME2 ME2 ME2a. To what extent did the following factors undermine the trust of the business sector in the judicial system in the last 12 months? Please give your assessment on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 represents “Not at all” and 4 represents “To a great extent”. ME2b. Which of these factors undermines trust of the business sector in the judicial system the most in the last 12 months? Not at all Mostly not To an To a great Chief extent extent factor 1. Corruption in the judicial system 1 2 3 4 1 2. Political/politicians’ influence on the 1 2 3 4 2 court and prosecutors ME2a 178 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 3. Poor, non-transparent personnel 1 2 3 4 3 policy – how staff is recruited and promoted, appointed to senior posts 4. Inadequate penalties for corruption 1 2 3 4 4 5. Length of proceedings 1 2 3 4 5 6. Court decisions 1 2 3 4 6 7. Sensationalist/exaggerated media 1 2 3 4 7 reports 8. Lack of fairness 1 2 3 4 8 9. Selective initiation of cases by the 1 2 3 4 9 prosecution Other: 1 2 3 4 10 _________________________________ _____ ME2 To what extent did partiality of judges due to 1. Not at all a improper influence of other judges, lawyers and 2. Mostly not other persons participating in the proceedings 3. To an extent undermine the integrity of the judicial system in the 4. To a great extent last 12 months ? ME3 ME3 How present is corruption in the following sectors and institutions on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents ‘not at all’ and 5 ‘ to a great degree’? [Interviewer] Show card A1 with the scale. Ask about trust in each individual institution listed in the table. Rotate the order of institutions for each respondent. DK/ To a Not at Ref great all use degree s 1. Government 1 2 3 4 5 9 2. National Assembly 1 2 3 4 5 9 3. President 1 2 3 4 5 9 4. Judicial System 1 2 3 4 5 9 5. Police 1 2 3 4 5 9 6. Church 1 2 3 4 5 9 7. Education System 1 2 3 4 5 9 8. Health System 1 2 3 4 5 9 9. Army 1 2 3 4 5 9 10. Media 1 2 3 4 5 9 11. NGOs in Serbia 1 2 3 4 5 9 ME4 ME4 If the respondent replied 3, 4 or 5 with respect to 1. Based on my company’s direct corruption in the judiciary, Why do you think so? experience 2. Based on the direct experience of a company we are in close contact with 3. Based on information in the media and from other sources ME5 ME5 If the respondent replied 3, 4 or 5 with respect to 1. No, no efforts were invested ME7 corruption in the judiciary, According to the 2. Yes, minor efforts were invested information you have, were any efforts invested to 3. Yes, major efforts were invested ME6 suppress corruption in the judiciary in the period 2011-2013? DK (Don’t know – do not read out) ME/ 179 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 ME6 How efficient were those efforts? 1. They were inefficient 2. They were efficient, but not to a sufficient extent 3. They were very efficient DK (Don’t know – do not read out) ME7 ME7 Have you heard about new NATIONAL STRATEGY 1. Yes ME8 FOR FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION which was 2. No adopted in Parliament in July 2013? MG1 ME8 What are your expectation about how effective this 1. It will be ineffective strategy will be in fighting corruption? 2. It will be effective, but not to a sufficient extent 3. It will be very effective DK MG1 MG Judicial Reform launched in 2010 MG1 Have you heard about the judicial system reform 1. Yes MG2 launched in January 2010? 2. No Dem1 MG2 Can you specify anything that has been done within a the framework of this judicial reform? MG3 How well informed are you about the judicial 1. Note informed at all system reform launched in January 2010? Please 2. Mainly mot informed reply on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents ‘not 3. Fairly infomred informed at all’ and 5 represents ‘very well 4. Mainly informed informed’. 5. Very well informed MG4 MG4 What is your main source of information about this 1. Media (TV, radio, newspapers, judicial system reform? magazines, websites...) 2. Court bulletin boards, brochures, leaflets for the general public 3. Official Gazette 4. Attorney, legal representative, legal department 5. Friends, acquaintances 6. Other: _____________________________ 7. None MG5 MG5 Do you support the judicial system reform 1. Fully MG6 launched in January 2010 in general? 2. To an extent MG6 and MG7 3. No MG7 6. Don’t know, don’t have information (do not read) MG8 MG6 Why do you support the reform? ________________________________________ MG7 ________________________________________ ________________________________________ ___________________________ MG7 Why not? _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ ___________________________ MG8 MG8 To what extent did the judicial system reform launched on 1 January 2010 improve the following dimensions of the judicial system? MG9 180 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Dimensions Worsene Improve Do Worsene Did not Improve d to a d to a n’t d to an bring any d to an great great kno extent changes extent extent extent w 1. Efficiency (e.g. duration of proceedings, -2 -1 0 1 2 9 work time spent, number of hearings...) 2. Quality of working conditions (e.g.: working conditions, organization of -2 -1 0 1 2 work, work climate...) 3. Accessibility (e.g. accessibility of judicial services notwithstanding age, -2 -1 0 1 2 9 education level, financial status, nationality….) 4. Fairness (e.g. penal policy, non-selective enforcement of the law, consistent -2 -1 0 1 2 9 enforcement of the law…) 5. Trust (e.g.: judicial independence, lack -2 -1 0 1 2 9 of corruption in the judiciary) 6. More rational spending of budget funds -2 -1 0 1 2 9 MG9 About 1/3 of the judges were not reelected during 1. Yes MG10 the reform in 2010. All of them have been recently returned to their position by decision of 2. No MG11 Constitutional court. Have you heard about this? MG10 What is your opinion of it? 1. Very bad MG11 2. Mostly bad 3. Neither bad nor good 4. Mostly good 5. Very good MG11 Have you heard that a new law on the seizure of 1. Yes, I heard that the law was adopted MG12 proceeds of crime has been adopted in April 2013, and of cases in which it was applied and of any cases in which it has been applied? 2. Yes, I heard that the law was adopted, but I haven’t heard of any cases in which it was applied 3. No MH1 MG12 What is your opinion of it? 1. I don’t support it at all MH1 2. Mostly bad 3. Neither bad nor good 4. Mostly good 5. I fully support it MH National Judicial Reform Strategy for the period from 2013 to 2018 MH1 Have you heard about the new National Judicial 1. Yes MH2 Reform Strategy for the period from 2013 to 2018 2. No Dem1 which was adopted in Parliament in July 2013? MH2 Can you specify anything that you have heard to _______________________________________ have been stipulated in this Strategy? _______________________________________ _______________________________________ ______________________________ MH3 MH3 And how well informed are you about new National 1. Note informed at all Judicial Reform Strategy adopted in July 2013? 2. Mainly mot informed Please use again a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents 3. Fairly infomred ‘not informed at all’ and 5 represents ‘very well 4. Mainly informed informed’. 5. Very well infomrmed MH4 MH4 What is your main source of information about this 1. Media (TV, radio, newspapers, Strategy? magazines, websites...) MH5 181 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 2. Court bulletin boards, brochures, leaflets for the general public 3. Official Gazette 4. Attorney, legal representative, legal department 5. Friends, acquaintances 6. Other: _______________________________ ________ 7. None MH5 Do you support this new National Judicial Reform 1. Fully MH6 Strategy adopted in July 2013 in general? 2. To an extent MH6 and MH7 3. No MH7 Don’t know, don’t have information (do not read) Dem1 MH6 Why do you support? _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ MH7 MH7 Why not? _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ _______________________________________ Dem1 Demography Dem Sex: 1. Male 2. Female 1 Dem Age: 2 Dem Education Level – Highest 1. Unfinished elementary school 5. Finished secondary school 5 degree OBTAINED: 2. Finished elementary school 6. Unfinished faculty [Interviewer] Show card 3. Unfinished secondary school 7. Finished college Dem5. 4. Unfinished secondary school, but 8. Finished faculty with a trade Dem Company headquarters: Enter: 6 Dem Main company activity – according to the activity 7 classification system (enter the name of activity)? Enter:: Dem Year of establishment? Enter:: 8 Dem Total number of employees in the company? Enter:: 9 Dem Company ownership status 1. Private 10 2. Mixed Dem Origin of capital 1. Foreign 11 2. Domestic 3. Mixed 4. Other, what?________________ Dem Annual turnover (in 2012) 6. From 600,000€ to 800,000€ 13 1. Under 50,000€ 7. From 800,000€ to 2. From 50,000 to 100,000€ 1,000,000€ 3. From 100,000 to 200,000€ 8. Over 1,000,000€ 4. From 200,000 to 400,000€ BO (Refuses– do not 5. From 400,000 to 600,000€ read out) THIS WOULD BE THE END OF THIS PART OF OUR CONVERSATION. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION AND YOUR TIME. COULD YOU ANSWER A FEW OTHER QUESTIONS TO HELP US FIND OUT WHOM ELSE TO ASK FOR ASSISTANCE? 182 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 X1 Was your company involved in a court proceeding 1. Yes X2 over the past three years, from the beginning of 2011 2. No up till now? X11 X2 Was a first-instance judgment in any of the cases 1. Yes X4 rendered in the period from the beginning of 2011 up 2. No X11 to now? X4 Please look at the list and specify what the last adjudicated case concerned. [Interviewer] Show card P4a. One response. Commercial Disputes: 1. disputes between domestic and foreign companies, firms, cooperatives and entrepreneurs and their associations (commercial entities); 2. disputes between commercial entities and other legal persons in operating the business of commercial entities; 3. disputes on copyright and related rights and the use and protection of inventions, models, samples, brands and geographic designations; 4. Disputes relating to enforcement and security within the jurisdiction of commercial courts; 5. Disputes arising from the application of the Company Law or the application of other rules of organization and status of business entities, as well as disputes about the application of regulations on privatization; 6. Disputes on foreign investments, ships and aircrafts, sailing in maritime and internal waters; disputes under maritime and air traffic law, except disputes on passenger transportation; 7. Disputes on the protection of company names; 8. Disputes on entry into the court register; 9. Disputes on bankruptcy, compulsory settlement and liquidation; 10. Disputes on the entry of companies, other legal persons and entities in the court register; Litigious disputes regarding: 1. labor disputes 2. property-related disputes 3. other litigious disputes 95. Other, please specify_______________________________________________________________ X5 X5 How much did the case cost your company altogether? Total costs imply all court costs and taxes, the lawyer's ________________ euros fee and travel costs (but do not include fines). X6 X6 Can you specify the individual costs, i.e. break the total 1. Court costs(including costs down to court costs, lawyer’s fee, travel costs and taxes)___________euros other costs if any? 2. Lawyer’s fee ________euros 3. Travel costs________euros 4. Other costs__________________euros X7 X7 Roughly estimate, the total work days of all employees ___________work days spent on activities related to this case? X8 X8 Do you think the TOTAL costs your company sustained 1. Small in this case were small, “reasonable” or excessive given 2. Reasonable the quality of court services you were provided? 3. Excessive [Interviewer] One response. (Read out the answers! Don’t Know (do not read out)) X9 X9 How much did the TOTAL costs burden company 1. Hugely business? 2. Greatly [Interviewer] One response. (Read out the answers! 3. Moderately 4. A little 5. Negligibly X10 X10 Who represents your company’s interests in interaction 1. Full-time company employee(s) with judicial authorities (in court proceedings)? (legal department) 2. An attorney we hire occasionally 3. Flat fee attorney X11 X11 Who in the company is charged with administrative ____________________________________ affairs? Please state his/her position. X12 183 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 IN THE EVENT THE COMPANY WAS INVOLVED IN A COURT DISPUTE WHICH WAS COMPLETED (IN WHICH AT LEAST A FIRST-INSTANCE JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED) IN THE PERIOD FROM THE BEGINNING OF 2011 UP TO TIME OF SURVEY MODULE E1A– EXPERIENCE WITH COURT CASES IS TO BE FILLED BY THE PERSON MOST VERSED IN THE DISPUTE. IN THE EVENT THE COMPANY WAS NOT INVOLVED IN A COURT DISPUTE WHICH WAS COMPLETED (AT LEAST A FIRST- INSTANCE JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED) IN THE PERIOD FROM THE BEGINNING OF 2011 UP TO THE MOMENT OF THE SURVEY MODULE E1B– EXPERIENCE WITH ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES IS TO BE FILLED BY THE COMPANY EMPLOYEE CHARGED WITH ADMINISTRATIVE AFFAIRS (QUESTION X9). X12 Who represented the company in the court on the last 1. Lawyer employed in the company case in which first instance judgment was rendered after (legal department of the company) January 2011? 2. Lawyer on a retainer 3. Lawyer hired just for this case 4. Owner / Manager of the company 5. Other: __________________________ X13 X12 Does the person who represented the company in in the 1. Yes P1 a court on the last case is the one who is answering Module 2. No E1a X13 X13 Position of the respondent who answer on the Module 3. Main respondent 1a: 4. Other employee of the company 5. Outside lawyer 6. Other: __________________________ P1 MODULE E1 a – Experience with Court Cases Respondent- person most versed in the dispute [Interviewer] All of the following questions regard ONE LAST CLOSED case, which ended in the past three years that is from the beginning of 2011 up to the time of survey. Closed case entails the rendering of at least a first-instance judgment. This part of interview will regard first-instance proceedings. P Experience with the Judicial System P1 Before which court were the first-instance 1. Principal proceedings conducted? 2. Higher [Interviewer] One response. Show card. 3. Commercial Court 4. Higher Commercial Court 5. Misdemeanor 6. Higher misdemeanor 7. Administrative court P2 P2 What type of case was it? 1. Litigious 2. Economic offence P3 P3 What was your company’s status in the proceedings? 1. Plaintiff/accuser 2. Defendant 3. Party to the proceedings P4 INFORM RESPONDENT WHO ANSWERS THESE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE CASE. SHOW RESPONDENT THE ANSWERS OF THE MANAGER TO THE QUESTIONS X2, X2A AND X3 IN ORDER TO BE SURE THAT IT IS THE SAME CASE P4 Who was the other party to the proceedings? 1. Physical person 2. Private company 3. State company 4. Other state institutions 5. Other: ________________________________ PA1 184 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Efficiency of the Judicial System PA1 When was the case filed? ___________________ month _________________ year PA2 PA2 When did one of the parties appear before a judge ___________________ month for the first time? _________________ year PA3 PA3 When was the first-instance judgment rendered? ___________________ month _________________ year PA4 PA4 How long do you think the first-instance proceedings should have reasonably lasted? ___________________ months PA5 PA5 How many hearings were scheduled altogether in the first-instance court, including those that were ___________________ number of hearings scheduled but not held? PA6 PA6 How many of the scheduled hearings were not held i.e. cancelled? ___________________ number of hearings PA7 PA7 What was the most frequent Reasons why hearings were not held Numbe reason the scheduled hearings r were not held? Approximately 1. Reasons caused by the court how many of the scheduled hearings were not held for the 2. Reasons caused by a party to the proceedings following reasons? 3. Reasons caused by other parties in the proceedings (witnesses, court experts...) Interviewer] The total sum must equal the number of scheduled 4. Other reasons hearings that were not held and Total (number of hearings not held listed in PA6) specified in PA6 PA8 PA8 How many hearings would you assess as NOT HAVING SIGNIFICANTLY contributed to progress in the resolution ___________________ number of hearings of the case? PA9 PA9 What were the main reasons why these hearings were _____________________________________ not as efficient? _______ [Interviewer] OPEN-ENDED QUESTION _____________________________________ _______ PA10 Did your company or the other party appeal to a higher 1. Yes PA11 PA1 court? 2. No PA13 0 PA1 How did the higher court rule on the first appeal against 1. Quashed the ruling and ordered a 1 the first instance court judgment? retrial PA12 [Interviewer] Show card PA12. One response. 2. Upheld the ruling 3. Imposed a milder penalty 4. Rendered a stricter penalty PA13 5. The proceedings are under way PA17 PA1 How many times was a retrial of your case ordered? ____________ times PA14 2 Was a final judgment rendered in the case? 1. Yes, when ____________(month) PA1 __________(year) PA14 3 2. No PA17 When was the judgment enforced? 1. __________ (months) ________ PA1 (years) PA15 4 2. The judgment has not been enforced yet PA16 PA1 Within which deadline was the judgment in your case 1. Within the legal deadline 5 enforced? 2. After the legal deadline [Interviewer] To be answered only by respondents in 3. Don’t know (don’t read) whose case the judgment was enforced PA17 PA1 Has the legal deadline for the enforcement of the 1. Yes, it has expired 6 judgment expired? 2. No, it has not expired yet PA17 185 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 [Interviewer] To be answered only by respondents in 3. Don’t know (don’t read) whose case the judgment was not enforced PA1 (ONLY FOR THE COMPANIES WHOSE CASES WERE FILED 1. More efficient after the beginning 7 BEFORE JANUARY 2010) of 2010 When you think about the efficiency with which your 2. Less efficient after the beginning of case was handled by the court up to the end of 2009, 2010 and after the beginning of 2010, did you notice any 3. No difference difference? Was the court in handling your case after the beginning of 2010 more efficient, less efficient, or you did not notice any difference with regards to efficiency PB1 Quality of Work PB1 In Your opinion what was the quality of judicial work 1. Very low quality in that specific case? 2. Low quality 3. Average quality PB2 4. High quality 5. Very high quality PB3 PB2 [Interviewer] To be answered by Reason why you did not rate the quality of Chief 2nd respondents who replied 1, 2 or judicial work more highly reason most 3 to Question PB1, import Which of the following reasons ant would you identify as the main reason reason you did not rate the 1. The judge did not do his/her job well 1 1 quality of judicial work more highly? Which was the second 2. The prosecutor did not do his/her job well 2 2 most important reason? 3 Lack of staff in institutions of the judicial 3 3 system [Interviewer] One response. 4. Poor organization in institutions of the 4 4 Show card. judicial system 5. Poor working conditions (including low 5 5 remuneration) in institutions of the judicial system 6. Poor infrastructure (lack of office space, 6 6 equipment) in institutions of the judicial system 7. Bad laws 7 7 8. Contempt of court, improper conduct and 8 8 non-fulfillment of obligations to the court by the parties in the proceedings 9. Other: ____________________________ 9 9 10. Other: __________________________ 10 10 PB3 PB3 How satisfied were you with the work of the judge in 1. Very dissatisfied the first-instance court? 2. Dissatisfied 3. Satisfied 4. Very satisfied PB4 PB4 To what extent do you agree with the following assertions on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 represents ‘fully disagree’ and 4 represents ‘full agree’? 1. The judge was efficient 1 2 3 4 DK 2. The judge was polite and pleasant 1 2 3 4 DK 3. The judge was impartial, fair and objective 1 2 3 4 DK 4. The judge generated trust and respect 1 2 3 4 DK 5. The judge was not corrupt 1 2 3 4 DK PB5 PB5 How satisfied were you with the work of the other 1. Very dissatisfied court staff? 2. Dissatisfied PB6 186 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 3. Satisfied 4. Very satisfied PB6 How satisfied were you with the facilities, technical 1. Very dissatisfied equipment (computers, cameras…) and other 2. Dissatisfied infrastructure elements in the judiciary? 3. Satisfied 4. Very satisfied PB7 PB7 (ONLY FOR COMPANIES WHOSE CASES WERE FILED 1. Higher quality after the beginning of BEFORE JANUARY 2010) 2010 When you think about the quality of judiciary work 2. Lower quality after the beginning of in your case up to the end of 2009 and after the 2010 beginning of 2010, did you notice any difference? 3. No difference Was the judiciary work in your case after the beginning of 2010 of higher quality, lower quality, or you did not notice any difference with regards to quality of judiciary work? PC1 Accessibility PC1 From your experience in this case, how easy or difficult 1. Very difficult was it for you to find your way around the court 2. Mostly difficult buildings? 3. Mostly easy 4. Very easy PC1a PC1 (ONLY FOR THE COMPANIES WHOSE CASES WERE FILED 1. Finding the way around court building a BEFORE JANUARY 2010) became easier When you think about finding your way around court 2. Finding the way around court building building, did you notice any changes after the beginning became more difficult of 2010? 3. I did not noticed any changes PC2 PC2 How easy or difficult was it for you or your attorney to 1. Very difficult access information regarding the case? 2. Mostly difficult 3. Mostly easy 4. Very easy PC2a PC2 (ONLY FOR COMPANIES WHOSE CASES WERE FILED 1. Access to information became easier a BEFORE JANUARY 2010) 2. Access to information became more When you think about access to information, did you difficult notice any changes after the beginning of 2010? 3. I did not noticed any changes PC3 187 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 PC4 PC4a. Which source of information did you use to find out what you needed to do in this specific case? [Interviewer] Accept multiple responses. PC4b. How satisfied are you with those sources of information? Please rate your satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 represents very dissatisfied’ and 5 represents ‘very satisfied’. [INTERVIEWER] Respondents are to rate their satisfaction only with respect to the sources they used Source of Very Dissatisfied Very Satisfied information dissatisfied satisfied used 1. Internet 1 1 2 3 4 2. Television 2 1 2 3 4 3. Radio 3 1 2 3 4 4. Dailies and 1 2 3 4 4 magazines 5. Court bulletin boards 5 1 2 3 4 6. Brochures, leaflets 6 1 2 3 4 7. Information service 1 2 3 4 7 (via the telephone) 8. Information counter 8 1 2 3 4 9. Registry desk 9 1 2 3 4 10. Archive 10 1 2 3 4 11. Court staff 11 1 2 3 4 12. Lawyers 12 1 2 3 4 13. Friends, relatives, 1 2 3 4 13 colleagues 14. Other:____________ _______ 14 PD1 Fairness PD1 Was the first-instance judgment in your favor? 1. Yes, fully 2. Yes, partly 3. No PD2 PD2 Notwithstanding the outcome of the court proceedings, 1. Yes, fully what do you think of the first-instance proceedings 2. Yes, mostly themselves? Did you have a fair trial? 3. No PD3 PD3 Did you file an appeal? 1. Yes 2. No PD4 PD4 Do you trust the appellate system? 1. Yes 2. No PE1 Integrity PE1 During the proceedings, did anyone (attorney, court 1. Yes employee) suggest that your case would be adjudicated 2. No more efficiently if you resorted to informal means (made Refuse to answer an additional payment, offered a gift, pulled strings…)? PE2 PE2 Did you ever find yourself in circumstances in which you 1. Yes PE3 resorted to informal means (made an additional 2. No PF1 payment, offered a gift, pulled strings…) to have your Refuse to answer case adjudicated more efficiently? PE3 What did you do? 1. We pulled strings (with an PF1 employee, exerted political influence…) 188 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 2. We made an additional payment 3. We gave a gift 4. We rendered a “service in return” 5. Other: __________________________ Refuse to answer Cost Effectiveness PF1 Do you know what the mediation process in resolving the 1. Yes (what?) PF2 disputes is? _____________________________ 2. No PG1 PF2 How useful is the mediation process in resolving the 1. Not useful PG1 disputes to parties to the proceedings in cases involving 2. Partly useful legal persons, i.e. can it help settle a dispute? 3. Very useful 4. Don’t know Administrative Affairs PG1 Did you have to complete some administrative tasks 1. Yes PG1a relevant to your case in the court? 2. No SA1a PG1 (ONLY FOR COCMPANIES WHOSE CASES WERE FILED 1. All before January 2010 a BEFORE JANUARY 2010) 2. Some before January 2010, some after When did you complete the administrative tasks? January 2010 3. All after January 2010 PG2 PG2 What did the administrative tasks involve? 1. Authentication (of documents and contracts) 2. Receipt and expedition of documents 3. Administrative task related to land registries 4. Administrative task related to archives 5. Administrative task at registry desk 6. Render a statement 7. Other PG3 PG3 How many times did you have to come to the _______________ times PG4 courthouse to complete the task? PG4 How much time did you spend in the courthouse on ______________ minutes PG5 average every time you came to complete the task? PG5 How satisfied were you with the efficiency of the 1. Very dissatisfied SA1a court administrative service? Efficiency entails no 2. Dissatisfied waste of time and the fast and quality completion of 3. Satisfied the task. 4. Very satisfied SA1 Person answering the Lawyer SA1 a Module E1a Company employee position _________________________________________ SA1 Sex: 1. Male 2. Female SA2 SA2 Age: SA3 SA3 If yopu are of legal 1. No legal degree profession, what is your 2. High school law education SA4 level of education: 3. College degree (pravnik) 4. Law degree (diplomirani pravnik) 5. Admitted to the Bar (advokat) SA4 No. of years practicing _______________ years End law: 189 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 MODULE E1 b – Experience with Administrative Services [Interviewer] The interview is conducted with the person most versed in the administrative tasks the company completed in court in the last 12 months. A Experience with Judicial Administrative Services A1 Which specific ADMINISTRATIVE TASKS led you to 1. Authentication (of documents and visit the court as a legal person in the last 12 contracts) months? 2. Receipt and expedition of documents [Interviewer] List the three chief ones. 3. Administrative task related to land registries 4. Administrative task related to archives 5. Administrative task at registry desk 6. Render a statement 7. Other: A2 NOW PLEASE FOCUS ON THE LAST ADMINISTRATIVE TASK YOU COMPLETED FOR YOUR COMPANY IN THE COURTHOUSE A2 What administrative task was at issue? 1. Authentication (of documents and contracts) 2. Receipt and expedition of documents 3. Administrative task related to land registries 4. Administrative task related to archives 5. Administrative task at registry desk 6. Render a statement 7. Other: A3 A3 Which courts did you go to in order to complete the 1. Principal task? 2. Superior [Interviewer] One response. If the respondent went to 3. Appellate more than one court, s/he should list the one s/he 4. Supreme court of cassation went to most often. 5. Economic court 6. Economic Appellate court 7. Administrative court 8. Misdemeanor court 9. Superior Misdemeanor court A4 A4 Did you on those occasions interact with service 1. Service counter staff counter or office staff? 2. Office staff 3. Both A5 A5 Did a lawyer assist you with this administrative task? 1. Yes A6 2. No AA1 A6 Has anyone employed in your company visited the 1. Yes court house alone, not accompanied by a lawyer, 2. No because of this administrative task? AA1 Efficiency AA1 While you were completing your administrative task as a 1. I had to ‘go from door to door’ / legal person, did you have to “go from door to door” or from „desk to desk“ were you able to complete the task at one location? 2. I got most done at one location but I did have to ‘go from door to door’ 3. I got everything done at one location AA2 AA2 How many times did you have to go to the courthouse to _______________ times complete the administrative task? AA3 190 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 AA3 Roughly estimate, how many total working hours your employees spent in completing this last administrative task? ______________working hours AA4 AA4 Roughly estimate, how many total working hours your employees spent in the courthouse in completing this administrative task? ______________working hours AA5 AA5 Could the administrative task have been completed in 1. Yes AA6 less time given the complexity of the task? 2. No AA7 AA6 What were the reasons why this task took longer? 1. Insufficient number of service counters/staff, 2. Staff is slow because it is not trained well 3. Staff is slow because it is indolent 4. Lack of equipment (computers), 5. The procedure is complicated 6. Lack of information 7. Other: _____________________________ __________ AA7 AA7 How satisfied are you with the efficiency of the 1. Very dissatisfied administrative court service? Efficiency entails no waste 2. Dissatisfied of time and the fast and quality completion of the task. 3. Satisfied 4. Very satisfied AB1 Quality of Services AB1 What is your general impression about the quality of 1. Very low quality work of the judiciary in that specific case? 2. Low quality 3. Average quality 4. High quality 5. Very high quality AB2 AB2 Please rate the staff in the court administrative services with respect to the following features. Please rate the level of ………. of the staff you interacted with on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents ‘very low level’ and 5 ‘very high level’. Very Very high DK low level level 1. Knowledge 1 2 3 4 5 99 2. Efficiency 1 2 3 4 5 99 3. Pleasantness 1 2 3 4 5 99 These were positive features. Now please rate the staff in the court administrative services with respect to the following negative features, on a scale of 1 to 5, where 11 represents ‘very low level’ and 5 ‘very high level’: Very Very high Dk low level level 4. Proneness to 1 2 3 4 5 99 corruption 5. Indolence 1 2 3 4 5 99 6. Negligence 1 2 3 4 5 99 AC1 Accessibility AC1 How easy or difficult was it for you to find your way in 1. Very difficult the court buildings? To recall, we are talking about the 2. Mostly difficult period of the last 12 months. 3. Mostly easy 4. Very easy AC2 191 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 AC2 How easy or hard was it for you or your attorney to 1. Very difficult access information regarding your administrative task: 2. Mostly difficult AC3 where you should go, what you should do, what 3. Mostly easy document you need...? 4. Very easy AC4 AC3 [Interviewer] To be answered by respondents who said it ______________________________ was difficult to access such information ______________________________ Please give an example of information that was difficult (or impossible) to access. ______________________________ ______________________________ AC4 AC4 Which source of information did you use to find out what you needed to do in this specific case? [Interviewer] Accept multiple responses. How satisfied are you with those sources of information? Please rate your satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 represents very dissatisfied’ and 5 represents ‘very satisfied’. INTERVIEWER] Respondents are to rate their satisfaction only with respect to the sources they used Source Very Dissatisf Very Satisfied of dissatisfied ied satisfied information used 1. Internet -1- 1 1 2 3 4 2. Television 2 1 2 3 4 3. Radio 3 1 2 3 4 4. Dailies and 1 2 3 4 4 magazines 5. Court bulletin boards 5 1 2 3 4 6. Brochures, leaflets 6 1 2 3 4 7. Information service 1 2 3 4 7 (via the telephone) 8. Information counter 8 1 2 3 4 9. Registry desk 9 1 2 3 4 10. Archive 10 1 2 3 4 11. Court staff 11 1 2 3 4 12. Lawyers 12 1 2 3 4 13. Friends, relatives, 1 2 3 4 13 colleagues 14. Other:____________ 14 AC5 AC5 Please recall the last time you went to the courthouse to get something done for your company with respect to your case. Please rate your satisfaction on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 represents very dissatisfied’ and 5 represents ‘very satisfied’. How satisfied were you with: Very Dissatisfie Satisfied Very Don’t dissatisfie d satisfie know/Can’ d d t estimate 1. Court working hours 1 2 3 4 99 2. Ease of accessing relevant 1 2 3 4 99 offices/service counters 3. Ease of accessing relevant staff 1 2 3 4 99 4. Staff conduct 1 2 3 4 99 5. Time spent waiting your turn 1 2 3 4 99 6. Court security service conduct 1 2 3 4 99 AC6 192 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 AC6 How accessible were administrative services in 1. Very inaccessible courts to legal persons i.e. private companies in 2. Mostly inaccessible Serbia in the last 12 months? 3. Mostly accessible 4. Very accessible AE1 Integrity AE1 Is there corruption in court administrative services in the 1. To a great extent last 12 months? 2. To an extent 3. There is no corruption Refuse to answer AE2 AE2 During the proceedings, did anyone (attorney, court 1. Yes AE2a employee) suggest that you would complete your 2. No administrative task in court faster if you resorted to AE3 informal means (made an additional payment, offered a Refuse to answer gift, pulled strings…)? AE2 Did anyone suggest it in the last 12 months? 1. Yes a 2. No Refuse to answer AE3 AE3 Did you ever find yourself in circumstances in which you 1. Yes AE4 resorted to informal means (made an additional 2. No payment, offered a gift, pulled strings…) to complete Refuse to answer your administrative task in court faster? AE5 AE4 What did you do? 1. We pulled strings (with an employee, exerted political influence…) 2. We made an additional payment 3. We gave a gift 4. We rendered a “service in return” 5. Other: _____________________________ AE5 AE5 Do you know anyone who resorted to informal means 1. Yes AE6 (made an additional payment, gave a gift, pulled 2. No strings…) to speed up the completion of an administrative task in court on behalf of a legal person? AF1 AE6 What did the informal means entail? 1. Pulling strings (with an employee, exerting political influence…) 2. Additional payment 3. Gift 4. Rendering “a service in return” 5. Other: _____________________________ AF1 Cost Effectiveness AF1 How much did the last administrative task in the court cost your company altogether? Total costs imply all court ________________ euros costs and taxes, the lawyer's fee and travel costs (but do not entail fines). AF2 AF2 Can you specify the individual costs, i.e. break the total 1. Court costs___________euros costs down to court costs, lawyer’s fee, travel costs and 2. Lawyer’s fee ________euros other costs if any? 3. Travel costs________euros 4. Other costs_________________euros AF3 AF3 Do you think the OVERALL costs were small, “reasonable” 1. Small or excessive given the quality of the administrative 2. Reasonable services you were provided? 3. Excessive AF4 AF4 How much did these costs burden company business? 1. Hugely 2. Greatly 3. Moderately 4. A little 5. Negligibly End 193 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 SA1 Person answering the Lawyer SA1 a Module E1b Company employee position _________________________________________ SA1 Sex: 1. Male 2. Female SA2 SA2 Age: SA3 SA3 If yopu are of legal 1. No legal degree profession, what is your 2. High school law education SA4 level of education: 3. College degree (pravnik) 4. Law degree (diplomirani pravnik) 5. Admitted to the Bar (advokat) SA4 No. of years practicing _______________ years End law: Questionnaire for Members of legal profession working in private practice QUESTIONNAIRE FOR MEMBERS OF LEGAL PROFESSION WORKING IN PRIVATE PRACTICE B Section A0a World Bank and agency Ipsos Strategic Marketing in 1. Yes the mid of 2010 conducted survey similar to this one 2. No about judiciary system in Serbia. Did you participate A0 in the survey? b A0b For how long have you been a lower? _______________ year A1 A1 How many cases did you work on in the last 12 months? Please include all cases opened, worked on and Caseload ___________________ completed in the last 12 months. A2 A2 Please classify in % the type of cases you worked on Type of cases % in the last 12 months [INT]Show card A2 1. Criminal 1. 2. 2. Misdemean our 3. Civil - 3. Family 4. Civil - 4. Labour 5. Civil - 5. Property 6. 6. Civil - Other 7. 7. Commercial 8. Executive 8. 9. 9. Contentiou s 10. Other 10. 11. ∑═100℅ A3 A3 Was your caseload greater, smaller or average 1. Much greater compared to the previous years? 2. Somewhat greater [INT]Show card A3! One answer. 3. Average 4. Somewhat smaller 5. Much smaller 6. That was my first year as a lawyer so I can A3 not estimate a 194 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 A3a Gender? 1. Male A3 2. Female b A3b Age? 1. Up to 35 2. 36 - 50 3. 51 and above A4 YOU SIAD THAT IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS YOU WORKED MOSTLY ON (CIRCLE THE TYPE OF CASES FROM A2 TIP WITH THE HIGHEST PERCENTEGE): 1. Criminal cases 2. Misdemeanour cases 3. Civil cases 4. Commercial cases THE FOLLOWING SECTION REFERS ONLY TO THE TYPE OF CASES YOU WORKED THE MOST ON ____________ (READ THE CIRCLED ANSWER) WHICH CLOSED IN A FIRST INSTANCE COURT IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS NOTWITHSTANDING WHEN THEY WERE OPENED A4 Please give an estimate of the percent of your __________ cases (the most common type of case from ___________________ % of cases A2) in the last 12 months that lasted longer than they should have for any reason? A5 A5 Why was the duration of the cases Reasons why the duration of the Neve Rarel Occa Ofte longer than optimal? Please look at case was longer than optimal r y siona n the reasons listed here and specify lly how often, if at all, each of them was 1. Objective lack of capacity of the the cause of the longer duration of court (for instance: insufficient the cases. 1 2 3 4 staffing, lack of courtroom equipment, IT equipment, [nterviewer] Show card A5 cameras… ) 2. Court or court staff errors (for instance: poor investigation, lack of regulations on delivery of 1 2 3 4 case-related documents, lack or disrespect of instructive deadlines) 3. Obstruction by the parties to the proceedings (non- appearance of witnesses, 1 2 3 4 intentional protraction by lawyers…) 4. Unintentional mistakes by the parties to the proceedings (unpreparedness, lack of 1 2 3 4 knowledge, incompetence e.g. when the party represents itself…) 5. Gaps in legislation (inefficient rules on delivery, imprecise terms, unregulated areas, 1 2 3 4 different interpretations of law..) 5. Other reason ________________ A6 A6 Did the system of case assignment to judges affect the efficiency of judicial work 1. Yes, it boosted and how – did it boost or reduce efficiency? efficiency [INT]Read answers! One answer. 2. Yes, it reduced efficiency 3. No, it did not affect efficiency 4. Don’t know A7 195 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 A7 Please give an estimate of the percent of hearings in __________ cases (the most common type of case from _________________ % of hearings A2) you worked on in the last 12 months that were not held? A8 A8 Thinking about the hearings which have not been held, what, in your opinion, were the reasons why they were not held? Please look at the following reasons and indicate how frequently, if at all, the particular circumstance was the reason why the hearings were not held . Reasons why the hearings were not held Never Rarely Occasionall Often y 1. Reasons caused by the court 1 2 3 4 2. Reasons caused by a party to the proceedings 1 2 3 4 3. Reasons caused by other participants in the 1 2 3 4 proceedings (witnesses, court experts…) 4. Reasons caused by inefficient procedural 1 2 3 4 provisions 5. Other reasons 1 2 3 4 A9 A9 In your estimation, what percentage of all hearings in __________ cases (the most common type of case) in which you participated in the last 12 months DID NOT ____________________ % of hearings SIGNIFICANTLY contribute to progress in the resolution of court cases? A10 A10 What were the main reasons why these hearings were _________________________________ not as efficient? _______ [INT]OPEN-ENDED QUESTION _________________________________ _______ A11 A11 What percentage of judgments in ____ cases (the most common type of case from A2) you worked on in the % of judgements _________ last 12 months did you or the other party engaged in the case appealed? A12 A12 What percentage of the cases you appealed were appealed because you as a solicitor thought that you should fight further for your client (or your client % of appealed judgements in spite that they were asked for this), in spite of your satisfaction with the felt to be correct __________ judgment - i.e. you felt that the judgment was correct and in accordance with the law. A13 A13 What percent of the judgments you appealed on in the last 12 months did a higher instance court refer back and order a retrial? % of the appealed judgements _________ A14 A14 How satisfied were you with the procedure for 1. Very dissatisfied enforcing the court judgments in __________ cases 2. Dissatisfied (the most common type of case) you worked on OVER 3. Satisfied THE PAST THREE YEARS? 4. Very satisfied [INT]Show card A14. One answer. 5. Did not have enough information on the enforcement procedure A14a A14 In your opinion, what is the main reason why the _________________________________ a majority of unenforcend court decisions are not _______ enforced? _________________________________ _______ _________________________________ _______ A15 A15 In your opinion, how will has enactment of the law on 1. It’s reduced the efficiency A16 Enforcement and Security launched in September 2. It remained the same 2011 affected the efficiency of the judicial system? 3. It’s increased the efficiency One answer. A1 In general, what do you think of the work of the 1. Very negative A1 6 judicial system in Serbia over the past few years? 2. Negative 7 196 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 One answer 3. Satisfactory A1 6a 4. Positive A17 5. Very positive A1 (ASK ONLY THE RESPONDENTS WHO ANSWERED 1. Negative A1 6a ‘SATISFACTORY’ ON A16) But if in expressing your 2. Positive 7 opinion about functioning of judiciary system you should opt only between negative and positive, which side your opinion would be closer to? A17 I will now read out a number of statements on the judicial system. Please rate your agreement with each statement on a scale of 1 to 4 where 1 represents ‘fully disagree’ and 4 represents ‘fully agree’: Fully Mostly Mostly Fully Don’t disagree disagree agree agree Know The judicial system is fair, impartial 1 2 3 4 -9 and not corrupt The judicial system is fast 1 2 3 4 -9 The judicial system is capable of 1 2 3 4 -9 enforcing court decisions A18 A1 In your view, to what extent is the judicial system 2. Not a problem B1 8 now a problem for life in Serbia? 4. Small problem [INT] Single response. Read out the answers! 5. Moderate problem 6. Big problem 7. Huge problem B Quality of Work B1 How do you rate the quality of work the judicial 1. Very low quality system provided to the public in the last 12 months? 2. Low quality B2 Show card B1. One answer. 3. Average quality B1a 4. High quality B2 5. Very high quality B3 B1a (ASK ONLY THE RESPONDENTS WHO ANSWERED 1. Low ‘Average quality’ ON B1) But if in expressing your 2. High opinion about quality of judiciary work in the last 12 months you should opt only between negative and positive, which side your opinion would be closer to? B2 B2 (ANSWERS TO BE PROVIDED BY RESPONDENTS WHO REPLIED 1, 2, 3 OR 4 TO QUESTION B1) B2a. Which of the following reasons would you identify as to why the quality of the work of the judicial system in the last 12 months was not higher? [INT] Show card B2a with scale B2b. Which of the reasons would you rank first, as the most significant one? [INT] Show card B2b with reasons B2a B2b Reason why the quality of work was not The most Partly Very higher Insignificant significant significant significant reason 1. Lack of staff in judicial system institutions 1 2 3 1 2. Poor organization in judicial system 1 2 3 2 institutions 3. Poor working conditions (including low 1 2 3 3 remuneration) in judicial system institutions 4. Poor infrastructure (lack of office space, 1 2 3 4 equipment) in judicial system institutions B3 197 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 5. Unclear laws allowing for inconsistent 1 2 3 5 interpretations 6. Other problems related to legal regulations (everything else apart from the reason listed 1 2 3 6 under 5) 7. Contempt of court, improper conduct and 1 2 3 7 non-fulfilment of obligations to the court 8. Lack of opportunity for additional education 1 2 3 8 (training, education) for existing staff 9. Poor coordination of judicial bodies 1 2 3 9 10. Poor professionalism and preparedness of 1 2 3 10 legal representatives 11. Other: ____________________________________ B3 How satisfied were you with the work of the judge 1. Very dissatisfied (in the first instance court)? 2. Dissatisfied [INT]Read answers! One answer. 3. Satisfied 4. Very satisfied B4 B4 How satisfied were you with the work of the other 1. Very dissatisfied B5 court staff? 2. Dissatisfied [INT]Read answers! One answer. 3. Satisfied 4. Very satisfied B5 How satisfied were you with the facilities, technical 1. Very dissatisfied C1 equipment (computers, cameras…) and other 2. Dissatisfied infrastructure elements in the judiciary? 3. Satisfied [INT]Read answers! One answer. 4. Very satisfied C Accessibility C1 How accessible is now the judicial system to citizens: Very Mostly Can’t Mostly Very inaccessib inaccessib estim accessible accessible le le ate 3. In terms of finances – given court-related costs (court taxes, trial costs, travel 1 2 3 4 9 costs)? 1. In terms of finances – given attorney- 1 2 3 4 9 related expenses? 2. In terms of geography – given the distance 1 2 3 4 9 of courthouse? 3. In terms of layout – how easy was it to find your way to and move around the 1 2 3 4 9 courthouse? 4. In terms of access to information 1 2 3 4 9 C2 C2 To what extent were the FOLLOWING judicial institutions accessible to all citizens, notwithstanding their age, education, financial status, nationality, disability…. in the last 12 months [INT]Show card C2. C3 Very Very Mostly Mostly Don’t accessi inaccessible inaccessible accessible know ble 1. Courts 1 2 3 4 9 2. Prosecution Offices 1 2 3 4 9 3. Court Administrative Services 1 2 3 4 9 198 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 C3 In your opinion, how easy or difficult was 1. Very difficult it for ALL citizens, notwithstanding their 2. Mostly difficult age, education level, financial status, 3. Mostly easy nationality, or disability to find their way 4. Very easy around the court buildings? [INT]Read answers! One answer. C4 C4 In the last 12 months, how easy or 1. Very difficult difficult was it for ALL citizens, 2. Mostly difficult notwithstanding their age, education 3. Mostly easy or level, financial status, nationality, 1. 4. Very easy disability to access the information they needed about the functioning of the judicial system (eg, how to file a case, etc.)? C6 C6 Which sources of information were 2. Internet accessible to citizens in acquiring the 3. Television information they needed about the 4. Radio functioning of the judicial system? 5. Dailies and magazines 6. Court bulletin boards Multiple responses 7. Brochures, leaflets 8. Information service (via the telephone) 9. Information counter 10. Registry desk 11. Court archive 12. Court staff 13. Lawyers 14. Friends, relatives, colleagues 15. Other: __________________________________________ C7 C7 What are the three most efficient ways for 1. providing information to citizens? ______________________________________________ 2. ______________________________________________ 3. ______________________________________________ D1 D Fairness D1 How fair was the judicial system in the last 1. Largely unfair 12 months? Please rate it on a scale of 1 to 4, 2. Mostly unfair where 1 represents ‘Largely unfair’ and 4 3. Mostly fair D2 represents ‘Largely fair’. 4. Largely fair D3 D2 (TO BE ANSWERED ONLY BY Reason why you did not give a higher grade Chief Second RESPONDENTS WHO REPLIED 1, 2, 3 reason reason TO QUESTION D1) 1. Insufficient accessibility to all citizens 1 1 (insufficient access to information, the What is the chief reason why you system is not suitable for persons with lower did not grade fairness of the judicial education levels…) system as totally fair? What is the second most important reason? 2. Poor legal provisions 2 2 3. The judicial system is politicized 3 3 4. Corruption in the judicial system 4 4 5. Overload/poor organization of the judicial 5 5 system 6. Poor professionalism of lawyers 6 6 7. Other: ____________________ 7 7 D3 199 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 D3 In your view, do the judicial system in Serbia now treat all citizens equally notwithstanding their: Yes No 1. Gender 1 2 2. Age 1 2 3. Nationality 1 2 4. Socio-economic status 1 2 5. Place of residence 1 2 6. Education 1 2 7. Disability 1 2 8. 1 2 Other________________________ ___ D4 D3a In the last 12 months, did judicial Not the case Mostly not Mostly the Totally the system treat citizens at all the case case case notwithstanding age, education, nationality, economic status, disability...? Please rate on a scale from 1 to 4, where 1 means not at 1 2 3 4 all, and 4 means it was totally the case. D4a D4 In your opinion, to what extent were 1. The Laws were imprecise, unclear and ambiguous to a Serbian laws in the last 12 months precise, high extent clear and unambiguous? 2. Some laws were imprecise, unclear and ambiguous to [INT]Show card D4. One answer some extent 3. Some laws were precise, clear and unambiguous to some extent 4. The Laws were precise, clear and unambiguous to a high extent D5 D5 In your opinion, to what extent were 1. The Laws were unfair and un objective to high extent Serbian laws in the last 12 months fair and 2. Some laws were unfair and un objective to some objective? extent [INT]Show card D5. One answer 3. Some laws were fair and objective to some extent 4. The Laws were fair and objective to a high extent D6 D6 What is your view of the enforcement of laws in Serbia in the last 12 months? How often did the following problems occur in the enforcement of laws? [INT]Show card D6. One answer Never Rarely Occasionally Frequently DK 1. Selective enforcement of 1 2 3 4 9 laws 2. Non-enforcement of laws 1 2 3 4 9 3. Inconsistent 9 interpretation of 1 2 3 4 laws 4. Inconsistent 9 1 2 3 4 jurisprudence E1 200 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 E Integrity E1 How independent was the judicial system in Serbia 1. Not independent in the last 12 months? 2. Mostly not independent [INT]Show card E1. One answer 3. Mostly independent 4. Fully independent E2 E2 Could you specify how much the following institutions jeopardized the independence of the judicial system in the last 12 months? Please give your assessment on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 represents “Not at all” and 4 represents “A lot”. [INT]Show card E2. Not at all A little Quite A lot 1. Government 1 2 3 4 2. Specific ministries 1 2 3 4 3. Political parties 1 2 3 4 4. Politicians 1 2 3 4 5. Big business 1 2 3 4 6. International organizations 1 2 3 4 7. NGOs in Serbia 1 2 3 4 8. Media 1 2 3 4 9. Judges 1 2 3 4 10. Prosecutors 1 2 3 4 11. Lawyers 1 2 3 4 12.Other_____________________________________________________ E3 E3 To what extent did the following factors undermine the integrity of the judicial system in the last 12 months? Please give your assessment on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 represents “Not at all” and 4 represents “To great extent”. Which of these factors undermined the integrity of the judicial system in the last 12 months the most? [INT]Show card E3a with scale Not at Mostly To an To great Chief all not extent extent factor 1. Corruption in the judicial system 1 2 3 4 1 2. Political/politicians’ influence on the court and 1 2 3 4 2 prosecutors 3. Poor, non-transparent personnel policy – how 1 2 3 4 staff is recruited and promoted, appointed to 3 senior posts 4. Inadequate penalties for corruption 1 2 3 4 4 5. Length of proceedings 1 2 3 4 5 6. Court decisions 1 2 3 4 6 7. Sensationalist/exaggerated media reports 1 2 3 4 7 8. Lack of fairness 1 2 3 4 8 9. Selective initiation of cases by the prosecution 1 2 3 4 9 10. Other: ______________________________________ E3a E3a To what extent did partiality of judges due to 1. Not at all improper influence of other judges, lawyers and 2. Mostly not other persons participating in the proceedings 3. To an extent undermine the integrity of the judicial system in the 4. To a great extent the last 12 months? E4 201 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 E4 Was there corruption in the judicial 1. There was no corruption E6 system in the last 12 months? [INT]Show card E4. One answer 2. To an extent 3. To a great extent E5 Don’t know Refuse to answer E6 E5 (TO BE ANSWERED BY 1. Systemic RESPONDENTS WHO ANSWERED 2 2. Individual or 3 IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION E4) 3. Both Was corruption systemic or individual? E6 E6 (TO BE ANSWERED BY ALL 1. Yes RESPONDENTS) Did you find 2. No yourself in a situation in which your Refuse to answer client asked you to use some informal means (make an additional payment, give you a gift, pull strings) to influence the work of judges? E7 E7 Did you find yourself in a situation 1. Yes in which a judge offered you an 2. No agreement which implied some Refuse to answer pecuniary advantage to make a judgment in favour of your client? E8 E8 Did you find yourself in a situation 1. Yes in which a prosecutor offered you 2. No an agreement which implied some Refuse to answer pecuniary advantage to do his/her work in favour of your client? E8a E8a How frequently in the period the 1. Never last 12 months did you experience 2. Rarely suggestion from the any side from 3. Sometimes the legal system to use unformal 4. Often means to influence on the result of the case? E9 E9 (TO BE ANSWERED BY ALL 1. Yes E10 RESPONDENTS) Was there any form 2. No of internal control within the Don’t know judicial system in the last 12 months? E12 E10 (IF THE ANSWER IS YES) _____________________________________________ How was the internal control _____________________________________________ conducted? _____________________________________________ _____________________________________________ ________________________________ E11 E11 (IF THE ANSWER IS YES) 1. Not at all To what degree did the internal 2. A little control that existed contribute to 3. Fairly the integrity of the judiciary? 4. Greatly [INT] Read answers! One answer. E12 E12 (TO BE ANSWERED BY ALL 1. Very important RESPONDENTS) In principle, how 2. Somewhat important important is internal control for 3. Unimportant strengthening the integrity of the judicial system? [INT] Read answers! One answer. E13 202 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 E13 To what extent did professional associations (Bar Association, Association of Judges, Association of Prosecutors) help strengthen the integrity of the profession they represent? [INT]Show card E13 1. Bar Association 1. Not at all 2. A little 3. Fairly 4. Greatly 2. Association of Judges 1. Not at all 2. A little 3. Fairly 4. Greatly 3. Association of Prosecutors 1. Not at all 2. A little 3. Fairly 4. Greatly E14 E14 What influence had the media on 1. Negative the integrity of the judicial system 2. Neutral as a mechanism of external 3. Positive control? E15 E15 What influence had the NGOs on 1. Negative the integrity of the judicial system 2. Neutral as a mechanism of external 3. Positive control? E20 E20 What image of the judicial system 1. The image is worse than reality do media in Serbia generate in 2. The image is objective general? 3. The image is better than reality [Interviewer] Show card E20. One answer. F1 F Cost Effectiveness F1 Where could costs in the judiciary have been cut in _________________________________ the last 12 months? _________________________________ _________________________________ [Interviewer] Accept multiple responses. _________________________________ ________________________________ F2 F2 In your opinion, was there a need for investing any 1. There was no need additional funds, which would, in the long term, 2. There was need, the additional funds should actually cut costs, since such investments would be invested in result in considerable improvement of judicial _____________________________________ efficiency? In what should these additional funds be ________________________________________ investing? ________________________________________ ________________________________________ F3 F3 Has the mediation process in resolving the disputes 1. Not at all (that is, mediation process) cut judicial system costs 2. A little in Serbia in the 2013? 3. Fairly [INT] Read answers! One answer. 4. Don’t know F4 F4 How useful is the mediation process in resolving the 1. Not useful disputes to parties to a case, i.e. can it help settle a 2. To an extent dispute? 3. Very [INT] Read answers! One answer. 4. Don’t know F5 F5 Prepared is a draft of the new Law on mediation 1. It will reduce the efficiency process in resolving the disputes that stipulates 2. It will remain the same establishing of a completely new mediation system, 3. It will increase the efficiency which includes license for mediators, founding of a 4. I do not know enough chamber and standardization and accreditation of mediator training programs. In your opinion, how will enactment of the new Law on mediation process in resolving the disputes affect the efficiency of the judicial system? One answer. G3 203 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 G Judicial reforms launched in 2010 G3 Do you support the judicial reform launched in 1. Yes, I fully support it January 2010 in general or not? 2. I support it to an extent 3. No, I don’t support it G4 G4 Why do you support the reform launched in January _________________________________ 2010? _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ ___________________________ G5 G5 Why not? _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ _________________________________ ___________________________ G6 G6 To what extent did the judicial system reform launched on 1 January 2010 improve the following dimensions of the judicial system? Dimensions Did Do Worsen not Impro Impro n’t Worsen ed to a bring ved to ved to kn ed to an great any an a great ow extent extent change extent extent s 1. Efficiency (e.g. duration of proceedings, work -2 -1 0 1 2 9 time spent, number of hearings...) 2. Quality of work of court staff -2 -1 0 1 2 9 3. Accessibility (e.g. accessibility of judicial services notwithstanding age, education level, -2 -1 0 1 2 9 financial status, nationality….) 4. Fairness (e.g. penal policy, non-selective enforcement of the law, consistent -2 -1 0 1 2 9 enforcement of the law…) 5. Integrity (trust, e.g.: judicial independence, -2 -1 0 1 2 9 lack of corruption in the judiciary) 6. More rational spending of budget funds -2 -1 0 1 2 9 G7 G7 How did attending the Judicial Academy increase 1. Yes, to a great extent the preparedness of future judges and prosecutors 2. Yes, to an extent to the extent that it will make the investment really 3. No cost effective? Don’t know [INT] Read answers! One answer. G8 G8 How did the compulsory seminars introduced 1. Yes, to a great extent within the reforms launched in January 2010 help 2. Yes, to an extent boost the efficiency of work and quality of services 3. No in the judicial system? Don’t know [INT] Read answers! One answer. G9 G9 How did the new organization of courts introduced 1. Yes, to a great extent in January 2010 help boost the efficiency of work 2. Yes, to an extent and quality of services in the judicial system? 3. No [INT] Read answers! One answer. Don’t know G10 G10 The number of judges has been significantly cut by 1. Too small reformes launched in January 2010. Was the 2. Sufficient number of judges before reappointment of 3. Could have been smaller nonreelected judges too small, sufficient or could it Don’t know have been even smaller in the context of the G10 reforms as a whole? a 204 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 G10 How would you evaluate the current number of 1. Too small a judges, as too small, just right/sufficient or it could 2. Sufficient be even smaller? 3. Could have been smaller Don’t know G11 G11 How did the implementation of the reforms result 1. Yes, to a great extent in a more adequate penal policy? 2. Yes, to an extent [INT] Read answers! One answer. 3. No Don’t know G12 G12 How did judges have more legal mechanisms to 1. Yes, to a great extent maintain order in the court? 2. Yes, to an extent [INT] Read answers! One answer. 3. No Don’t know G13 G13 And, how do you think the reforms affected the job 1. Positively (made the job more efficient) of legal professionals in private practice? 2. Negatively ( made the job less efficient) [INT] Show card G13. One answer. 3. Did not affect the job in any important way G14 G14 Why? Please tell us the main reasons for your __________________________________________ opinion __________________________________________ __________________________________________ H1 H National Judicial Reform Strategy for the period from 2013 to 2018 H1 How well informed are you about the new National 1. Not at all Judicial Reform Strategy for the period from 2013 to 2. Mostly not informed 2018 adopted in the Parliament in July 2013? Please 3. Medium use a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents ‘not 4. Mostly informed H2 informed at all’ and 5 represents ‘very well 5. Very well informed informed’. Please indicate only one answer H2 What is your main source of information about this 6. Media (TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, National Judicial Reform Strategy? websites...) 7. Official information MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE 8. Other staff, informal discussions 9. I informed myself by reading the laws H3 10. Other: ______________________________________ 11. None H3 Do you support this new National Judicial Reform 1. Yes, I fully support it→ skip to question G4, H4 Strategy adopted in July 2013 in general or not? than G6, than continue 2. I support it to an extent→ skip to question G4, than G6, than continue 3. No, I don’t support it → skip to question G5 and continue H4 Why do you support it? __________________________________________ H5 __________________________________________ __________________________________________ H5 Why not? __________________________________________ H6 __________________________________________ __________________________________________ 205 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 H6 To what extent will the National Judicial Reform Strategy adopted in July 2013 improve the following dimensions of the judicial system? Please use a scale of -2 to 2, where -2 means Worsen to a great extent and 2 Improve to a great extent. Dimensions It will Do Worsen not Impro Impro n’t Worsen to a bring ve to veto a kn to an great any an great ow extent extent change extent extent s 7. Efficiency (e.g. duration of proceedings, work -2 -1 0 1 2 9 time spent, number of hearings...) 8. Quality of work of court staff -2 -1 0 1 2 9 9. Accessibility (e.g. accessibility of judicial services notwithstanding age, education level, -2 -1 0 1 2 9 financial status, nationality….) 10. Fairness (e.g. penal policy, non-selective enforcement of the law, consistent -2 -1 0 1 2 9 enforcement of the law…) 11. Integrity (trust, e.g.: judicial independence, -2 -1 0 1 2 9 lack of corruption in the judiciary) 12. More rational spending of budget funds -2 -1 0 1 2 9 H7 H7 How well informed are you about 1. Not at all the new NATIONAL STRATEGY FOR 2. Mostly not informed FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION for 3. Medium the period 2013 to 2018 which was 4. Mostly informed adopted in Parliament in July 5. Very well informed 2013? H8 H8 How much will this strategy 1. They were ineffective contribute to the efficiency of 2. They were effective, but not to a sufficient extent fighting corruption in judiciary? 3. They were very effective DK D4a Please answer also some questions regarding gender-related differences in your profession D4a Do you think that both men and women in your 1. Yes, they have equal chances profession have equal chances for professional 2. No, men have more chances than women promotion? 3. No, women have more chances than men 4. DK, I can’t estimate D4b D4b And, thinking about total income of people employed 1. Women have much higher income in your profession, which beside salary includes other 2. Women have somewhat higher income forms of income (travel expenses, bonuses, and 3. Women and men have equal income similar receipts), would you say that there are 4. Men have somewhat higher income differences between men and women, or they are 5. Men have much higher income equal from that aspect? D4c D4c As far as you know, have there been any cases of 1. No sexual harassment against any employee in your 2. Yes institution? 3. Not sure D4 206 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Questionnaire for Judges THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE! INSTRUCTIONS: Please read the questions in the left column carefully and then provide answer in the right column. There is an instruction how to answer each question. As you can notice, there are 3 main types of questions: 1. Questions that you answer by circling the number in front of ONE of the suggested answers in the right column that best applies to you 2. Questions where you are expected to choose several answers 3. Questions where there are no suggested answers, but you write down your answer Some questions are inserted in tables. Please pay close attention where you are supposed to, in order to evaluate all options (statements) in those tables. PLEASE ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. YOUR OPINION AND EXPERIENCES ARE VERY VALUBALE FOR THIS STUDY. This interview is ANONYMOUS (we are not asking for your name) and all collected data will be displayed as group data. Questionnaire X0a The World Bank and Ipsos agency conducted in early 1. Yes 2011 a survey similar to this one about judiciary 2. No system in Serbia. Did you participate in that survey? X0b When were you elected to the position of a judge for 1. ____________ year the first time? X2 In which court do you work? Please disregard possible changes which will occur within reorganization starting January 2014, but mark the court in which you have worked in current year, 2013. Courts of General Jurisdiction Courts of Special Jurisdiction 1. Principal court 1. Economic court 2. Higher court 2. Economic Appellate court 3. Appellate court 3. Administrative court 4. Supreme court of cassation 4. Misdemeanor court 5. Higher Misdemeanor court X3 If you work in the Economic Court, please indicate in ______________________________________________ which department do you work exactly? ___________________________________________ ___________________________________________ Please go to question X7 ____________________________ X4 If you work in the Court of General Jurisdiction, in 1. Criminal Law Department → go to X7 which department do you work exactly? 2. Non-Contentious Matters Department → go to X7 3. Civil Law Department → go to X5 X5 If you work in the Civil Law Department of the Court 1. Family Law Department → go to X7 of General Jurisdiction in which department within 2. Labor Law Department → go to X7 the Civil Law Department do you work exactly? 3. Enforcement of Judgments → go to X7 4. General Department → go to X6 X6 Can you please estimate, in percentages, the share of 1. ___________________________________________ different types of cases you had in the last 12 _ ____% months? 2. ___________________________________________ Please write down all types of your cases and their _ ____% share in percentages relative to total number of 3. ___________________________________________ cases. Sum of all your cases has to be 100. If you do _ ____% 207 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 not have precise information currently please 4. ___________________________________________ provide your best estimate _ ____% X7 In which region is the institution in which you work 1. Belgrade in? 2. Vojvodina 3. Central Serbia X8 Gender? 1. Male 2. Female X9 Age? 1. Up to 35 2. 36 - 50 3. 51 and above A Efficiency of the Judicial System A1 Estimate the number of cases you worked on in the last 12 months? If you do not have precise information currently please provide your best estimate Please include all cases opened, worked on and Caseload ___________________ completed in the last 12 months. A2 Was your caseload greater, smaller or the same 1. Much greater compared to the previous years? 2. Somewhat greater PLEASE CHOSE ONLY ONE ASNWER 3. Average 4. Somewhat smaller 5. Much smaller 6. That was my first year as a judge so I can not estimate A3 What would have been the optimal annual caseload given THE CONDITIONS YOU WORKED IN in the last 12 Optimal caseload ___________________ months? A4 What change in your working conditions in the last 12 ____________________________________ months would have increased the caseload you _________ specified as optimal? ____________________________________ _________ _____________________________________________ ___ A5 Estimate, the number of cases you worked on which number of cases ___________________ started in the last 12 months? If you do not have precise information currently, I would again ask you to provide your best estimate A6 Estimate the number of cases you worked on that number of cases ___________________ closed in the last 12 months? If you do not have precise information currently, I would again ask you to provide your best estimate 208 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 THE FOLLOWING SECTION REFERS ONLY TO THE CASES YOU WORKED ON AND CLOSED IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS, NOTWITHSTANDING WHEN THEY WERE OPENED For all of the above, the case is closed when the first-instance judgment is rendered A7 Please estimate the percentage of your cases in the last 12 months that lasted longer than they should % of cases ___________________ have for any reason? If you do not have precise information currently, I would again ask you to provide your best estimate A8 Why was the duration of the cases Reasons why the duration of Never Rarely Occasi Oft longer than optimal? Please look at the case was longer than onally en the reasons listed here and specify optimal how often, if at all, each of them was 6. Objective lack of capacity of the cause of the longer duration of the court (for instance: the cases. 1 2 3 4 insufficient staffing, lack of courtroom equipment, IT equipment, cameras… ) 7. Court or court staff errors (for instance: poor investigation, lack of regulations on delivery of 1 2 3 4 case-related documents, lack or disrespect of instructive deadlines) 8. Obstruction by the parties to the proceedings (non- appearance of witnesses, 1 2 3 4 intentional protraction by lawyers...) 9. Unintentional mistakes by the parties to the proceedings (unpreparedness, lack of 1 2 3 4 knowledge, incompetence e.g. when the party represents itself…) 10. Gaps in legislation (inefficient rules on delivery, imprecise terms, 1 2 3 4 unregulated areas, different interpretations of law..) A9 Is there any other cause of longer duration of the 6. Yes, cases that still hasn't been mentioned? If yes, please what?______________________________________ write down __ 7. No A10 In your view, did the system of assignment of the cases to judges affect the 1. Yes, it boosted efficiency efficiency of judicial work? If yes, how did it affect – did it boost or reduce 2. Yes, it reduced efficiency efficiency? 3. No, it did not affect Please indicate only one answer efficiency 4. I am not familiar with that A11 Please estimate the percentage of hearings scheduled for your cases in the last 12 months that were not ____________________ % of hearings held? If you do not have precise information currently, I would again ask you to provide your best estimate A1 Thinking about the hearings which have not been held, what, in your opinion, were the reasons why they 2 were not held? Please look at the following reasons and indicate how frequently, if at all, the particular circumstance was the reason why the hearings were not held. For each of the listed reasons indicate one answer from 1 to 4, where w means never, 2 rarely, 3 occasionally, 4 often. 209 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Reasons why the hearings were not held Never Rarely Occasionall Often y 1. Reasons caused by the court 1 2 3 4 2. Reasons caused by a party to the proceedings 1 2 3 4 3. Reasons caused by other participants in the 1 2 3 4 proceedings (witnesses, court experts…) 4. Reasons caused by inefficient procedural 1 2 3 4 provisions A13 Is there anything not yet mentioned that was the reason why the hearings were not held? If yes, 1. Yes, please write down the reason what?_____________________________________ ____ 2. No A14 Estimate the percentage of all hearings held in the last Percentage of hearings_________________% 12 months that DID NOT SIGNIFICANTLY contribute to progress in the resolution of court cases? A15 What were the main reasons why these hearings were ____________________________________ not as efficient? ____________________________________ PLEASE WRITE DOWN YOUR ANSWER ON THE LINES ____________________________________ ____________________________________ A16 Estimate the number of hearings on average you scheduled PER WEEK in the last 12 months? If you do Number of hearings per week: ______________ not have precise information currently, I would again ask you to provide your best estimate A17 Was this number of hearings optimal, higher or lower 1. Much higher than optimal than optimal given your working conditions at the 2. Somewhat higher than optimal time? 3. Optimal Please indicate only one answer 4. Somewhat lower than optimal 5. Much lower than optimal 6. Does not apply to my work place A18 Estimate the percentage of judgments in cases you __________% judgments worked on in the last 12 months that were appealed? If Write down the percent of judgments that were you do not have precise information currently, I would appealed again ask you to provide your best estimate A19 What percentage of appealed cases were referred back and ordered a retrial by a higher instance court in the last 12 months? If you do not have precise information _________ % of cases appealed currently, I would again ask you to provide your best Write down the percent of judgments that were estimate referred back and ordered a retrial by a higher instance court A20 How satisfied were you with the procedure for 1. Very dissatisfied enforcing the court judgments in cases you worked, in 2. Dissatisfied last three years? 3. Satisfied Please indicate only one answer 4. Very satisfied 5. Did not have enough information on the enforcement procedure A20 In your opinion, what is the main reason why the _____________________________________ a unenforced court decisions are not enforced? _____________________________________ _____________________________________________ A21 In your opinion, how has enactment of the law on 1. It reduced the efficiency Enforcement and Security launched in September 2011 2. It remained the same affected the efficiency of the judicial system? 3. It increased the efficiency Please indicate only one answer 210 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 A22 What do you think in general of the work of the judicial 1. Very negative→ go to A25 system in Serbia over the past few years? 2. Negative→ go to A25 Please indicate only one answer 3. Satisfactory→ go to A22a 4. Positive→ go to A25 5. Very positive→ go to A25 A22 (ASK ONLY THE RESPONDENTS WHO ANSWERED 1. Negative a ‘SATISFACTORY’ ON A22) But if in expressing your 2. Positive opinion about functioning of judiciary system over the past few years you should opt only between negative and positive, which side your opinion would be closer to? (IPSOS suggestion) A25 Please evaluate to which extent you agree with the following statements, using a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 means fully disagree and 4 means completely agree? Fully Mostly Mostly Fully Don’t disagree disagree agree agree Know The judicial system is fair, impartial 1 2 3 4 -9 and not corrupt The judicial system is fast 1 2 3 4 -9 The judicial system is capable of 1 2 3 4 -9 enforcing court decisions A26 In your view, to what extent the judicial system is 6. Not a problem currently a problem for life in Serbia? 7. Small problem 8. Moderate problem Please indicate only one answer 9. Big problem 10. Huge problem B Quality of Work B1 What was the quality of work of the institution in 1. Very low quality→ go to B4 which you worked in in the last 12 months? 2. Low quality→ go to B4 Please indicate only one answer 3. Average quality→ go to B1a 4. High quality→ go to B4 5. Very high quality→ go to B4 B1a (ASK ONLY THE RESPONDENTS WHO ANSWERED 3. 1. Low quality AVERAGE QUALITY ON B1) But if in expressing your 2. High quality opinion about quality of the work of the institution in which you worked in the last 12 months you should opt only between low and high, which side your opinion would be closer to? (IPSOS suggestion) B2 Which of the following reasons would you select to explain why the quality of work of the institution you worked at in the last 12 months was not higher? PLEASE INDICATE ONE ANSWER FORE EACH OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS. Reason why the quality of work was not higher Insignifican Partly Very t significant significant 1. Lack of staff 1 2 3 2. Poor organization 1 2 3 3. Poor working conditions (including low remuneration) 1 2 3 4. Poor infrastructure (lack of office space, equipment) 1 2 3 5. Unclear laws allowing for inconsistent interpretations 1 2 3 6. Other problems related to legal regulations (everything else apart from the reason listed under 5) 1 2 3 7. Contempt of court, improper conduct and non-fulfillment of obligations to the court 1 2 3 211 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 8. Lack of opportunity for additional education (training, education) of existing staff 1 2 3 9. Poor coordination of judicial bodies 1 2 3 10. Poor professionalism and preparedness of legal representatives 1 2 3 B5 Is there anything not yet mentioned that, in your 1. Yes, what?__________________________ opinion, was the reason why the quality of work 2. No of the institution you worked was not higher? If yes, please write down B6 Which of the following reasons that TABLE B6 explain why the quality of work was Reason why the quality of work was not higher The most not higher would you select as the significant most important one? reason PLEASE SINGLE OUT ONLY ONE 1. Lack of staff 1 REASON WHICH YOU CONSIDER THE MOST IMPORTANT OUT OF THE 10 2. Poor organization 2 LISTED FROM TABLE B6. 3. Poor working conditions (including low 3 remuneration) 4. Poor infrastructure (lack of office space, 4 equipment) 5. Unclear laws allowing for inconsistent 5 interpretations 6. Other problems related to legal regulations 6 (everything else apart from the reason listed under 5) 7. Lack of regulations pre-empting contempt of court, 7 improper conduct and non-fulfillment of obligations to the court 8. Lack of opportunity for additional education 8 (training, education) of existing staff 9. Poor coordination of judicial bodies 9 10. Poor professionalism and preparedness of legal 10 representatives 11. Other (what was noted inB4b) 11 ____________________________________________ ______ B7 How satisfied were you with the following aspects of your job in the institution in which you worked in the last 12 months, on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 represents “very dissatisfied” and 4 “very satisfied”? PLEASE INDICATE ONE ANSWER FOR EACH ASPECT IN THE TABLE Very Very Dissatisfied Satisfied dissatisfied satisfied 1. Premises and equipment 1 2 3 4 2. Amount of salary 1 2 3 4 3. Organization of work in 1 2 3 4 general 4. Organization of work in your 1 2 3 4 sector 5. Work climate 1 2 3 4 6. Cooperation with 1 2 3 4 administrative sectors 7. Cooperation with the prosecution office 1 2 3 4 212 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 C Accessibility C1 How accessible is the judicial system to citizens currently by following aspect. Please use a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 means Very inaccessible and 4 means Very accessible. PLEASE INDICATE ONE ANSWER FOR EACH ASPECT IN THE TABLE Very Mostly Mostly Very inaccessible inaccessible accessible accessible 1. In terms of finances – given court- related costs (court taxes, trial costs, 1 2 3 4 travel costs)? 2. In terms of finances – given attorney- 1 2 3 4 related expenses? 3. In terms of geography – given the 1 2 3 4 distance of the courthouse? 4. In terms of layout – how easy was it to find your way and move around the 1 2 3 4 courthouse? 5. In terms of access to information 1 2 3 4 C2 To what extent were the FOLLOWING judicial institutions accessible to all citizens, notwithstanding their age, education level, financial status, nationality, invalidity …. in the last 12 months PLEASE INDICATE ONE ANSWER FOR EACH INSTITUTION IN THE TABLE Very Mostly Mostly Very inaccessible inaccessible accessible accessible 4. Courts in Serbia 1 2 3 4 5. Prosecution Offices in Serbia 1 2 3 4 6. Court Administrative Services in 1 2 3 4 Serbia 7. Services of institution where you 1 2 3 4 worked in the last 12 months C3 In your opinion, in the last 12 months , how easy or difficult 1. Very difficult was it, for ALL citizens, notwithstanding their age, education 2. Mostly difficult level, financial status, nationality, invalidity to find their way 3. Mostly easy around the court building in which you worked? 4. Very easy Please indicate only one answer C4 In the last 12 months , how easy or difficult was it for ALL 1. Very difficult citizens, notwithstanding their age, education level, financial 2. Mostly difficult status, nationality, invalidity to access the information they 3. Mostly easy needed about functioning of judicial system (how to file a 4. Very easy case, etc.)? Please indicate only one answer C6 And which sources of information were 1. Internet accessible to citizens to acquire the 2. Television information they needed about 3. Radio functioning of the judicial system? 4. Dailies and magazines 5. Court bulletin boards MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE 6. Brochures, leaflets 7. Information service (via the telephone) 8. Information counter 9. Registry desk 10. Archive 11. Court staff 12. Lawyers 13. Friends, relatives, colleagues 14. Other:________________________________________ C7 What are the three most efficient ways for 1. __________________________________________ providing information to citizens? 2. __________________________________________ MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE 3. _________________________________________________ 213 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 D Fairness D1 How fair was the judicial system in the last 1. Largely unfair → go to D4 12 months? Please rate it on a scale of 1 to 2. Mostly unfair → go to D4 4, where 1 represents ‘Largely unfair’ and 4 3. Mostly fair → go to D4 represents ‘Largely fair’.. 4. U Largely fair → go to D5 D4 (IF YOU ANSWERED D1 WITH MARK Reason why you did not give a higher Chief Secon LOWER THAN 4 PLEASE ANSWER THIS grade reason d QUESTION. IF YOU ANSWERED 4 ON D1 reason SKIP TO NEXT QUESTION) 1. Insufficient accessibility to all 1 1 citizens (insufficient access to What is the chief reason why you did not information, the system is not suitable grade fairness of the judicial system as for persons with lower education totally fair? What is the second most levels…) important reason? 2. Poor legal provisions 2 2 Please indicate only one answer as chief 3. The judicial system is politicized 3 3 reason, please indicate one answer as 4. Corruption in the judicial system 4 4 second reason. If some important reason was not listed, please wirte it down as 5. Overload/poor organization of the 5 5 „other“ judicial system 6. Poor professionalism of the lawyers 6 6 7. Other: ____________________ 7 8. Other: ____________________ 8 D5 In your view, does the judicial system in Serbia currently treat all citizens equally, notwithstanding following characteristics? PLEASE INDICATE ONE ANSWER FOR EACH OF 7 CHARACTERISTICS Yes No 1. Gender Yes No 2. Age Yes No 3. Nationality Yes No 4. Socio-economic status Yes No 5. Place of residence Yes No 6. Education Yes No 7. Disability Yes No D6 Is there any other social group which, in your 1. Yes,what?_______________________________________ opinion, was not treated equally in the judicial 2. No system? D6a In the the last 12 months, how equally did Not the case Mostly not the Mostly the Totally the judicial system treat citizens notwithstanding at all case case case age, education, nationality, economic status, disability...? Please rate on a scale from 1 to 4, where 1 means not at all, and 4 means it 1 2 3 4 was totally the case. D8 In your opinion, to what extent were the 1. The Laws were unfair and un objective to a large extent Serbian laws in the last 12 months fair and 2. Some laws were unfair and un objective to some extent objective? 3. Some laws were fair and objective to some extent Please indicate only one answer 4. The Laws were fair and objective to a large extent D7 In your opinion, to what extent were the 1. The Laws were imprecise, unclear and ambiguous to a large Serbian laws in the last 12 months precise, extent clear and unambiguous? 2. Some laws were imprecise, unclear and ambiguous to some Please indicate only one answer extent 3. Some laws were precise, clear and unambiguous to some extent 4. The Laws were precise, clear and unambiguous to a large extent 214 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 D9 What is your view of the enforcement of laws in Serbia in the last 12 months? How often did the following problems occur in the enforcement of laws? PLEASE INDICATE ONE ANSWER FOR EACH PROBLEM Freque Never Rarely Occasionally ntly 1. Selective enforcement of the laws 1 2 3 4 2. Non-enforcement of the laws 1 2 3 4 3. Inconsistent interpretation of the laws 1 2 3 4 4. Inconsistent jurisprudence 1 2 3 4 E Integrity E1 How independent was the judicial system in Serbia 1. Not independent in the last 12 months? 2. Mostly not independent Please indicate only one answer 3. Mostly independent 4. Fully independent E2 Could you please specify how much did the following institutions jeopardize the independence of the judicial system in the last 12 months? Please use a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 means not at all and 4 means to a great extent. PLEASE INDICATE ONE ANSWER FOR EACH INSTITUTIONS Not at all Mostly not To an extent To a great extent 1. Government 1 2 3 4 2. Specific ministries 1 2 3 4 3. Political parties 1 2 3 4 4. Politicians 1 2 3 4 5. Big business 1 2 3 4 6. International organizations 1 2 3 4 7. NGOs in Serbia 1 2 3 4 8. Media 1 2 3 4 9.Judges 1 2 3 4 10. Prosecutors 1 2 3 4 11. Lawyers 1 2 3 4 E3 In your opinion, is there any other institution which hasn't been mentioned 1. Yes, what?___________________________________ that jeopardized the independence of 2. No the judicial system in the last 12 months? E4 To what extent did the following factors undermine the integrity of the judicial system in the last 12 months? Please give your assessment on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 represents “Not at all” and 4 represents “To a great extent”. PLEASE INDICATE ONE ANSWER FOR EACH FACTOR Not at all Mostly To an To a great not extent extent 1. Corruption in the judicial system 1 2 3 4 2. Political/politicians’ influence on the court and 1 2 3 4 prosecutors 3. Poor, non-transparent personnel policy – how 1 2 3 4 staff is recruited and promoted, appointed to senior posts 4. Inadequate penalties for corruption 1 2 3 4 5. Length of proceedings 1 2 3 4 215 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 6. Court decisions 1 2 3 4 7. Sensationalist/exaggerated media reports 1 2 3 4 8. Lack of fairness 1 2 3 4 9. Selective initiation of cases by the prosecution 1 2 3 4 E5 In your opinion, are there any 1. Yes, what?______________________________________________ other reasons which jeopardized 2. No the integrity of judicial system in the last 12 months? E6 Which of these factors undermined the Chief factor integrity of the judicial system in the last 12 1. Corruption in the judicial system 1 months the most? PLEASE SELECT ONLY ONE FROM 2. Political/politicians’ influence on the 2 PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED FACTORS FROM court and prosecutors TABLE E6 WHICH UNDERMINES THE 3. Poor, non-transparent personnel 3 INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM THE policy – how staff is recruited and MOST. promoted, appointed to senior posts 4. Inadequate penalties for corruption 4 5. Length of proceedings 5 6. Court decisions 6 7. Sensationalist/exaggerated media 7 reports 8. Lack of fairness 8 9. Selective initiation of cases by the 9 prosecution 10. Other,what? 98 ____________________________ E6a To what extent did partiality of judges due to 3. Not at all improper influence of other judges, lawyers and 4. Mostly not other persons participating in the proceedings 5. To an extent undermine the integrity of the judicial system in the 6. To a great extent last 12 months? E7 In your opinion, was there 1. There is no corruption → go to E9 corruption in the judicial system in 2. To an extent→ go to E8 the last 12 months? 3. To a great extent→ go to E8 Please indicate only one answer E8 Was corruption systemic or 4. Systemic individual? 5. Individual 6. Both E9 EVERYONE ANSWERS 1. Yes→ go to E10 Did you find yourself in a situation 2. No → go to E12 in which someone tried to resort to informal means (make an additional payment, give you a gift, pull strings) to affect your work? E10 Who tried to resort to informal 1. Lawyer means to affect your work? 2. Other employee of the court MULTIPLE ANSWERS 3. Politicians POSSIBLE 4. Ministries 5. Big business 6. Other: _______________________________________ 216 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 E11 What was the means? 1. Pecuniary compensation MULTIPLE ANSWERS 2. A gift POSSIBLE 3. Political influence 4. A threat 5. Other: _______________________________________ E12 EVERYONE ANSWERS 1. Yes → go to E13 Was there any form of internal 2. No → go to E15 control within the judicial system in the last 12 months? E13 IF YOU ANSWERED 'YES' TO __________________________________________________ PREVIOUS QUESTION, PLEASE __________________________________________________ ANSWER THIS QUESTION How was internal control __________________________________________________ conducted? _________________________________ E14 (IF THE ANSWER IS YES ON E12) To 1. Not at all what degree did the internal 2. A little control that existed contribute to the integrity of the judiciary? 3. Fairly Please indicate only one answer 4. Greatly E15 (TO BE ANSWERED BY ALL 1. Very important RESPONDENTS) In principle, how 2. Somewhat important important is internal control for strengthening the integrity of the 3. Unimportant judicial system? Please indicate only one answer E16 To what extent did professional associations (Bar Association, Association of Judges, Association of Prosecutors) help strengthen the integrity of the profession they represent? PLEASE INDICATE ONE ANSWER FOR EACH ASSOCIATION 1. Bar Association 1. Not at all 2. A little 3. Fairly 4. Greatly 2. Association of Judges 1. Not at all 2. A little 3. Fairly 4. Greatly 3. Association of Prosecutors 1. Not at all 2. A little 3. Fairly 4. Greatly E17 What influence had the media on 1. Negative the integrity of the judicial system 2. Neutral as a mechanism of the external 3. Positive control? Please indicate only one answer E18 What influence did NGOs have on 1. Negative the integrity of the judicial system 2. Neutral as a mechanism of external 3. Positive control? Please indicate only one answer E23 What image of the judicial system 1. The image is worse than reality do the media in Serbia generate in 2. The image is objective general? 3. The image is better than reality Please indicate only one answer F Cost effectiveness F1 According to your opinion, where could judicial costs ______________________________________ have been cut in the last 12 months? ______________________________________ ______________________________________ MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE ______________________________________ _________________________ F2 In your opinion, was there a need for investing any 1. There was no need additional funds, which would, in the long term, 2. There was need, the additional funds should be actually cut costs, since such investments would investigating in result in considerable improvement of judicial __________________________________________ 217 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 efficiency? In what should these additional funds be ______________________________________ investigating? F3 Has the mediation process (translated in Serbian in 1. Not at all accordance with official name of mediation process, 2. A little as suggested by MOJPA) cut judicial system costs in 3. Fairly Serbia in the last 12 months? Please indicate only one answer F4 How useful is the mediation process to parties in a 1. Not useful case, i.e. can it help settle a dispute? 2. To an extent useful Please indicate only one answer 3. Very useful F5 Estimate the percentage of the cases you worked on 1. None in the last 12 months that were referred for 2. Less than 1% mediation? If you do not have precise information 3. _______________% of the cases currently, I would again ask you to provide your best estimate. Please write down in percentage F6 Are you well informed about mediation? 1. Yes Please indicate only one answer 2. No F7 Did you undergo training in mediation? 1. Yes → go to F8 Please indicate only one answer 2. No → go to F9 F8 IF YOU ANSWERED '1' TO QUESTION F7, PLEASE 1. It was sufficient→ go to F10 ANSWER THIS QUESTION 2. I need better training→ go to F10 Was the training sufficient or are you in need of better training? F9 IF YOU ANSWERED 'NO' TO QUESTION F7, PLEASE 1. Very useful ANSWER THIS QUESTION 2. Partly useful Would training in mediation be of use to you? 3. No F10 Prepared is a draft of the new Law that stipulates 1. It will reduce the efficiency establishing of a completely new mediation system, 2. It will remain the same which includes license for mediators, founding of a 3. It will increase the efficiency chamber and standardization and accreditation of 4. I do not know enough to be able to evaluate mediator training programs. In your opinion, how will enactment of the new Law on Mediation affect the efficiency of the judicial system? One answer. G Reforms launched in 2010 G3 Do you support the judicial reform launched in 1. Yes, I fully support it (skip to question G4, than G6, January 2010 in general or not? then continue) Please indicate only one answer 2. I support it to an extent ( skip to question G4, than G6, then continue) 3. No, I don’t support it ( skip to question G5 and continue) G4 PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION IF YOU ANSWERED 1 ______________________________________________ OR 2 ON QUESTION G3 ______________________________________________ Why do you support reform launched in January ______________________________________________ 2010? _____________________ PLEASE WRITE DOWN YOUR ANSWER ON THE LINES G5 PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION IF YOU ANSWERED 1 ______________________________________________ OR 2 ON QUESTION G3 ______________________________________________ Why don’t you support reform launched in January ______________________________________________ 2010? _____________________ PLEASE WRITE DOWN YOUR ANSWER ON THE LINES G6 To what extent did the judicial system reform launched on 1 January 2010 improve the following dimensions of the judicial system? Please use a scale of -2 to 2, where -2 means Worsen to a great extent and 2 Improve to a great extent. PLEASE INDICATE ONE ANSWER FOR EACH DIMENSION 218 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Dimensions Improved to Worsened to Worsened to Did not bring Improved to a great a great extent an extent any changes an extent extent 13. Efficiency (e.g. duration of proceedings, work time spent, -2 -1 0 1 2 number of hearings...) 14. Quality (e.g.: working conditions, organization of work, work -2 -1 0 1 2 climate...) 15. Quality of work of court staff -2 -1 0 1 2 16. Accessibility (e.g. accessibility of judicial services notwithstanding age, education, financial status, -2 -1 0 1 2 nationality….) 17. Fairness (e.g. penal policy, non- selective enforcement of the law, consistent enforcement of the -2 -1 0 1 2 law…) 18. Integrity (e.g.: judicial independence, lack of corruption in -2 -1 0 1 2 the judiciary) 19. More rational spending of budget funds -2 -1 0 1 2 G7 Did attending the Judicial Academy increase the 1. Yes, to a great extent preparedness of future judges and prosecutors to the 2. Yes, to an extent extent that it made the investment really cost 3. No effective? Please indicate only one answer G8 Did the compulsory seminars introduced within the reforms 1. Yes, to a great extent launched in January 2010 help boost the efficiency of work and 2. Yes, to an extent quality of services in the judicial system? 3. No Please indicate only one answer G9 Did the new organization of courts introduced in January 2010 1. Yes, to a great extent help boost the efficiency of work and quality of services in the 2. Yes, to an extent judicial system? 3. No Please indicate only one answer G10 The number of judges has been significantly cut by reforms 1. Too small launched in January 2010. Would you say that the number of 2. Sufficient judges, before the judges who were not reappointed were 3. Could have been smaller returned to work, was too small, sufficient or could it have been even smaller in the context of the reforms as a whole? Please indicate only one answer G10 How would you evaluate the current number of judges - as too 1. Too small a small, just right/sufficient or it could be even smaller? 2. Sufficient 3. Could have been smaller G11 Did the implementation of the reforms from 2010. result in a 1. Yes, to a great extent more adequate penal policy? 2. Yes, to an extent Please indicate only one answer 3. No G12 Did judges with the implementation of the reforms from 2010. 1. Yes, to a great extent have more legal mechanisms to maintain order in the court? 2. Yes, to an extent Please indicate only one answer 3. No H Reforms launched in 2013 H1 How informed are you of the new National strategy 1. Not at all → go to H7 of judicial system reform for the period 2014 - 2018, 2. Mostly not informed → go to H2 adopted in the Parliament in July 2013? Please use a 3. Medium→ go to H2 4. Mostly informed→ go to H2 219 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents ‘not informed at 5. Very well informed→ go to H2 all’ and 5 represents ‘very well informed’. H2 What are your main sources of information about 1. Media (TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, new National strategy of judicial system reform? websites...) 2. Official information 3. Other staff, informal discussions MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE 4. I informed myself by reading the laws 5. Other: __________________________________________ 6. None H3 Do you support the new National strategy of judicial 1. Yes, I fully support it→ skip to question H4, than system reform, launched 2013 in general or not? H6, than continue Please indicate only one answer 2. I support it to an extent→ skip to question H4, than H6, than continue 3. No, I don’t support it → skip to question H5 and continue H4 Why do you support it? ______________________________________________ PLEASE WRITE DOWN YOUR ANSWER ON THE LINES ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________ H5 Why not? ______________________________________________ PLEASE WRITE DOWN YOUR ANSWER ON THE LINES ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________ H6 To what extent will the new National strategy of judicial system reform launched on July 2013 improve the following dimensions of the judicial system? Please use a scale of -2 to 2, where -2 means Worsen to a great extent and 2 Improve to a great extent. PLEASE INDICATE ONE ANSWER FOR EACH DIMENSION Dimensions It will Improve Worsen Worsen not Improve to a to a great to an bring to an great extent extent any extent extent changes 1. Efficiency (e.g. duration of proceedings, work time spent, number of hearings...) -2 -1 0 1 2 2. Quality of working conditions (e.g.: working conditions, organization of work, work climate...) -2 -1 0 1 2 3. Quality of work of court staff -2 -1 0 1 2 4. Accessibility (e.g. accessibility of judicial services notwithstanding age, education level, financial status, -2 -1 0 1 2 nationality….) 5. Fairness (e.g. penal policy, non-selective enforcement of the law, consistent enforcement of the law…) -2 -1 0 1 2 6. Integrity (e.g.: judicial independence, lack of corruption in the judiciary) -2 -1 0 1 2 7. More rational spending of budget funds -2 -1 0 1 2 H7 Have you heard about the new NATIONAL STRATEGY 1. Not at all → go to R1 FOR FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION for period 2013 to 2. Mostly not informed → go to H8 2018 which was adopted in Parliament in July 2013? 3. Medium→ go to H8 Please use a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents ‘not 4. Mostly informed→ go to H8 informed at all’ and 5 represents ‘very well 5. Very well informed→ go to H8 informed’. H8 How efficient will be this strategy 1. Will be ineffective in fighting corruption in judiciary? 2. Will be effective, but not to a sufficient extent 3. Will be very effective 220 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Please answer also to some questions regarding gender-related differences in your profession R1 Do you think that both men and women in your 1. Yes, they have equal chances profession have equal chances for professional 2. No, men have more chances than women promotion? 3. No, women have more chances than men 4. DK, I can’t estimate R2 And, thinking about total income of people employed 1. Women have much higher income in your profession, which beside salary includes other 2. Women have somewhat higher income forms of income (travel expenses, bonuses, and 3. Women and men have equal income similar receipts), would you say that there are 4. Men have somewhat higher income differences between men and women, or they are 5. Men have much higher income equal from that aspect? R3 As far as you know, have there been any cases of 1. No sexual harassment against any employee in your 2. Yes institution? 3. Not sure STATISTICAL DATA AT THE END, PLEASE ANSWER FEW MORE QUESTIONS WHICH WE NEED FOR THE STATISTICS OF THE SURVEY A What was your position within the judicial system in 1. Judge 2009? 2. Magistrate 3. Other: ___________________ (please specify) 4. I wasn’t working within the judicial system in 2009 B In 2009, which region did you work in? 1. Vojvodina 2. Belgrade 3. Central Serbia C In 2009, which body did you work in? Court of General Jurisdiction Commercial Court Misdemeanor Authorities 1. Supreme 4 Higher Commercial Court 6. Misdemeanor Council 2. District 5 Commercial Court 7. Municipal Misdemeanor 3. Municipal Authority D After the 2009 reform of the judiciary, did you 1. Yes (END) continue working as a judge without interruptions? 2. No (GO TO QUESTION E) E When did you start working as a judge again, or when Month______________ were you returned to work by the decision of the Year_____________ Constitutional Court? Thank you very much! Please put the questionnaire in the envelope that you received and hand the envelope over to interviewer or the person responsible for collecting questionnaires 221 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Questionnaire for Prosecutors INSTRUCTIONS: Please read the questions in the left column carefully and then provide answer in the right column. There is an instruction how to answer each question. As you can notice, there are 3 main types of questions: 1. Questions that you answer by circling the number in front of ONE of the suggested answers in the right column that best applies to you 2. Questions where you are expected to choose several answers 3. Questions where there are no suggested answers, but you write down your answer Some questions are inserted in tables. Please pay close attention where you are supposed to, in order to evaluate all options (statements) in those tables. PLEASE ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. YOUR OPINION AND EXPERIENCES ARE VERY VALUBALE FOR THIS STUDY. This interview is ANONYMOUS (we are not asking for your name) and all collected data will be displayed as group data. Questionnaire for PROSECUTOS AND DEPUTY PROSECUTORS X0a In year 2010, World Bank and agency Ipsos Strategic 1. Yes Marketing conducted survey similar to this one about 2. No judiciary system in Serbia. Did you participate in that survey? X0b When were you elected to the position of a 1. ____________ year prosecutor/deputy prosecutor for the first time? X1 Which post do you hold within the judicial system? 1. Prosecutor 2. Deputy prosecutor X2 In which authority you work? Please disregard possible changes which will occur within reorganization starting January 2014, but mark the authority in which you have worked in current year, 2013. 1. Republic Prosecution 2. Appellate Prosecution 3. Higher Prosecution 4. Principal Prosecution X6 In which region is the institution in which you work? 1. Belgrade 2. Vojvodina 3. Central Serbia X7 Gender? 1. Male 2. Female X8 Age? 1. Up to 35 2. 36 - 50 3. 51 and above 222 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 A Efficiency of the Judicial System A1 Estimate, the number of cases, you worked on in the last 12 months? If you do not have precise information currently please provide your best estimate Please include all cases opened, worked on and Caseload ___________________ completed in the last 12 months A2 Was your caseload greater, smaller or the same 1. Much greater compared to the previous years? 2. Somewhat greater PLEASE SELECT ONLY ONE ANSWER 3. Average 4. Somewhat smaller 5. Much smaller 6. That was my first year as a prosecutor/deputy prosecutor so I can not estimate A3 What would have been the optimal annual caseload given THE CONDITIONS YOU WORKED IN in the last 12 Optimal caseload ___________________ months A4 What change in your working conditions in the last 12 _____________________________________ months would have increased the caseload you ________ specified as optimal? _____________________________________ ________ _____________________________________________ ___ A5 Estimate, the number of cases, you worked on that number of cases ___________________ opened in in the last 12 months? If you do not have precise information currently please provide your best estimate A6 Estimate, the number of cases, you worked on that number of cases ___________________ closed in in the last 12 months? If you do not have precise information currently please provide your best estimate 223 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 THE FOLLOWING SECTION REFERS ONLY TO THE CASES YOU WORKED ON AND CLOSED IN THE LAST 12 MONTHS NOTWITHSTANDING WHEN THEY WERE OPENED The opening of a case is defined as: receiving a criminal charge from citizens or the police The case is closed when the first-instance judgment is rendered A7 Please estimate the percentage of your cases in in the last 12 months that lasted longer than they should have for any reason? If you do not % of cases have precise information currently please provide your best estimate ___________________ A8 Why was the duration of the cases Reasons why the duration of the Never Rarely Occasi Of longer than optimal? Please look at case was longer than optimal onally te the reasons listed here and specify n how often, if at all, each of them was 11. Objective lack of capacity the cause of the longer duration of of the court (for instance: the cases. 1 2 3 4 insufficient staffing, lack of courtroom equipment, IT equipment, cameras… ) 12. Court or court staff errors (for instance: poor investigation, lack of regulations on delivery of 1 2 3 4 case-related documents, lack or disrespect of instructive deadlines) 13. Obstruction by the parties to the proceedings (non- appearance of witnesses, 1 2 3 4 intentional protraction by lawyers...) 14. Unintentional mistakes by the parties to the proceedings (unpreparedness, 1 2 3 4 lack of knowledge, incompetence e.g. when the party represents itself…) 15. Gaps in legislation (inefficient rules on delivery, imprecise terms, unregulated 1 2 3 4 areas, different interpretations of law..) A9 Is there any other cause of longer duration of the 8. Yes, what?__________________________________ cases that still hasn't been mentioned? If yes, 9. No please write down A10 In your view, did the system of assignment of the cases to judges affect the 1. Yes, it boosted efficiency efficiency of judicial work and how – did it boost or reduce efficiency? Please 2. Yes, it reduced efficiency select only one answer. 3. No, it did not affect efficiency 4. I am not familiar with that A11 Please estimate the percentage of hearings scheduled for your cases in in the last 12 months that were not 1. ________________ % of hearings that were not held held? If you do not have precise information currently 2. Does not apply to my work place please provide your best estimate A1 Thinking about the hearings which have not been held, what, in your opinion, were the reasons why they 2 were not held? Please look at the following reasons and indicate how frequently, if at all, the particular circumstance was the reason why the hearings were not held *. Please rate each of the 3 already mentioned reasons with a scale from 1 to 4. 224 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Reasons why the hearings were not held Never Rarely Occasionall Often y 1. Reasons caused by the court 1 2 3 4 2. Reasons caused by a party to the proceedings 1 2 3 4 3. Reasons caused by other participants in the 1 2 3 4 proceedings (witnesses, court experts…) 4. Reasons caused by inefficient procedural 1 2 3 4 provisions A13 Is there anything not yet mentioned that was the reason why the hearings were not held? If yes, 3. Yes, what?__________________________________ please write down 4. No A14 Estimate the percentage of all hearings held in the last 1. Percentage of hearings_________________% 12 months that DID NOT SIGNIFICANTLY contribute to 2. Does not apply to my work place progress in the resolution of court cases? A15 What were the main reasons why these hearings were _____________________________________ not as efficient? _____________________________________ Please write your answer ______________________________________________ A16 Estimate the number of hearings on average you 1. Number of hearings per week: ______________ scheduled PER WEEK in the last 12 months? 2. Does not apply to my work place A17 Was this number of hearings optimal, higher or lower 1. Much higher than optimal than optimal given your working conditions at the 2. Somewhat higher than optimal time? 3. Optimal Please select only one answer. 4. Somewhat lower than optimal 5. Much lower than optimal 6. Does not apply to my work place A18 Estimate the percentage of judgments in cases you __________% judgments worked on in the last 12 months that were appealed? A19 Estimate the percentage of cases appealed which did a higher instance court refer back and order a retrial _________ % of cases appealed in in the last 12 months? A20 How satisfied were you with the procedure for 1. Very dissatisfied enforcing the court judgments in cases you worked 2. Dissatisfied on, in the last three years? 3. Satisfied Please select only one answer. 4. Very satisfied 5. Did not have enough information on the enforcement procedure A20 In your opinion, what is the main reason why the ______________________________________ a unenforced court decisions are not enforced? ______________________________________ ______________________________________________ __ A2 In your opinion, how has enactment of the law on 1. It’s reduced the efficiency 1 Enforcement and Security launched in September 2. It remained the same 2011 affected the efficiency of the judicial system? 3. It’s increased the efficiency Please indicate only one answer A2 What do you think in general of the work of the 1. Very negative→ go to A25 2 judicial system in Serbia over the past few years? 2. Negative→ go to A25 Please select only one answer. 3. Satisfactory→ go to A22a 4. Positive→ go to A25 5. Very positive→ go to A25 A2 (ASK ONLY THE RESPONDENTS WHO ANSWERED 1. Negative 2a ‘SATISFACTORY’ ON MA1) But if in expressing your 2. Positive opinion about functioning of judiciary system you should opt only between negative and positive, which side your opinion would be closer to? 225 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 A25 I will now read out a number of statements on the judicial system. Please rate your agreement with each statement on a scale of 1 to 4 where 1 represents ‘fully disagree’ and 4 represents ‘fully agree’ . Please rate each of the 3 already mentioned reasons with a scale from 1 to 4. Fully Mostly Mostly Fully Don’t disagree disagree agree agree Know The judicial system is fair, impartial and not 1 2 3 4 -9 corrupt The judicial system is fast 1 2 3 4 -9 The judicial system is capable of enforcing court 1 2 3 4 -9 decisions A26 In your view, to what extent is the judicial system 6. Not a problem currently a problem for life in Serbia? 7. Small problem [INT] Single response. Read out the answers! 8. Moderate problem 9. Big problem 10. Huge problem B Quality of Work B1 What was the quality of work of the institution in 1. Very low quality→ go to B4 which you have been working in the last 12 months? 2. Low quality→ go to B4 (This question refers to the specific institution the 3. Average quality→ go to B1a respondent worked in)) 4. High quality→ go to B4 Please select only one answer. 5. Very high quality→ go to B4 B1a (ASK ONLY THE RESPONDENTS WHO ANSWERED SATISFACTORY 1. Low ON B1) But if in expressing your opinion about quality of 2. High judiciary you should opt only between low and high, which side your opinion would be closer to? B4 (ANSWERS TO BE PROVIDED BY THOSE WHO REPLIED 1, 2, 3 TO QUESTION B1) Please estimate how much each of the following circumstances was important reason for the quality of work of the institution you worked at in the last 12 months was not higher? Reason why the quality of work was not higher Very Insignifica Partly significan nt significant t 1. Lack of staff 1 2 3 2. Poor organization 1 2 3 3. Poor working conditions (including low remuneration) 1 2 3 4. Poor infrastructure (lack of office space, equipment) 1 2 3 5. Unclear laws allowing for inconsistent interpretations 1 2 3 6. Other problems related to legal regulations (everything else 1 2 3 apart from the reason listed under 5) 7. Contempt of court, improper conduct and non-fulfillment of 1 2 3 obligations to the court 8. Lack of opportunity for additional education (training, 1 2 3 education) of existing staff 9. Poor coordination of judicial bodies 1 2 3 10. Poor professionalism and preparedness of legal 1 2 3 representatives B5 Is there anything not yet mentioned that, in your opinion, was 1. Yes, what?__________ the reason why the quality of work of the institution you worked __________________ at in the last 12 months was not higher? If yes, please write down 2. No B6 Which of the following TABLE B6 reasons that explain why the Reason why the quality of work was not higher The quality of work was not higher most would you select as the most significa important one? nt reason 226 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 PLEASE SINGLE OUT ONLY ONE 1. Lack of staff 1 REASON WHICH YOU CONSIDER THE MOST 2. Poor organization 2 IMPORTANT OUT OF THE 10 3. Poor working conditions (including low remuneration) 3 LISTED FROM TABLE B6. 4. Poor infrastructure (lack of office space, equipment) 4 5. Unclear laws allowing for inconsistent interpretations 5 6. Other problems related to legal regulations (everything else 6 apart from the reason listed under 5) 7. Lack of regulations pre-empting contempt of court, 7 improper conduct and non-fulfillment of obligations to the court 8. Lack of opportunity for additional education (training, 8 education) of existing staff 9. Poor coordination of judicial bodies 9 10. Poor professionalism and preparedness of legal 10 representatives 11. Other , what? 11 __________________________________________________ B7 How satisfied were you with the following aspects of your job in the institution in which you worked in the last 12 months, on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 represents “very dissatisfied” and 4 “very satisfied”? PLEASE RATE EACH OF THE FOLLOWING ASPECTS Very Very Dissatisfied Satisfied dissatisfied satisfied 1. Premises and equipment 1 2 3 4 2. Amount of salary 1 2 3 4 3. Organization of work in 1 2 3 4 general 4. Organization of work in your 1 2 3 4 sector 5. Work climate 1 2 3 4 6. Cooperation with administrative sectors 1 2 3 4 7. Cooperation with superior prosecution 1 2 3 4 8. Cooperation with courts 1 2 3 4 C Accessibility C1 How accessible currently is the judicial system to citizens. Please use a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 means Very inaccessible and 4 means Very accessible. PLEASE INDICATE ONE ANSWER FOR EACH ASPECT IN THE TABLE Very Mostly Mostly Very inaccessible inaccessible accessible accessible 1. In terms of finances – given court- related costs (court taxes, trial costs, 1 2 3 4 travel costs)? 2. In terms of finances – given attorney- 1 2 3 4 related expenses? 3. In terms of geography – given the 1 2 3 4 distance of the courthouse? 4. In terms of layout – how easy was it to find your way and move around the 1 2 3 4 courthouse? 5. In terms of access to information 1 2 3 4 227 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 C2 To what extent were the FOLLOWING judicial institutions accessible to all citizens, notwithstanding their age, education level, ,nationality, …. in the last 12 months PLEASE RATE EACH INSTITUTION Very Mostly Mostly Very inaccessible inaccessible accessible accessible 8. Courts in Serbia 1 2 3 4 9. Prosecution Offices in Serbia 1 2 3 4 10. Court Administrative Services in Serbia 1 2 3 4 11. Services of institution where you 1 2 3 4 worked in the last 12 months C3 In your opinion, in the last 12 months, how 1. Very difficult easy or difficult was it for ALL citizens, 2. Mostly difficult notwithstanding their age, education level, nationality to find their way around the 3. Mostly easy court buildings? 4. Very easy Please select only one answer. C4 In the last 12 months, how easy or difficult 1. Very difficult was it for ALL citizens, notwithstanding their 2. Mostly difficult age, education level, financial status, nationality, invalidity to access the 3. Mostly easy information they needed about functioning 4. Very easy of judicial system (how to file a case, etc.)? Please select only one answer. C6 And which sources of information were 1. Internet accessible to citizens to acquire the 2. Television information they needed about functioning of 3. Radio the judicial system? 4. Dailies and magazines 5. Court bulletin boards You can select multiple answers. 6. Brochures, leaflets 7. Information service (via the telephone) 8. Information counter 9. Registry desk 10. Archive 11. Court staff 12. Lawyers 13. Friends, relatives, colleagues 14. Other:________________________________________ C7 What are the three most efficient ways for 1. ________________________________________________ providing information to citizens? 2. ________________________________________________ You can write multiple responses 3. ________________________________________________ D Fairness D1 How fair was the judicial system in the last 1. Largely unfair → go to D4 12 months? Please rate it on a scale of 1 to 2. Mostly unfair → go to D4 4, where 1 represents ‘Largely unfair’ and 4 3. Mostly fair → go to D4 represents ‘Largely fair’.. 4. U Largely fair → go to D5 D4 (TO BE ANSWERED ONLY BY RESPONDENTS Reason why you did not give a higher grade Chief Second WHO REPLIED 1, 2, 3 TO QUESTION D1) reason reason 1. Insufficient accessibility to all citizens 1 1 What is the chief reason why you did not (insufficient access to information, the grade fairness of the judicial system as system is not suitable for persons with totally fair? What is the second most lower education levels…) important reason? 2. Poor legal provisions 2 2 YOU CAN SELECT ONLY ONE ANSWER AS 3. The judicial system is politicized 3 3 CHIEF REASON, AND ONLY ONE ANSWER AS 4. Corruption in the judicial system 4 4 SECOND REASON 5. Overload/poor organization of the 5 5 judicial system 228 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 6. Poor professionalism of the lawyers 6 6 7. Other: ____________________ 7 7 8. Other: ____________________ 8 8 D5 In your view, does the judicial system in Serbia currently treat all citizens equally, notwithstanding the characteristics listed below? Please give your answer for all 7 listed characteristics: Yes No Gender Yes No Age Yes No Nationality Yes No Socio-economic status Yes No Place of residence Yes No Education Yes No Disability Yes No D6 Is there any other social group which, in your 1. Yes, what?________________________________________ opinion, was not treated equally in the 2. No judicial system? D7 In the in the last 12 months, how equally did Not the case Mostly not the Mostly the Totally the judicial system treat citizens notwithstanding at all case case case age, education, nationality, economic status, disability...? Please rate on a scale from 1 to 4, where 1 means not at all, and 4 means it 1 2 3 4 was totally the case. D9 In your opinion, to what extent were the 1. The Laws were unfair and un objective to a large extent Serbian laws in the last 12 months fair and 2. Some laws were unfair and un objective to some extent objective? 3. Some laws were fair and objective to some extent Please select only one answer. 4. The Laws were fair and objective to a large extent D8 In your opinion, to what extent were the 1. The Laws were imprecise, unclear and ambiguous to a large Serbian laws in the last 12 months precise, extent clear and unambiguous? 2. Some laws were imprecise, unclear and ambiguous to some extent 3. Some laws were precise, clear and unambiguous to some extent 4. The Laws were precise, clear and unambiguous to a large extent D10 What is your view of the enforcement of laws in Serbia in the last 12 months? How often did the following problems occur in the enforcement of laws? PLEASE INDICATE ONE ANSWER FOR EACH PROBLEM Frequ Never Rarely Occasionally ently 1. Selective enforcement of the laws 1 2 3 4 2. Non-enforcement of the laws 1 2 3 4 3. Inconsistent interpretation of the laws 1 2 3 4 4. Inconsistent jurisprudence 1 2 3 4 E Integrity E1 How independent was the judicial system in Serbia 1. Not independent to great extent in the last 12 months? 2. Mostly not independent Please select only one answer. 3. Mostly independent 4. Independent to great extent 229 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 E2 Could you please specify how much did the following institutions jeopardize the independence of the judicial system in the last 12 months? Please give your assessment on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 represents “Not at all” and 4 represents “A lot”. PLEASE SELECT ONLY ONE ANSWER FOR EACH INSTITUATION Not at all A little Quite A lot 1. Government 1 2 3 4 2. Specific ministries 1 2 3 4 3. Political parties 1 2 3 4 4. Politicians 1 2 3 4 5. Big business 1 2 3 4 6. International organizations 1 2 3 4 7. NGOs in Serbia 1 2 3 4 8. Media 1 2 3 4 9. Judges 1 2 3 4 10. Prosecutors 1 2 3 4 11. Lawyers 1 2 3 4 E3 In your opinion, is there any other institution 1. Yes, which hasn't been mentioned that jeopardized what?________________________________________ the independence of the judicial system in the __ last 12 months? 2. No E4 To what extent did the following factors undermine the integrity of the judicial system in the last 12 months? Please give your assessment on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 represents “Not at all” and 4 represents “To a great extent”. PLEASE INDICATE ONE ANSWER FOR EACH FACTOR Not at all Mostly not To an To a extent great extent 1. Corruption in the judicial system 1 2 3 4 2. Political/politicians’ influence on the court and 1 2 3 4 prosecutors 3. Poor, non-transparent personnel policy – how 1 2 3 4 staff is recruited and promoted, appointed to senior posts 4. Inadequate penalties for corruption 1 2 3 4 5. Length of proceedings 1 2 3 4 6. Court decisions 1 2 3 4 7. Sensationalist/exaggerated media reports 1 2 3 4 8. Lack of fairness 1 2 3 4 9. Selective initiation of cases by the prosecution 1 2 3 4 E5 In your opinion, are there any other reasons which 1. Yes, jeopardized the integrity of judicial system in the what?______________________________________ last 12 months? __________ 2. No E6 Which of these factors undermined the Chief factor integrity of the judicial system in the last 12 1. Corruption in the judicial system 1 months the most? PLEASE SELECT ONLY ONE FROM 2. Political/politicians’ influence on the 2 PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED FACTORS FROM court and prosecutors 230 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 TABLE E6 WHICH UNDERMINES THE 3. Poor, non-transparent personnel 3 INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM THE policy – how staff is recruited and MOST. promoted, appointed to senior posts 4. Inadequate penalties for corruption 4 5. Length of proceedings 5 6. Court decisions 6 7. Sensationalist/exaggerated media 7 reports 8. Lack of fairness 8 9. Selective initiation of cases by the 9 prosecution 98. Other, what? 98 ________________________________ ____ E6a To what extent did partiality of judges due to 3. Not at all improper influence of other judges, lawyers and 4. Mostly not other persons participating in the proceedings 5. To an extent undermine the integrity of the judicial system in the 6. To a great extent last 12 months? E7 In your opinion, was there corruption in the judicial 1. There is no corruption → go to E9 system in in the last 12 months? 2. To an extent→ go to E8 Please select only one answer. 3. To a great extent→ go to E8 E8 (TO BE ANSWERED BY RESPONDENTS WHO 1. Systemic ANSWERED 2 or 3 IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION E4) 2. Individual Was corruption systemic or individual? 3. Both E9 (TO BE ANSWERED BY ALL RESPONDENTS) Did you 1. Yes→ go to E10 find yourself in a situation in which someone tried 2. No → go to E12 to resort to informal means (make an additional payment, give you a gift, pull strings) to affect your work? E10 (IF THE ANSWER IS YES ON E9) Who tried to resort to Lawyer 1. informal means to affect your work? Other employee of the court 2. You can select multiple answers. Politicians 3. Ministries 4. Big business 5. Other: 6. _______________________________________ E11 (IF THE ANSWER IS YES ON E9) What was the mean? 1. Pecuniary compensation You can select multiple answers. 2. A gift 3. Political influence 4. A threat 5. Other: _______________________________________ E12 (TO BE ANSWERED BY ALL RESPONDENTS) Was there 1. Yes → go to E13 any form of internal control within the judicial 2. No → go to E15 system in the last 12 months? E13 (IF THE ANSWER IS YES ON E12) How was internal ______________________________________ control conducted? ______________________________________ E14 (IF THE ANSWER IS YES ON E12) To what degree did 1. Not at all the internal control that existed contribute to the 2. A little integrity of the judiciary? 3. Fairly Please select only one answer 4. Greatly 231 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 E15 (TO BE ANSWERED BY ALL RESPONDENTS) In 1. Very important principle, how important is internal control for 2. Somewhat important strengthening the integrity of the judicial system? 3. Unimportant Please select only one answer E16 To what extent did professional associations (Bar Association, Association of Judges, Association of Prosecutors) help strengthen the integrity of the profession they represent? PLEASE RATE EACH OF THE 3 ALREADY MENTIONED ASSOCIATIONS WITH A SCALE FROM 1 TO 4 Bar Association 1. Not at all 2. A little 3. Fairly 4. Greatly Association of Judges 1. Not at all 2. A little 3. Fairly 4. Greatly Association of Prosecutors 1. Not at all 2. A little 3. Fairly 4. Greatly E17 What influence had the media on the integrity of 1. Negative the judicial system as a mechanism of the external 2. Neutral control? 3. Positive Please select only one answer E18 What influence did NGOs have on the integrity of 1. Negative the judicial system as a mechanism of external 2. Neutral control? 3. Positive Please select only one answer E23 What image of the judicial system do the media in 1. The image is worse than reality Serbia generate in general? 2. The image is objective Please select only one answer 3. The image is better than reality F Cost Effectiveness F1 Where could judicial costs have been cut in the last ______________________________________ 12 months? ______________________________________ Multiple responses. ______________________________________ ______________________________________ _________________________ F2 In your opinion, was there a need for investing any ______________________________________ additional funds, which would, in the long term, _________ actually cut costs, since such investments would result in considerable improvement of judicial ______________________________________ efficiency? In what should these additional funds be _________ investigating? ______________________________________ Multiple responses. _________ F3 Has the mediation process (translated in Serbian in 1. Not at all accordance with official name of mediation process, 2. A little as suggested by MOJPA) cut judicial system costs in 3. Fairly Serbia in 2013? Please select only one answer F4 How useful is the mediation process to parties to a 1. Not useful case, i.e. can it help settle a dispute? 2. To an extent useful Please select only one answer 3. Very useful F5 Estimate the percentage of the cases you worked on 0. Does not apply to my work place in the last 12 months that were referred for 1. None mediation? 2. Less than 1% To be answered only by judges adjudicating civil cases. 3. _______________% of the cases F6 Are you well informed about mediation? 1. Yes Please select only one answer 2. No F7 Did you undergo training in mediation? 1. Yes → go to F8 Please select only one answer 2. No → go to F9 232 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 F8 (IF THE ANSWER TO F7 IS YES) Was the training 1. It was sufficient→ go to F10 sufficient or are you in need of better training? 2. I need better training→ go to F10 F9 (IF THE ANSWER TO F7 IS NO) Would training in 1. Very useful mediation be of use to you? 2. Partly useful 3. No F10 Prepared is a draft of the new Law that stipulates 1. It will reduce the efficiency establishing of a completely new mediation system, 2. Efficiency will remain the same which includes license for mediators, founding of a 3. It will increase the efficiency chamber and standardization and accreditation of 4. I do not know enough about it to be able to mediator training programs. In your opinion, how will evaluate enactment of the new Law on Mediation affect the efficiency of the judicial system? One answer G Reforms G3 Do you support the judicial reform launched in 1. Yes, I fully support it→ skip to question G4, than G6, January 2010 in general or not? than continue Please indicate only one answer 2. I support it to an extent→ skip to question G4, than G6, than continue 3. No, I don’t support it → skip to question G5 and continue G4 PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION IF YOU ANSWERED 1 _______________________________________________ OR 2 ON QUESTION G3 _______________________________________________ Why do you support launched in January 2010? _______________________________________________ PLEASE WRITE DOWN YOUR ANSWER ON THE LINES __________________ G5 PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION IF YOU ANSWERED 1 _______________________________________________ OR 2 ON QUESTION G3 _______________________________________________ Why don’t you support reform launched in January _______________________________________________ 2010? __________________ PLEASE WRITE DOWN YOUR ANSWER ON THE LINES G6 To what extent did the judicial system reform launched on 1 January 2010 improve the following dimensions of the judicial system? Please use a scale of -2 to 2, where -2 means Worsen to a great extent and 2 Improve to a great extent. PLEASE INDICATE ONE ANSWER FOR EACH DIMENSION Dimensions Worsened to Worsened to Did not bring Improved to Improved to a a great extent an extent any changes an extent great extent 20. Efficiency (e.g. duration of proceedings, work time spent, -2 -1 0 1 2 number of hearings...) 21. Quality (e.g.: working conditions, organization of work, work -2 -1 0 1 2 climate...) 22. Quality of work of court staff -2 -1 0 1 2 23. Accessibility (e.g. accessibility of judicial services notwithstanding age, education, financial status, -2 -1 0 1 2 nationality….) 24. Fairness (e.g. penal policy, non- selective enforcement of the law, consistent enforcement of the -2 -1 0 1 2 law…) 25. Integrity (e.g.: judicial independence, lack of corruption in -2 -1 0 1 2 the judiciary) 26. More rational spending of budget funds -2 -1 0 1 2 233 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 G7 Did attending the Judicial Academy increase the 1. Yes, to a great extent preparedness of future judges and prosecutors to the 2. Yes, to an extent extent that it made the investment really cost 3. No effective? Please indicate only one answer G8 Did the compulsory seminars introduced within the 1. Yes, to a great extent reforms launched in January 2010 help boost the 2. Yes, to an extent efficiency of work and quality of services in the 3. No judicial system? Please indicate only one answer G9 Did the new organization of courts introduced in 1. Yes, to a great extent January 2010 help boost the efficiency of work and 2. Yes, to an extent quality of services in the judicial system? 3. No Please indicate only one answer G10 The number of judges has been significantly cut by 1. Too small reforms launched in January 2010. Would you say 2. Sufficient that the number of judges, before the judges who 3. Could have been smaller were not reappointed were returned to work, was too small, sufficient or could it have been even smaller in the context of the reforms as a whole? Please indicate only one answer G10 How would you evaluate the current number of 1. Too small a judges - as too small, just right/sufficient or it could 2. Sufficient be even smaller? 3. Could have been smaller G10 When we talk about prosecution offices, did the new organization of 1. Yes, to a great extent b prosecution offices introduced in January 2010 help boost the efficiency of 2. Yes, to an extent work and quality of services in the judicial system? 3. No Please indicate only one answer G10 Would you say that the number of prosecutors and deputy prosecutors, 1. Too small c before prosecutors/deputy prosecutors, who were not reappointed, were 2. Sufficient returned to work, was too small, sufficient or could it have been even smaller? 3. Could have been smaller Please indicate only one answer G10 How would you evaluate the current number of prosecutors/deputy 1. Too small d prosecutors - as too small, just right/sufficient or it could be even smaller? 2. Sufficient 3. Could have been smaller G11 Did the implementation of the reforms from 2010. 1. Yes, to a great extent result in a more adequate penal policy? 2. Yes, to an extent Please indicate only one answer 3. No G12 Did judges with the implementation of the reforms 1. Yes, to a great extent from 2010. have more legal mechanisms to maintain 2. Yes, to an extent order in the court? 3. No Please indicate only one answer H Reforms launched in 2013 H1 How informed are you of the new National strategy 1. Not at all → go to H7 of judicial system reform for the period 2014 - 2018, 2. Mostly not informed → go to H2 adopted in the Parliament in July 2013? Please use a 3. Medium→ go to H2 scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents ‘not informed at 4. Mostly informed→ go to H2 all’ and 5 represents ‘very well informed’. 5. Very well informed→ go to H2 H2 What are your main sources of information about 1. Media (TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, new National strategy of judicial system reform? websites...) 2. Official information 3. Other staff, informal discussions MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE 4. I informed myself by reading the laws 5. Other: __________________________________________ 6. None 234 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 H3 Do you support the new National strategy of judicial 1. Yes, I fully support it→ skip to question H4, than H6, system reform, launched 2013 in general or not? than continue Please indicate only one answer 2. I support it to an extent→ skip to question H4, than H6, than continue 3. No, I don’t support it → skip to question H5 and continue H4 Why do you support it? _______________________________________________ PLEASE WRITE DOWN YOUR ANSWER ON THE LINES _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ ____________________________________ H5 Why not? _______________________________________________ PLEASE WRITE DOWN YOUR ANSWER ON THE LINES _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ ____________________________________ H6 To what extent will the new National strategy of judicial system reform launched on July 2013 improve the following dimensions of the judicial system? Please use a scale of -2 to 2, where -2 means Worsen to a great extent and 2 Improve to a great extent. PLEASE INDICATE ONE ANSWER FOR EACH DIMENSION Dimensions It will not Worsen to a Worsen to an Improve to Improveto a bring any great extent extent an extent great extent changes 8. Efficiency (e.g. duration of proceedings, work time spent, -2 -1 0 1 2 number of hearings...) 9. Quality of working conditions (e.g.: working conditions, organization of -2 -1 0 1 2 work, work climate...) 10. Quality of work of court staff -2 -1 0 1 2 11. Accessibility (e.g. accessibility of judicial services notwithstanding age, education level, financial -2 -1 0 1 2 status, nationality….) 12. Fairness (e.g. penal policy, non- selective enforcement of the law, consistent enforcement of the -2 -1 0 1 2 law…) 13. Integrity (e.g.: judicial independence, lack of corruption in -2 -1 0 1 2 the judiciary) 14. More rational spending of budget funds -2 -1 0 1 2 H7 Have you heard about the new NATIONAL STRATEGY 1. Not at all → go to R1 FOR FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION for period 2013 to 2. Mostly not informed → go to H8 2018 which was adopted in Parliament in July 2013? 3. Medium→ go to H8 Please use a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents ‘not 4. Mostly informed→ go to H8 informed at all’ and 5 represents ‘very well 5. Very well informed→ go to H8 informed’. H8 How efficient will be this strategy 1. Will be ineffective in fighting corruption in judiciary? 2. Will be effective, but not to a sufficient extent 3. Will be very effective Please answer also to some questions regarding gender-related differences in your profession R1 Do you think that both men and women in your 1. Yes, they have equal chances profession have equal chances for professional 2. No, men have more chances than women promotion? 3. No, women have more chances than men 4. DK, I can’t estimate R2 And, thinking about total income of people employed 1. Women have much higher income in your profession, which beside salary includes other 2. Women have somewhat higher income 235 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 forms of income (travel expenses, bonuses, and similar 3. Women and men have equal income receipts), would you say that there are differences 4. Men have somewhat higher income between men and women, or they are equal from that 5. Men have much higher income aspect? R3 As far as you know, have there been any cases of 1. No sexual harassment against any employee in your 2. Yes institution? 3. Not sure STATISTICAL DATA AT THE END, PLEASE ANSWER FEW MORE QUESTIONS WHICH WE NEED FOR THE STATISTICS OF THE SURVEY A What was your position within the judicial system in 1. Prosecutor 2009? 2. Deputy prosecutor 3. Other: ___________________ (please specify) 4. I wasn’t working within the judicial system in 2009 B In 2009, which region did you work in? 1. Vojvodina 2. Belgrade 3. Central Serbia C In 2009, which body did you work in? Prosecution 1. Republic 2. District 3. Municipality D After the 2009 reform of the judiciary, did you 1. Yes (END) continue working as a prosecutor or deputy 2. No (GO TO QUESTION E) prosecutor without interruptions? E When did you start working as a prosecutor or deputy Month______________ prosecutor again, or when were you returned to work Year_____________ by the decision of the Constitutional Court? 236 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Questionnaire for Court administrative staff INSTRUCTIONS: THE QUESTIONNAIRE IS INTENDED FOR STAFF WHO CURRENTLY WORK IN COURT ADMINISTRATION AND ON THE SAME POSITION AT LEAST FOR LAST 12 MONTHS AND WHO WORK ON CASES BOTH DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY WITH CLIENTS OR NOT (ON SERVICE COUNTER OR IN OFFICE) Please read the questions in the left column carefully and then provide answer in the right column. There is an instruction how to answer each question. As you can notice, there are 3 main types of questions: 1. Questions that you answer by circling the number in front of ONE of the suggested answers in the right column that best applies to you 2. Questions where you are expected to choose several answers 3. Questions where there are no suggested answers, but you write down your answer Some questions are inserted in tables. Please pay close attention where you are supposed to, in order to evaluate all options (statements) in those tables. PLEASE ANSWER ALL THE QUESTIONS IN THIS QUESTIONNAIRE. YOUR OPINION AND EXPERIENCES ARE VERY VALUBALE FOR THIS STUDY. This interview is ANONYMOUS (we are not asking for your name) and all collected data will be displayed as group data. X0a World Bank and agency Ipsos Strategic Marketing in 1. Yes 2010 conducted survey similar to this one about 2. No judiciary system in Serbia. Did you participate in the survey in April/May 2010 about situation in judiciary? Did you participate in the survey January 2011 about situation in judiciary? X0b In what year did you start working in court __________________ year administrative services? X1 What position did you hold in the court administrative ____________________________________________ service in the last 12 months? X2 In the administrative service of which institution did you work in the last 12 months? 1. Court of General Jurisdiction 2. Courts of Special Jurisdiction 1. Principal 1. Economic court 2. Superior 2. Economic Appellate court 3. Appellate 3. Administrative court 4. Supreme court of cassation 4. Misdemeanor court 5. Superior misdemeanor court X3 When were you appointed to that position in the 1. Month _____________ administrative service? 2. Year _____________ X4 In what region is the institution that you worked in the 1. Belgrade last 12 months located? 2. Vojvodina 3. Central Serbia X5 Your sex? 1. Male 2. Female X6 How old are you? 1. up to 35 years old 2. 36 - 50 years old 3. 51 years old and more 237 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 A All questions refer to your work place, working conditions and tasks you were doing in last 12 months A1 What sector of the court administrative service did you 1. Registry desk work in the last 12 months? 2. Department for reception, verification and expedition 3. Other: _______________________________ A2 Which administrative tasks did fall within your job 1. Authentication (of documents and contracts) description? 2. Receipt and expedition of documents MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE 3. Administrative tasks related to land registries 4. Administrative tasks related to archives 5. Administrative tasks in registry office 6. Render a statement 7. Other : _______________________________ A2a Did your job involve work on a computer? 1. Yes 2. No A3 To what extent did your job involve interaction with 1. Every day clients? 2. Occasionally PLEASE CHOSE ONLY ONE ANSWER 3. Never (I didn’t directly interact with clients) A4 Where did you interact with clients? 1. I didn’t interact with clients PLEASE CHOSE ONLY ONE ANSWER 2. At a service counter 3. In my office 4. Other, where? A5 How many cases did you handle on average on a daily basis in the last 12 months? Number of cases ___________________ A6 Was your workload in the last 12 months greater, smaller 1. Much greater or average compared to the previous years ? 2. Somewhat greater PLEASE CHOSE ONLY ONE ANSWER 3. Average 4. Somewhat smaller 5. Much smaller A6a What would have been the optimal daily caseload, in your opinion, given THE CONDITIONS YOU WORKED IN the last 12 months? Number of cases ___________________ A7 On average how many clients did you have contact with 1. I didn’t interact with clients on a daily basis in the last 12 months? Number of clients ___________________ A8 Was it an average year where direct contact with clients 1. A much greater number of clients is concerned or did you have fewer or more contacts with 2. A somewhat greater number of clients clients on a daily basis compared to the previous years? 3. An average number of clients 4. A somewhat smaller number of clients PLEASE CHOSE ONLY ONE ANSWER 5. A much smaller number of clients 6. I didn’t interact with clients A8a What would have been the optimal daily number of 1. I didn’t interact with clients clients, in your opinion, given THE CONDITIONS YOU WORKED IN the last 12 months? Number of clients ___________________ A9 How much time on average do you spend in work with a 1. I didn’t interact with clients client whenever s/he comes? ______________ minutes A10 How many times on average did a client need to come to 1. I didn’t interact with clients your service counter/department to complete one administrative task? ______________ times 238 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 A11 Can the administrative tasks 1. The client can finish the bulk of administrative tasks from my domain with that you perform be done me, that is, it is rarely necessary for the client to go to other offices or court entirely in your office, or the windows client has to do part of the 2. The client can finish a greater part of administrative tasks from my domain administrative task with with me, but it is occasionally necessary to go to other offices or court your colleagues in other windows because of some tasks office or at other window? 3. The client can finish approximately one half of administrative tasks from my domain with me, and circa one half of administrative tasks require visiting PLEASE CHOSE ONLY ONE other offices or court windows ANSWER 4. Greater portion of administrative tasks from my domain can not be finished with me, so the client must go to other offices and court windows 5. The bulk of administrative tasks from my domain can not be finished with me, so the client must go to other offices and court windows 6. I didn’t interact with clients A12 Can you estimate the timeframe in which your sector Time frame % completed cases i.e. the percentage of cases completed 1. Within the legal deadline in the last 12 months within the legal deadline and the percentage completed beyond the expiry of the legal 2. Upon the expiry of the legal deadline deadline? Total Σ=100 % A13 Could these administrative tasks have been completed in less time? 1. Yes 2. No A14 What would help cut down the time of 1. Greater number of service counters/staff completion of the task? 2. Better staff training 3. Higher salaries of staff MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE 4. Greater staff commitment 5. Additional financial incentives for staff 6. Better technical equipment (computers) 7. Simplification of the procedure 8. If the clients were better informed (about which documents they need, etc.) 9. Better allocation of work within the sector 10. Other: ______________________________________ 11. Other: ______________________________________ 12. Task cannot be completed in less time A15 Does the administrative service in which you 1. Yes work have an information counter? 2. No A16 To what extent did the information counter 1. Administrative service in which I work does not have an reduce the workload of other sectors in the information counter administrative services? 2. To a great extent PLEASE CHOSE ONLY ONE ANSWER 3. To an extent 4. Not at all A17 How satisfied are you with the efficiency of your sector in 1. Very dissatisfied institution in which you worked in the last 12 months? Efficiency 2. Dissatisfied entails no waste of time and the fast and quality completion of 3. Satisfied work. 4. Very satisfied PLEASE CHOSE ONLY ONE ANSWER B B1 What quality of services was rendered to clients by the 1. Very low quality→ go to B2 sector in which you worked in the last 12 months? 2. Low quality→ go to B2 PLEASE CHOSE ONLY ONE ANSWER 3. Average quality→ go to B1a 4. High quality→ go to B2 5. Very high quality→ go to B2 239 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 B1a (ASK ONLY THE RESPONDENTS WHO ANSWERED 1. Negative AVERAGE ON B1) But if in expressing your opinion 2. Positive about quality of of services was rendered to clients by the sector in which you worked in the last twelve months you should opt only between negative and positive, which side your opinion would be closer to? B2 To what extent were the following circumstances important as the reasons why quality of work of the sector you worked in was not higher? Please evaluate every circumstance in the table as „Insignificant”, “Partly significant“ or „Very significant“ Reason why the quality of work was not Insignificant Partly significant Very significant higher 1. Lack of staff 1 2 3 2. Poor organization 1 2 3 3. Poor working conditions (including low 1 2 3 remuneration) 4. Poor infrastructure (lack of office space, 1 2 3 equipment) 5. Insufficient training of existing staff 1 2 3 6. Poor organization and allocation of work 1 2 3 7. Poor inter-sectoral cooperation 1 2 3 8. Inaccurate and inadequate legal rules 1 2 3 B2a Is there anything else not listed here that you consider a reason why the quality of work of the 1. Yes, what?______________________________ sector (organizational unit) you work in the last _ 12 months not higher? 2. No If yes, please write down B3 Which of the reasons why quality of work was not higher 1. Lack of staff would you rank as the first, or the most significant one? 2. Poor organization PLEASE CHOOSE ONE ANSWER FROM 7 SUGGESTED. IF THERE 3. Poor working conditions (including low IS NO REASON YOU FIND MOST IMPORTANT AMONG remuneration) SUGGESTED ANSWERS, PLEASE WRITE UNDER "OTHER, WHAT" 4. Poor infrastructure (lack of office space, equipment) 5. Insufficient training of existing staff 6. Poor organization and allocation of work 7. Poor inter-sectorial cooperation 8. Other, what:__________________________________ B6 Please rate your satisfaction with the following aspects of your job in the institution in which you work in last 12 months on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 represents ‘very dissatisfied’ and 4 represents ‘very satisfied’. Very dissatisfied Dissatisfied Satisfied Very satisfied 1. Premises and equipment 1 2 3 4 2. Amount of salary 1 2 3 4 3. Organization of work in general 1 2 3 4 4. Organization of work in your sector 1 2 3 4 5. Work climate 1 2 3 4 6. Cooperation with other administrative 1 2 3 4 sectors 7. Cooperation with other non- 1 2 3 4 administrative sectors 8. Cooperation with superiors 1 2 3 4 9. Cooperation with the court judges 1 2 3 4 240 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 B7 How many training sessions on work in the court 0. None administrative service did you have? 1. 1 PLEASE CHOSE ONLY ONE ANSWER 2. 2 3. 3 4. Over 3, how many? _______________ B8 How would you assess the knowledge you acquired at 5. Fully sufficient the training sessions? 6. Partly sufficient PLEASE CHOSE ONLY ONE ANSWER 7. Insufficient 8. I didn’t have any training B9 Do you feel you need additional training to perform 1. Yes your job well? 2. No B10 Is there ongoing training in use of computer programs 1. Yes in the sector you work in? 2. No B11 How well trained are you in the use of computer 1. Fully, for me to do my job well programs? 2. Sufficiently, for me to do my job well PLEASE CHOSE ONLY ONE ANSWER 3. Not enough, for me to do my job well 4. Not at all, for me to do my job well B12 Do you encounter communication problems in your 1. Yes work with clients? 2. No 3. I don’t work with clients B13 What do you find problematic in working with clients? 1. Their lack of information about the case PLEASE CHOSE ONLY ONE ANSWER 2. Their failure to understand the information I am imparting to them 3. Their unpleasantness 4. Other: _______________ 5. I don’t encounter communication problems in work with clients 6. i don’t work with clients C C1 How accessible are currently the judicial administrative services to the public on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 represents ‘very inaccessible’ and 4 represents ‘very accessible’. PLEASE EVALUATE EACH ASPECT FROM THE TABLE Very Mostly Mostly Very Can’t inaccessible inaccessible accessible accessible estimate 1. In terms of finances – given the 1 2 3 4 9 administrative costs? 2. In terms of geography – given the 1 2 3 4 9 distance of the courthouse? 3. In terms of layout – how easy was it to find your way and move 1 2 3 4 9 around the courthouse? 4. In terms of access to information 1 2 3 4 9 C2 How accessible were the judicial administrative services to all 1. Very inaccessible citizens, notwithstanding their age, education, financial status, 2. Mostly inaccessible nationality, disability …. in the last 12 months? Please rate their 3. Mostly accessible accessibility on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 represents ‘very 4. Very accessible inaccessible’ and 4 represents ‘very accessible’. Don’t know PLEASE CHOSE ONLY ONE ANSWER C3 In your opinion, how easy or difficult was it in the last 12 months for ALL 1. Very difficult citizens, notwithstanding their age, education level, financial status, 2. Mostly difficult nationality, or disability to find their way around the court building where 3. Mostly easy you worked? 4. Very easy PLEASE CHOSE ONLY ONE ANSWER 241 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 C4 How easy or difficult was it in the last 12 months for ALL citizens, 1. Very difficult notwithstanding their age, education level, financial status, nationality, or 2. Mostly difficult disability to access information regarding the administrative task they 3. Mostly easy came to complete in court? 4. Very easy PLEASE CHOSE ONLY ONE ANSWER C6 Which sources of information were in the last 12 months 1. Internet websites available to citizens who wanted to obtain information about 2. TV the administrative tasks they wanted to complete? 3. Radio 4. Daily newspapers MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE 5. Court bulletin boards 6. Brochures, leaflets 7. Information service (via the telephone) 8. Information counter 9. Registry desk 10. Court archives 11. Court staff 12. Lawyer 13. Friends, relatives, colleagues 14. Other: ___________________________________ ____ C8 What are the three most efficient ways of 1. informing the public? ____________________________________________ UP TO 3 ANSWERS 2. ____________________________________________ 3. ____________________________________________ D D1 To what extent was corruption present in the court administrative services 1. To a great extent in the last 12 months? 2. To an extent PLEASE CHOSE ONLY ONE ANSWER 3. There were none D2 Was there any form of internal control within the court administrative 1. Yes service in the last 12 months? No D3 How was internal control 1. There were no internal control conducted? 2. _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________ ___________________________________ D4 Do you know if your work is appraised? 1. Yes 2. No D5 If your work is appraised please 1.___________________________________________________________ write down who appraises your _________________________________________________________ work ________________________ 2. I don’t know who appraises my work D6 Do you know of anyone at work who was held disciplinarily liable for not 1. Yes doing his/her job well? 2. No D7 Do you know of anyone at work who was in a situation in which a client 1. Yes tried to resort to informal means (make an additional payment, give you 2. No a gift, pull strings) to influence his/her work? D8 Do you know anyone at work who agreed to receive compensation for a 1. Yes task s/he completed? 2. No 242 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 D9 What did that person at work 1. Pulling strings (with an employee, political influence….) receive as compensation for a task 2. Pecuniary compensation s/he completed? 3. A gift 4. Rendering a “service in return” MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE 5. Other: _______________________________________ 6. I don’t know any person at work who agreed to receive compensation for a task s/he completed D10 Did you ever find yourself in a situation in which a client tried to resort to 1. Yes informal means (make an additional payment, give you a gift, pull strings) 2. No to affect your work? D11 Did you ever find yourself in a situation in which you accepted some form 1. Yes of compensation for your work from a client? 2. No D12 What did the informal means 3. I did someone I know a favor entail- what did you receive? 4. Pecuniary compensation MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE 5. A gift 6. I rendered a “service in return” 7. Other: _______________________________________ 8. I have never been in such a situation D12 Has it happened during the past 12 9. Never a months that some party suggested 10. Rarely you to influence your work in some 11. Occasionally informal way? 12. Often D13 Did your court provide clients with 1. Yes the option of personal filing of 2. No complaints to the work of court staff in the last 12 months? E E1 Where could the court _________________________________________________ administrative services have cut _________________________________________________ costs in the last 12 months? PLEASE WRITE DOWN YOUR ANSWER _________________________________________________ ON THE LINES E2 In your opinion, was there a need for _________________________________________________ investing any additional funds, _________________________________________________ which would, in the long term, actually cut costs, since such _________________________________________________ investments would result in considerable improvement of judicial efficiency? In what should these additional funds be investigating? PLEASE WRITE DOWN YOUR ANSWER ON THE LINES G G3 Do you support the judicial reform launched in 1. Yes, I fully support it (skip to question G4, than G6, January 2010 in general or not? then continue) Please indicate only one answer 2. I support it to an extent ( skip to question G4, than G6, then continue) 3. No, I don’t support it ( skip to question G5 and continue) 243 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 G3a PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION IF YOU ANSWERED 1 ______________________________________________ OR 2 ON QUESTION G3 ______________________________________________ Why do you support reform launched in January ______________________________________________ 2010? _____________________ PLEASE WRITE DOWN YOUR ANSWER ON THE LINES G4 PLEASE ANSWER THIS QUESTION IF YOU ANSWERED 1 ______________________________________________ OR 2 ON QUESTION G3 ______________________________________________ Why don’t you support reform launched in January ______________________________________________ 2010? _____________________ PLEASE WRITE DOWN YOUR ANSWER ON THE LINES G5 How was the work of your sector changed by the reform introduced in January 2010? ___________________________________________________ PLEASE WRITE DOWN YOUR ___________________________________________________ ANSWER ON THE LINES ___________________________________________________ _____ G6 How do you assess these 1. As positive changes of the work of your 2. As negative sector? 3. I don’t have a view on them PLEASE CHOSE ONLY ONE ANSWER. G7 To what extent did the judicial system reforms launched on 1 January 2010 improv the following dimensions of the judicial system? Please use a scale of -2 to 2, where -2 means Worsened to a great extent and 2 Improved to a great extent. PLEASE INDICATE ONE ANSWER FOR EACH DIMENSION Dimensions Improved to Worsened to Worsened to Did not bring Improved to a great a great extent an extent any changes an extent extent 27. Efficiency (e.g. duration of proceedings, work time spent, -2 -1 0 1 2 number of hearings...) 28. Quality (e.g.: working conditions, organization of work, work -2 -1 0 1 2 climate...) 29. Quality of work of court staff -2 -1 0 1 2 30. Accessibility (e.g. accessibility of judicial services notwithstanding age, education, financial status, -2 -1 0 1 2 nationality….) 31. Fairness (e.g. penal policy, non- selective enforcement of the law, consistent enforcement of the -2 -1 0 1 2 law…) 32. Integrity (e.g.: judicial independence, lack of corruption in -2 -1 0 1 2 the judiciary) 33. More rational spending of budget funds -2 -1 0 1 2 G8 To what extent did the judicial system reforms launched on 1 January 2010 improve the following dimensions of the court administrative sources? Please use a scale of -2 to 2, where -2 means Worsened to a great extent and 2 Improved to a great extent. PLEASE INDICATE ONE ANSWER FOR EACH DIMENSION 244 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 Dimensions Improved Worsened to a Worsened to Did not bring Improved to to a great great extent an extent any changes an extent extent 1. Efficiency (e.g. time it takes to complete the case, number of -2 -1 0 1 2 completed cases...) 2. Quality (e.g.: working conditions, organization of work, work -2 -1 0 1 2 climate...) 3. Quality of work of court administration staff -2 -1 0 1 2 4. Accessibility (e.g. accessibility of administrative services notwithstanding the client’s age, -2 -1 0 1 2 education, financial status, nationality...) 5. Integrity (e.g. independence, lack of corruption within the sector) -2 -1 0 1 2 6. The accuracy of norms / rules governing the work of -2 -1 0 1 2 administrative services H Reforms launched in 2013 H1 How well informed are you about the new National 1. Not at all → go to H7 strategy for judiciary reforms for the period 2013- 2. Mostly not informed → go to H2 2018 adopted in the Parliament in July 2013? Please 3. Medium→ go to H2 use a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents ‘not informed 4. Mostly informed→ go to H2 at all’ and 5 represents ‘very well informed’. 5. Very well informed→ go to H2 H2 What are your main sources of information about 1. Media (TV, radio, newspapers, magazines, new National strategy for judiciary reforms? websites...) 2. Official information 3. Other staff, informal discussions MULTIPLE ANSWERS POSSIBLE 4. I informed myself by reading the laws 5. Other: __________________________________________ 6. None H3 Do you generally support the new National strategy 1. Yes, I fully support it→ skip to question G4, than for judiciary reforms, launched in July 2013 or not? G6, than continue Please indicate only one answer 2. I support it to an extent→ skip to question G4, than G6, than continue 3. No, I don’t support it → skip to question G5 and continue H4 Why do you support it? 1. I do not support the reform PLEASE WRITE DOWN YOUR ANSWER ON THE LINES 2. ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ___________________________ H5 Why don’t you support it? 1. I support the reform PLEASE WRITE DOWN YOUR ANSWER ON THE LINES 2. ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ______________________________________________ ___________________________ H6 To what extent will the new National strategy for judiciary reforms, launched in July 2013 improve the following dimensions of the court administrative sources? Please use a scale of -2 to 2, where -2 means Worsen to a great extent and 2 Improve to a great extent. PLEASE INDICATE ONE ANSWER FOR EACH DIMENSION Dimensions It will not Improve Worsen to a Worsen to an Improve to an bring any to a great great extent extent extent changes extent 245 Perception of judiciary performance in Serbia, 2009-2013 1. Efficiency (e.g. time it takes to complete the case, number of -2 -1 0 1 2 completed cases...) 2. Quality (e.g.: working conditions, organization of work, work -2 -1 0 1 2 climate...) 3. Quality of work of court administration staff -2 -1 0 1 2 4. Accessibility (e.g. accessibility of administrative services notwithstanding the client’s age, -2 -1 0 1 2 education, financial status, nationality...) 5. Integrity (e.g. independence, lack of corruption within the sector) -2 -1 0 1 2 6. The accuracy of norms / rules governing the work of -2 -1 0 1 2 administrative services H7 How well informed are you about the new NATIONAL 1. Not at all → go to R1 STRATEGY FOR FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION which 2. Mostly not informed → go to H8 was adopted in Parliament in July 2013? Please use a 3. Medium→ go to H8 scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents ‘not informed at 4. Mostly informed→ go to H8 all’ and 5 represents ‘very well informed’. 5. Very well informed→ go to H8 H8 How much will this strategy 1. They were ineffective contribute to the efficiency of 2. They were effective, but not to a sufficient extent fighting corruption in judiciary? 3. They were very effective F Please answer also some questions regarding gender-related differences in your profession R1 Do you think that both men and women in your 1. Yes, they have equal chances profession have equal chances for professional 2. No, men have more chances than women promotion? 3. No, women have more chances than men 4. DK, I can’t estimate R2 And, thinking about total income of people employed 1. Women have much higher income in your profession, which beside salary includes other 2. Women have somewhat higher income forms of income (travel expenses, bonuses, and 3. Women and men have equal income similar receipts), would you say that there are 4. Men have somewhat higher income differences between men and women, or they are 5. Men have much higher income equal from that aspect? R3 As far as you know, have there been any cases of 1. No sexual harassment against any employee in your 2. Yes institution? 3. Not sure 246