2018年-世界发展银行全球_Montenegro___Experiences_and_Perceptions_of_Judicial_Performance_144页_2mb

Summary of MONTENEGRO: Experiences and Perceptions of Judicial Performance

Introduction

The World Bank conducted a survey in January 2018 to assess the perception of the judiciary in Montenegro through five dimensions: efficiency, quality, accessibility, fairness, and integrity (including independence and corruption). The survey aimed to support the Montenegrin Government in its reform and modernization efforts. It included perspectives from judges, prosecutors, court administrative staff, citizens, business sector representatives, and lawyers.

Core Content

1. General Perception of Judicial Performance

• Judges and Prosecutors:

  • Hold a very positive view of the judiciary across all five dimensions.
  • Efficiency and quality are evaluated less positively than accessibility and fairness.
  • Integrity is viewed more favorably by judges and prosecutors compared to the general public.

• Citizens and Business Sector:

  • Generally rate the judiciary positively, but integrity is the most criticized dimension.
  • Perception of fairness is influenced by their experience with a court case.
  • Lawyers have a perception closer to that of judges and prosecutors, except for corruption, which they view more critically.

2. Key Reasons for Low Judicial Performance Evaluation

Efficiency

• Insufficient number of judges and support staff.
• Poor infrastructure.
• Inefficient hearings and delays in the process.

Quality

• Lack of staff.
• Unclear laws leading to inconsistent interpretations.
• Limited opportunities for additional education and training.

Fairness

• Poor legal provisions.
• Inadequate accessibility of court services.
• Politicization of the judiciary (noted by lawyers).
• Corruption (noted by lawyers).

Integrity

• Sensationalist media reporting is seen as a major threat.
• Inconsistent decisions for similar cases.
• Long proceedings and inadequate penalties for corruption.
• Nontransparent personnel policies.
• Selective case initiation by prosecutors.
• Political and organized crime influence.

3. Experience with a Court Case

Efficiency

• No significant difference in perception of overall court efficiency between citizens with and without court experience.
• Citizens with court experience tend to rate court efficiency in their specific case more negatively.
• Business sector representatives with court experience perceive court efficiency more negatively than those without.
• Efficiency index based on upheld hearings shows 70% agreement between users and providers, while lawyers rate it at 50%.

Quality

• Citizens with court experience rate quality of work in their case more positively than general perception.
• Business sector representatives also rate quality of work in their case more positively.
• Outcome of the trial significantly affects perception of quality.
• More than half of citizens whose case was not in their favor still rate the quality positively.

Accessibility

• Judges and prosecutors rate accessibility of the judiciary more positively than citizens and lawyers.
• Lawyer costs are the most difficult aspect of accessibility for all groups.
• Citizens with court experience perceive accessibility of lawyers more negatively.
• Business sector representatives have a similar perception of lawyer accessibility regardless of experience.

Fairness

• Citizens with court experience rate fairness of their specific case more positively than general perception.
• Outcome of the trial significantly influences perception of fairness.
• Citizens without court experience rate fairness of the judiciary more positively.
• Equal treatment of citizens is perceived as lacking, especially by those with political affiliation or different economic status.
• Business sector representatives also perceive unequal treatment, especially based on ownership structure and company size.

Integrity

• Experience with a court case does not significantly affect perception of corruption.
• Only 10% of citizens with court experience reported using informal means.
• Confidence in the judiciary is 60%, but it is not among the most trusted institutions.
• Corruption is perceived as present by 60% of users, but not by most providers.

4. Perception of Judicial Reforms

• Legal experts (judges, prosecutors, lawyers) generally expect positive effects from reforms across all dimensions.
• Citizens have lower expectations, with less than half anticipating improvements.
• No single priority is identified by legal experts for reform.
• Judges and prosecutors focus on financial status of the judiciary.
• Lawyers emphasize judicial independence.
• Other common priorities include expertise and quality, additional training, improved working conditions, and legal regulations.

5. Administrative Court Services and Notary Services

• Efficiency: Most users and providers agree on 70% efficiency, while lawyers report 50%.
• Quality: Perceived as positive, but with concerns about training and resources.
• Accessibility: Citizens and lawyers find lawyer costs as the most challenging aspect.
• Integrity: Perceived as low, with concerns about corruption and nontransparent policies.

Conclusion

The survey highlights a disconnect between the perception of the judiciary by legal professionals and the general public. While judges and prosecutors are highly confident in the judiciary’s performance, citizens and business sector representatives express more skepticism and dissatisfaction, particularly regarding fairness and integrity. Lawyers serve as a bridge between these groups, with a perception that is closer to that of legal professionals in most areas, except for corruption, where they align more with the public. The reforms are expected to improve the judiciary, but citizens are less optimistic than legal professionals. Efficiency and quality are the most frequently mentioned areas for improvement, alongside independence and corruption.