In April of every year, the European Commission publishes its EU Justice Scoreboard evaluations. This is an important comparative tool undertaken by the Commission’s officials, which measures and calculates the progress of national justice systems within the 28 member states of the EU based on data from two years before – in this case 2014.
These calculations are measured principally on the key performance indicators of efficiency, quality and independence.
With regard to judicial efficiency, the EU Justice Scoreboard statistics are based on three principal indicators: the length of proceedings to resolve a Court dispute; the clearance rate between incoming cases and outgoing judgements; and the number of pending cases before the respective courts throughout the year.
In this regard, and within the performance indicator of efficiency, substantial progress has been made in Malta in 2014 whereby for the first time in several years, the number of cases resolved and decided has been greater than the number of incoming cases submitted at the court registries, thereby bolstering the clearance rate.
Presently, the average time needed for cases of a civil and commercial nature to be decided at first instance spans 530 days. This is a marked improvement over Malta’s performance in 2013 when the average amount of days required for decisions to be taken in such cases was of 705 days. This positive trend is further confirmed by the examination of cases of a similar nature in 2012, when the average time required for the resolution of an analogous court dispute exceeded 800 days.
This efficiency is also noted in administrative cases, where the disposition time required for a decision to be reached was reduced markedly, driving Malta up to an impressive third place on the EU Justice Scoreboard; significantly better than the 2013 results where Malta placed a disappointing 18th.
Results in the quality indicators, have likewise been positive. Here, the Justice Scoreboard evaluates its member states’ performance by applying four broad factors as follows: the court’s accessibility to citizens and businesses; the availability of adequate material and human resources; the extent to which having assessment tools are available and used; and the effective application of quality standards.
Malta’s performance with regard to the public’s general accessibility to justice improved significantly in this regard, chiefly as a result of the introduction of novel electronic services, including the electronic submission of claims, and a variety of new communication services that have been made available to the courts, to lawyers and to the public, all of which are conducive to the better management of cases.
Malta still needs to overcome a significant hurdle: the number of judges and magistrates per capita is low when compared to our population
With reference to the indicator of human resources, Malta has consistently faired satisfactorily well, especially in view of the fact that we can be proud of the relatively high number of lawyers per capita in private practice and at the services of the public, which undoubtedly improves the statistics.
Of course, Malta still needs to overcome a significant hurdle: the number of judges and magistrates per capita is low when compared to our population. This shortage places immense strains on the judiciary, although it is good to note that steps have already been taken to address this deficit.
The government has also narrowed the gender divide in the courts of law. An increased number of women have been appointed to the judiciary.
This is an important factor in delivering justice in today’s world, which rightly upholds and advocates gender equivalence, thereby providing a more realistic portrayal of society.
Malta furthermore needs to make significant strides forward in its provision of training to judges and magistrates. Training is required in various sectors of the provision of legal remedies and we would do well to promote alternative dispute resolution methods.
These should be significantly incentivised, not only to legal practioners and the judiciary, but also to the public. These novel mechanisms would benefit all persons involved, since, more often than not, results can be achieved in a remarkably briefer period of time.
It is not an easy goal and would require a considerable change in mentality. The Mediation Centre is fully committed to do all it can, to help instil this much needed change. Right now courts are the first resort. This is wrong. The courts of law must always be the last resort – a final forum which is petitioned only after all attempts for settlement have failed.
One final indicator deals with perceived independence of the judiciary. Here, Malta’s score has improved three places in comparison to the 2015 EU Justice Scoreboard, which looked specifically at the public’s perception of the judiciary.
It is evident that the man in the street believes that the Maltese judiciary is independent from the executive, and this perception is even stronger in commercial realms. Overall, Malta’s justice system has obtained positive results. Significant improvements have been made which have been well received not only by the judiciary, the court staff and the legal professionals working at court, but also by local and foreign businesses and the public at large, which justifiably demands a system of justice which is efficient, expeditious, and acts fully in accordance with the law.
Of course there is still much to be achieved. We need to keep improving in order to attain the ideal performance rates of countries like Germany to which we must aspire.
There is no doubt that the government is committed to reducing delays at the courts. This commitment however requires a common frame of mind and willingness, by all persons involved in the court system, including the court staff, legal practitioners, the judiciary and the public.
It is useless - if not counterproductive - to keep imposing changes, and introducing legislation, if the most well-intentioned and researched changes are actively opposed by the court system, or if there is no cooperation from all the parties involved.
Case management is crucial to expeditious disposition of cases. The courts have been slowly moving towards case management systems, by keeping effective control of a case from beginning to end, and imposing dates for hearings of evidence and submissions.
We are seeing good, important steps in the right direction. If we pull the same rope, and if we pull it in the same direction, I am positive that we will achieve these important goals for Malta.
Mark Attard Montalto is chair of the Malta Mediation Centre.