world bank multi-donor trust fund for justice sector support in serbia

WORLD BANKMulti-Donor Trust Fund for Justice

Sector Support in Serbia

PERCEPTIONS OF JUDICIARY PERFORMANCE IN SERBIASurvey with citizens, enterprises, lawyers, judges, prosecutors and court administrative staff

March 2014 © 2014 Ipsos. All rights reserved. Contains Ipsos' Confidential and Proprietary information and may not bedisclosed or reproduced without the prior written consent of Ipsos.

Efficiency, quality, accessibility, fairness, integrity, costs, and reform 2009 - 2013

METHODOLOGY

3

REALIZATION:

May to June 2010 November 2013 to December 2013

December 2010 to January 2011 (judges and court administrative staff)

November 2013 of February 2014 (judges and prosecutors)

Baseline (2010) Follow up (2013)

Total number: 5237 6030

USERS

GENERAL POPULATION: 1035 representative sample 1048 representative sample

555 sample of court users 650 sample of court users

ENTERPRISE MANAGERS FROM PRIVATE SECTOR

800 representative sample 810 representative sample

200 sample of court users 210 sample of court users

LAWYERS 800 representative sample 809 representative sample

PROVIDERS

JUDGES 1075 (response rate 53%) 1533 (response rate 54%)

PROSECUTORS 201 (response rate 48%) 391 (response rate 59%)

COURT ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF 571 579

4

KEY FINDINGS

Efficiency

Quality

Accessibility

Fairness

Independence

Absence of corruption

0

50

100

1960

87

88

74

23

1347

7581

67

47

2009 2013

Providers of services – Judges and prosecutors

Users of services – Citizens, business

Percentage of positive evaluations

Efficiency

Quality

Accessibility

Fairness

Independence


0

50

100

108 5451

2413

1717

58

56

37

20

2009 2013

PERCEPTION OF JUDICIARY ON 6 DIMENSIONS, 2009-2013

5

Efficiency

Quality

Accessibility

Fairness

Independence


0

20

40

60

80

100

10854

51

2413

1717

58

56

37

20

2009 2013

6


Percentage of positive evaluations Users of services – Citizens, business

Efficiency

Quality

Accessibility

Fairness

Independence


0

50

100

1960

87

88

74

23

1347

7581

67

47

2009 2013




Efficiency

Quality

Accessibility

Fairness

Independence


0

50

100

10854

512413

1717

58

56

37

20

2009 2013


7

Efficiency

Quality

Accessibility

Fairness

Independence


0

50

100

567457

337

66

59

62

44

17

2009 2013

Efficiency

Quality

Accessibility

Fairness

Independence


0

50

100

1960

87

88

74

23

1347

7581

67

47

2009 2013




8

Intermediary– Lawyers

9

EFFICIENCY OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM

PERCEPTION OF EFFICIENCY OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM, 2009-2013

Citizens

Business

JudgesProsecutors

Lawyers

0

10

20

30

40

9 10

22

16

5

1519

1610

6

2009

2013


MA1/A22: What do you think in general of the work of the judicial system in Serbia over the past few years? (%of “Positive” +”Very positive”)

10

REPORTED OPTIMAL AND ACTUAL CASELOAD – PROFESSIONAL STAFF, 2009 - 2013

11

537

509

241.1

280.53

957

1141

366

588

Judges 2009

Judges 2013

80

83

67

78

Reported optimal and actual caseload (in last 12 months), averages

% of those who have above optimal no. of cases

Prosecutors 2009

Prosecutors 2013

A1: Estimate the number of cases you worked on in last 12 months?A3: What would have been the optimal annual caseload given the conditions you worked in last 12 months?

OptimalActual

OptimalActual

JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY INDICATORS UP TO THE FIRST-INSTANCE JUDGMENT ACCORDING TO INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE RESPONDENTS - COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009-2013

2009 2013 Difference

DURATION OF THE FIRST INSTANCE CASE (in

months)

CRIMINAL 12 15 MISDEMEANOR 6 8 CIVIL 15 16

BUSINESS 12 13 NO. OF MONTHS PRIOR

TO THE FIST APPEARANCE BEFORE THE JUDGE (in

months)

CRIMINAL 3.9 3.4 MISDEMEANOR 2.7 2.8 CIVIL 3 2.7 BUSINESS 3.3 2.4

AVERAGE NUMBER OF HEARINGS PER FIRST

INSTANCE CASE (in hearings)

CRIMINAL 4.9 4.8 MISDEMEANOR 1.9 2 CIVIL 5.3 4.9 BUSINESS 4.7 4.4

NO. OF MONTHS BETWEEN HEARINGS IN FIRST INSTANCE CASE

(in months)

CRIMINAL 3.4 4.3 MISDEMEANOR 3.8 4.6 CIVIL 3.8 4 BUSINESS 3.8 3.9

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

Duration of the case: When was the judgment enforced? - When did one of the parties appear before a judge for the first time? Waiting for the start of the case: When did one of the parties appear before a judge for the first time? - When was the case filed?Number of hearings: How many total hearings were scheduled in the first-instance court, including those that were scheduled but not held?

12

2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013

63% 63%52%

47%53% 55%

LAWYERSPROSECUTORS

=

JUDGES

=

HEARING EFFICIENCY INDEX – PROFESSIONAL STAFF, 2009 - 2013

EFFICIENCY INDEX: MEAN % OF HEARINGS CONTRIBUTING TO PROCESS RESOLUTION, OUT OF TOTAL SCHEDULED, according to reports (based on reported percent of canceled and inefficient hearings out of total scheduled)

15

2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013

54% 55%

73%69%

50%58% 56%

63%

CIVILMISDEMEANOR BUSINESS

HEARING EFFICIENCY INDEX – COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009 - 2013

CRIMINAL

==

EFFICIENCY INDEX: MEAN % OF REPORTED HEARINGS CONTRIBUTING TO PROCESS RESOLUTION, OUT OF TOTAL SCHEDULED, according to reports (based on reported numbers of canceled and inefficient hearings out of total scheduled)

GENERAL POPULATION ENTERPRISES16

APPEALS ON FIRST INSTANCE CASES – USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009-2013

17

% OF APPEALED FIRST INSTANCE CASES*from all cases in which first-instant judgment was rendered in period from 2011-2013

If there was an appeal: DECISION OF HIGHER COURT ON THE FIRST APPEAL TO THE FIRST INSTANCE JUDGMENT:

Percentage of appeals is significantly higher in criminal and civil cases than in misdemeanor cases.

PA10 Did you or the other party appeal to a higher court?PA11 What was the decision of the higher court after your first appeal which you submitted following the first instance court judgment?If the judgment was overturned and a retrial ordered, PA12 How many times was a retrial of your case ordered?

2010 2013

35 3228

36

3

3

30

28

40

6

1

24

The judgment was overturned and a retrial ordered

The judgment was upheld

The higher court passed a more lenient judgment

The higher court passed a stricter judgment

The case is still in process

18

QUALITY OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM

PERCEPTION OF QUALITY OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM, 2009-2013

Percentage of positive evaluationsCitizens

Business

JudgesProsecutors

Lawyers

0

20

40

60

80

79

5168

6

13 21

4253

6

2009

2013

MB1/B1: What is your general impression of the quality of work of the judiciary in the past few years ? (%of “High” +”Very high”)

19

9

37

9

16

32

5

2013 2009

MOST IMPORTANT REASON WHY THE QUALITY OF JUDICIAL WORK WAS NOT HIGHER – PROFESSIONAL STAFF, 2009-2013

20

Unclear laws

Lack of staff

Poor organization

Judges Prosecutors Lawyers

% of PROFESSIONAL STAFF , % OF THE THREE MOST OFTEN NAMED REASONS

25

13

7

21

21

12

25

6

30

19

11

29

B6: Which of the following reasons that explain why the quality of work was not higher would you select as the most important one?)

MOST IMPORTANT REASON WHY THE QUALITY OF JUDICIAL WORK WAS NOT HIGHER IN THEIR CASE – COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009-2013

21

Bad laws

Poor organization

The judge did not do his/her job well

Criminal Civil Business

% of COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE WHO ASSESSED QUALITY AS LOW OR MODERATE (67% in 2009 and 68% in 2013), % OF THE THREE MOST OFTEN NAMED REASONS

32

21

15

29

25

21

Misdemeanor

28

27

20

19

26

37

32

30

13

30

30

23

27

26

23

28

27

24

PB2: Which of the following reasons that explain why the quality of work was not higher would you select as the most important one?)

22

EVALUATION OF THE JUDGE IN THEIR CASE ON SPECIFIC ATRIBUTES – COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009-2013

2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013

7481

67 69 66 69 64 62 61 63

agree ( mainly/fully )

The judge was politeand pleasant

The judge was impartial, fair and objective

The judge generated trust and respect

The judge was efficient

The judge was not corrupt

% of citizens, court users with experience who to en extent or fully agree with the following statements about the judge in their case

PB4: To what extent do you agree with the following assertions on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 represents ‘fully disagree’ and 4 represents ‘fully agree’? (%of “To an extent agree” +”Fully agree”)

23

ACCESSIBILITY OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM

24

Citizens

Business

JudgesProsecutors

Lawyers

0

20

40

60

80

100

54

53

8886

74

56

59

7871

59

2009

2013


PERCEPTION OF ACCESSIBILITY OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM, 2009-2013

C2_1: To what extent were the FOLLOWING judicial courts accessible to all citizens, notwithstanding their age, education level, financial status, nationality, invalidity? (%of “Mostly” +”Very”)

25

LAYOUT OF COURTS (HOW EASY WAS IT TO FIND YOUR WAY AND MOVE AROUND THE COURTHOUSE) – PROFESSIONAL STAFF AND COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009-2013

Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Citizens Business

91 86 8388 86

8269

7586 87

2009 2013

% responding “Mostly” or “Fully” Accessible

PROFESSIONAL STAFF COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCEC1/MC4: How accessible was the judicial system to citizens by following aspects? (%of “Mostly” +”Very”)

26

DISTANCE TO THE COURTHOUSE – PROFESSIONAL STAFF AND COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009-2013


89 84 88 92 89

65

46

61

83 83

2009 2013

PROFESSIONAL STAFFC1/MC4: How accessible was the judicial system to citizens by following aspects? (%of “Mostly” +”Very”)

COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE


27

ACCESS TO INFORMATION – PROFESSIONAL STAFF AND COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009-2013


88 86

6469

7187

7870 69

77

2009 2013




28

COURT-RELATED COSTS (COURT FEES, TRIAL COSTS, TRAVEL COSTS) – PROFESSIONAL STAFF AND COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009-2013


69 67

38 36

59

49

33

23

36

55

2009 2013




29

LAWYER-RELATED COSTS – PROFESSIONAL STAFF AND COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009-2013


45

34

53

29

60

2317

2925

50

2009 2013




30

FAIRNESS OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM

31

Citizens

Business

JudgesProsecutors

Lawyers

0

20

40

60

80

100

48

53

8987

57

52

60

8180

62

2009

2013


PERCEPTION OF FAIRNESS OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM, 2009-2013

D1/MD1: How fair was the judicial system in 2009? Please rate it on a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 represents ‘Largely unfair’ and 4 represents ‘Largely fair’.? (%of “Mostly” +”Largely”)

32

PRIMARY REASON FOR EVALUATING THE JUDICIARY SYSTEM AS NOT FULLY FAIR– PROFESSIONAL STAFF, 2013

Judges Lawyers Prosecutors

52

6056

3745

34

20

43

1817 18 21

4

19

6

Overload/poor orga-nization of the judicial system

Poor legal provisions

The judicial system is politicized

Insufficient access to information

Corruption in the judicial system

% of PROFESSIONAL STAFF WHO DID NOT EVALUATED FAIRNESS AS “LARGELY FAIR”

No difference between 2009 and 2013.

D4/D2: What is the chief reason why you did not grade fairness of the judicial system as totally fair? What is the second most important reason? Multiple answer, Base: Those who did not assess the fairness with highest grade, as “Largely fair”

33

2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013

19 2929

27 3143 48 44

-26 -28-13

-27 -25-20 -18 -18

No Yes, fully

PERCEPTION OF FAIRNESS OF TRIAL – COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009-2013

CRIMINAL MISDEMEANOR CIVIL BUSINESS

% of court users evaluation of having received a full fair trial, and not having fair trail

There is a difference in perception of fairness of trial based on judgment: court users who did not have judgment in their favor were more likely to estimate that they didn’t have fair trial

PD2/PD7: Notwithstanding the outcome of the court proceedings, what do you think of the first-instance proceedings themselves? Did you have a fair trial?? (3-point scale)

PERCEPTION OF UNEQUAL TREATMENT BY JUDICIAL SYSTEM IN SERBIA – CITIZENS, 2009-2013

35

Socio-economic status

Education

Nationality

Disability

Age

Gender

Place of residence

With court experience Without court experience

63

41

38

26

28

26

22

61

42

41

35

32

30

32

% of those who think that the judicial system in Serbia not equally treat all citizens

57

40

38

28

26

28

21

61

37

34

25

24

24

23 2013 2009

MD3: In your view, did the judicial system in Serbia in 2009 equally treat all citizens notwithstanding their: :...% of„No“

36

Judges

Prosecutors

Lawyers

Court administrative

staff

Equal chances for professional promotion Equal income

73

68

71

68

68

59

48

68

Female Male2013 - Do you think that both men and women in your profession have equal chances for professional promotion? Yes% 2013 - Thinking about total income of people employed in your profession, would you say that there are differences between men and women, or they are equal from that aspect? Equality exist %

89

88

69

78

81

80

47

82

PERCEPTION OF GENDER DIFFERENCES IN OPPORTUNITIES AND INCOME INSIDE JUDICIARY PROFESSIONS, 2013

% of legal professionals thinking there is equality

37

INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM

Citizens

Business

JudgesProsecutors

Lawyers

0

20

40

60

80

2226

7673

33

33

40

7163

44

2009

2013


PERCEPTION OF INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, 2009-2013

38

E1/ME2: How independent was the judicial system in Serbia in last 12 months? Please use a scale of 1 to 4, where 1 means not at all and 4 means to a great extent. (% of “To an extent” +”To great extent”)

TRUST IN INSTITUTIONS – CITIZENS, 2009-2013

Chur

ch

Arm

y

Educ

ation

S...

Pres

iden

t

Polic

e

Hea

lth S

yste

m

Gov

ernm

ent

Judi

cial

Sy.

..

Nati

onal

As.

..

Med

ia

NG

Os

in S

e...

56

47 46

33 33 36

1419

11

22

13

5851

4742

35 33 3126 25 24 22

2009 2013

% of citizens who have mainly/fully trust

39

ME1Please rate the degree in which you trust the following sectors and institutions on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents ‘do not trust at all’ and 5 represents ‘trust fully’.. (% of “mostly trust” and “fully trust”

TO WHAT EXTENET DID THE FOLLOWING INSTITUTIONS JEOPARDIZED THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM – PERCEPTION OF PROVIDERS, 2013

International organiza-tions

Big business

NGOs in Serbia

Government

Specific ministries

Political parties

Politicians

The Media

16

19

22

32

36

51

52

60

22

20

29

33

36

57

58

62

Prosecutors

Judges

Compared to 2009 in 2013:

• Lower percentage of judges believe that media and Ministries undermine judicial independence

• Higher percentages of prosecutors think that politicians and political parties undermine judicial independence

% of JUDGES and PROSECUTORS who found that listed institutions undermined judicial independence “to an extent” or “to a great extent”

40

E2: In your opinion, to what extent have the following institutions undermined independence of the judicial system in the past 12 months? Please us the scale from 1 to 4, where 1 means Not at all, and 4 means To a great extent. (% of “to an extent” or “to a great extent)

TO WHAT EXTENT DID PARTIALITY OF JUDGES UNDERMINE INTEGRITY/TRUST OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, 2013

% of respondents who think that partiality of judges undermine the integrity/trust of the judicial system

ME3a/E2: To what extent did partiality of judges due to improper influence of other judges, lawyers and other persons participating in the proceedings undermine the integrity/trust of the judicial system in last 12 months? (% of “to an extent” or “to great extent”) 41


28

37

64

7566

2013INTEGRITY TRUST

42

CORRUPTION IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM

Percentage of respondents claiming that there is NO corruption

Citizens

Business

JudgesProsecutors

Lawyers

0

20

40

60

1214

2423

7

13 27

5144

17

2009

2013

PERCEPTION OF ABSENCE OF CORRUPTION IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, 2009-2013

43

E7: In your opinion, was there corruption in the judicial system in last 12 months? 3-point scale, % of„No”ME9: How present is corruption in the following sectors and institutions on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents ‘not at all’ and 5 ‘ to a great degree’?. (% of “ some extent “ + „great extent“

CORRUPTION AS THE MAIN FACTOR UNDERMINING INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, 2009-2013

General population

Business

Lawyers

Prosecutors

Judges

36

16

11

2

3

31

18

9

8

52009

2013

(ME3/E6)

% of target group cited that corruption is the main factor undermining integrity of Judicial system

INTE

GRI

TYTR

UST

44ME3b/E6: Which of these factors undermined trust in the judicial system in last 12 months the most ? % of “ Corruption in judicial system” as the most important factor

Judi

cial

Sys

tem

Heal

th S

yste

m

Nati

onal

Ass

embl

y

Gove

rnm

ent

Polic

e

Educ

ation

Sys

tem

Pres

iden

t

5853 53 50 49

35

23

5159

37 3949

36

22

2009 2013

% of citizens perceiving presence of corruption in state institutions

PERCEPTION OF CORRUPTION IN DIFFERENT STATE INSTITUTIONS – CITIZENS, 2009-2013

45

ME9: How present is corruption in the following sectors and institutions on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents ‘not at all’ and 5 ‘ to a great degree’?. (% of “ some extent “ + „great extent“

REPORTED USAGE OF INFORMAL MEANS – COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009-2013

2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013

2 2

10 9

2 2 3 4

% of court users with experience who resorted to informal means.

PE2 Did you ever find yourself in circumstances in which you resorted to informal means (made an additional payment, offered a gift, pulled strings…) to have your case adjudicated more efficiently?% of Yes

CRIMINAL MISDEMEANOR CIVIL BUSINESS

46

47

COSTS OF COURT SERVICES

One half of all citizens with experience perceive OVERALL EXPENSES IN THEIR COURT CASE as excessive, but…

Low quality Average quality High quality

75

49

29

Excessive

If the quality is perceived as good then the costs are not perceived as excessive.

Total: 51%

PERCEPTION OF COSTS BY QUALITY OF SERVICES – CITIZENS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2013

%of users who think that cost are extensive

48

PF3: Do you think the costs were small, “reasonable” or excessive given the quality of court services you were provided? (% of „Excessive“)

50

ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

27

26

37

13

25

37

31

20

17

13

26

17

2013 2009

NUMBER OF VISITS AND TIME SPENT FOR ADMINISTRATIVE TASK – ADMINISTRATIVE TASK USERS, 2009-2013

51

Verification

Other

Business tasks

% of users visiting a courthouse 3 or more times to complete a task

% of users who spent more than 1 hour in courthouse

GEN

ERAL

PU

BLIC

51

AA2: How many times did you have to go to the courthouse to complete the task?

AA4: How much of that time did you spend IN THE COURTHOUSE to complete this administrative task?

USAGE OF INFORMAL MEANS IN ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES – ADMINISTRATIVE TASK USERS, 2009-2013

% of users of court administrative services who use of informal means to speed up process

VERIFICATION OTHER BUSINESS TASKS

AE3: Did you ever find yourself in circumstances in which you resorted to informal means (made an additional payment, offered a gift, pulled strings…) to complete your administrative task in court faster? % of„Yes“ 52

CITIZENS

2009 2013 2009 2013 2009 2013

19

913

814

5

53

REFORMS 2010 AND NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM STRATEGY

FOR THE PERIOD 2013-2018

AWARENESS OF JUDICIAL REFORMS IN 2010 AND NATIONAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM REFORM, 2010-2013

54

75

72

92

87

51

40

81

65

2013 2010

General public with court experience

General public without

court experience

Business with court experience

Business without court experience

% of general public and businesses who had heard about 2010 REFORM

13

11

31

25

% of general public and business who had heard about new NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM STRATEGY 2013-2018

5453

MG1: Have you heard about the judicial system reform launched on 1 January 2010?

MH1: Have you heard about the new National Judicial Reform Strategy for the period 2013 – 2018?

WHAT PEOPLE COULD SAY ABOUT JUDICIAL REFORM 2010 – CITIZENS, 2010-2013

Reappointment of judges/change of judges

Speeded up and more efficient processes are per-formance of j

Dismissals/ reduction of number of employees, administration

Reduction of the number of judges

Abolishing of some courts/reduction of the number of courts

Reorganization of judiciary, work of judges and judiciary

49

11

10

7

6

5

39

8

7

4

5

4

2013

2010

MG2: Can you specify anything that has been done within the framework of this judicial reform? Multiple answers; Base: those who heard about the judicial system reform launched in January 2010

55

KNOWLEDGE ABOUT NEW NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM STRATEGY – PROFESSIONAL STAFF, 2013

56

35

38

21

14

Over a half of judges and prosecutors obtained information about the new National judicial strategy from other sources than official.

Judges

Prosecutors

Lawyers


staff

% of professionals who are fully and to extent informed about new National judicial reform strategy 2013-2018

H1: How well informed are you about new National Judicial Reform Strategy on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 represents “not at all” and 5 represents “very well informed”.. (% of „Mostly“ and „Very well“

79

88

55

58

55

51

36

40

20132010

57

84

84

78

78

SUPPORT FOR JUDICIAL REFORMS IN 2010 AND NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM STRATEGY – PROFESSIONAL STAFF, 2010-2013

2010 reform: % of support in 2010 and 2013

New National Strategy: % of support in 2013

However, for all groups of professionals, EXPECTATIONS of the new National Judicial Strategy are significantly higher than expectations were for 2010 reforms.

Judges

Prosecutors

Lawyers


staff

57H3: Do you support the new National Judicial Reform Strategy in general or not?

G3: Do you support the current judicial reform in general or not?

Efficiency

Quality

Accessability

Fairness

Integrity

Cost effectivness

0

20

40

60

2524

2321

25

20 191720

1212

7Expectations in 2010

Evaluations in 2013

REFORMS 2010 – RETROSPECTION: EXPECTATIONS IN 2010 AND EVALUATIONS IN 2013



Intermediary– Lawyers

Efficiency

Quality

Accessability

Fairness

Integrity

Cost effectivness

0

20

40

60

56

53

50

49

45

35 3234

322625

24

Efficiency

Quality

Accessability

Fairness

Integrity

Cost effectivness

0

20

40

60

50

47

42

56

52

3730

27

252825

14


58

Thank you for your attention!

59

CONCLUSION

1. PERCEPTIONS OF USERS ARE IMPROVING IN SOME KEY AREAS, BUT GAINS ARE FRAGILE 2. PERCEPTIONS DIFFER BETWEEN MEMBERS OF PUBLIC WITH EXERIENCE AND WITHOUT EXPERIENCE WITH COURT CASES 3. PERCEPTIONS DIFFER BETWEEN USERS (RELATIVELY MORE NEGATIVE) AND PROVIDERS OF JUSTICE SERVICES (RELATIVELY MORE POSITIVE) 4. POSITIONS ARE COMING CLOSER AS PERCEPTIONS AMONG SERVICE PROVIDERS BECOME MORE NEGATIVE AND PERCEPTIONS AMONG USERS MORE POSITIVE 5. COMMUNICATION OF PROGRESS IS KEY FOR REFORMERS TO GET CREDIT FOR REFORMS LARGELY SUPPORTED BY STAKEHOLDERS

60

NEXT STEPS

SHARE PRESENTATION SLIDES WITH STAKEHOLDERS FURTHER PRESENTATIONS TO BROADER STAKEHOLDERS DETAILED ANALYTICAL REPORT WILL BE DELIVERED TOGETHER WITH FUNCTIONAL REVIEW MOST RELEVANT FINDINGS WILL BE INCLUDED IN FUNCTIONAL REVIEW REPORT

61

world bank multi-donor trust fund for justice sector support in serbia

Documents

business slide

instance case

instance court

months criminal3

serbia slide

instance judgment

average number of hearings

total hearings