2013年-世界发展银行全球_Romania_Judicial_Functional_Review_174页_2mb

Summary of Romania Judicial Functional Review (March 2013)

Core Content

This report is a functional review of Romania's judicial system, commissioned by the Romanian Government, funded by the European Union, and conducted by the World Bank. Its primary objective is to evaluate the performance of the judicial system and provide recommendations for improvement. The review is not solely for the European Union's Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) but aims to establish a foundation for future action through empirical analysis.

Scope of the Review

The review covers a broad range of institutions within Romania's judicial system, including:

• Courts (ordinary courts, courts of appeal, tribunals)
• Ministry of Justice (focusing on functions directly related to the judiciary and Public Ministry)
• Public Ministry (including the National Anti-Corruption Directorate)
• Independent legal professionals (such as private attorneys, notaries, and bailiffs)

It excludes the Constitutional Court, military courts, the Directorate for the Investigation of Organized Crime and Terrorism (DIICOT), the National Integrity Agency, and administrative bodies that make preliminary decisions.

Main Findings and Issues

1. Performance Assessment

• Efficiency:

  • The judicial system manages a high caseload (from ~1.488 million to ~2.3 million new cases annually between 2007 and 2011) and maintains stable clearance rates (90–100%) and operativity rates (75–80%).
  • However, delays persist due to multiple appeals and lack of performance targets. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) highlights this as a structural issue.
  • Some cases, such as trivial or mass litigation, are not prioritized, leading to inefficiencies.

• Quality:

  • Corruption is a significant concern, with a relatively high prevalence of perceived unofficial payments in civil courts (10% in 2011, compared to 18% in 2006 and 1% in Western Europe).
  • Trust in the judiciary is low (14% in 2011, compared to 28% in 2006 and over 50% in Western Europe), partly due to the perception that the judiciary is ineffective in combating corruption.
  • Inconsistent legal interpretations and unpredictable judgments are also a challenge, though not quantified in the review.

• Access:

  • Litigation rates are high (nearly 10,000 cases per 100,000 inhabitants per year), suggesting access is not a major barrier.
  • However, legal aid services are underdeveloped, with only 29% of respondents to the court user survey exempted from court fees.
  • Satisfaction with access is low, particularly regarding the availability of information, ease of accessing courts, and clarity of court communication.
  • A high percentage of parties (21%) are unrepresented, but judges and prosecutors report providing assistance to them.

2. System Resources

• Human Resources:

  • The number of judges and prosecutors per capita aligns with European norms.
  • However, the ratio of clerks to judges is too low, and judicial workload is not effectively managed due to a lack of case filters.
  • The allocation of staff among courts does not match the actual caseloads.

• Financial Resources:

  • The justice sector budget as a percentage of GDP is in the upper range of EU countries.
  • The legal aid budget is among the lowest in the region.
  • Budget management for the courts has not yet been transferred to the High Court of Cassation and Justice (HCCJ), and the process remains under the Ministry of Justice (MOJ).
  • The budgeting process lacks performance-linked allocation, which hinders strategic management.

• ICT Resources:

  • Romania has made progress in integrating information and communications technology (ICT) into judicial operations.
  • However, the system remains fragmented, with insufficient coordination and integration.
  • The quality of data and user training is inadequate, limiting the potential of ICT to enhance performance.

Key Recommendations

• Strategic Management and Planning:

  • Introduce a system-wide strategic management framework that includes performance measurement and targets for efficiency, quality, and access.
  • Align financial resource allocation with performance goals to ensure focus on service delivery.

• Improving Efficiency:

  • Implement case filtering mechanisms to reduce the number of non-priority cases.
  • Enhance ICT integration to streamline processes and improve data quality.
  • Ensure judicial and prosecutorial workloads are managed effectively, especially in light of the new codes (NCrPC and NCvPC).

• Enhancing Quality:

  • Address corruption through stronger accountability mechanisms and transparency.
  • Establish uniform legal interpretation standards to reduce unpredictability in judgments.

• Improving Access:

  • Expand legal aid services and improve their quality.
  • Strengthen alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to reduce the burden on courts.
  • Improve court information systems to make it easier for citizens to access legal information and services.

Conclusion

The review identifies the need for a strategic, integrated approach to managing Romania's judicial system. It emphasizes that while the system is adequately funded and has a reasonable number of personnel, the lack of strategic planning and performance measurement leads to suboptimal use of resources. The introduction of ICT, better case management, and performance-linked budgeting are critical for improving the system's efficiency and quality. The review also underscores the importance of combating corruption and enhancing access to justice for the judiciary to meet its full potential and align with EU standards.