1. WORLD BANK Multi-Donor Trust Fund for Justice Sector Support in Serbia

2. PERCEPTIONS OF JUDICIARY PERFORMANCE IN SERBIA Survey 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

3. 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: 52376030 USERS GENERAL POPULATION: 1035 representative sample1048 representative sample 555 sample of court users650 sample of court users ENTERPRISE MANAGERS FROM PRIVATE SECTOR 800 representative sample810 representative sample 200 sample of court users210 sample of court users LAWYERS 800 representative sample809 representative sample PROVIDERS JUDGES 1075 (response rate 53%)1533 (response rate 54%) PROSECUTORS 201 (response rate 48%)391 (response rate 59%) COURT ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF 571579

4. 4 KEY FINDINGS

5. Providers of services – Judges and prosecutors Users of services – Citizens, business Percentage of positive evaluations PERCEPTION OF JUDICIARY ON 6 DIMENSIONS, 2009-2013 5

6. 6 Percentage of positive evaluations Users of services – Citizens, business

7. Providers of services – Judges and prosecutors Users of services – Citizens, business Percentage of positive evaluations PERCEPTION OF JUDICIARY ON 6 DIMENSIONS, 2009-2013 7

8. Providers of services – Judges and prosecutors Percentage of positive evaluations PERCEPTION OF JUDICIARY ON 6 DIMENSIONS, 2009-2013 8 Intermediary– Lawyers

9. 9 EFFICIENCY OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM

10. PERCEPTION OF EFFICIENCY OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM, 2009-2013 Percentage of positive evaluations 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

11. REPORTED OPTIMAL AND ACTUAL CASELOAD – PROFESSIONAL STAFF, 2009 - 2013 11 Judges 2009 Judges 2013 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? Optimal Actual Optimal Actual

12. JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY INDICATORS UP TO THE FIRST-INSTANCE JUDGMENT ACCORDING TO INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE RESPONDENTS - COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009-2013 20092013Difference DURATION OF THE FIRST INSTANCE CASE (in months) CRIMINAL1215 MISDEMEANOR68 CIVIL1516 BUSINESS1213 NO. OF MONTHS PRIOR TO THE FIST APPEARANCE BEFORE THE JUDGE (in months) CRIMINAL3.93.4 MISDEMEANOR2.72.8 CIVIL32.7 BUSINESS3.32.4 AVERAGE NUMBER OF HEARINGS PER FIRST INSTANCE CASE (in hearings) CRIMINAL4.94.8 MISDEMEANOR1.92 CIVIL5.34.9 BUSINESS4.74.4 NO. OF MONTHS BETWEEN HEARINGS IN FIRST INSTANCE CASE (in months) CRIMINAL3.44.3 MISDEMEANOR3.84.6 CIVIL3.84 BUSINESS3.83.9 = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 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

13. 13 JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY INDICATORS UP TO THE FIRST-INSTANCE JUDGMENT ACCORDING TO INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE RESPONDENTS, 2009 MinimumMaximumMedianMean DURATION OF THE FIRST INSTANCE CASE (in months) CRIMINAL 0819.211.8 MISDEMEANOR 0293.95.8 CIVIL 01149.014.8 BUSINESS 01018.012.2 NO. OF MONTHS PRIOR TO THE FIST APPEARANCE BEFORE THE JUDGE (in months) CRIMINAL 0242.03.9 MISDEMEANOR 0232.02.7 CIVIL 0492.03.0 BUSINESS 0282.03.3 AVERAGE NUMBER OF HEARINGS PER FIRST INSTANCE CASE (in hearings) CRIMINAL 1343.04.9 MISDEMEANOR 1201.01.9 CIVIL 1453.05.3 BUSINESS 1503.04.7 NO. OF MONTHS BETWEEN HEARINGS IN FIRST INSTANCE CASE (in months) CRIMINAL 0182.93.4 MISDEMEANOR 0243.03.8 CIVIL 0452.93.8 BUSINESS 0322.83.8

14. 14 JUDICIAL EFFICIENCY INDICATORS UP TO THE FIRST-INSTANCE JUDGMENT ACCORDING TO INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE RESPONDENTS, 2013 MinimumMaximumMedianMean DURATION OF THE FIRST INSTANCE CASE (in months) CRIMINAL 07012.415.3 MISDEMEANOR 0345.47.7 CIVIL 010010.416.3 BUSINESS 01068.013.4 NO. OF MONTHS PRIOR TO THE FIST APPEARANCE BEFORE THE JUDGE (in months) CRIMINAL 0253.03.4 MISDEMEANOR 0152.02.8 CIVIL 0252.02.7 BUSINESS 0202.02.4 AVERAGE NUMBER OF HEARINGS PER FIRST INSTANCE CASE (in hearings) CRIMINAL 1324.04.8 MISDEMEANOR 1101.02.0 CIVIL 1503.94.9 BUSINESS 1303.04.4 NO. OF MONTHS BETWEEN HEARINGS IN FIRST INSTANCE CASE (in months) CRIMINAL 0253.44.3 MISDEMEANOR 0213.04.6 CIVIL 0222.94.0 BUSINESS 0832.53.9

15. = 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

16. 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 ENTERPRISES 16

17. 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? 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. 18 QUALITY OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM

19. PERCEPTION OF QUALITY OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM, 2009-2013 Percentage of positive evaluations 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

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

21. 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 Misdemeanor 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 % 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) 22

23. 23 ACCESSIBILITY OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM

24. Percentage of positive evaluations 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) 24

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 % responding Mostly or Fully Accessible PROFESSIONAL STAFF COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE C1/MC4: How accessible was the judicial system to citizens by following aspects? (%of Mostly +Very) 25

26. DISTANCE TO THE COURTHOUSE – PROFESSIONAL STAFF AND COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009-2013 PROFESSIONAL STAFF C1/MC4: How accessible was the judicial system to citizens by following aspects? (%of Mostly +Very) COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE 26 % responding Mostly or Fully Accessible

27. ACCESS TO INFORMATION – PROFESSIONAL STAFF AND COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009-2013 PROFESSIONAL STAFF C1/MC4: How accessible was the judicial system to citizens by following aspects? (%of Mostly +Very) COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE 27 % responding Mostly or Fully Accessible

28. COURT-RELATED COSTS (COURT FEES, TRIAL COSTS, TRAVEL COSTS) – PROFESSIONAL STAFF AND COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009-2013 PROFESSIONAL STAFF C1/MC4: How accessible was the judicial system to citizens by following aspects? (%of Mostly +Very) COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE 28 % responding Mostly or Fully Accessible

29. LAWYER-RELATED COSTS – PROFESSIONAL STAFF AND COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009-2013 PROFESSIONAL STAFF C1/MC4: How accessible was the judicial system to citizens by following aspects? (%of Mostly +Very) COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE 29 % responding Mostly or Fully Accessible

30. 30 FAIRNESS OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM

31. Percentage of positive evaluations 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) 31

32. PRIMARY REASON FOR EVALUATING THE JUDICIARY SYSTEM AS NOT FULLY FAIR– PROFESSIONAL STAFF, 2013 % of PROFESSIONAL STAFF WHO DID NOT EVALUATED FAIRNESS AS LARGELY FAIR No difference between 2009 and 2013. 32 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. PERCEPTION OF FAIRNESS OF TRIAL – COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009-2013 CRIMINALMISDEMEANOR CIVILBUSINESS % 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 didnt 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) 33

34. Court users who did not have judgment in their favor more often estimated that they didnt have fair trial Judgment in favor Judgment not in favor Court users evaluation of having received a fair trial, Average for all types of cases with relation to judgment DIFFERENCE IN PERCEPTION OF FAIRNESS BASED ON JUDGMENT – CITIZENS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009-2013 34

35. 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 experienceWithout court experience % of those who think that the judicial system in Serbia not equally treat all citizens MD3: In your view, did the judicial system in Serbia in 2009 equally treat all citizens notwithstanding their::...% ofNo

36. 36 Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Court administrative staff Equal chances for professional promotionEqual income 2013 - 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 % PERCEPTION OF GENDER DIFFERENCES IN OPPORTUNITIES AND INCOME INSIDE JUDICIARY PROFESSIONS, 2013 % of legal professionals thinking there is equality

37. 37 INDEPENDENCE OF JUDICIAL SYSTEM

38. Percentage of positive evaluations 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)

39. TRUST IN INSTITUTIONS – CITIZENS, 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

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

41. 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 INTEGRITYTRUST

42. 42 CORRUPTION IN THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM

43. Percentage of respondents claiming that there is NO corruption 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, % ofNo 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

44. CORRUPTION AS THE MAIN FACTOR UNDERMINING INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM, 2009-2013 (ME3/E6) % of target group cited that corruption is the main factor undermining integrity of Judicial system INTEGRITY TRUST 44 ME3b/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

45. % 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

46. REPORTED USAGE OF INFORMAL MEANS – COURT USERS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2009-2013 % 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 CRIMINALMISDEMEANOR CIVILBUSINESS 46

47. 47 COSTS OF COURT SERVICES

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

49. Evaluation of costs as excessive or reasonable is directly related to perception of quality of service 2009 2013 PERCEPTION OF COSTS BY QUALITY OF SERVICES – CITIZENS WITH EXPERIENCE, 2013 Total: 51% 49 PF3: Do you think the costs were small, reasonable or excessive given the quality of court services you were provided? (% of Excessive)

50. 50 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

51. 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 GENERAL PUBLIC 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?

52. 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? % ofYes 52 CITIZENS

53. 53 REFORMS 2010 AND NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM STRATEGY FOR THE PERIOD 2013- 2018

54. AWARENESS OF JUDICIAL REFORMS IN 2010 AND NATIONAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM REFORM, 2010-2013 54 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 % 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?

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

56. KNOWLEDGE ABOUT NEW NATIONAL JUDICIAL REFORM STRATEGY – PROFESSIONAL STAFF, 2013 56 Over a half of judges and prosecutors obtained information about the new National judicial strategy from other sources than official. Judges Prosecutors Lawyers Court administrative 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

57. 57 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 Court administrative staff 57 H3: 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?

58. REFORMS 2010 – RETROSPECTION: EXPECTATIONS IN 2010 AND EVALUATIONS IN 2013 Providers of services – Judges and prosecutors Users of services – Citizens, business Intermediary– Lawyers Percentage of positive evaluations 58

59. Thank you for your attention! 59

60. 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

61. 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