, International
, International
Nicklas SODERBERG expert (Sweden)
, International
Kari KIESILAINEN expert (Finland)
Overview of international experience in remapping local general courts based on the examples of Finland, Lithuania and Sweden
Reda MOLIENE expert (Lithuania)
August 2021
2 This publication was produced with the financial support of the European Union. Its contents are the sole responsibility of the EU-funded Project PRAVO-Justice and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union Generalized by: Polina Li, National Key Expert Serhii Horovenko, Nationa Expert
3 TABLE OF CONTENTS FINLAND.............................................................................................5 LITHUANIA.........................................................................................9 SWEDEN ............................................................................................12 ANNEX 1. UNIFIED TABLE OF OVERVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE IN REMAPPING LOCAL GENERAL COURTS BASED ON THE EXAMPLES OF FINLAND, LITHUANIA AND SWEDEN.................................16 ANNEX 2. QUESTIONNAIRE. ....................................................................16
4
Introduction This analytical review describes the process of the local courts' system optimization in Finland, Lithuania and Sweden.
The document was prepared by the national experts of the EU Project «Pravo Justice» on the basis of information provided by international Project experts who were directly involved in the court remapping process in their respective countries.
International experts were asked to answer a number of questions from the list which was formed as a result of discussions that took place during February July 2021 at the meetings of the working group on court remapping, created within the Parliamentary Committee on Legal Policy.
The review gives an opportunity to oversee the criteria and methodology that were used in the process of creation of the new map of courts in Finland, Lithuania and Sweden, as well as to understand the problems that have arisen in the process of reform implementation and possible ways of solving them.
The physical location of the court is not crucial. In addition, it should be borne in mind that in more urbanized communities, modern technologies are used more intensively than in less urbanized ones, i.e., digitalization of the court should be considered with due regard to the capacity and location of each court. At the same time, the new network of courts should be provided with due access to key actors in the judiciary (police, prosecutors, enforcement service, free legal aid). At the same time, the location of psychiatric facilities, temporary detention facilities or prisons was not crucial.
Finland Kari Kiesilainen Overview
- Despite the fact that the administrative and territorial structure was an important criterion for court remapping (there are 20 local courts in Finland and 19 regions), it wasn't the only one because there were reasonable exceptions, including due to specifics of
Number of local courts: decreased 5 times since the early 1990s (from 100 to 20). During the 1990 reform, the number of courts decreased from 100 to 70. During the 1993 reform, 70 courts were reorganized into 51 courts. Subsequently, in 2010, 27 courts were established on the basis of 51 local courts. During the last reform, which ended in 2019, 27 courts were consolidated into 20 courts (although the working group initially proposed forming either 14 or 17 courts).
5
Population: 5.5 million - Area: 338,455 km2
Administrative and territorial structure: 5 regions, 19 (sub) regions, 309 communes.
Timeframe when reform was implemented (completed): 1990, 1993, 2010, 2019.
Primary and secondary criteria
The primary criterion is access to justice for a person, which is considered both in terms of physical and remote component. It means that physical access to a court building for a person is very expensive (both for the state and for a person) and is less and less necessary in the world of today because court services as a key product of court's activity in some cases can be obtained faster, cheaper and without lowering the bar for services as such directly in the remote mode.
Currently, each court is located on one premise, but in the future, there is a possibility to form court satellites.
Secondary, but no less important factors for the unification of courts were logistics of courts, including means for videoconferencing, as well as optimizing the structure and functionality of court staff.
Administrative and territorial structure
- Before court remapping in Finland began, the existing court premises were audited and the number of premises, how many of them and in what time periods should be extended / reconstructed (taking into account the perspective of remote justice).
6 certain areas: language of communication local population, distance to the court, infrastructure, geographical problems, etc.
The location of the parties does not affect automated case allocation system between judges. This fact was taken into account first and foremost to determine jurisdiction. If a person has erred in the jurisdiction of his or her dispute, the dispute was to be referred to the appropriate court automatically.
The maximum and minimum number of judges is not regulated in legal framework. In the "old courts" the minimum number of judges was 4 (in 36 courts). These courts were enlarged. The number of judges in each local court is determined based on discussion between the court and the National Judicial Administration, which is held annually given current and projected workload of judges, the complexity of cases, working conditions, and soToday,on. the largest court is located in Helsinki, the capital, home to 585,000 residents. There are 90 judges in that court. However, the division of courts into separate
Courts and judges
Local courts in Finland are formed at the level of (sub) regions, and their territorial jurisdiction is determined by municipalities. The court as a legal entity may have a "satellite courtroom" (branch) only in special cases (and in accordance with appropriate substantiation).
100 70 51 27 20 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020 2030 судівмісцевихКількість
For example, in 2010, under a “big” project, 51 local courts were reorganized into 27 district courts (the number of courts was halved). In 2019, according to the "small" project, the number of local courts was reduced from 27 to 20. And although the working group in 2019 worked out 2 alternative options for court remapping reducing the number of courts to 14 courts or up to 17 courts, Parliament decided to reduce the number of district courts from 27 to 20. It is presumed that the 2019 reform is a logical continuation (or even “setting straight”) of the 2010 reform, as it is now becoming increasingly clear to experts that the government was “not brave enough” at the time to reduce the number of courts more radically and therefore over 9 years for development and improving efficiency of the judiciary have been lost.
Design and implementation of the reform
7 legal entities is allowed if it is well substantiated in terms of respect for human rights and access to Therejustice.are
Court remapping in Finland
no clear rules for the division of judges based on their specialization within one court, but on average practice shows that 6 8 judges for a particular category of cases is more than a balanced decision.
Over the last 30 years, there have been several waves of court remapping in Finland (1990, 1993, 2010, 2019). In particular, large and small court remapping projects were implemented.
For example, a draft law and a step by step implementation plan were drafted for the 2019 reform (as a separate document). Respective Working Group was established at the end of 2014. The law on court remapping was adopted in 2016, but its entry into force was delayed by 3.5 years (2019). During these 3.5 years, a "step by step plan" for optimization was being implemented. Working groups were set up within each court. In general, this stage of remapping lasted more than 5 years.
- There was no reduction in court staff as this was not the purpose of the reform, so all court staff retained their positions (if they wished). Optimizing local courts is not always about reducing the staff and judges.
The Ministry of Justice developed various projects and proposals for court remapping, but the final version of the reform (number of new courts, their jurisdiction, etc.) was approved by Parliament. However, both the jurisdiction and the number of courts, their location can be further modified as needed (this will take from 1 to 2 years).
Judicial optimization projects have been coordinated with prosecutors, police, the enforcement service, local courts, bar associations and the free legal aid system, municipalities and their associations, other territorial entities, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of the Interior, associations of courts, lawyers, etc.
- The "big" project was implemented in and perceived by society and the judiciary easier and better because everyone understood that such remapping applies to everyone (without exception), so everyone was mentally ready for it. At that time, a "small" project could have given rise to an idea of a targeted "campaign" against a particular court given that the next remapping was more difficult.
8
Although there still is criticism of the reform in place, studies show a positive effect from its implementation. For example, there has been reduction in the number of courtrooms, modern equipment for them, the use of human resources has been optimized and there has been a fairer distribution of public funds, the workload has been levelled, and specialization within the court has been established.
Although there was active opposition to the reforms, given that this issue was addressed comprehensively and concerned all courts (rather than one or two), society and the judiciary took such reform as a given fact.
After the reform, there are no inter district or inter regional courts in Lithuania, i.e., the jurisdiction of any of the enlarged courts does not differ from the Administrative and territorial structure, but fully corresponds to it.
Administrative and territorial structure: 10 counties, 60 municipalities, 500 communities (the smallest administrative unit).
Jurisdiction of courts in Lithuania is determined by the territories of municipalities.
Administrative and territorial structure
9
Number of local courts: 49 local courts were reorganized into 12 courts.
Lithuania Reda Moliene Overview
Timeline of the reform: 2015 2018.
Population: 2,8 mln.
Primary and secondary criteria
- The first stage of court remapping in Lithuania which started in 2015, began with the unification of courts within one city, as this is the most efficient way of organizing the judiciary. Different workloads of judges within the city, the difficulty of determining jurisdiction for ordinary people are obvious arguments for why there should be one court.
The primary criteria were: population, number of judges, workload and distance between courts. Existing court premises and future infrastructure projects were also taken into account. Digitalisation of justice was seen as a key condition for the success of local court remapping reform. It has to do with central court information systems e court, e court document management system and information exchange between courts, and so on.
Secondary criteria were determined the personnel capacity of the court staff, the age of judges (number of judges of retirement age), the location of the prosecutor's office and the police, as well as existing and future infrastructure.
Area: 65 300 km2 .
10
The overwhelming majority of courts united as one legal entity in Lithuania operate not in a single building, but in 2 3 buildings (court branches) which previously housed independent courts. At the same time, talks are underway to close such branches of the court due to unfeasibility of maintaining them (there is a tendency that they are not so much needed) due to the optimization and digitalization of all court proceedings.
The most remote court in Lithuania is at a distance of 75 kilometres from another court, while the average is 40 kilometres.
The average workload per judge in Lithuania is 393 cases per year or 35 cases per month. And although the workload on judges has levelled off by region, in some places there is still some inequality between courts (for example, there are judges who have a workload of 26 cases per month, and there are those who can have up to 72 cases per month).There is an objective difficulty in the administration of courts that simultaneously employ more than 100 judges as well as more than 400 court staff members. However, at the same time, there are clear benefits from automating intra court proceedings and centralizing the use of court resources.
Courts and judges -
The minimum and maximum number of judges is not defined, but it is believed that the court should have at least 10 12 judges. Currently, the smallest court consists of 17 judges, with an average of 25 40 judges, and the largest court, located in Vilnius, has 108 judges (per 550,000 population).
The automated case allocation system can allocate cases based on the territorial affiliation of the parties and if they all live in the place where there is a judicial branch, the case is allocated to judges working in the branch, and if there is no court, other judges can travel to consider the case in this (convenient for the parties) court building. This ensures the right of people from remote parts of the country to access justice.
Therefore, it was decided that in all large cities there will be only 1 local court as a legal entity. At the same time, the old premises remained as court branches of the enlarged local court.
The parties to the case may submit procedural documents in hard copy to both the central court and the branch.
11
So far, discussions have started in Lithuania on another phase of court consolidation. Whereas during the first reform the staff of the court staff was mostly worried that they will be made redundant, now judges are beginning to consider whether the second enlargement will lead to reduced number of court staff. However, the official position of the judicial administration is that although Lithuanian judiciary needs further consolidation, there is no need for reducing the number of judges or court staff. Court remapping in Lithuania
49 12 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 2014.5 2015 2015.5 2016 2016.5 2017 2017.5 2018 2018.5 судівмісцевихКількість
There was no officially approved methodology for court remapping.
Design and implementation of the reform
Draft remapping reform was designed by the judiciary in cooperation with the Office of the President and the Ministry of Justice and subsequently agreed on with all stakeholders and voted by Parliament.
All court employees, except for those positions that were subject to reduction (accounting, archives, etc.) and all judges were transferred to new courts automatically (if they had such a desire). Throughout the reform process, there was strategic communication on the part of the judicial administration about the benefits of the reform, including increased salaries of court staff without reducing their number (due to more funds made available), which in turn stimulated them to support remapping.
The primary factor for unification was not the size of the court, but the opportunity to effectively organize internal proceedings within it. At the same time, it was presumed that small courts could not achieve this in principle.
An important element of the court remapping was analysing existing court premises under construction/renovation and ones to be constructed/renovated, as the priority was that all court employees work on one premise. The vast majority of courts are currently located in one building (with a few exceptions, but even in exceptions judges may be in another building, but the court staff is precisely located within one room).
Sweden
Nicklas Soderberg Overview
The main purpose of the reform was to create conditions for the specialization of judges, strengthen the capacity of the court staff (including through improved ergonomics and internal processes), improve territorial coordination of the court with other authorities directly or indirectly related to justice.
Administrative and territorial structure: 21 oblast (lena) + Stockholm, 290 communes).Population: 10,3 mln.
Area: 450 295 km².
Number of local courts: Instead of 100 local courts, 48 courts were established.
According to the first stage of the reform, it was planned to establish courts based on the principle of "1 court for 1 county (sub region)", but in many regions this was not possible. Over time, it has become increasingly clear that “small” courts cannot match the level of efficiency with “large” ones, and there are problems all the time with an uneven workload on judges and significant procedural delays. Therefore, new discussions are underway as to the need to liquidate "small" courts, but it is much more difficult to close/remap one/two enlarged courts, even if they are small enough, in contrast to closing/remapping tens and hundreds of courts at the same time.
Primary and secondary criteria
12
The reform took place during 2000 2010.
Administrative and territorial structure of the country is the basis for the network of courts. There are no interregional courts in Sweden (rupture of the region) even though in some cases an interregional court would look more "natural" and rational for geographical or other reasons.
- On average, a judge has 370 cases per year.
The territorial jurisdiction of the courts is determined via the boundaries of municipalities. Currently, there may be several courts in the middle of the region, which in turn are defined by the boundaries of municipalities. That is, the map of courts practically coincides with the administrative and territorial system.
- There are still branches of courts (premises of the enlarged court in other settlements), the key purpose of which was to ensure access to justice for residents of remoteDigitalizationareas.
The jurisdiction of the courts in Sweden is determined by the Government, not the Parliament. However, there have long been discussions about amending the regulations to transfer these powers to Parliament.
The proposal to determine the territorial jurisdiction of a branch of a local court, if such a branch is located at the place of residence of the plaintiff/defendant, is sufficiently substantiated. It is also rational to receive all procedural documents not only through the central office, but also through special receptions in court branches.
The network of local courts does not correlate with penitentiaries, psychiatric institutions or other specially targeted institutions.
Courts and judges In Sweden, there are no restrictions on the minimum or maximum number of judges in the enlarged courts. However, practice shows that at least 7 8 judges are needed for a local court to function effectively.
13
Administrative and territorial structure
of justice was not taken into account because more than 10 years ago the level of development of modern technologies was completely different.
Court remapping in Sweden
14 - There is a great variety of specializations, so courts usually need a large number of judges to make the specialization diverse and effective in practice. Specialization should be considered in terms of improving the quality of court services and more informed decision making by judges of certain categories of cases, but by no means be the primary goal of judicial remapping reform.
100 48 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 судівмісцевихКількість
From the point of view of arranging internal processes on average 15 19 judges within one court, i.e., about 65 court employees seems quite reasonable. Oversized courts are quite difficult to administer from within. For example, this was the case with the court in Stockholm (975 thousand population), which was eventually divided into 4 smaller courts.
The State Judicial Administration set up a working group to draft a court remapping project, which was then submitted to a wide range of stakeholders (prosecutors, police, the Ministry of Justice, etc.) and the Government, which eventually submitted the revised draft toInParliament.general,one could feel resistance to the reform at every stage. This was especially true of Parliament, as MP's constituency is the most valuable for any MP. For these reasons, the working group and the government drafted the final version (taking into account the proposals of stakeholders), which was eventually approved by Parliament without changes. Now everyone understands that this was the right step.
Design and implementation of the reform
All court staff were offered to transfer under a simplified procedure to the newly formed court, and those who did not want to were made redundant (in this way the labour rights of employees were fully observed).
15 - This issue was hardly discussed in the Parliament and all the changes were voted on by the package as a consensus was reached within the working group.
16 Annex 1. Unified table of overview of international experience in remapping local general courts based on the examples of Finland, Lithuania and Sweden. Annex 2. Questionnaire.