VERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | G VERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | G Small Claim Courts Erica Bosio, Svetozara Petkova Prosperity Insight Series Increasing Access through REFORMING JUSTICE © 2024 International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street NW Washington DC 20433 Telephone: 202-473-1000 Internet: www.worldbank.org This work is a product of the staff of The World Bank with external contributions. The findings, interpretations, and conclusions expressed in this work do not necessarily reflect the views of The World Bank, its Board of Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. The World Bank does not guarantee the accuracy, completeness, or currency of the data included in this work and does not assume responsibility for any errors, omissions, or discrepancies in the information, or liability with respect to the use of or failure to use the information, methods, processes, or conclusions set forth. The boundaries, colors, denominations, links/footnotes and other information shown in this work do not imply any judgment on the part of The World Bank concerning the legal status of any territory or the endorsement or acceptance of such boundaries. The citation of works authored by others does not mean the World Bank endorses the views expressed by those authors or the content of their works. Nothing herein shall constitute or be construed or considered to be a limitation upon or waiver of the privileges and immunities of The World Bank, all of which are specifically reserved. Rights and Permissions The material in this work is subject to copyright. Because The World Bank encourages dissemination of its knowledge, this work may be reproduced, in whole or in part, for noncommercial purposes as long as full attribution to this work is given. Any queries on rights and licenses, including subsidiary rights, should be addressed to World Bank Publications, The World Bank Group, 1818 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20433, USA; fax: 202-522- 2625; e-mail: pubrights@worldbank.org. Cover photo: © Studio_East / Adobe Stock file #309609504. Further permission required for reuse. TABLE OF CONTENTS Key Findings 1 Origins and purpose of small claims courts 2 Designing Small Claim Courts 5 1. Institutional Setup 5 2. Optionality 6 3. Threshold 6 4. Filing 7 5. Fees 7 6. Timelines 8 7. Representation 9 8. Evidence 9 9. Hearings 10 10. Judgment 10 Conclusions 12 References 13 REFORMING JUSTICE D Prosperity Insight © KOTO / Adobe Stock file #609891670. Further permission required for reuse. REFORMING JUSTICE 1 Prosperity Insight KF. KEY FINDINGS • Small claim courts/procedures are most prevalent in high-in- come, common-law jurisdictions. • Small claims courts/procedures increase efficiency and accessibility. • 10 factors need to be considered when introducing small claim courts/procedures. Small claims courts and procedures play an important role in enhancing efficiency and accessibility of the justice system. When well designed, they can significantly streamline judicial processes, reduce the burden on courts, and increase access to justice for individuals and small businesses. This brief presents trends in the use of such mechanisms and systematically analyzes key components that are essential for designing effective small claims systems, including the structure of the court, the nature of the proceedings (mandatory vs. optional), monetary thresholds for claims, filing processes, fee structures, timelines, and the admissibility of evidence. The brief concludes with recommendations for jurisdictions to assess and refine their small claims systems based on empirical data and user feedback, ensuring they effectively address the barriers to justice faced by litigants. REFORMING JUSTICE 2 Prosperity Insight Origins and purpose of small claims courts Legal disputes are not created equal. Some are In jurisdictions of Roman legal tradition, interest complex, have a high value, and their resolution in small claims emerged later and was spurred by requires significant time and effort. Others have a a desire to improve court efficiency and distribute low value and lack complexity. To ensure efficient limited resources more wisely. Small claims would use of limited budgetary resources, justice systems be examined by the courts of general jurisdiction sometimes turn to small claim courts (Petkova and albeit under a simplified procedure. These systems Senderayi, 2020). In these courts some elements would aim at examining the claim in a fully written of judicial procedure are simplified to make the procedure, i.e., avoiding a court hearing. While legal examination of claims with a value below a certain representation would usually not be mandatory, it threshold easier, quicker, and cheaper. would not be prohibited either; consequently, the winning party could recover the legal costs that it As many as 135 countries have either small claims had incurred. Importantly, the use of small claims courts or simplified procedures for the resolution procedures in the jurisdictions of the Roman legal of small claims (Figure 1). Empirical analysis tradition is usually not optional. If the value of a suggests that such courts are prevalent in high- claim is below a certain amount, the simplified income, common-law jurisdictions. Historically, process kicks in regardless of the parties’ the origins of small claims courts can be traced preference. A gradual convergence between legal to the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition (Whelan 1990). traditions can be observed. Features traditionally Due to the adversarial procedure and reliance on utilized by a Roman law system find their way and case law, courts in common law countries were function well in Anglo-Saxon systems and vice perceived to be out of reach to the ordinary man, versa. leading Northern Ireland, England, and Wales to begin establishing courts that would dispense cheap, informal justice as early as the 18th century. Often the decision-makers were lawyers or even laymen who were expected to adjudicate based on their general notion of what was fair and equitable. In the 1960s and 1970s, the consumer protection movement fueled renewed interest in small claims courts throughout the United States, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, as there were concerns that these courts had been colonized by debt-collection companies and large businesses. This issue was addressed by prohibiting legal representation in small claims courts altogether or limiting their jurisdiction to consumer claims. This note is part of a series of thematic briefs produced by the Global Program on Justice and Rule of Law. The series highlights lessons learned from justice reform efforts and focuses on the “why, how, and what” of reform. This note was written with research support from Meng Su. For questions on this note, please contact Erica Bosio at ebosio@worldbank.org. REFORMING JUSTICE 3 Prosperity Insight Figure 1: Presence of a small claims court or fast-track procedure (2019) Yes No No Data Source: Doing Business 2019 Database. Small claims courts or procedures serve two goals: If the jurisdiction’s primary goal is to provide efficiency and accessibility. Firstly, they help the accessible justice to vulnerable groups, the small efficient distribution of judicial resources. In any claims system prioritizes features such as low country, judges are among the most qualified and costs, proactive judges who assist self-represented highly paid public officials. Their time is valuable. parties, and possibly an emphasis on oral elements Policymakers go to great lengths to spare that time. of the procedure, especially if the jurisdiction has Small claims systems do just that. They speed up and low levels of literacy and internet penetration. simplify the procedure so that judges can resolve This is especially the case in countries with low-value cases with less effort and consequently large minority groups or foreign workers where have more time to focus on complex or high-value oral interpretation services can be provided. By litigation. Secondly, small claims systems aim at contrast, if the jurisdiction’s primary goal is to making justice more accessible by simplifying the improve the efficiency of the judicial system, priority process for litigants. A quick trial with low court may be given to features such as written procedure, fees, opportunities for self-representation, and electronic filing, and omission of certain procedural informal evidence collection lowers the barriers to steps. obtaining justice. REFORMING JUSTICE 4 Prosperity Insight Other factors to consider in the establishment of in a way that is strikingly similar to customary small claim courts include the availability of legal actors, i.e., they adjudicate minor civil and criminal aid and fee waiver programs, the presence of disputes based on equity, conciliation and relevant alternative dispute resolution, and the existence of social norms, often through laymen that speak local customary dispute resolution mechanisms. In some languages in remote locations (Box 1). countries, for example, justices of the peace operate Box 1: Justices of the peace in Peru Peru has a large territory, with numerous multicultural and multilingual communities. The mother tongue of 3,735,682 Peruvians is Quechua, representing 13.9% of the population (National Institute of Statistics and Information of Peru, 2017). To bring justice closer to these communities, Peru introduced more than 5,000 Justices of the Peace, typically laymen who need to know how to read and write and have command of Quechua (UNDP, 2018). These justices are elected by the population for a two-year period, mostly among leaders in the community. They adjudicate minor civil and criminal matters up to USD 7,000 through conciliation and based on equity (Escobedo, 2016). Attempting conciliation is a key part of their function, with adjudication seen as last resort. It is also important to know whether the objective or banks, a small claims court or procedure might is to design a procedural route for the collection of not be appropriate. Most of such debt, while mass debt, such as stemming from unpaid utility unpaid, is not contested by the debtor. Therefore, bills or consumer credit, or a tool for assisting a straightforward procedure to verify whether the physical persons and small businesses in resolving debtor contests the debt or not, and in the case he low-value disputes. If the main users of the system or she does not, a direct issuance of an enforceable are institutional creditors such as utility companies title, might be sufficient. REFORMING JUSTICE 5 Prosperity Insight Designing Small Claim Courts When designing a new small claims procedure, or the small claims system into its building blocks seeking to improve an existing one, it is advisable (Figure 2). to analyze the available policy choices by breaking Figure 2: Building Blocks of Small Claims System Setup Threshold Fees Representation Hearings 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 Optionality Filing Timelines Evidence Judgment 1. Institutional Setup and Africa. Jurisdictions with limited resources or Low-value claims can be examined by standalone ones that have the ambition to cover a large territory small claims courts or by the courts of general may find that a small claims procedure within the jurisdiction following a special, simplified framework of the courts of general jurisdiction or procedure. Generally, jurisdictions influenced by the already existing magistrate courts would be the Anglo-Saxon tradition tend to set up dedicated, better suited to their context. specialized small claims courts as pertains in Dubai, Magistrate courts warrant special attention since Malta, Singapore, and many US states. Courts tend they present a heterogenous group. They are to be used more frequently in jurisdictions with usually, but not always, tasked with examining relatively small territory so that a single court civil cases with a value below a certain threshold.1 can cover the entire population, such as in Malta, These courts are a form of proximity justice—justice or jurisdictions with a federal structure where a institutions designed with the primary goal to dedicated small court could be set for one federal ensure physical proximity to the population. They entity only—for example, Australia. Furthermore, in are characteristic of large countries or countries small claims courts, adjudication may be assigned where the terrain, the size of the country, and/ to lawyers serving as referees. or its transportation infrastructure make certain Conversely, small claims in legal systems belonging areas less accessible. In some of these courts, the to the Roman legal tradition are usually adjudicated adjudicators have legal education and courts come by full-time judges in the courts of general to represent the lowest tier of justice in the particular jurisdiction – for example, in many European Union country – for example, in most European magistrate (EU) member states – following a simplified small courts. In Africa, too, there are magistrate courts claims procedure. Small claims procedures can which can be regarded as the lowest tier of the also be institutionalized within the framework of courts of general jurisdiction rather than as small justices of the peace or magistrate courts, which are claims courts, as found in Kenya, Tanzania, and present in many countries in Europe, Latin America Zimbabwe. By contrast, in other economies, 1. For example, in some states of Nigeria, justices of the peace have functions related to community policing as well as some certification duties such as to take solemn affirmations, statutory declarations, and administer oaths (Akinloye 2018). REFORMING JUSTICE 6 Prosperity Insight justices of the peace or magistrate judges may be claims procedure is obligatory and neither the popularly elected or appointed in another manner parties, nor the court have a choice—prevalent in which differs from the appointment procedure for Slovenia and Latvia. regular judges, and they may also not be required Both small claims systems – optional and to have legal education. mandatory – could allow litigants to use the simplified procedure or the small claims court 2. Optionality based on a written agreement between them, even In some jurisdictions, the small claims procedure is if the value of the claim is above the threshold. mandatory for claims with a value below a certain Such an agreement would resemble an arbitration monetary threshold. In others, it is an option clause. Denmark and the Small Claims Tribunal that creditors with low-value claims can use, if of the Dubai International Finance Center (DIFC) they deem it suitable. This is a major dividing line afford claimants such opportunity. between various small claims systems and one that Small claims are often perceived as perfect is often indicative of the primary policy goal behind candidates for alternative dispute resolution (ADR), the introduction of this mechanism. The priority including different forms of mediation, conciliation, goal of systems with an optional small claims track negotiation, and expert evaluation. In the Anglo- is usually to improve access to justice by providing Saxon tradition, voluntary settlement has been claimants with an additional route to defend their one of the main goals of small claims courts, with rights and legal interests, ideally one which is mediation often incorporated in the procedure. In cheaper and speedier. By contrast, the primary Dubai and Singapore, before scheduling a hearing, goal of systems where the small claims track is the judge has an informal meeting with the parties mandatory tends to be increasing the efficiency and attempts to help them reach a settlement. A of justice delivery. Such systems usually introduce hearing follows only after this consultation phase, fast-track procedures to ensure that the justice if it is unsuccessful. By contrast, the countries of system does not spend an undue amount of time the Roman law tradition have been struggling with and resources on minor cases. encouraging the use of ADR. Some, Germany and In the Anglo-Saxon tradition, the small claims route Italy, for example, have attempted to introduce is usually optional for the parties. This means that if compulsory mediation sessions for some types their claim is below a certain value, they can choose of disputes before allowing them to go to court. whether to file with the small claims court or with Results are still modest but warrant observation the general one – notably in Malta, Singapore, Dubai and analysis. and in some US States such as California. Claimants opting for the small claims court may benefit from 3. Threshold very low court fees but be denied the opportunity Small claims systems share one common feature– to use legal representation. By contrast, in the they apply when the value of the claim is below a Roman legal tradition, the procedure tends to be certain monetary threshold. The threshold’s level mandatory for the claimant but optional for the determines the scope of the procedure. If the court. This means that when the court receives a threshold is low, the procedure would be applicable claim below a certain value, it can choose whether to fewer claims and thus have a narrow scope. It to apply the simplified procedure or not, and which might then be conducive to more simplifications of the simplifications to apply, as used in Germany because cases with a relatively low pecuniary and Estonia. In yet other jurisdictions, the small interest would be affected. REFORMING JUSTICE 7 Prosperity Insight Many thresholds exist around the world. In EU 4. Filing member states, the threshold tends to be between The filing of a small claim should be as simple as 10 and 50 percent of the Gross National Income possible. This would make the procedure accessible (GNI) per capita, with few outliers like Portugal to citizens and businesses and allow them to file the and the Netherlands between 60 and 80 percent claim without resorting to the services of a lawyer. (Harley and Said, 2017). In countries like Australia, To achieve that, countries introduce numerous Canada, Singapore, and South Africa, the threshold user-friendly mechanisms. These include: is between 10 and 70 percent of the GNI per capita. Among Latin American countries, in Mexico and User-friendly forms – EU, DIFC, Malta. • Paraguay, the threshold is approximately 50–60 • Electronic filing – Estonia, Malta, Portugal, percent and in Brazil and Peru between 100 and Singapore, Brazil. 130 percent. • Oral claims – recorded by court personnel – Austria, Germany, Kuwait, Libya, Morocco, Hong In the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region, Kong. there are countries with thresholds below 50 percent of the GNI per capita for example, Jordan, A low level of literacy may mean that oral filing Kuwait, Libya, Malta, Morocco, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, would be a good choice; a high internet penetration and Syria. Some jurisdictions, including Abu Dhabi, may mean electronic filing would be appropriate; DIFC small claims tribunal, Lebanon, Oman, and certainly, the budgetary costs of training court and the West Bank and Gaza, have thresholds personnel to assist claimants could not be ignored exceeding 100 percent of the GNI per capita. Some in a country where the judiciary is operating under a magistrate courts in Africa present a stark case, with tight budget. With the expansion of digital services, the threshold for their subject matter jurisdiction it is expected that for an increasing number of exceeding many times over the GNI per capita. For jurisdictions electronic filing would present a viable example, Kenya has a threshold exceeding 16 times and user-friendly choice. the GNI per capita, Tanzania’s exceeds it 32 times, and Zimbabwe’s approximately 30 times. In these 5. Fees countries, the threshold is such that magistrate Court fees can ease or hamper access to justice. courts are the main venue for dispute resolution. Given small claims’ minimal value, court fees may Small claims thresholds are not always set in an render litigation disproportionately expensive for absolute monetary amount. They may be attached some claimants as compared to the value of the to an index, which is regulated by the state and claim. To ensure accessibility, small claims courts is updated on a regular basis depending on the tend to charge a much lower fee than regular courts. dynamics of the economic situation in the country. The fees vary depending on whether the claimants Such are, for example, the thresholds of Albania, are consumers or not – for example, Singapore, Brazil, and Lebanon, set at 20–30 or even 40 and depending on whether they use the system to times the minimal monthly wage, or Kazakhstan, resolve many disputes or just a few, as in the State Uzbekistan, and Peru, where the threshold is based of California. on calculation units updated annually. By contrast, in systems where small claims are While there is no universal standard on the examined by the courts of general jurisdiction, court threshold for small claims, it is most commonly set fees for small claims usually follow the general between 50 and 100 percent of the GNI per capita fee schedule. This is the case in many European for the respective country. countries where the fees are usually determined REFORMING JUSTICE 8 Prosperity Insight as a percentage of the claim value, on a sliding 6. Timelines scale. For example, in Estonia, the state fee due for One of the key goals of small claims procedures is to a claim with a value of EUR 350 would be EUR 75 provide quick justice. To achieve this, jurisdictions (more than 20 percent of the value of the claim); for not only simplify the procedure but also introduce a claim with a value of EUR 5,000 the fee would be short timelines for each procedural stage. Ideally, EUR 400 (approximately eight percent), whereas such timelines should be binding not only on parties for a claim with a value of EUR 100,000 the fee but also on the court. Below are examples of the would be EUR 1,200 (less than two percent). In timelines under two small claims procedures, one practice, this means that filing a small claim would for low-value civil cases and one for utility claims cost more, in terms of percentage of the claim, than - in basic and municipal courts in 9 cities in Bosnia filing a large claim. Such a structure of court fees and Herzegovina for which comparable data was discourages litigation for small amounts. available If a small claims procedure does not provide for sufficient simplifications and/or for shorter deadlines, it may end up being as long, or even longer, than general litigation, as illustrated in Figure 3. Figure 3: Duration of civil cases disposed of in 2017 in selected courts in Bosnia and Herzegovina (in days) 2500 2318 2000 1996 1500 1345 1289 1000 1112 1018 1011 1002 926 771 756 722 500 581 550 486 484 373 366 368 359 323 300 232 247 0 Municipal Court Municipal Court Municipal Court Municipal Court Municipal Court Basic Court Basic Court Basic Court Sarajevo Mostar Bihać Tuzla Zenica Luca Bijeljina Doboj Small utility Small civil General civil Source: Panzardi et al., 2019. REFORMING JUSTICE 9 Prosperity Insight 7. Representation interrogate numerous witnesses may discourage Legal services are frequently out of reach for many citizens and businesses from even trying to defend citizens and legal aid may be hard to obtain in their rights in court. To ensure a balance between many jurisdictions. In such circumstances, those the cost of the claim and the need to establish all without financial means may find themselves facts, small claims procedures usually simplify incapable of reaching out to court systems in which evidence collection. Simplifications may entail a legal representation is mandatory. Furthermore, stricter relevance assessment for the admissibility while legal representation and access to justice of evidence; simplifying the form of evidence; are often viewed through the lens of initiating applying shorter deadlines for the presentation of legal proceedings, they are equally important in evidence; limiting expert assessments; and giving defending against a legal action. If citizens are not judges a more active role in seeking out the facts. allowed to appear without a lawyer, they may find • А stricter relevance assessment means that in themselves unable to have their day in court even deciding whether to admit certain evidence, the if they could put forward a legitimate defense in an judge would ensure that it is really necessary action against them. and not too costly as compared to the value of The opportunity for self-representation is the single the claim. The cost of collecting evidence can be most-important aspect of the small claims court an important criterion for assessing whether to or procedure. Out of the 135 economies in the admit it or not, as done in Romania or in the EU world that have small claims procedures or courts, cross-border small claims procedure, a procedure only eight do not allow self-representation (World that offers consumers and small businesses an Bank, 2019).2 When it comes to small claims, inexpensive solution to settling cross-border some jurisdictions attempt to level the playing field payment claims of up to €5,000. Another example by either prohibiting legal representation or by of limiting extensive evidence collection is present providing that if the party wins, its legal costs would in Paraguay, where each party may bring forward not be reimbursed by the losing party. We often see no more than five witnesses. this policy choice in jurisdictions where the small • Jurisdictions may also introduce shorter claims route is optional—California, Singapore, and deadlines for the presentation of evidence where Dubai. There, the parties that have selected this noncompliance may preclude the party from mechanism must appear and defend personally, presenting the evidence at a later stage of the trial. and no legal costs can be recovered even if they This rule is intended to have a disciplining effect consulted a lawyer before the hearing. In most on the parties and speeding up the procedure, as systems with mandatory small claims procedures operational in Armenia, Croatia, Paraguay, Poland, though, parties are allowed to use lawyers and and Slovenia for example. costs are recoverable for the winning party. Easing of the rules on the form of evidence may • mean that if witness testimony should usually be 8. Evidence given personally and under oath, the court may To decide cases, judges need evidence. However, accept written witness statements or the judge evidence collection can be expensive and slow. could even question a witness on the phone; In low-value litigation, the cost of an expert examples are found in Denmark, England and assessment may well exceed the value of the Wales, Estonia, Germany, Greece, Singapore, and claim. Similarly, the time needed to summon and also for cross-border small claims in the EU. 2. These countries are predominantly in Central and South America (Argentina, Chile, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Paraguay and El Salvador), with two in Africa (Cabo Verde and Mozambique). REFORMING JUSTICE 10 Prosperity Insight • Many small claims procedures limit the use of limit their number, preferably to one. A small claims expert assessments since they are usually costly procedure that displays a particularly high reliance and time consuming and may disproportionately on oral hearings is what Jordan has. An examination burden the examination of low-value cases. For of a case usually takes up to six hearings. This would example, Poland does not allow expert evidence entail a hearing to present the response to the claim, in the small claims procedure; in other countries, another one for separating disputable from non- assessments by a single expert – as opposed disputable matters, yet another one or two hearings to a panel of three experts – and written expert for the pleadings of the parties, and a last one for opinions may be allowed, if necessary for clarifying pronouncing the judgment, since it always needs to the circumstances of the case, as pertains in be read out orally. Denmark, Portugal, and EU cross-border claims. Conversely, small claims systems of the Roman legal Judges may be allowed more initiative in clarifying • tradition avoid a hearing altogether and examine the the circumstances of the case. In Denmark, claim based on documentary evidence, as practiced for example, if a simplified expert assessment in many EU member states, many of the post-Soviet is admitted, the questions for the expert are states, and the optional small claims mechanism prepared by the court, rather than by the parties; of Lebanon. In Paraguay, if the issue in dispute is in England and Wales, the judge may conduct declared purely legal, the judge will issue a ruling the questioning of the witnesses herself/himself. within ten days, without conducting a hearing. A fully In Portugal, if the parties do not have legal written procedure may be particularly appropriate representation, witnesses will be questioned by for commercial cases because legitimate business the judge; in California, Estonia, and Singapore, relationships tend to leave a clear documentary judges may collect evidence on their own trace. Also, commercial litigants usually have initiative. Such an active role of the judge not only sufficient levels of competence to deal well with helps make the proceedings in low-value disputes such written procedure. faster and more efficient but may also assist self- The needs and traditions of a jurisdiction as well represented litigants. as the typology of its cases must be considered when choosing an appropriate route for regulating 9. Hearings hearings in small claims procedures. A hearing Countries of the Anglo-Saxon legal system tend need not happen only in person. Jurisdictions that to center their small claims procedures around an wish to save resources may allow hearings through oral hearing where parties are obliged to appear video conferences, phone, etc., consolidating some in person, as done in some US small claim courts, of the advances made in this field as a result of the Malta, and most small claims systems of the MENA COVID-19 pandemic (Byrom et al., 2020; Susskind, region. Even if a second hearing is necessary, it is 2020). advisable to schedule it on the next business day, as is the rule for example in Paraguay. 10. Judgment While oral hearings may be an important aspect of To spare judges’ time, the content of the judgment access to justice, they may also be very resource- in small claims is often simplified. When there is a intensive, as they usually require a physical hearing, the judgment may be pronounced orally, courtroom, the time of a judge and a clerk, and at immediately after the parties’ submissions. A least some travel time. Therefore, where a small written judgment is usually shortened, with some claims system entails hearings, it is advisable to jurisdictions specifying exactly which parts of the REFORMING JUSTICE 11 Prosperity Insight reasoning should be omitted while others simply be limited to questions of law, excluding the factual stating that the decision shall be short and informal. findings of the small claims court. Other systems, Countries where the content of the judgment is such as Malta and California, discourage frivolous simplified include Albania, Armenia, Georgia, appeals by imposing significant cost sanctions, if Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Malta, and Poland. For example, the appeal fails. Appeal may even be prohibited save in Georgia, the judgement may be included directly in exceptional circumstances. Thus, in Germany, in the hearing minutes, so that no written judgment appeal is not possible in cases with a value up to needs to be prepared. In the simplified procedure EUR 600, unless the judgment of the first-instance of Armenia, in most cases the reasoning of the court specifically authorizes appeal. The court may judgment shall only contain a note about accepting decide so if it deems the case to be of fundamental the claimant’s arguments and the court’s ruling on importance or a decision by the appellate court the distribution of costs between parties. There are is required to further develop the law or ensure also jurisdictions such as Estonia and Latvia where consistent case law. The procedure of the appellate the court produces a short judgment but, if one of court may also be simplified. For example, if it the parties notifies of its intention to appeal, the generally works in a panel of three judges, appeals court is obliged to supplement it with full reasoning. to low-value disputes may be examined by a single judge. Similarly, if hearings at the appellate stage To ensure efficient use of the resources of higher are generally allowed, they might be prohibited for justice, many systems limit the right to appeal in small claims. small claims. For example, in Austria, appeal may Table 1: Small claims in Colombia are streamlined through a simplified procedure Colombia’s standard civil procedure Colombia’s small claims summary procedure (Arts. 368-389 of Law No. 1564 of 2012) (Art 390-392 of Law No. 1564 of 2012) The claim can be presented orally before the court’s clerk or in The claim must be presented in written form (Art. 82). written form (Art. 391). 10 days to respond to the claim, present documentary 20 days to respond to the claim, present documentary evidence, or present exceptions (Art. 391). The defendant’s evidence, or present exceptions. (Art. 369). During this term, response can be presented orally before the court’s clerk or in the defendant is entitled to present a counterclaim (Art. 371). written form. 5 days for the claimant to respond to the exceptions on the 3 days for the claimant to respond to the exceptions on the merits presented by the defendant. (Art. 370). merits presented by the defendant (Art. 391). 20 days for the claimant to respond to the counterclaim if The law does not prescribe the possibility to present a presented by the defendant (Art. 371). counterclaim in a small claim procedure. 5 days for the claimant to correct his application in case of 5 days for the claimant to correct his application in case the missing requirements or information (Art. 90). defendant presented procedural exceptions (Art. 391). After the term to respond to the claim has elapsed, the judge The judge cannot issue a decision without a hearing. can issue a decision without a hearing (Art. 390). The proceeding is comprised of two hearings (Arts. 372 and The proceeding is comprised of one hearing (Art. 392). 373). 10 days (same as general procedure) to issue a written ruling if 10 days to issue a written ruling if the judge did not render the the judge did not render the judgment orally during the hearing judgment orally during the hearing (Art. 373). (Art. 373). 3 days to file an appeal if the judgment was rendered outside Small claim procedures must be decided in one single instance. of the initial or evidentiary hearings. If the judgment is rendered The law does not prescribe the possibility to present an appeal orally during the hearing, the parties must verbally present their (Art. 390). appeal to the judge during the hearing (Art. 322.1). REFORMING JUSTICE 12 Prosperity Insight Conclusions Small claims procedures have the potential to Once introduced, it is also advisable to carry out improve both access to and efficiency of justice. surveys among both professional and lay users of When assessing their introduction, it is important the system to obtain information on the level of to have detailed case statistics that clearly satisfaction of the procedure, any issues that it may disaggregate small claims from other case types display, and unmet legal needs. and indicate the relative share of such litigation If designed well, these procedures can speed up in the incoming and pending caseload, its speed justice delivery and help underprivileged litigants compared to other case types, and the use and to have their day in court. outcome of appeal. REFORMING JUSTICE 13 Prosperity Insight References Akinloye, Jason. 2018. An examination of the legal status, powers and roles of the Justices of the Peace in the Nigerian legal system. Journal for Juridical Science 43 (1): 26-38. https://hdl. handle.net/10520/EJC-11c014c8f5. Byrom, Natalie, Sarah Beardon, and Abby Kendrick. 2020. The impact of COVID-19 measures on the civil justice system. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/343601052. Escobedo, Jaime. 2016. Justicia de paz del Perú. Rurasqanchikmi. https://www.pj.gob.pe/wps/wcm/connect/efc4980042a58f8782c8ba5aa55ef1d3/ Justicia_de_paz_del_Per%C3%BA._Rurasqanchikmi. pdf?MOD=AJPERES&CACHEID=efc4980042a58f8782c8ba5aa55ef1d3 Harley, Georgia, and Agnes Cristiana Said. 2017. Fast-Tracking the Resolution of Minor Disputes: Experience from EU Member States. Washington, DC: World Bank Group. https://documents1. worldbank.org/curated/en/670181487131729316/pdf/Fast-tracking-the-resolution-of- minor-disputes-experience-from-EU-Member-States.pdf. Instituto de Defensa Legal. 2007. Manuel del Juez y Jueza de Paz. https://web.archive.org/ web/20170918034358/http:/www.justiciaviva.org.pe/publica/manual_del_juez_jueza_ depaz.pdf National Institute of Statistics and Information of Peru. 2017. XII Censo Nacional de Población y VII de Vivienda. https://www.inei.gob.pe/media/MenuRecursivo/publicaciones_digitales/ Est/Lib1539/libro.pdf Panzardi, Roberto O., Zuhra Osmanovic-Pasic, and Svetozara Petkova. 2019. Fast-Tracking Small Claims in Bosnia and Herzegovina: A Comparative Analysis and Reform Proposals (English). Washington, DC: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ en/329881567699256964/Fast-Tracking-Small-Claims-in-Bosnia-and-Herzegovina-A- Comparative-Analysis-and-Reform-Proposals. Petkova, Svetozara, and Runyararo Gladys Senderayi. 2020. Two For One: How Leveraging Small Claims Procedures Can Improve Judicial Efficiency and Access to Justice (English). Washington, DC: World Bank Group. http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/ en/487041607706210590/Two-For-One-How-Leveraging-Small-Claims-Procedures-Can- Improve-Judicial-Efficiency-and-Access-to-Justice. REFORMING JUSTICE 14 Prosperity Insight Susskind, Richard. 2020. The Future of Courts. Remote Courts Volume 6, Issue 5. https://clp. law.harvard.edu/knowledge-hub/magazine/issues/remote-courts/the-future-of-courts/. UNDP. 2018. Fortaleciendo la justicia de paz en el Perú. https://www.undp.org/es/latin-america/ publicaciones/fortaleciendo-la-justicia-de-paz-en-el-peru Whelan, Christopher (ed.). 1990. Small Claims Courts - A Comparative Study. Clarendon Press: Oxford. Prosperity Insight REFORMING JUSTICE | GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | G 15 VERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | GOVERNANCE | G