Legal and Judicial Sector Assessment

25 items available

Permanent URI for this collection

https://hdl.handle.net/10986/2198

Items in this collection

Now showing 1 - 10 of 22

Reflections on the Functional Review of the Romanian Justice Sector
(Washington, DC: World Bank, 2024-08-05) World Bank
The Functional Review of the Romanian Justice Sector (JFR), conducted through a World Bank Reimbursable Advisory Services (RAS) agreement, represented a significant effort by the Government of Romania to assess and enhance the performance and management of the justice sector. Spanning two years, the review aimed to comprehensively evaluate the sector’s functioning, identify areas for improvement, and provide recommendations for improved service delivery. This document captures key observations and insights on Romania’s justice sector, drawing on the findings and conclusions of the JFR, following RAS completion. While the focus is on Romania’s ongoing justice reform, the document also aims to distill broader conclusions and lessons that are relevant to the wider international context, as justice systems globally face evolving challenges and demands. The ultimate goal is to stimulate dialogue on how justice sectors can adapt to new societal needs, emphasizing justice as a fundamental, universally accessible public good that underpins a just and stable society. The comprehensive approach of the JFR offers valuable insights for justice systems globally, making the findings and recommendations relevant beyond Romania.
Judiciary of The Republic of Uganda: Rapid Institutional and Economic Assessment
(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2020-06) World Bank
This Institutional and Economic Assessment of the Judiciary of the Republic of Uganda (JoU) responds to the request for support in strengthening the evidence base for effective resource allocation and decision-making so that the JoU can better contribute to Uganda’s overall development goals. Despite its critical role in facilitating social and economic development priorities in Uganda, the JoU operates well below its potential due in part to under-investment. This report aims to address three key questions: i) what could be the economic impact of enhanced investment in the JoU? ii) how is the JoU performing in relation to three indicators of performance – access, efficiency and quality?; and iii) what are the short- and medium-term actions that Uganda can take to improve the functioning of the JoU to address its core development challenges? This assessment sought to use the methodology of a public institutional and expenditure analysis, to examine the extent to which the allocation, expenditure and distribution of financial, human, technology and infrastructure resources serve the objectives of the JoU. Three types of data were collected and analyzed. Section three examines the links between judicial performance and broader economic and social development objectives. It offers an economic analysis that demonstrates the value of investment in the commercial court and that can serve as a model for further cost benefit analysis of other aspects of the Judiciary should data become available. Section four analyzes JoU administrative data to assess judicial performance and proposes practical steps that can be taken to enhance the utilization of existing data for decision-making and to improve the quality of data. Section five provides an analysis of judicial budget allocation and expenditure and proposes a way to link resource allocation with judicial performance. Section six sets out recommendations for the enhancement of evidence-based decision-making for the JoU.
Small Claims: Where Does Serbia Stand? A Comparative Analysis
(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2020-05) World Bank
Evidence suggests that poor court performance negatively affects the economy. Complaints about the business climate are often associated with complicated procedural laws and backlogs that beleaguer the system and slow it down. According to the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) 2018 report, it takes on average 315 days to resolve a civil and commercial case in a first instance court in Serbia.1 This is well above the EU average of 233 days. Small value cases that get stuck in Serbia’s Basic Courts perpetuate backlogs, hamper access to justice and consume a disproportionate amount of judicial resources relative to the value of these cases. This report provides a comparative analysis of the procedure for resolving small claims in Serbia and recommendations to improve it, based on lessons learned from comparator jurisdictions: Austria, Denmark, Estonia, Germany, Latvia and Slovenia. The report was developed under the Multi-Donor Trust Fund for Justice Sector Support in Serbia (MDTF-JSS) and is informed by a broader World Bank initiative to support justice policy dialogue and reform in the Western Balkans. The analysis is primarily intended for the legal community in Serbia, including policy makers, judges, lawyers and those in academia.
Result Oriented Review of Delivery of Justice in Montenegro
(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2019-06-01) World Bank
This functional review presents a comprehensive, results-oriented assessment of the functioning of Montenegro’s judicial system from 2014 through 2017, and the country’s compliance with the requirements of chapter 23 (Justice and human rights) of the European Union’s Acquis Communautaire. More specifically, the Functional Review (FR) is intended to assist Montenegro authorities in developing its strategy for the reform of the Judiciary 2019-2023, and an accompanying action plan. This report is structured as follows: Section 1 presents the overall conclusions and priority recommendations from the functional review; Section 2 presents governance and management over the system; Section 3 presents efficiency and effectiveness of justice services; Section 4 presents quality of justice services; Section 5 access to justice services; Section 6 presents financial resource management; Section 7 presents human resource management, Section 8 presents ICT management and Section 9 presents infrastructure management.
Bulgaria Judicial Performance, Caseload and Expenditure Review (2008-2014)
(Washington, DC, 2015-11) World Bank
The World Bank published a Public Expenditure and Institutional Review (PEIR) of the Bulgarian justice sector entitled “Resourcing the Judiciary for Performance and Accountability: A Judicial Public Expenditure and Institutional Review” in 2008. The objective of the present study is to conduct an assessment of the spending and institutional changes in Bulgaria’s judiciary from 2008 onwards. The current report examines the principal trends in resourcing Bulgaria’s judiciary since 2008, while comparing the expenditure and judicial performance with those of other European countries. The report provides a set of conclusion and recommendations for improving the efficiency and effectiveness of Bulgaria’s judiciary and the judicial budget process.
World - Piloting of Implementation of United Nations Convention Against Corruption (UNCAC) in Honduras
(Washington, DC, 2015-06-30) World Bank
This document contains the answers to the self-evaluation questionnaire of Honduras for the Review Mechanism in the implementation of the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC). To facilitate the review of Party States (Dominican Republic and Republic of Nauru) a brief summary of the criminal proceedings in Honduras, its stakeholders and roles are presented. Also attached are some key definitions that may contribute to understanding the Honduran context in criminal matters, criminal procedure and international cooperation, related to the implementation of UNCAC.
Sri Lanka : Justice Sector Review
(Washington, DC, 2013-06) World Bank
Improvement of the performance of the judiciary is an important part of a growth agenda for Sri Lanka as it moves to middle income country status. The present government has set ambitious targets to double gross domestic product (GDP) per capita by 2016 and has cited the need for a more efficient judicial sector as a means of reducing poverty. This is consistent with the broad historical evidence that a well-functioning judicial sector is the most effective long-term instrument for securing property rights and enforcing contracts, which in turn are critical factors for investment and commerce, and hence poverty reduction and economic growth. Sri Lanka ranks 133rd in the 2013 doing business's sub-index on enforcement of contracts, a level that is comparable to other South Asian countries but lower than other middle income comparators such as Thailand (ranked 23rd) and Malaysia (ranked 33rd). Identifying the contributing factors to inefficiency in Sri Lanka's courts in hearing commercial cases is the main purpose of this review. The findings in the report are based on available statistics on court performance and interviews with key stakeholders in the justice sector. The report is structured as follows: chapter one gives introduction, chapter two gives organization and management of the courts, chapter three gives data on case handling in courts, chapter four deals with private sector approaches to dispute resolution, chapter five focuses on legal and procedural issues in commercial cases, chapter six gives past reform efforts, and chapter seven gives conclusions and recommendations.
Romania Judicial Functional Review
(Washington, DC, 2013-03) World Bank
This review is one of a series of functional reviews commissioned by the Government of Romania (GOR), funded by the European Union, and carried out by the World Bank. It is an element agreed on by the European Union and the Government as part of the post-accession Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) established to assess further need for reform in the judicial system and to suggest reforms that would ensure Romania's full integration into the European Union system. The objective of the review is to analyze the functioning of institutions of the judicial system in Romania with a view to providing analytical and advisory input to the Romanian authorities as they formulate an action program to improve the performance of the judicial system. The present report covers a large part of Romania's judicial system, a term used here with broad scope. In accord with the terms of reference (appendix one), in addition to the courts, the review covers the Ministry of Justice, focusing on those functions most directly related to the judiciary and to the Public Ministry (PM), the PM itself, and a range of independent legal professionals whose work complements and in some cases replaces that of judges and prosecutors. Within the judiciary, aside from the ordinary courts, the review also addressed the operations of the Superior Council of Magistracy, the Judicial Inspectorate, and the High Court of Cassation and Justice, all of which operate quasi-independently. They have their own budgets and administrative structures, although are still governed by laws on staffing set by Parliament and staffing levels approved by the cabinet. Within the PM, the team also looked at the quasi-independent National Anti-Corruption Directorate.
Serbia - Spending for Justice: A Judicial Public Expenditure and Institutional Review
(World Bank, Washington, DC, 2011-09-06) World Bank
Reform of the judiciary is a key element of Serbia’s European Union (EU) accession process, and in ensuring sustainable economic growth and delivering justice to Serbian citizens and businesses. Reform of the judiciary has been ongoing since the regime change in 2000. However, efforts accelerated in the more stable and pro-European political environment after 2008.
Fiscal Projections for Pension System of Belarus
(Washington, DC, 2011-05) World Bank
This note attempts to describe the pension system in Belarus including its fiscal performance, redistributive aspects benefit levels and benefit eligibility conditions. The note also discusses the challenging demographic environment which Belarus pension system is expected to face in the future and explores alternative paths that the system could take in this environment. Some reform scenarios are explored including the increase in retirement ages, changes in benefit indexation rules and the introduction of notional defined contribution accounts.