World Justice Project EUROVOICES
2024
Thematic Report
Democracy & Fundamental Rights
World Justice Project EUROVOICES
2024
Democracy & Fundamental Rights
Democracy & Fundamental Rights
The rule of law is one of the fundamental values upon which the European Union (EU) is founded and represents a constitutional priority shared by all Member States (Article 2 of the Treaty on EU). The rule of law is essential for the proper functioning of democratic societies and the protection of human rights. Furthermore, the rule of law plays a pivotal role in shaping the potential for sustainable regional growth and development.
Adherence to this principle requires effective democratic institutions that ensure public accountability and the separation of powers. It also mandates access to independent and impartial courts that protect people's fundamental rights and guarantee equality before the law. Upholding the rule of law further requires implementing targeted, evidence-informed strategies at both national and subnational levels, which are tailored to meet the diverse needs of people across different regions.
In this context, World Justice Project EUROVOICES provides new data that captures the perceptions and experiences of people living in 110 subnational regions across the 27 EU Member States in the areas of justice, democratic governance, and the rule of law. The report series draws upon surveys responses from more than 8,000 local and independent legal experts, as well as regionally representative household surveys administered to more than 64,000 respondents across the EU. With this data, the World Justice Project (WJP) seeks to contribute to evidence-based decision-making at all government levels by helping decision-makers identify strengths, weaknesses, and policy priorities in their regions.
This data is organized into three thematic reports:
Each report focuses on a selection of pillars of the rule of law, comprised of indicators that cover specific dimensions of each concept. Findings for each indicator are categorized into Expert Scorecards, calculated using expert survey responses, and People’s Voices, highlighting complementary question-level data from WJP’s household surveys. These two categories are presented side-by-side, offering a comprehensive view of how EU residents perceive and experience justice, governance, and the rule of law in their respective regions.
The Expert Scorecard captures legal experts’ assessments of composite indicators with scores ranging from 0 to 1, where 1 is the highest possible score and 0 is the lowest possible score. Each score is calculated by aggregating a set of questions that are relevant to various dimensions of the concept being measured. This expert data allows a deeper examination of the technical aspects that determine how people interact with a complex network of institutions and the justice system. In contrast, findings from the People’s Voices database, presented at the question level using percentages (0 to 100%), reflect the beliefs and experiences of the general population.
The project’s conceptual framework builds upon the tested and proven methodology of the WJP Rule of Law Index®—a rigorous quantitative tool that evaluates and ranks 142 countries across key dimensions of the rule of law— with adaptations to reflect the institutional architecture in the EU. It should be noted that the results of both tools are not comparable, because this project presents data from its household surveys separately from its Expert Scorecards, whereas the Index integrates the General Population Poll into each country’s aggregate scores. Additionally, adjustments have been made to the conceptual framework and to the data analysis protocol, including changes in the methods used to calculate scores. For more information on the methodology of World Justice Project EUROVOICES, refer to the methodology section at the end of this report.
Given the diversity of institutional design across EU Member States, the questions in this project’s surveys mainly focus on the outcomes experienced by individuals concerning different issues related to justice, governance, and rule of law. These outcomes result from their interactions with a complex network of institutions at local, national, and supranational levels. In this sense, the questionnaires minimized references to government institutions, focusing instead on the perceptions and experiences of people in the city, town, or village where they live. Regional information was produced following the framework of territorial divisions of the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) system.
This project is funded by the EU and complements other research activities conducted by the WJP with the mission of advancing the rule of law worldwide. This data may also complement other monitoring tools that aim to promote a rule of law culture and enhance economic, social, and territorial cohesion in the EU, such as the European Commission’s yearly Rule of Law Report, the EU Justice Scoreboard, and the Cohesion Report, among others.
Democracy and Fundamental Rights:
Justice and Safety:
Transparency and Corruption:
General Trends Across Regions:
EUROVOICES presents two different types of indicators: Expert Scorecard and People’s Voices. The Expert Scorecard provides an aggregated score at either the subnational or national level, depending on the topic, based on data from WJP’s survey of local and independent legal experts and practitioners from different disciplines. Explore the variable map, found in the “downloads” section, with information on the individual expert survey questions that make up each aggregated score. People’s Voices presents selected question-level data from household surveys to representative samples across the EU on each topic. Additional data and sociodemographic breakdowns of the People’s Voices indicators can be explored on the EUROVOICES dashboard. For all indicators, country-level data, when presented, is calculated using weighted averages of region-level scores based on population size.
This report, Democracy and Fundamental Rights, includes four chapters: (1) Checks on government power, (2) Government respect for checks on power, (3) Civic participation, and (4) Fundamental rights. Each chapter contains thematic findings, definitions for each indicator included, and graphs depicting both expert and household responses (Expert Scorecard and People’s Voices, respectively).
Checks on government power: In a society where the rule of law prevails, those in positions of authority within public institutions are held accountable for their actions. This requires a robust constitutional framework that not only reviews the legality of the exercise of power but also ensures that those in power face appropriate legal consequences for misconduct. This chapter outlines the functioning of the basic political accountability mechanisms that constrain government power in democratic settings, encompassing indicators on (1) legislative oversight, (2) judicial independence, (3) independent oversight, (4) independent prosecution, (5) free, fair, and secure elections, and (6) non-governmental checks. These indicators collectively assess the effectiveness of the structures in place to ensure that government actions are checked and balanced by legal standards.
Government respect for checks on power: The effectiveness of the democratic checks, as discussed in Chapter 1, is key to ensuring democratic governance. This chapter addresses evolving challenges to these mechanisms, namely focusing on whether they are compromised or undermined by the executive branch. The indicators measure the extent to which the head of government respects these established democratic controls, including respect for (1) the constitution and political opponents, (2) judicial independence, (3) independent oversight, (4) independent prosecution, (5) the electoral system, and (6) civil liberties.
Civic participation: A pluralistic decision-making process is not limited to the operation of electoral procedures; it must also consider the continuous participation of the public. At its foundational level, civic participation entails keeping the public informed about government actions. More substantive engagement includes public consultations and open parliament practices, which contribute to decision-making processes, whether these contributions are binding or advisory. The most integrated level of civic participation involves the public in the co-creation of public policies. This is reflected in one composite indicator, (1) civic participation, measuring the extent to which governments collaborate with civil society in policy design and the degree to which local governments consider public input in their decisions.
Fundamental rights: The integrity of democratic institutions is closely linked to respect and protection of fundamental rights. Specifically, the fundamental freedoms of assembly and association, and opinion and expression, constitute a central accountability mechanism in a democratic context. This chapter includes information on people's perceptions and experiences regarding the enjoyment of 21 fundamental rights defined in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. For analytical coherence, some of these rights have been grouped into 14 broader categories: (1) prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment, (2) prohibition of slavery and forced labor, (3) freedom of thought, conscience, and religion, (4) freedom of peaceful assembly and association, (5) freedom of opinion and expression, (6) right to property, (7) right to asylum, (8) equality before the law, (9) workers’ rights, (10) right to vote and to stand as a candidate at elections, (11) right of access to documents, (12) right to petition, (13) right of movement and of residence, and (14) due process of law.
Explore topics
Outlined below are the findings for this section. First, we present the main findings for the chapter, emphasizing notable insights in the data. This is followed by summaries of individual indicators organized by topic.
This indicator measures the legislature’s ability to function as a check on the executive branch, preventing abuses of power, and ensuring that both laws and policies serve the public interest. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the national level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
This indicator examines the ability of courts, judges, and magistrates to perform their duties impartially, on the basis of facts, without any improper influence, pressure, or political interference. It encompasses their ability to effectively review the legality of executive actions. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the national level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
This indicator evaluates the effectiveness and autonomy of Supreme Audit Institutions, anticorruption agencies, and human rights institutions in overseeing government activities and safeguarding the public interest. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the national level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
This indicator measures the autonomy and effectiveness of prosecutors’ offices in their mandate to uphold legal standards and prosecute criminal cases without bias or political interference, including in criminal cases involving government officials. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the national level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Percentage of respondents who agree that if members of the police violate the law, they will be punished for these violations.
Percentage of respondents who agree that if members of the police request bribes from the public, they will be held accountable.
Percentage of respondents who agree that if members of the police accept bribes from gangs or criminal organizations, they will be held accountable.
Percentage of respondents who agree that if someone makes a complaint against a member of the police, the accusation will be investigated.
This indicator assesses the degree to which the electoral process is devoid of coercion, intimidation, or undue influence; that elections are conducted impartially, ensuring a level playing field for all candidates and parties to compete under equitable conditions; and that mechanisms are in place to safeguard electoral results against illegal attempts of disruption. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the national level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Percentage of respondents who agree that local government officials are elected through a clean process.
Percentage of respondents who agree that people can vote freely without feeling harassed or pressured.
This indicator assesses the essential freedoms and rights that empower the public to watch over government power. These freedoms include the right to peaceful assembly and association, freedom of expression, and the right to petition authorities. Freedom of expression comprises freedom of the media, including safeguards for independent journalism, the capacity of civil society organizations (CSOs) to operate independently and contribute to diverse public discourse and advocacy, and the ability of opposition voices to openly challenge and debate policies. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the national level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Percentage of respondents who agree that the media can freely express opinions against government officials, policies, and actions without fear of retaliation.
Percentage of respondents who agree that the media can freely expose cases of corruption by high-ranking government officers without fear of retaliation.
Percentage of respondents who agree that civil society organizations can freely express opinions against government policies and actions without fear of retaliation.
Percentage of respondents who agree that political parties can freely express opinions against government policies and actions without fear of retaliation.
Percentage of respondents who agree that people can freely express opinions against the government.
Percentage of respondents who agree that people can freely participate in peaceful protests and demonstrations without fear of reprisal.
Explore topics
Outlined below are the findings for this section. First, we present the main findings for the chapter, emphasizing notable insights in the data. This is followed by summaries of individual indicators organized by topic.
This indicator examines whether the actions of the head of government reflect adherence to the constitutional order, as well as respect for the legislative process and political opponents. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the national level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Percentage of respondents who agree that top government officials of the national government censor opposition voices domestically.
Percentage of respondents who agree that top government officials of the national government blame different members or groups of society for domestic problems.
Percentage of respondents who agree that top government officials of the national government attack or discredit opposition parties.
Percentage of respondents who agree that top government officials of the national government prosecute and convict members of opposition parties.
Percentage of respondents who agree that top government officials of the national government generate distractions from important issues and blame external enemies or internal traitors.
This indicator assesses the government’s effective and expeditious enforcement of judicial decisions, as well as the government’s restraint in attempts to limit the courts’ freedom to interpret the legality of government actions. This includes court packing, influencing the appointment or removal of judges, and exerting political pressure to obtain a favorable ruling. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the national level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Percentage of respondents who agree that top government officials of the national government seek to limit the courts’ competences and freedom to interpret the law.
This indicator explores the attention paid by the chief executive to the reports issued by human rights, anticorruption, and Supreme Audit Institutions, respect for the mechanisms for the appointment and removal of agents of these institutions, and absence of public attacks directed against them. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the national level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
This indicator measures the chief executive’s respect for the independence of the prosecutor’s office, including the mechanisms of assignment, promotion and discipline of its agents, the absence of public attacks against the integrity of its members, and the absence of political pressure to obtain favorable results. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the national level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
This indicator examines whether the chief executive accepts the results of elections and refrains from discrediting electoral management bodies or supporting extra-constitutional means of transferring power. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the national level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
This indicator evaluates the extent to which the chief executive's policies and actions recognize and enhance civil liberties. It focuses on restrictions on freedom of peaceful assembly and association, attacks on independent media and civil society organizations, and the strategic use of misinformation for political purposes. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the national level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Percentage of respondents who agree that top government officials of the national government use misinformation to shape public opinion in their favor.
Percentage of respondents who agree that top government officials of the national government deny criticisms and facts, and undermine the credibility of those presenting them.
Percentage of respondents who agree that top government officials of the national government attack or discredit the media and civil society organizations that criticize them.
Outlined below are the findings for this section. First, we present the main findings for the chapter, emphasizing notable insights in the data. This is followed by summaries of individual indicators organized by topic.
This indicator evaluates the freedom to participate in public and political life. This includes the freedom of peaceful assembly and association, which allows citizens to organize and express their views collectively. It also covers freedom of the media, guarantees that the press can operate without censorship or retaliation, and the freedom of civil society organizations to operate and contribute to public discourse. In addition, this category assesses the freedom of expression of political opposition and whether all voices, including dissenting ones, can be heard. Lastly, it includes information on the right to petition, public consultations, and collaborations. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the subnational level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Data is not available for some regions due to a low number of expert responses.
Percentage of respondents who agree that people can freely join any unforbidden political organization they want.
Percentage of respondents who agree that people in their neighborhood can get together with others and present their concerns to members of Parliament/Congress or local government officials.
Percentage of respondents who agree that the government collaborates with civil society organizations in designing public policy.
Percentage of respondents who agree that people can freely join together with others to draw attention to an issue or sign a petition.
Percentage of respondents who agree that people can freely attend community meetings.
Percentage of respondents who agree that the local government considers the views of people like them when making decisions.
Percentage of respondents who have engaged with civil society organizations by volunteering, engaging with them online or on social networks, or donating money during the past 12 months.
Explore topics
Outlined below are the findings for this section. First, we present the main findings for the chapter, emphasizing notable insights in the data. This is followed by summaries of individual indicators organized by topic.
This indicator measures whether people are free from torture, cruel, and unusual punishment, or any other degrading treatment. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the subnational level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Data is not available for some regions due to a low number of expert responses.
This indicator assesses whether all people are free from any form of slavery, servitude, or forced labor. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the subnational level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Data is not available for some regions due to a low number of expert responses.
This indicator captures the right of people to hold, adopt, and change their religious beliefs and practice their religion freely. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the subnational level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Data is not available for some regions due to a low number of expert responses.
This indicator examines the right of all people to organize, debate, and demonstrate collectively, as well as the right to assemble and form associations without unjustified governmental obstacles or arbitrary interference by security forces or other powers. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the subnational level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Data is not available for some regions due to a low number of expert responses.
Percentage of respondents who agree that people can freely join any unforbidden political organization they want.
Percentage of respondents who agree that people can freely attend community meetings.
Percentage of respondents who agree that people can freely participate in peaceful protests and demonstrations without fear of reprisal.
This indicator evaluates the right of all people to express their opinions without censorship, including the media, civil society organizations, and political opposition. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the subnational level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Data is not available for some regions due to a low number of expert responses.
Percentage of respondents who agree that the media can freely express opinions against government officials, policies, and actions without fear of retaliation.
Percentage of respondents who agree that the media can freely expose cases of corruption by high-ranking government officers without fear of retaliation.
Percentage of respondents who agree that civil society organizations can freely express opinions against government policies and actions without fear of retaliation.
Percentage of respondents who agree that political parties can freely express opinions against government policies and actions without fear of retaliation.
Percentage of respondents who agree that people can freely express opinions against the government.
This indicator evaluates whether all people have the right to acquire, own, and dispose of property to the extent permitted by law and in alignment with other fundamental rights. It also examines whether expropriation and other proceedings with similar results are conducted legally and solely for public benefit. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the subnational level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Data is not available for some regions due to a low number of expert responses.
This indicator assesses whether refugees seeking asylum have access to public services and equitable economic opportunities. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the subnational level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Data is not available for some regions due to a low number of expert responses.
This indicator captures whether all people enjoy the same legal and political rights and access to public services. Additionally, it includes information on equality between women and men in both public and private life. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the subnational level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Data is not available for some regions due to a low number of expert responses.
Percentage of respondents who reported experiencing discrimination or harassment during the past 12 months.
Main reason reported by respondents for which they have felt discriminated.
Main situation in which respondents experienced discrimination.
Percentage of respondents who agree that equality between women and men is effectively guaranteed in all areas of public and private life, including employment, work, and pay.
Percentage of respondents who agree that the government carries out effective actions to protect the environment and prevent and respond to climate change and displacement.
This indicator examines the right of workers to information and consultation within the undertaking, the right to collective bargaining and action, access to job placement services and protection in the event of unjustified dismissal, and the prohibition of child labor. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the subnational level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Data is not available for some regions due to a low number of expert responses.
Percentage of respondents who agree that workers can freely form labor unions and bargain for their rights with their employers.
Percentage of respondents who agree that consumer rights are effectively protected, including protection from fraudulent practices and defective or dangerous products, and the right to redress.
Percentage of respondents who agree that working conditions are good, including working time, work organization, health and safety at work, employee representation, and relation with the employer.
This indicator assesses whether all citizens have the right to participate in free and fair elections, as both voters and candidates. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the subnational level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Data is not available for some regions due to a low number of expert responses.
Percentage of respondents who agree that people can vote freely without feeling harassed or pressured.
This indicator evaluates public institutions’ proactive transparency measures and the accessibility of different types of public information. In addition, it includes information on the publicity of laws, and whether the right to request information is effectively guaranteed. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the subnational level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Data is not available for some regions due to a low number of expert responses.
Percentage of respondents who agree that local authorities provide people with information about their rights.
Percentage of respondents who agree that local authorities provide information for people in a simple, easy-to-read way.
Percentage of respondents who agree that local authorities make information easy to find online or without using the internet, such as using leaflets or posters.
Percentage of respondents who believe it is likely or very likely that government agencies would grant information requests related to detailed budget figures of government agencies and copies of government contracts.
This indicator measures the right of any person to petition public authorities, specifically members of Parliament/Congress and local authorities, to express their needs, concerns, and demands. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the subnational level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Data is not available for some regions due to a low number of expert responses.
Percentage of respondents who agree that people in their neighborhood can get together with others and present their concerns to members of Parliament/Congress or local government officials.
This indicator explores the ability of legal residents to move freely within a country’s territory, the right of citizens to travel outside their country, and the duration and proportionality of travel bans. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the subnational level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Data is not available for some regions due to a low number of expert responses.
This indicator measures adherence to due process in criminal matters, including presumption of innocence, impartiality and non-discrimination, and respect for the rights of the accused, including legal assistance, the right of defense, and the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial. Results reflect the evaluation of experts across the 27 EU Member States at the subnational level. The expert scorecard ranges from 0 to 1, where 1 signifies the highest possible score and 0 signifies the lowest possible score.
Data is not available for some regions due to a low number of expert responses.
Percentage of respondents who agree that the basic rights of suspects are respected by the police.
Percentage of respondents who agree that members of the police do not use excessive or unnecessary force.
Percentage of respondents who agree that public defenders do everything they can to defend poor people who are accused of committing a crime.
Percentage of respondents who agree that the criminal justice system allows all those accused of crimes to get a fair trial regardless of who they are.
Percentage of respondents who agree that the criminal justice system treats those accused of crime as 'innocent until proven guilty'.
| Label | Country |
|---|---|
| AT | Austria |
| BE | Belgium |
| BG | Bulgaria |
| CY | Cyprus |
| CZ | Czechia |
| DE | Germany |
| DK | Denmark |
| EE | Estonia |
| EL | Greece |
| ES | Spain |
| FI | Finland |
| FR | France |
| HR | Croatia |
| HU | Hungary |
| IE | Ireland |
| IT | Italy |
| LT | Lithuania |
| LU | Luxembourg |
| LV | Latvia |
| MT | Malta |
| NL | Netherlands |
| PL | Poland |
| PT | Portugal |
| RO | Romania |
| SE | Sweden |
| SI | Slovenia |
| SK | Slovakia |
| Label | Region |
|---|---|
| AT1 | East Austria |
| AT2 | South Austria |
| AT3 | West Austria |
| BE1 | Brussels Region |
| BE2 | Flemish Region |
| BE3 | Walloon Region |
| BG3 | North and South-East |
| BG4 | South-West and South-Central |
| CY0 | Cyprus |
| CZ01 | Prague |
| CZ020304 | Western and Central Bohemia |
| CZ0506 | North-East and South-East |
| CZ0708 | Central Moravia and Silesia |
| DE1 | Baden-Württemberg |
| DE2 | Bavaria |
| DE3 | Berlin |
| DE4 | Brandenburg |
| DE5 | Bremen |
| DE6 | Hamburg |
| DE7 | Hessen |
| DE8 | Mecklenburg-Vorpommern |
| DE9 | Lower Saxony |
| DEA | North Rhine-Westphalia |
| DEB | Rhineland-Palatinate |
| DEC | Saarland |
| DED | Saxony |
| DEE | Saxony-Anhalt |
| DEF | Schleswig-Holstein |
| DEG | Thuringia |
| DK01 | Capital (region) |
| DK02 | Zealand |
| DK03 | South Denmark |
| DK04 | Central Jutland |
| DK05 | North Jutland |
| EE0 | Estonia |
| EL3 | Attica |
| EL4 | Aegean Islands, Crete |
| EL5 | North Greece |
| EL6 | Central Greece |
| ES1 | North-West |
| ES2 | North-East |
| ES3 | Madrid |
| ES4 | Centre |
| ES5 | East |
| ES6 | South |
| ES7 | Canary Islands |
| FI19 | West Finland |
| FI1B | Helsinki-Uusimaa |
| FI1C20 | South Finland and Åland |
| FI1D | North and East Finland |
| FR1 | Île-de-France |
| FRB | Centre-Val de Loire |
| FRC | Burgundy-Franche-Comté |
| FRD | Normandy |
| FRE | Hauts-de-France |
| FRF | Grand Est |
| FRG | Loire Region |
| FRH | Brittany |
| FRI | New Aquitaine |
| FRJ | Occitania |
| FRK | Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes |
| FRL | Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur (PACA) |
| FRM | Corsica |
| HR02 | Pannonian Croatia |
| HR03 | Adriatic Croatia |
| HR05 | Zagreb |
| HR06 | Northern Croatia |
| HU1 | Central Hungary |
| HU2 | Transdanubia |
| HU3 | Great Plain and North |
| IE04 | Northern and Western |
| IE05 | Southern |
| IE06 | Eastern and Midland |
| ITC | North-West |
| ITF | South |
| ITG | Islands |
| ITH | North-East |
| ITI | Centre |
| LT01 | Capital Region |
| LT02 | Central/Western Region |
| LU00 | Luxembourg |
| LV00 | Latvia |
| MT00 | Malta |
| NL1 | North Netherlands |
| NL2 | East Netherlands |
| NL3 | West Netherlands |
| NL4 | South Netherlands |
| PL2 | Southern |
| PL4 | North-Western |
| PL5 | South-Western |
| PL6 | Northern |
| PL7 | Central |
| PL8 | Eastern |
| PL9 | Mazowieckie |
| PT1 | Continental Portugal |
| PT2 | Azores |
| PT3 | Madeira |
| RO1 | Macroregion One |
| RO2 | Macroregion Two |
| RO3 | Macroregion Three |
| RO4 | Macroregion Four |
| SE1 | Eastern Sweden |
| SE2 | Southern Sweden |
| SE3 | Northern Sweden |
| SI03 | East Slovenia |
| SI04 | West Slovenia |
| SK01 | Bratislava |
| SK02 | West Slovakia |
| SK03 | Central Slovakia |
| SK04 | East Slovakia |
The production of World Justice Project EUROVOICES can be summarized in the following stages:
To develop a comprehensive methodological framework, WJP first defined the observable outcomes of a society's adherence to the rule of law and the ways the rule of law impacts people's everyday lives. Building upon the proven methodology of the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index®, the team focused the conceptual design of World Justice Project EUROVOICES on capturing people's perceptions and experiences of justice, governance, and the rule of law in their daily lives.
The team then conducted an extensive literature review and held consultations with experts from various sectors (including academia and international organizations) to adapt the project's methodology to the current reality and challenges faced by the European Union (EU) Member States. The resulting framework defines 51 rule of law indicators organized into ten pillars: 1) checks on government powers; 2) government respect for checks on power; 3) civic participation; 4) fundamental rights; 5) civil justice; 6) criminal justice; 7) safety; 8) control of corruption; 9) transparency and access to information; and 10) administrative proceedings and regulatory enforcement.
| Pillars | Indicators |
|---|---|
| Report 1. Democracy and Fundamental Rights | |
| 1. Checks on government powers |
1.1. Legislative oversight 1.2. Judicial independence 1.3. Independent oversight 1.4. Independent prosecution 1.5. Free, fair, and secure elections 1.6. Non-governmental checks |
| 2. Government respect for checks on power |
2.1. Government respect for the constitution and political opponents 2.2. Government respect for judicial independence 2.3. Government respect for independent oversight 2.4. Government respect for independent prosecution 2.5. Government respect for the electoral system 2.6. Government respect for civil liberties |
| 3. Civic participation | 3.1. Civic participation |
| 4. Fundamental rights |
4.1. Prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment 4.2. Prohibition of slavery and forced labor 4.3. Freedom of thought, conscience, and religion 4.4. Freedom of assembly and association 4.5. Freedom of opinion and expression 4.6. Right to property 4.7. Right to asylum 4.8. Equality before the law 4.9. Workers’ rights 4.10. Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at elections 4.11. Right of access to documents 4.12. Right to petition 4.13. Right of movement and of residence 4.14. Due process of law |
| Report 2. Justice and Safety | |
| 5. Civil justice |
5.1. Legal capability 5.2. Access to legal aid and representation in cases of civil disputes 5.3. Accessible, appropriate, and timely dispute resolution 5.4. Impartial and independent dispute resolution 5.5. Effective and outcome-oriented dispute resolution 5.6. Alternative dispute resolution mechanisms |
| 6. Criminal justice |
6.1. Effective and impartial criminal investigation 6.2. Effective and impartial prosecution and pre-trial proceedings 6.3. Effective and impartial criminal adjudication 6.4. Alternative criminal justice mechanisms 6.5. Victims’ rights 6.6. Due process of law 6.7. Rights of persons deprived of liberty |
| 7. Safety |
7.1. Perceptions of safety 7.2. Control of violence |
| Report 3. Transparency and Corruption | |
| 8. Control of corruption |
8.1. Absence of bribery 8.2. Absence of corrupt procurement practices 8.3. Absence of embezzlement 8.4. Absence of favoritism 8.5. Absence of corrupt electoral practices |
| 9. Transparency and access to information | 9.1. Transparency and access to information |
| 10. Administrative proceedings, regulatory enforcement, and right to property |
10.1. Simple, predictable, and timely administrative proceedings 10.2. Right to property 10.3. Regulatory enforcement |
After establishing these pillars and indicators, WJP drafted survey questions to measure different aspects of each conceptual category included in the framework. This process resulted in a selection of 610 expert survey questions and 330 general population survey questions. To maintain reasonable survey length and improve response rates, the expert questions were organized into four separate questionnaires (one on criminal justice, two on civil and commercial justice, and one on governance).
World Justice Project EUROVOICES presents original survey data from two sources: expert surveys and household surveys.
Expert survey data collection for World Justice Project EUROVOICES project was conducted by the WJP’s research team. The surveys were administered online between October 2023 and April 2024 using Alchemer, a user-friendly and highly secure survey administration platform. The expert surveys were administered in twelve languages: Bulgarian, Czech, English, French, German, Greek, Hungarian, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Romanian, and Spanish.
The expert survey respondents, representing the 110 subnational regions across all 27 EU Member States, included independent legal practitioners and academics selected from directories of law firms, universities and colleges, research organizations, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs), as well as through referrals from the WJP's global network of practitioners. All expert respondents were vetted by WJP staff to ensure their qualifications.
Over the course of the expert survey data collection, WJP's research team regularly sent survey invitations and reminder emails to potential respondents using publicly available online contact information, collected through a systematic review of the websites of law firms, bar associations, universities, and other organizations. To expand WJP's network of expert respondents in the EU, the research team collaborated with local organizations, bar associations, universities, and law firms to identify and invite potential participants. As a result of this exercise, WJP's team generated a database with contact information for thousands of experts. In total, the WJP team obtained 8,042 expert survey responses.
Household survey data collection was conducted by leading local polling companies: ACT (Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, and Romania), Alpha Research Ltd. (Bulgaria), Bilendi & Respondi (Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands), D3 Systems, Inc. (Greece), ILRES (Luxembourg), Intercampus (Portugal), Ipsos (Czechia, Estonia, Finland, France, Slovenia, Spain, and Sweden), Misco International (Malta), Pulse Market Research (Cyprus), RED C Research (Ireland), and Talk Online (Hungary and Slovakia).
The survey was translated into over 20 local languages, adapted to common local expressions, and administered in pilot tests in each country. After conducting, reviewing, and validating the pilot tests, the survey was administered to respondents in 110 regions of the 27 EU Member States, using both face-to-face (in 10 countries) and online (in 17 countries) polling methodologies. Survey respondents in each country were selected through a probability sampling method that ensures representativeness based on age, sex, income level, and degree of urbanization. During the full-fieldwork stage of data collection, which took place between December 2023 and April 2024, a total of 64,089 EU residents were surveyed.
For the purposes of World Justice Project EUROVOICES, WJP selected territorial units based on the EU’s Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS) system, resulting in 110 regions for analysis. These regions are a combination of NUTS level 1 and NUTS level 2 regions, with some adjustments for Czechia (merging 8 regions into 4), Finland (combining 5 regions into 4), and France (dropping the overseas territories). The complete list of regions is presented in the Appendix.
The expert survey data was calculated into scores using the following steps: first, the survey responses were normalized and codified into numeric values on a scale of 0 to 1, where 1 indicates the highest possible score; second, the data was mapped into the pillars and indicators, as defined in the conceptual framework; and third, the normalized data was aggregated at the NUTS and country levels using simple averages. The complete variable map detailing which questions from the expert surveys were aggregated into each score can be downloaded from the website.
Household survey responses were processed into a database that displays question-level results by collapsing the two most positive options on a four-level Likert scale in each case (e.g., strongly agree and agree, very likely and likely, among others, depending on the response scale of the question and the options that represent the most positive outcome). This data can be disaggregated by age group, sex, income, and degree of urbanization.
For both the household and the expert surveys, the respondent-level data was edited to exclude partially completed surveys, suspicious data, and outliers (which were detected using the Z-score method).
A series of quantitative and qualitative tests were conducted to identify biases and errors. The first process was a quantitative cross-check in which results were systematically compared to selected indicators from trusted third-party sources, including other organizations' measurement projects, such as the V-Dem Dataset by the V-Dem Institute, and the Quality of Government database by the University of Gothenburg; and official indicator systems, such as Eurobarometer surveys and the EU Justice Scoreboard. In addition, three qualitative information tools were developed to test the data across all EU Member States: a compendium of news stories collected from diverse sources across the EU; syntheses of information from national and international reports published by peer organizations; and semi-structured interviews with over 30 EU experts. These tools allowed WJP to enrich the survey data with trends, issues, improvements, and regional differences in a variety of rule of law topics and contextualize the survey results. As a result of this work, World Justice Project EUROVOICES presents a library of people-centered indicators with new data on justice, governance, and the rule of law in the EU, at both the regional and national level. Data from the expert surveys is presented at the indicator level, while household survey data is presented at the question level, with options to disaggregate by different socioeconomic and demographic variables. This data is presented in different formats, including thematic reports with maps and graphs, interactive dashboards, and databases available for download. This information allows region-to-region comparisons, detecting relative strengths and weaknesses, and identifying best practices and policies that can become reference points.
The results of World Justice Project EUROVOICES cannot be directly compared to the WJP Rule of Law Index® for several reasons. First, the Index scores are calculated by aggregating three sources of information: expert surveys, household surveys, and third-party data. In contrast, WJP EUROVOICES presents findings in two separate categories: the Expert Scorecards, comprised of aggregated expert data, and People’s Voices, which displays question-level data from the household surveys.
Second, although the WJP Rule of Law Index and WJP EUROVOICES both use the Min-Max method to normalize expert data (so that all values are presented on a scale of 0 to 1), the Index’s longitudinal analysis requires an extra normalization (with a base year of 2015) to ensure scores are comparable across previous editions of the report.
Lastly, while WJP EUROVOICES builds upon the Index's methodology, the two projects have distinct conceptual frameworks. Key differences include the internal organization of the pillars, the inclusion of new questions to assess independent checks on government powers, a new category on the executive's behavior towards constraints on its power, the expansion of the chapter on fundamental rights based on the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, and the separation of the transparency and civic participation pillars.
All information tools have advantages and limitations that need to be considered when using them, and World Justice Project EUROVOICES is no exception. This project organizes its findings into clearly defined indicators that allow for the easy and efficient interpretation of a multi-dimensional rule of law definition. Moreover, WJP's output-oriented approach facilitates comparisons between countries and regions.
However, this accessibility does require WJP to consolidate the unique and complicated realities different individuals experience into coherent findings at the national and regional levels. As such, interpretation of the data presented in this report requires a familiarity with the project's basic conceptual framework, including WJP's definitions for each indicator and explanations regarding which topics are and are not included in our findings.
Likewise, these indicators do not establish causality or contextualize the findings. Thus, it will be necessary to use the WJP EUROVOICES reports in combination with other analytical tools to provide a full picture of causes and potential solutions.
The data presented in WJP EUROVOICES captures the perceptions and experiences of people living in the EU at the time the data was collected. In addition, the WJP team confirmed the validity of this data using quantitative and qualitative checks. However, the results may be sensitive to contextual factors, including expectations, as well as cultural and social influences, which may affect people's responses. In addition, this information may be sensitive to specific events that took place during the data collection period or may be subject to measurement errors due in part to the limited number of experts interviewed in some regions.
For more information on the conceptual and measurement framework of this project, including more technical details on the data collection process, please refer to the complete methodological summary available on the World Justice Project EUROVOICES website.
The World Justice Project (WJP) is an independent, multidisciplinary organization working to create knowledge, build awareness, and stimulate action to advance the rule of law worldwide. Effective rule of law is the foundation for communities of justice, opportunity, and peace—underpinning development, accountable government, and respect for fundamental rights.
The WJP builds and supports a global, multidisciplinary movement for the rule of law through three lines of work: collecting, organizing, and analyzing original, independent rule of law data, including the World Justice Project Rule of Law Index; supporting research, scholarship, and teaching about the importance of the rule of law, its relationship to development, and effective strategies to strengthen it; and connecting and building an engaged global network of policymakers and advocates to advance the rule of law through strategic partnerships, convenings, coordinated advocacy, and support for locally led initiatives.
Learn more at: worldjusticeproject.org.
The World Justice Project EUROVOICES 2024 thematic reports (Democracy & Fundamental Rights, Justice & Safety, and Transparency & Corruption) were produced by the World Justice Project under the research oversight of Alejandro Ponce and the executive direction of Elizabeth Andersen.
Conceptual Design: Horacio Ortiz, Alejandro Ponce, and Leslie Solís, building upon the WJP Rule of Law Index (developed by Juan Carlos Botero, Mark David Agrast, and Alejandro Ponce), with adaptations to reflect the institutional architecture in the European Union.
Data Collection: Giacomo D’Urbano and Erin Campbell (Expert Surveys Co-Leads), Alicia Evangelides and Joshua Fuller (Household Surveys Co-Leads), Ana María Montoya (Data Analytics Lead), Marta Basystiuk, Allison Bostrom, Lucía Estefanía González, Kirssy González, Pablo González Barón, Lauren Littlejohn, Alejandra Nava, Santiago Pardo, Natalia Rodríguez Cajamarca, Carlos Toruño, and Katrina Wanner, with the assistance of Said Aarji, Lloyd Cleary, John Cullen, Dalia Habiby, Skye Jacobs, Aleksandra Kozovic, Jaehee Lee, Andrea Marín Núñez de Arce, Abigail Skalka, Helen Souki Reyes, Holly West, and Moss Woodbury. The team also received support from Amy Gryskiewicz, Mario Rodríguez, Juan Salgado, and Victoria Thomaides during this stage.
Data Analysis: Ana María Montoya (Lead), Santiago Pardo and Natalia Rodríguez Cajamarca (Expert Surveys Data Co-Leads), and Carlos Toruño (General Population Poll Data Co-Lead), with support from Isabella Coddington, Dalia Habiby, and Artha Pillai.
Research: Horacio Ortiz and Leslie Solís (Leads), Jacob Alabab-Moser, Marta Basystiuk, Allison Bostrom, Erin Campbell, Giacomo D’Urbano, Kirssy González, Lauren Littlejohn, Ana María Montoya, Gustavo Núñez Peralta, Santiago Pardo, Natalia Rodríguez Cajamarca, Carlos Toruño, and Katrina Wanner, with support from Aleksandra Kozovic, Andrea Marín Núñez de Arce, Abigail Skalka, and Holly West. Finally, the team received feedback from Daniela Barba, Shallum David, Natalia Jardón, and Stephanie Presch.
Data Visualization: Mariana López and Carlos Toruño (Leads), Ana María Montoya, and Santiago Pardo, with the assistance of Isabella Coddington.
Design: Mariana López (Lead), Irene Heras, Raquel Medina, and Enrique Paulin.
Website Design: Natalia Jardón (Lead) and Mariana López.
Website Production: Gobierno Fácil.
Engagement Strategy: Alejandro González and Alejandro Ponce (Leads), Marta Basystiuk, Natalia Jardón, Lauren Kitz, Jan Kleijssen, Mark Lewis, Leslie Solís, James van der Klok, and Tanya Weinberg.
Operations and Administrative Support: Amy Gryskiewicz, Shakhlo Hasanova, and Richard Schorr.
These reports were made possible by the generous support of the European Union. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the European Union.
Contributors
Throughout the process of designing the methodology and conceptual framework, building the website, collecting expert surveys, and reviewing the data for World Justice Project EUROVOICES 2024, the team consulted with a variety of experts. We are grateful for their contributions and support. The names of those wishing to be acknowledged are below:
Comments for the conceptual framework: Francesca Fanucci and Simona Ognenovska (European Center for Not-for-Profit Law), Mihály Fazekas (Central European University), Waltraud Heller and Gabriel Toggenburg (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights), Liesbet Hooghe (University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill), Jan Kleijssen (Senior Advisor, WJP), Anna Máriássyová and Lilla Ozorákovrá (Slovak National Centre for Human Rights), Tommaso Pavone (University of Arizona), Linda Ravo (Civil Liberties Union for Europe), Francesca Recanatini (World Bank), Christel Schurrer and Muriel Décot (European Commission for the Efficiency of Justice, Council of Europe), and Anonymous Contributors.
Branding and website strategy consultations: Sophio Asatiani (USAID Information Integrity Program, Zinc Network), Alfred Bridi (Scale LLP), Isabela Campos (World Bank), Illia Chernohorenko (University of Oxford; European Young Bar Association), Lewis Dijkstra (Joint Research Centre, European Commission), Jorge Durán Laguna (DG for Regional and Urban Policy, European Commission), Eric Gaus (Moody’s Analytics), Waltraud Heller and Alison Taylder (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights), Jan Kleijssen (Senior Advisor, WJP), Jorge A. Morales Alfaro (PhD student, University of Berkley), Irene Rioboo (European Institute for Gender Equality), Rony Rodriguez (PhD student, Harvard University), Magaly Sáenz (Interamerican Development Bank), Igor Vidačak (University of Zagreb), and Anonymous Contributors.
Support for strategic expert data collection:
Bar associations and law societies: Council of European Bars and Law Societies (CCBE), Croatian Bar Association / Hrvatska Odvjetnicka Komora, Danish Bar and Law Society / Advokatsamfundet, Estonian Bar Association / Esti Advokatuur, Finnish Bar Association / Suomen Asianajajaliitto, French National Bar Council / Conseil national des barreaux, German Bar Association / Deutscher Anwaltverein, German Federal Bar / Bundesrechtsanwaltskammer, Latvian Collegium of Sworn Advocates / Latvijas Zvērinātu advokātu kolēģija, Chamber of Advocates Malta, The Netherlands Bar / Nederlandse orde van advocaten (NOvA), Seán ÓhUallacháin S.C. (The Bar of Ireland), Swedish Bar Association / Sveriges advokatsamfund.
Individual contributors, universities, and other organizations: York Albrecht (Institut für Europäische Politik, IEP), Liz Ayre (Children of Prisoners Europe, COPE), Sergiy Barbashyn (Barbashyn Law Firm), Anne-Charlotte Bernard (Catholic University of Lille), Markus Böckenförde (Central European University), Laura Carlson (European Women Lawyers Association), Central European University Democracy Institute Rule of Law Clinic, Hans Corell (Former Under-Secretary-General for Legal Affairs and the Legal Counsel of the United Nations), Elena Crespi (International Federation for Human Rights), Celina Del Felice (Agency for Peacebuilding), European Council on Refugees and Exiles, European Digital Rights, European Prison Litigation Network, European Young Bar Association, Danijela Frangež (University of Maribor), Nuno Garoupa (George Mason University), Willy Giacchino (Conseil supérieur du notariat français), Jakub Gładkowski (KG Legal Kiełtyka Gładkowski), Alonso Hernández-Pinzón García (European Lawyers Foundation), International Commission of Jurists, Anna Kalinichenko (DLA Piper), Adna Karamehic-Oates (Open Government Partnership), Jan Kayser (Center for Civil and Commercial Mediation, Luxembourg), Małgorzata Kiełtyka (KG Legal Kiełtyka Gładkowski), Jan Kleijssen (Senior Advisor, WJP), Mika Lehtimäki (StratXcel.tech), Legal Studies Department of the College of Europe, Kristaps Loze (Loze & Partners: Attorneys at Law), Caoimhín MacMaoláin (Trinity College Dublin), Didzis Melkis (ManaBalss.lv), PILnet, Rolf Ring (Raoul Wallenberg Institute of Human Rights and Humanitarian Law), Jan Smits (Maastricht University), Henricus Joseph (Henk) Snijders (Leiden University), Gintaras Švedas (Vilnius University), Marek Svoboda (CEELI Institute), University of Helsinki, Konstantinos Valmas-Vloutis (K. Valmas-Vloutis & Associates Law Office), Marie-Florence Zampiero-Bouquemont (Conseil supérieur du notariat français), Francesco Zatelli (Pro Publico), and Anonymous Contributors.
Experts interviewed during the data analysis phase: Fenella Billing (Aalborg University), Markus Böckenförde (Central European University), Styliani (Stella) Christoforidou (Hellenic Open University), Alessia-Ottavia Cozzi (University of Udine), Graciela Faffelberger (VAMED AG), János Fazekas (ELTE Faculty of Law), John A. Gealfow (OYERS.LAW and Masaryk University Faculty of Law), Tania Groppi (University of Siena), Małgorzata Kiełtyka (Kiełtyka Gładkowski KG LEGAL), Christian Koller (University of Vienna), Emilia Korkea-aho (University of Eastern Finland Law School), Urmas Kukk (KPMG Law), Mika Lehtimäki (StratXcel.tech and Tampere University), Felicien Lemaire (University of Angers), Christian Lemke (Heissner & Struck, and German Federal Bar), Heidi Lett (KPMG Law), Dieuwke Levinson-Arps (Attorney at Law), Imelda Maher (University College Dublin), Luigi Mori (BLR&M), Kevät Nousiainen (University of Turku), Lilla Ozoráková (Slovak National Centre for Human Rights), Viera Petrasova (Petrasova Legal Law Firm), Ulrike Schultz (FernUniversität), Helen Siegumfeldt (Citizen Rights Attorney), Henricus Joseph (Henk) Snijders (Leiden University), Petr Žídek (Feichtinger Žídek Fyrbach advokáti), and Anonymous Contributors.
Contributing experts who answered the expert surveys: World Justice Project EUROVOICES 2024 was made possible by the generous contributions of more than 8,000 academics and legal practitioners who contributed their time and expertise by answering our surveys. The names of those wishing to be acknowledged individually are included in the downloads section of the website and are also available in the PDF version of this report.
These reports were also made possible by the work of the polling companies who conducted fieldwork, and the more than 64,000 individuals who answered the General Population Poll in the EU.
Requests to reproduce this document should be sent to:
Alejandro Ponce
World Justice Project
1025 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20005, USA
E-mail: wjp@worldjusticeproject.org
World Justice Project EUROVOICES 2024: Democracy & Fundamental Rights
Print: ISBN: 978-1-951330-68-2
Digital: ISBN: 978-1-951330-69-9