VII EW A K U LIŃ SK A
- M O N IK A O D LA N IC K A -PO C ZO B U TT - KATARZYNA W AR ZE C H A
A N A L Y S IS O F T H E M E T H O D U S E D F O R M E A S U R IN G E F F E C T IV E N E S S O F T H E C O U R T S IN P O L A N D
A C C O R D IN G T O T Y P E O F C A S E S
7 .1 . In t r o d u c t io n
A m ain problem of the Polish ju d iciary is the excessive length o f the proceed
ings - som e procedures in com plicated cases last more than 10 years. This is evi
denced by, am ong others, num erous ju d gm en ts o f the European Court o f Human Rights. The proposed changes, although they are a step in the righ t direction, seem to be insufficient. T h ey do not include the fact that the excessive length of proceed
ings m ay have a m ulti-instance character, and m ay correspond to the various au
thorities and courts.
T he reasons o f the search o f solutions in the common ju d icia ry in area of perform ance m easu rem en t is the accession o f Poland to the European Union, the necessity to conform to the European procedures and the pressure to reduce the prolixity o f the Polish ju stice in terms o f dealing w ith cases.
In the literature, in which the problem o f the exam ination o f the functioning o f organizations is discussed, there is no agreem ent to what are the essential crite
ria o f perform ance (Cameron, 1981; Lewin, M inton, 1986), understood often as productivity (Kosieradzka, 2012). The exam ination should include the organization
al activity in relation to num erous criteria, however, the perform ance o f an organi
zation is frequ en tly only perceived as its effectiveness (Cameron, 1986; Hitt, 1988).
The m anagem en t o f contem porary organizations based on the paradigm of a constructive u n ity o f theory and practice is clearly connected w ith the functioning of the organization in the environm ent (Drucker, 2000). Perform ance m easurem ent is influenced by the organizational structures, w h ich are undergoing evolution from functional ones, characteristic o f the classic approach, to the process structures (Grajewski, 2003, 2007).
The purpose o f the article w as an analysis of the applied m ethod used for m easuring effectiveness o f the com m on courts in Poland in relation to the identified faultiness in the perform ance m easurem ent.
7.2. T h e c o u r t s o f a p p e a ls , t e r r it o r ia l a n d d is t r ic t c o u r t s in P o la n d in to t a l a n d t h e ir e ffe c tiv e n e s s in t h e y e a r s 2 0 0 2 -2 0 1 4
In P o la n d , the c o u rts a r e d iv id e d in to co u rts: a p p e lla te , te rrito ria l a n d d is tric t. T h e r e a p p e a r a ls o s ig n ific a n t d iffe re n c e s in te r m s o f th e q u a lity o f p a r tic u la r a p p e a ls , in d is tr ic ts a n d territo rie s , n o t o n ly in th e r e s p e c t o f th e a re a s o f th e ir p ro p ertie s, b u t a ls o in te rm s o f th e n u m b e r o f in flo w in g ca se s, a n d th e s iz e o f th e c o u rt u n its.
N ow there is 11 courts o f appeal, 45 territorial and 321 district courts as the consequence o f this state (A n a liza..., 2010). The available statistics shows that in the case o f courts of appeal the difference in the size between the largest and the sm allest cou rt is 3,5- fold, in territorial courts it is alm ost 18-fold, an in the district courts it is 34-fold.
T he elem ent of the reform o f the Polish common ju d icia ry - reorganization of courts - is a trial o f balancing the netw orks o f courts. The balance in the network can be assured when there are no m ajor disproportions between the participating units. B ecau se o f the fact that an effective functioning o f netw orks o f courts m eets an essen tial social need, it should be pointed out that the access to ju stice ought to be equal in every district o f its activity. Such a presum ption has become a base for a w idely discu ssed adm inistrative liquidation of small courts (Odlanicka-Poczobutt, 2013). T h e data collected by the M inistry o f Justice (Petryna, 2012) and the analysis of the advantages and disadvantages o f thp organization o f the com m on ju diciary in Poland, presented in the report of the MCC group, (Siabe.,.,2012) points to the oc
curring disproportions, where the m ost serious problem w as too sm all a number of the size o f courts, which had a particularly bad influence on the efficiency o f func
tioning o f district courts.
In the courts are recorded fundam ental issues of divisions: criminal, civil, la
bor law, social insurance and business law. As we can see from the data presented in Figure 7.1. the inflow o f cases indicates that the vast m ajority o f the inflow o f cases con cerns district courts (over 92%), and the rem aining courts accept only 7%
o f cases (territorial courts), and the courts o f appeal - 1%.
Figure 7.1. The number o f pending cases (with rem ains from the previous pe riod), and cases solved in the polish courts in 2014
Source: Own calculations based on {Data..., 2015).
1
COOO1 4 0 0 0 12000
1 0 0 0 0
acoo oooo
4 0 0 0 2000
o
C1Z
( h * I n f l o w o f t l i » I n c o u r t « - I n t o t a lL l n l o w y < tf-i« I n f l o w o f t h « c a n e « I n c o u r t s - I n t o t a l )
Figure 7.2. Inflow o f pending cases in the polish courts In period 2002-14 Source: Own calculations based on (D ata..., 2015).
The upward trend in the nu m ber o f inflowing cases is clearly visible in the surveyed period 2002-2014 (as it is illustrated in Figure 7.2.), w ith the exception o f 2014, w h ere there was a sligh t decline. In the audited period from one year the nu m ber o f pending cases increased an average of 505.1 thousand.
O n the basis o f the data contained in Figure 7.3. w e can see that m ost civil cases had inflowed into courts, from year to year an average to 438 61,00, (the trend function y * = 438.61 t + 3428.7 R2 = 0.95), follow ed by crim inal cases, on average every year 77.118,00 (the trend function y * = 77.12 t + 1942.5 R2 = 0.83).
C ourts in Poland - in total - w ere pending in 2014 16,780,000 cases, includ
ing cases rem aining for con sideration from the previous y ea r (which accounted for approxim ately 5% decline in the num ber of cases com pared to the previous year
(2013)), o f which 2,229,230 are cases rem ainder o f 2013 (representing 13% o f cases to settle).
The data contained in Figure 7.3. and 7.4. show that in 2014 the courts have had to settle m ost civil cases - 9,992,600 cases (o f which not settled with 1,394,600 cases, which accounted for abou t 14% of civil cases to settle).
Figure 7.3. Cases inflow ing to courts in total, according to the type o f cases in the years 2002 to 2014 - in the interest
Source: Own calculations based on (D ata..., 2015)
The dynam ics o f solving was lower than the growth o f inflow, w hich m an i
fests itself in the effects o f an increase in the num ber o f un resolved cases.
Figure 7.4. N um ber o f pending cases (w ith rem ains from the previous period), and cases settled in the polish courts in 2014 - in total
Source: Own calculations based on (D ata..., 2015.)
7 .3 . T h e k e y p e rfo r m a n c e in d ic a t o r s in t h e P o lis h ju d ic ia r y - T h e c o u r ts o f a p p e a ls , t e r r it o r ia l a n d d is t r ic t c o u r t s in P o la n d in t o t a l a n d t h e ir e ffe c t iv e n e s s in th e y e a r s 2 0 0 2 -2 0 1 4
In polish ju d icia ry the basic indicators o f ju dicial efficiency are:
- an indicator o f inflow control (Ic), - an indicator of residue (Ir).
The indicator o f inflow control (Ic), w hich is a reference o f settled cases to in
flowing cases during the reporting period is shown in Figures 7.5-7.9, depen din g on the type o f court and type o f case.
Indicator o f residues (Ir) - duration o f the proceedings cases in total (in m onths) (see Figure 7.10-7.14) - is the average duration o f proceedings o f all cases in the next reporting period com pared to the average m onthly inflow o f all cases in the reporting period.
The indicator o f inflow control (for polish courts in total) in 2014 com pared to 2013 has im proved and am ounted to 101.4. T h at m eans that settled an average of 101.4 cases per hundred inflow ing into the court. In 2013, the indicator o f inflow control reached 96.1.
Figure 7.5. The in dicator o f inflow control o f crim inal cases according to the kind o f court in the years 2002 to 2014
Source: Own calculations based on (D ata..., 2015).
Figure 7.6. The in dicator o f inflow control o f civil cases according to the kind o f court in the years 2002 to 2014
Source: Own calculations based on (D ata..., 2015).
tnH 125 120
115 110
105 100 95 90 85 80
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
- ♦ The In d ic a to r o f Ir flo w c o n tro l o f la b o r la w cases according to the Kind o f c o u rt • aapea's
■ The in d ic a to r o f ir f lo w co n tro l o l la b o r la w cases a ccording to th e kin d o f c o u rt * te r r ito r ia l
— a- The In d ic a to r o f I r f lo w c o n tro l o f la b o r la w cases a ccording to th e kin d o f c o u rt • d is tric t
Figure 7.7. The indicator of inflow control o f labor law cases according to the kind o f court in the years 2002 to 2014
Source: Own calculations based on {D ata..., 2015).
145 135 125 115 105 95 85 75 65 55
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2D07 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
♦ — The Indicator of inflow €001-0! of social Insurance law cases according to the kind o f court • appeals
— • — The In d ic a to r o f in flo w c u n t o l o f social in su ra n ce la w cases according to th e k in d o f c o u r t * te rr ito r ia l
— Mr The indicator of Inflow control o f social Insurance law cases according to the kind o f court * district
Figure 7.8. The indicator o f inflow control o f social insurance law cases ac
cording to the kind o f court in the years 2002 to 2014 Source: Own calculations based on {D ata..., 2015).
Figure 7.9. The indicator o f in flow control o f econom ic cases according to the kind o f co urt in the years 2002 to 2014
Source: O w n calculations based on (D a ta ..., 2015).
• I n d ir a to r o f residue ( in m onth*:) f o r crim in a l rasp*; a ccording t o th e c o u rt - appeals
— f — In dica tor o f residue ( In m o n th s ) f o r crim in a l cases accncding to th e c o u rt - te rrito ria l
— A - In d ica to r o f residue ( lo m o n th s ) f o r crim in a l cases a ccording t o th e c o u rt - d is tric t
Figure 7.10. Indicator o f residue (duration o f the proceedin gs In months) for crim in al cases according to the court in the years 2002 -20 14
Source: O w n calculations based on (D ata..., 2015).
— ♦ — I n d ic a t o r o f r e s id u e ( In m o n th s ) f o r c iv il ca s e s a c c o r d in g t o t h e c o u r t - a p p e a ls
— ■ — in d i c a t o r o f r e s id u e ( in m o n th s ) f o r c iv il ca s e s a c c o r d in g t o t h e c o u r t - t e r r i t o r i a l
— A - I n d ic a t o r o f r e s id u e ( in m o n th s ) f o r c iv il c a s e s a c c o r d in g t o t h e c o u r t - d is t r ic t
Figure 7.11. Indicator o f residue (duration o f the proceedings in m onths) for civil cases according to the court in the years 2002-2014
Source: O w n calculations based on [D ata..., 2015).
■ ♦ ■ Indicator o f residue ( in m onths) fo r la b o r la w cases according to the co u rt - appeals
— ■ — Indicator o f residup ( in m onths) fo r la b o r law cases according to th e co u rt - te rrito ria l
— j t - Indicator o f residue (In m onths) fo r la b o r law cases according to the co u rt - d istrict
Figure 7.12. Indicator o f residue (duration o f the proceedings in m onths) for labor law cases according to the court in the years 2002-2014
Source: Own calculations based on [D ata..., 2015).
F igure 7.13. Indicator o f residu e (duration o f the proceedings in m onths) for s o c ia l insurance law cases according to the court in the years 2002-2014 Source: Own calculations based on (Data..., 2015).
Figure 7.14. Indicator o f residue (duration o f the proceedings in m onths) for bu sin ess law cases according to the court in the years 2002-2014
Source: Own calculations based on (Data..., 2015).
7 .4 . D is a d v a n t a g e s o f th e a p p lie d m e a s u r e m e n t s y s t e m
The m easu rem ent system used in the polish ju diciary provide inform ation only about the present level o f dealing with cases, and are not used in controlling or planning. The statistics describes a past perform ance, w h ich allow s for reacting on
ly on the basis o f historic presenting of the data. The indicators show solely w hat cases have been dealt with and on w hat date, bu t there does not exist an indicator defining which periods are connected with the prolixity (is it a rem aining case from the year before, or from two or m ore years before) and w hat cases are presently in progress. The program s to increase productivity o f courts have led to the fact that the output efficiency m easures Eire very em phasized. This has further led to inap
propriate m easu rem ent o f output quantity and efficiency w ithout understanding and analyzing the causal effects on other aspects o f the organization’s perform ance.
The m ost serious disadvantage o f the m easurem ent system applied to the Polish com m on ju d iciary is the lack o f taking into consideration the tim e of the realization o f the processes.
The defective inform ation that the m easu res give on process perform ance a l
so m akes it m ore difficult to com prehend the causal relationship between perfor
m ance and m easures. There is a clear need that this concept o f quality is broad
ened to include the lead-tim e as a m ajor and im portant aspect o f quality and the recipient’s satisfaction. A good suggestion to im prove the process perform ance m easurem ent system w as form ed on the basis o f the findings in literature (Pek- kanen, Niemi, 2012).
The only solution aim ing at directing the m easurem ent to the processes has been the m easurem ent o f the workload of the secretariats o f particular court de
partm ents, which should enable an equal distribution of the clerical staff between the departm ents, depending on the num ber o f responsibilities (Odlanicka- Poczobutt, 2013), developed by W. Hajduk, president o f the Territorial C ourt in G li
w ice o f the previous term , presently the Deputy M inister o f Justice (Hajduk, 2011).
The sesirch for the possibility to create a system o f m easuring the standards o f operating in the com m on ju d icia ry is real necessity. T he processes and opera
tions in courts are usu ally com plex and abstract, and em ploying sim plified indica
tors defining the fined results distorts the m easurem ent.
7 .5. C o n c lu s io n s
The analysis o f the inflow o f cases o f different categories to the courts o f par
ticular levels allow s for the conclusion that the process o f equalizing the distribu
tion of the inflow o f cases to particular courts needs search for th e possibility to create a system o f m easuring the standards o f operating in the com m on ju diciary is connected with m ajor difficulties and still rem ains undone. The com plex and ab
stract processes and operations in courts can ’t be described by sim plified indicators defining only the final results, because it distorts the m easurem ent. The m etrics used in the ju d icia ry are not used in controlling or planning. Past perform ance de
scribed by the statistics doesn’t show w h ich periods are connected w ith the prolixity (is it a rem aining case from the year before, or from two or m ore yea rs before).
The faultiness o f the applied m ethod causes the transm ission of a falsified im age o f the results o f the cou rts’ activity and an increasing dissatisfac
tion o f the society. T h e basis of the effective w ork of courts should be a properly conducted analysis and measurement, w hich is supposed to constitute an elem ent of the m otivation to enhance efforts in term s o f im proving the activity.