Search

An effective and efficient justice system is essential for sustained economic growth. In a well-functioning, independent, and efficient justice system, decisions are taken within a reasonable time and are predictably and effectively enforced, and individual rights, including property rights, are adequately protected. Among other objectives, the efficiency of the judicial system is important for creating a good business climate, attracting foreign direct investment, securing tax revenues, and supporting economic growth. Research has shown that weak contract enforcement, for example, raises the cost of borrowing and shortens loan maturities, with a resulting negative effect on investment and GDP. Weak court enforcement systems have also been linked to late payments, which can lead to liquidity issues for companies and increase insolvency. Since the publication of the World Bank’s World Development Report 2005, the importance of well-functioning courts to strengthening the investment climate and ultimately to reducing poverty and boosting shared prosperity has been brought to the forefront and become internationally recognized. Indicators of commercial court performance, and business community perceptions of and trust in the courts, are a part of the World Bank Group’s (WBG) country-level investment climate assessments and its influential Investment Climate Surveys and Doing Business reports. Court performance has also become an element of European Union (EU) and Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) accession. Helping countries to improve commercial court operations and ensure improved accessibility and effective delivery of services are important components of the development assistance provided by the WBG. The Commercial Court and Enforcement Assessment Tool has been designed to assist assessment teams and client agencies in this effort.

This report aims at identifying the particular needs and constraints faced by the poorest women and men when accessing the judicial system. Similarly to the Judicial Functional Review,6 the scope of this report focuses primarily on the courts because they are the main vehicle for justice service delivery and the primary institutions of justice in Serbia. The scope includes all types of services and covers litigious and non-litigious aspects of civil, commercial, administrative, and criminal justice. The focus is on the actual implementation and day-to-day functioning of the sector institutions that deliver justice to people, rather than the law on the books . The scope includes other institutions in the sector to the extent that they enable or impede service delivery by the courts, including: the Ministry of Justice (MOJ), the High Judicial Council (HJC), the State Prosecutorial Council (SPC), the courts, the Public Prosecutor Offices (PPOs), the Judicial Academy, the Ombudsperson s Office, the police, prisons, and justice sector professional organizations (such as the Bar, notaries, bailiffs, and mediators). The focus of this report is on access to justice services, including relevant financial, informational, and geographic barriers to such access.

Despite the judiciary's central role in the capitalist market system, micro-level empirical analyses of courts in post-socialist countries are remarkably rare. This paper draws on a unique hand-collected dataset of commercial claims filed at Slovenian courts to examine the determinants of two salient adjudicatory outcomes: whether a case was resolved via trial or settlement and if the case was tried, whether the plaintiff was awarded the initial claim. Consistent with the divergent expectations theory of litigation, we find that trial-based resolution is more likely when the case is complex and less likely when parties use mediation. Addressing sample selection and endogeneity concerns, we show that defendant's legal representation, plaintiff's profitability, and, importantly, court identity are robust predictors of plaintiff victory at trial. Thus, more than two decades after the start of transition in Slovenia, the judicial system is still a source of legal inconsistency and uncertainty.

The aim of this paper is to discuss briefly how the EU rules on jurisdiction, choice of law and alternative dispute resolution in civil and commercial matters operate in the context of mobile computing. The article first looks at rules on jurisdiction in commercial disputes, both between businesses and between businesses and consumers. It then discusses the choice-of-law issues applicable to mobile computing. Finally, there is an examination of alternative dispute resolution as an alternative to regular courts in transactions involving mobile computing.