Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
EPPiSM Baner

No. 1/2026/77 (2026)

Artykuły

Strategies to Deal with Backlogs and Delays in the Court System: European Experiences

DOI: https://doi.org/10.52097/eppism.10709  [Google Scholar]
Published: 2026-03-31

Abstract

The article illustrates the strategies that the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) has been developing during these last years for fighting backlogs in countries belonging to the Council of Europe. In particular, the CEPEJ has recently elaborated a “Backlog Reduction Tool”, intended to show how stakeholders in the judicial field should tackle the issues of delays in treating and disposing of cases before courts. In this framework also a special Resource Centre on Backlog Reduction Practices has been
set up. The essay shows as well how dashboards can be used in order to assess the current situation and evaluate the compliance with certain targets related to the two main efficiency indicators: clearance rate and disposition time. Also a comprehensive list of
possible measures is presented and commented in their pros and cons, such as issuing a “decalogue” of behavioural rules, using e-filing and AI in the organisation of the work of judges, relieving judges of certain (non-judicial) tasks, rationalisation of court network, ADR, transferring the competence to hear certain categories of cases from panels of judges to a single judge, temporary reorganization of courts, etc.

References

  1. Bartolini, Antonio, Colcelli, Valentina, Zammit, David E., Individual Legal Status: A Tool for Developing European Law?, Proceedings of the Conference on European Dimensions of Individual Status (Malta, 3 July, 2017), University of Malta 2017. [Google Scholar]
  2. Contini, Francesco (ed.), Handle with Care: Assessing and Designing Methods for Evaluation and Development of the Quality of Justice, IRSIG-CNR, Bologna 2017; . [Google Scholar]
  3. Council of Europe (ed.), The Right to Trial Within a Reasonable Time and Short-Term Reform of the European Court of Human Rights, Round Table organised by the Slovenian Chairmanship of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe Bled, Slovenia, 21–22 September 2009, Directorate General of Human Rights and Legal Affairs Council of Europe Ministry of Justice Ministry of Foreign Affairs Republic of Slovenia, Strasbourg 2009. [Google Scholar]
  4. Di Majo, Fabrizio, Tre anni di esperienza delle sezioni stralcio, ‘La Pazienza’ 2001, 73 (Dec.). [Google Scholar]
  5. Dunn, Michael, How the Microsoft Cloud and AI are Transforming Court Operations; https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/industry/blog/government/public-safety-and-justice/2023/12/13/how-the-microsoft-cloud-and-ai-are-transforming-court-operations/. [Google Scholar]
  6. Engstad, Nils A., Lærdal Frøseth, Astrid & Tønder, Bård (eds.), The Independence of Judges, The Hague 2014. [Google Scholar]
  7. Esposito, Gianluca, Lanau, Sergi & Pompe, Sebastiaan, Judicial System Reform in Italy—A Key to Growth, https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/wp1432.pdf; Imf, Italy, Selected Figures, Washington, 2014; https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2014/cr14284.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  8. Favara, Francesco, Relazione sull’amministrazione della giustizia nell’anno 2004, https://www.cortedicassazione.it/resources/cms/documents/2005_relazioneAG.doc. [Google Scholar]
  9. Ferrante, Giuseppe, Non è mai troppo tardi. Spunti di riflessione per la riforma della giustizia civile; https://www.hennaion.it/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Ferrante-Giuseppe-Spunti-e-riflessioni.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  10. Grisonich, Elisa, Efficacia e qualità della giustizia in Europa: pubblicato il rapporto 2024 CEPEJ sui sistemi giudiziari europei, ‘Sistema penale’ 2024, 23 October; https://www.sistemapenale.it. [Google Scholar]
  11. Johnsen, Jon T., The European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ) Reforming European Justice Systems – “Mission Impossible”?, ‘International Journal for Court Administration’ 2012, 4, 3. [Google Scholar]
  12. Kovář, Dalibor, Nečas, Jiří, How Will AI Language Models Cope with Czech Law? Will It Pass the Bar Exam?; https://en.havelpartners.blog/how-will-ai-language-models-copewith-czech-law-will-it-pass-the-bar-exam. [Google Scholar]
  13. Oberto, Giacomo, Il Consiglio d’Europa e i temi della giustizia: la raccomandazione del 2010 sul tema «indipendenza, efficienza e responsabilità dei giudici»; https://www.giacomooberto.com/oberto_consiglio_europa_temi_giustizia.htm; [Google Scholar]
  14. Oberto, Giacomo, Il «Programma Strasburgo» del Tribunale di Torino e le direttive del Groupe de pilotage SATURN della CEPEJ: Breve raffronto, ‘Richterzeitung’ 2012, 3; https://giacomooberto.com/studio_sul_Programma_Strasburgo.htm. [Google Scholar]
  15. Oberto, Giacomo, Sistemi giudiziari europei a confronto: le criticità italiane, 2016; https://www.giacomooberto.com/Oberto_sistemi_giudiziari_a_confronto.htm, § 2. [Google Scholar]
  16. Oberto, Giacomo, Un nuovo statuto per un nuovo giudice, in Contratto e impresa / Europa 2019; https://www.giacomooberto.com/Oberto_Un_nuovo_statuto_per_un_nuovo_giudice_2017.htm, § 5. [Google Scholar]
  17. Oberto, Giacomo, Managing Quality and Efficiency of Justice: Italian Strategies in Case Management, ‘Richterzeitung’ 2019, 4, https://richterzeitung.weblaw.ch/fr/rzissues/2019/4/managing-quality-and_544bc61390.html__ONCE&login=false; https://www.giacomooberto.com/Oberto_Managing_quality_of_justice.htm. [Google Scholar]
  18. Oberto, Giacomo, Study on Measures Adopted in Turin’s Court (“Strasbourg Programme”) along the Lines of “Saturn Guidelines for Judicial Time Management” 2019, 18 September; https://www.giacomooberto.com/study_on_Strasbourg_Programme.htm. [Google Scholar]
  19. Oberto, Giacomo, Strumenti e documenti CEPEJ per la gestione dell’efficienza e dei tempi dei processi, 2023; ttps://www.giacomooberto.com/Giacomo_Oberto_Strumenti_e_documenti_CEPEJ.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  20. Oberto, Giacomo, Artificial Intelligence and Judicial Activities: the Position of the European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice (CEPEJ), 20 October 2024; https://www. iaj-uim.org/iuw/wp-ontent/uploads/2024/09/Giacomo_OBERTO_ARTIFICIAL_INTELLIGENCE_AND_JUDICIAL_ACTIVITIES.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  21. Rrugia, Beslinda & Biti, Bledar, Guaranteeing the Judgment of Civil Cases Within a Reasonable Time as a Requirement of the Right to a Fair Trial in Albania, ‘Academic Journal of Interdisciplinary Studies’, MCSER Publishing, Rome–Italy 2014, 3, 3 (Jun.). [Google Scholar]
  22. Silvestri, Elisabetta, Notes on Case Management in Italy; https://ssrn.com/abstract=3158105 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3158105. [Google Scholar]
  23. Steelman, David C. & Fabri, Marco, Can an Italian Court Use the American Approach to Delay Reduction?; https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/009826 1X.2008.10767868. [Google Scholar]
  24. Team Management Uniupo, Nuovi schemi collaborativi tra Università e uffici giudiziari per il miglioramento dell’efficienza e delle prestazioni della giustizia nell’Italia Nord [Google Scholar]
  25. Ovest; https://www.giustizia.it/cmsresources/cms/documents/1nextgen_unipior_modorg_civ_report.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  26. Verzelloni, Luca, Reduction of Backlog: The Experience of the Strasbourg Programme and the Census of Italian Civil System; https://www.encj.eu/images/stories/pdf/workinggroups/Timeliness/verzelloni-reduction_of_backlog-the_experience_of_the_strasbourg_program_and_the_cebsu_of_italian_civil_justice_system.pdf. [Google Scholar]
  27. Yamasaki, David H., Orange County Superior Court Modernizes Case Management Systems Data to Better Serve Community; https://www.microsoft.com/en/customers/story/1576760116852361985-occourts-government-azure-en-united-states [Google Scholar]

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Similar Articles

1 2 3 4 5 6 > >> 

You may also start an advanced similarity search for this article.