Chapter 1

Speed of justice

While large caseloads and backlogs delay judicial decisions and can affect the quality and delivery of court decisions, the speed of justice in most of the countries under review was not generally considered a significant problem, as Chart A.1.2.5 indicates. The best results were recorded in Belarus and Russia, which mirror the conclusions of the World Bank Doing Business reports in relation to enforcing contracts.

Causes of delays in the decisions reviewed included the late appointment of expert witnesses, motions for adjournments being too readily granted by courts, and the tendency of appeal courts to send cases back for further hearing rather than imposing their own decisions. In some instances it was suspected that judges delayed proceedings with a view to favouring a particular party (providing time, for example, to dilute assets or destroy evidence).

Courts generally dealt more swiftly with cases involving regulators than with creditor or property rights disputes. In seven of the countries reviewed, cases involving regulators were dealt with faster than others, while in all countries the speed of hearings in regulatory disputes exceeded the average speed for those in the other categories. This suggests that courts prioritised such cases, which is consistent with the perception of a pro-government judicial outlook (see also below).

Fast-track small claims procedures in some countries appear to have been very successful. Such procedures exist in Armenia, Moldova and Russia for relatively simple cases where there is no evidence in dispute and which can be resolved on the basis of available documentation.

• < Prev
• Next >