Dynamic database of European judicial systems
Welcome to CEPEJ-STAT
This database allows you to find various data on judicial systems of Council of Europe Member states / entities and observers collected by the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ). Data, and attached comments, based on CEPEJ methodology, which are a reference for collecting large number of quantitative and qualitative judicial data.
Data presented are 2010, 2012, 2014 , 2016 and 2018.
To access to CEPEJ data, please select below any of the dashboards or the explorers. A table of reference may help you to navigate in these dashboards or explorers by describing the content of chapters, groups of questions and type of data.
- CEPEJ 2018 report (2016 data)
- CEPEJ 2018 report (2016 data) - Overview
- CEPEJ 2016 report (2014 data) - Overview
- CEPEJ 2016 report (2014 data)
- CEPEJ 2016 thematic report: Use of information technology in European courts (2014 data)
- CEPEJ questionnaire (2014 data)
- Explanatory note of the CEPEJ questionnaire (2014 data)
- CEPEJ 2014 report (2012 data)
- CEPEJ questionnaire (2012 data)
- Explanatory note of the CEPEJ questionnaire (2012 data)
- CEPEJ 2012 report (2010 data)
- CEPEJ questionnaire (2010 data)
- Explanatory note of the CEPEJ questionnaire (2010 data)
The CEPEJ, giving the highest importance to the quality of its data, stresses the necessity to comply with the methodology of use of such data. In this respect, we kindly remind you that, CEPEJ data can be used and understood only in the combination with the comments (metadata) provided by the national correspondents during the data collection and quality control. When CEPEJ data is used, please quote the source, especially when data from other sources are simultaneously used.
Several tables include replies to the CEPEJ Evaluation questionnaire as provided by the national correspondents appointed by each member or state or observers who participate to the evaluation process. Other tables show the replies processed together or presented according to aggregated or standardized values. Some indicators are shown in maps.
The approval of the data was made according to a rigorous methodology. However, it is not possible to guarantee the full reliability of all data. The variability of some data were not always explained despite the confirmation of their accuracy by the national correspondents. In case of significant variations (outliers), the results of the analyses were either excluded or kept but with the appropriate disclaimers.
The CEPEJ has chosen to process and present only the figures which offered a high level of quality and reliability. It decided to disregard the figures which were too disparate from one country to another, or from one evaluation exercise to another, or did not present sufficient guarantees of accuracy.
The comparison of quantitative data from different countries with various geographical, economic and legal situations is a delicate task. It should be approached with great caution by the experts writing the report and by the readers consulting it, interpreting it, and analysing the information it contains.
In order to compare the various states and their systems, the particularities of the systems, which might explain differences in data from one country to another, must be borne in mind (different judicial structures, the way of the courts organisation, use of statistical tools to evaluate the systems, etc.). Special efforts were made to define the used terms and to ensure that the concepts are addressed according to a common understanding. However, the particularities of some systems might prevent to reach shared concepts. In this case, specific comments join the data. Therefore only an active reading of this report can allow analyses to be made and conclusions to be drawn. Moreover, figures cannot be passively taken one after the other but must be interpreted by the light of the subsequent comments.
The collection of data aims to give an overview of the situation of the European judicial systems, and not to rank the best judicial systems in Europe, which would be scientifically inaccurate and would not be a useful tool for the public policies of justice. Indeed, comparing does not mean ranking. However, the presentation of data gives tools for an in-depth study which would then have to be carried out by choosing relevant clusters of countries: according to the characteristics of the judicial systems (for instance civil law and common law countries; countries with relatively new or newly reformed judicial systems or countries with old judicial traditions), geographical criteria (size, population) or economic criteria (for instance size of GDP; within or outside the Euro zone, etc.).
The CEPEJ scheme was also filled in by certain small states. Andorra and Monaco are territories which do not operate on a comparable scale to the other states surveyed in the report. Therefore must the figures of these states be interpreted cautiously, taking into account the specificities of the national structural indicators.
Monetary values are reported in Euros. For that reason, using exchange rates for states outside the Euro zone caused some difficulties. Exchange rates can actually vary a lot from year to year. The high variation of the exchange rate might have a considerable effect on the figures for the countries outside the Euro zone.
- NA: Data not provided by the State (Non available).
- NAP: This data is not applicable to the State.
- CR: Clearance Rate, ratio between resolved cases and incoming cases (in %).
- DT: Disposition Time, ratio between pending cases and resolved cases (in days). It shows the theoritical duration for a court to solve all the pending cases.
- OTC: Other Than Criminal cases, applicable to the questions about efficiency (number of cases, etc).
The CEPEJ uses the following indicators when reading the results of the analyses made at the European level:
- Average Represents the arithmetic average which is the outcome of dividing the sum of the observations of a distribution (data supplied) by the total number of countries which indicated the information included into the distribution. The average is sensitive to extreme values (too high or too low).
- Median Represents the middle point of a set of ordered observations. The median is the value that divides the data supplied by the countries concerned into two equal groups so that 50% of the countries are above this value and 50% are below it. When there is an odd number of observations, the median is the value that is just in the middle of these two groups. The median is sometimes better to use than the average, as it is less sensitive to extreme values. The effect of the extreme values is then neutralised.
- Standard deviation It is a measure that is used to quantify the amount of variation or dispersion of a set of data values. A low standard deviation indicates that the data points tend to be close to the average (also called the expected value) of the set, while a high standard deviation indicates that the data points are spread out over a wider range of values.
In case of calculated variables, such as ratios for example, the European average or median is calculated as an average or median of the different states' ratios, rather than an average of the phenomenon in Europe. This was considered as a more satisfactory approach to understand the trends.
In addition to the average, the standard deviation and the median, the minimum and maximum were included in several tables:
- Minimum The lowest recorded value in the given column of the table.
- Maximum The highest recorded value in the given column of the table.