Court Index 4th wave (2016)

EBA Court Index consists of three equal estimations:

• The estimation of the level of confidence to the court system from the side of the EBA

member companies’ leaders, main consumers of law services including legal support of cases in the

courts;

• The estimation of effectiveness (impartiality and neutrality) of the court system from

the side of professionals. This audience includes “in house” lawyers of the EBA member-companies,

lawyers from legal and/or consulting companies, which provide professional services and legal

support of their clients in courts;

• Average assessment of 9 (nine) criteria of organization and activity of Ukrainian

judicial power from professionals’ point of view, particularly:

– Transparency of judicial proceeding

– Qualification and professionalism of judges

– Corresponding the time of judicial proceeding to the requirements enshrined in law

– Quality (propriety, motivation) of judgments

–Validity of the court solutions

– Accessibility of judgments (convenience and openness of the judgments database)

– Foreseeability of the results of the court process according to the current practice

– Independence of the courts from public authorities

– Actual availability of judicial protection

Respondents – 92|89 CEOs of 2 waves of Investment Attractiveness Index in 2016 and 53 lawyers of the EBA member companies

[ court index]

1st wave -2013

2nd wave -2014

3rd wave –2015

4th wave -2016

COURT INDEX (integral rate) 2,02 2,21 2,24 2,43

Confidence to the court system from the side of the companies’ leaders*

1,72 1,79 1,64 1,82

Professional estimation of impartiality and objectivity of the judicial system

1,96 2,14 2,30 2,56

Average estimation of criteria of organization and activity of judicial power

2,39 2,70 2,78 2,91

* Average estimation of confidence to the court system: 2 waves (2016) of Investment Attractiveness Index

[ court index]

2,91

2,56

1,82

2,43

2,78

2,3

1,64

2,24

2,7

2,14

1,79

2,21

2,39

1,96

1,72

2,02

1 2 3 4 5

Average estimation ofcriteria of organization andactivity of judicial power

Professional estimation ofimpartiality and objectivity

of the judicial system

Confidence to the court system from the side of the

companies’ leaders

COURT INDEX (integral rate)

2013 2014 2015 2016

NEGATIVE VALUE

NEUTRAL VALUE

POSITIVE VALUE

[ criteria of judicial power: 2016]

2,59 3,17

2,6

2,92

3,13

3,79

2,8

2,41

2,76

1

2

3

4

5

Transparency of judicial

proceeding

Qualification and

professionalism of judges

Time of judicial proceeding

Quality of judgments

Validity of the court solutionsAccessibility of judgments

Foreseeability of the results of

the court process

Independence of the courts

from public authorities

Actual availability of judicial

protection

[ commercial & administrative courts]

2,65

1,82

2,5

Average estimation ofcriteria of organizationand activity of judicial

power

Professional estimationof impartiality andobjectivity of thejudicial system

Confidence to the court system from the side of the companies’ leaders

COURT INDEX (integralrate)

Commercial courts

2,48

2,78

1,82

2,36

Administrative courts

3,04

[ confidence in a judicial system]

What is your level of trust to the court system in Ukraine?

1 - Distrust completely

3 - Equally trust and distrust

5 - Fully trust

1,71

1,93

1H 2016

2H 2016

Average value for 2 half-years

1,82

[professional estimation of the judicial system]

10%

45%

18%25%

2%10%

50%

22%18%

0%

1 – court system of Ukraine is not

neutral and objective at all

2 3 4 5 – court system of Ukraine is neutral and

objectiveCommercial courts

Administrative courts

NEGATIVEVALUE

NEUTRALVALUE

POSITIVEVALUE

[transparency of judicial proceeding]

13%

38%

21%26%

2%

16%

42%

18%22%

2%

1 – court proceedings are

completely untransparent

2 3 4 5 – court proceedings are fully transparent

for all partieCommercial courts

Administrative courts

POSITIVEVALUE

NEUTRALVALUE

NEGATIVEVALUE

[qualification & professionalism of judges]

2%

26%

17%

49%

6%6%

32%

18%

40%

4%

1 – judges are not qualified at

all and demonstrate low

levels of professionalism

2 3 4 5 - judges arequalified anddemonstratehigh level of

professionalism

Commercial courts

Administrative courts

NEGATIVEVALUE

NEUTRAL VALUE

POSITIVEVALUE

[terms of the proceedings]

9%

30%

15%

43%

2%

36%32%

8%

22%

2%

1 – cases are usually pending

and unreasonable

2 3 4 5 – terms fully respond to the

law and are rationalCommercial courts

Administrative courts

NEGATIVEVALUE

NEUTRAL VALUE

POSITIVEVALUE

[quality of court decisions]

4%

30%26%

40%

0%

8%

34%26%

32%

0%

1 – court solutions are not

justified and logical at all

2 3 4 5 – court solutions are

fully justified and logicalCommercial courts

Administrative courts

NEGATIVEVALUE

NEUTRAL VALUE

POSITIVEVALUE

[validity of the court solutions]

2%

15%

42% 42%

0%4%

17%

50%

29%

%

1 – the court solutions are not

valid at all

2 3 4 5 – court solutions are

fully validCommercial courts

Administrative courts

NEGATIVEVALUE

NEUTRAL VALUE

POSITIVEVALUE

[accessibility of the court solutions]

2%

13%6%

64%

15%

2%

16%

2%

57%

22%

1 – the court solutions are not accessible at all

2 3 4 5 – court solutions are

fully accessibleCommercial courts

Administrative courts

NEGATIVEVALUE

NEUTRAL VALUE

POSITIVEVALUE

[foreseeability of the results of the court process]

13%

26%

19%

42%

0%

16%

29% 27% 24%

4%

1 – each case is solved in different

ways and consistency of court

practices is not provided at all

2 3 4 5 – court decisions are fully foreseeable

Commercial courts

Administrative courts

NEGATIVE VALUE

NEUTRAL VALUE

POSITIVEVALUE

[independence of the judicial branch of power]

15%

38%

25%21%

2%

28%

36%

20%

14%

2%

1 – courts are dependant on

other state bodies

2 3 4 5 – courts are fully

independentCommercial courts

Administrative courts

NEGATIVEVALUE

NEUTRAL VALUE

POSITIVEVALUE

[actual availability of judicial protection]

4%

40%

23%

30%

4%8%

47%

22% 20%

2%

1 – this right cannot be

realized at all

2 3 4 5 – no barriers for realization of

this rightCommercial courts

Administrative courts

NEGATIVEVALUE

NEUTRAL VALUE

POSITIVEVALUE

[ negative influence on credibility]

Corruption and bribery in the framework of court process

Inefficiency and terms for judgement execution

1st factor

2nd factor

Overloaded courts and as a result the low quality of decisions

Uncertainty of legislation

3rd factor

4th factor

Low level of legal awareness

Unclear procedures

5th factor

6th factor

[ corruption displays]

The tax authorities at audit immediately hint at the necessity to pay a bribe.

Failure to bribe creates audit report, which is contrary to the law and common

sense. Challenging these acts are held in the courts very seriously, because the

judges did not delve into the essence of the matter, and often take the side of the

Tax Service.

Tightening decision making for the benefit of judges and court

(extortion)

Unreasonable decision-making for the benefit of public

authorities/state

“

Decision making due to agreement with other party

Close ties between court representatives

Judges 'inventing' arguments for the opposing side

Bribes for a positive decision

[ ways of combating corruption. part 1]

The election of local judges by citizensA real opportunity to bring court representatives to justice for the

illegal decisions

A decent wages for court representatives

Development of legislation that would allow to adjust the amount of

judges according to the number of cases

Personal responsibility of judges for making an unlawful decision

Control of the acquired assets and expenditures of judge and his/her

family

Decreasing of administrative proceedings, permits

Replace all judges and simplify the legal system

Reduce power of (local) authorities / governments

Full automation of documentation & reduce bureaucratic procedures

Criminalization of corruption-related penalties

Expanding the powers of the Anti-Corruption Prosecutor's Office

Court reform

[ ways of combating corruption. part 2]

Protection of entities who report bribery

Raising legal awareness and legal culture of society

Popularization of the idea that corruption leads to negative

consequences

Enhancing the prestige of the civil servant

Control on the part of the public

Full publicity and transparency of all processes in court

Increase efficiency

Transparent and clear legislation

The law of the unity of all

Fight with the demand for corruption component

[ preventing corruption]

Automation and the possibility of online process

Creating an entirely new corps of judges

Encouraging and increasing wages of judges

Control of expenses of all judges

Press coverage of facts of successful efforts to fight corruption

The election of judges by citizens

Criminal responsibility for corruption

Reduction of the public officers

please contact EBA Communications team for more informationpr@eba.com.ua

044 4960601