World Justice Project EUROVOICES
2024
Thematic Report
Justice & Safety
World Justice Project EUROVOICES
2024
Justice & Safety
Justice & Safety
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/or 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 for 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 the 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, Justice and Safety, consists of three chapters: (1) Civil Justice, (2) Criminal Justice, and (3) Safety. Each chapter contains thematic findings, definitions for each indicator included, as well as graphs with data from both the expert and household surveys (Expert Scorecard and People’s Voices, respectively).
When the rule of law prevails, both governing authorities and the people they serve respect the rights of others, contributing to a secure and just society. Additionally, people should have access to effective legal mechanisms to resolve their legal issues or seek redress for violations of their rights. In conceptualizing safety and access to justice, WJP uses a people-centered approach, focusing on individuals’ justice journeys. This approach seeks to analytically reconstruct people’s experiences as they navigate different justice services in their quest to resolve their legal disputes.
Civil Justice: The first chapter of this report focuses on civil justice, defined as the array of services and mechanisms people use to resolve non-criminal disputes, including family, labor, commercial, environmental, administrative, and financial disputes, as well as consumer issues.
Indicators for civil justice include (1) legal capability, (2) access to legal aid and representation in case of civil disputes, (3) accessible, appropriate, and timely dispute resolution, (4) impartial and independent dispute resolution, (5) outcome-oriented and effective dispute resolution, and (6) alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.
To further explore these issues, the chapter concludes with new, region-specific findings from the WJP Global Legal Needs Survey (a special module included in the household surveys), which provides in-depth insights into the prevalence of civil and administrative legal problems and the efficacy of the justice system for resolving those problems, as experienced by individuals seeking justice.
Criminal Justice: Strong rule of law systems depend on the ability of impartial and independent criminal justice mechanisms to redress grievances and bring action against individuals for offenses against society. Effective criminal justice mechanisms ensure that victims of criminal acts have access to competent, prompt, and effective mechanisms for criminal investigation, prosecution, and adjudication. Moreover, these justice services must be accessible to all members of society, regardless of where they live or their personal characteristics.
Additionally, the criminal justice system must follow due process and uphold the rights of all involved parties, including victims, individuals accused of a crime, and persons deprived of their liberty. This chapter includes indicators on (1) effective and impartial criminal investigation, (2) effective and impartial prosecution and pre-trial proceedings, (3) effective and impartial criminal adjudication, (4) alternative criminal justice mechanisms, (5) victims’ rights, (6) due process of law, and (7) right of persons deprived of liberty.
Safety: Security is one of the defining aspects of any rule of law society and is a fundamental function of the state. It is also a precondition for the realization of the rights and freedoms that the rule of law seeks to advance. Thus, effective crime control and the reduction of violence are key components of the rule of law.
This chapter examines how well governments meet these safety objectives by focusing on two indicators from the general population poll: (1) perceptions of safety and (2) control of violence.
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.
*The module on legal needs covers 26 out of the 27 EU Member States; this data was not collected in Ireland. **We understand non-trivial legal problems as those that respondents label with a seriousness larger than or equal to 4 on a scale of 0 to 10.
This indicator refers to an individual's ability to navigate the legal system and readily access justice while upholding their rights. This indicator examines people's awareness of their rights and knowledge of where to obtain legal information and advice. 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 country are aware of their rights when they face a legal problem.
Percentage of respondents who agree that people in their country know where to get information and advice when they face a legal problem.
This indicator explores the accessibility and quality of legal aid services in civil disputes as reported by users, including the affordability of legal aid and the availability of pro bono services. 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 country have access to affordable legal assistance and representation when they face a legal problem.
This indicator focuses on the conditions necessary for effective dispute resolution via state-sponsored, formal mechanisms, or alternative dispute resolution mechanisms. It assesses whether these services are available to all people regardless of socioeconomic status, responsive to different types of problems, and not subject to unreasonable delays. 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.
Experts' assessments of whether digital tools improve access to civil justice and are easy to use for most people.
Percentage of respondents who agree that people in their country can easily meet the costs of turning to a state dispute resolution mechanism (courts, small claims courts, administrative agencies, etc.) when they face a legal problem.
Percentage of respondents whose process concluded in less than a year, out of those who experienced a non-trivial legal problem in the previous two years and whose problem resolution process had concluded.
To assess the procedural fairness of dispute resolution in civil matters, this indicator evaluates various components of a trustworthy justice system, including the absence of discrimination or bias in judicial decisions, corruption, and undue political influence in the delivery of justice. 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 state dispute resolution mechanisms in their country (courts, small claims courts, administrative agencies, etc.) produce fair outcomes for each involved party.
Percentage of respondents who agree that all parties are treated equally and fairly within the civil justice system of their country.
This indicator assesses how justice system users perceive the outcomes of their legal proceedings, including the extent to which civil justice processes aim to achieve meaningful and satisfactory outcomes for all parties involved and whether those outcomes are effectively enforced. 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 winning parties can enforce court decisions quickly and effectively in their country.
This indicator explores non-formal and abridged dispute resolution methods that exist outside the formal judicial system, such as mediation, conciliation, or arbitration. The following category assesses the accessibility, fairness, and effectiveness of alternative dispute mechanisms in solving people’s legal problems. 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 country can easily turn to alternative justice mechanisms (mediation, arbitration, restorative justice, etc.) when they face a legal problem.
*The module on legal needs covers 26 out of the 27 EU member states; this data was not collected in Ireland. **We understand non-trivial legal problems as those that respondents label with a severity larger than or equal to 4 on a scale of 0 to 10. ***Adequate assistance and representation include those obtained from any of the following entities: a lawyer, a professional advisor, an advice service, a government legal aid office, a court or government body, the police, a health or welfare professional, a trade union or employer, a civil society organization, or a charity.
Percentage of respondents who experienced at least one non-trivial problem in the previous two years, meaning a problem of self-reported seriousness of 4 or more in a scale of 0 to 10.
Percentage of respondents who experienced at least one non-trivial legal problem in the previous two years by problem category.
Percentage of respondents who report having an official proof of identity.
Percentage of respondents who report having an official proof of housing or land tenure.
Percentage of respondents who had access to good information and advice out of those who experienced a non-trivial problem in the previous two years.
Percentage of respondents who had access to adequate assistance and representation out of those who experienced a non-trivial legal problem in the previous two years. Adequate assistance and representation include services obtained from any of the following entities: a lawyer, a professional advisor, an advice service, a government legal aid office, a court or government body, the police, a health or welfare professional, a trade union or employer, a civil society organization, or a charity.
Percentage of respondents who had access to a dispute resolution mechanism out of those who experienced a non-trivial legal problem in the previous two years and needed access.
Sustainable Development Goal indicator 16.3.3 measures the proportion of the population who that has experienced a dispute in the past two years and had access to a formal or informal dispute resolution mechanism. Based on data from the WJP Global Legal Needs Survey module of the general population survey, WJP estimates the proportion of people who, directly or with the help of someone else, had access to a court or any other third party to adjudicate, mediate, or intervene to help resolve their legal problem, out of those who had a legal problem and needed access to this type of service.
Percentage of respondents whose process concluded in less than a year, out of those who experienced a non-trivial legal problem in the previous two years and whose problem resolution process had concluded.
Percentage of respondents who did not incur costs to solve their problem, or did and could afford them, out of those who experienced a non-trivial legal problem in the previous two years and whose problem resolution process had concluded.
Percentage of respondents who think the process was fair, regardless of the outcome, out of those who experienced a non-trivial legal problem in the previous two years and whose problem resolution process had concluded.
Percentage of respondents whose resolution process is done and whose legal problem was solved, out of those who experienced a non-trivial legal problem in the previous two years and whose problem resolution process had concluded.
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 the criminal justice system is effective and prompt in gathering evidence on reported crimes. It also examines whether criminal investigations are conducted without bias, corruption, or undue influence from the government. 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 express a lot or some trust in the police and percentage of respondents who believe that most or all police officers are involved in corrupt practices.
Percentage of respondents who agree that police investigators perform serious and law-abiding investigations to find the perpetrators of a crime.
Percentage of respondents who agree that the police investigate crimes in an independent manner and are not subject to any sort of pressure.
This indicator examines the effectiveness of the criminal justice system in bringing people who commit crimes to justice. This category assesses the timeliness and effectiveness of criminal prosecution, determining whether cases are handled promptly and efficiently to deliver justice without unreasonable delay. 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 express a lot or some trust in prosecutors in charge of criminal investigations and percentage of respondents who believe that most or all prosecutors are involved in corrupt practices.
Percentage of respondents who agree that the criminal justice system is effective in bringing people who commit crimes to justice.
This indicator measures whether criminal court decisions are timely and unbiased by examining the impartiality and integrity of the adjudication process. 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 express a lot or some trust in judges and magistrates and percentage of respondents who believe that most or all judges and magistrates are involved in corrupt practices.
Percentage of respondents who agree that the criminal justice system deals with cases promptly and efficiently.
*This finding on alternative criminal justice mechanisms covers 26 out of the 27 EU Member States; this data was not collected in Malta.
This indicator assesses the mechanisms that provide complementary and restorative approaches to resolving criminal matters, offering accessible and timely solutions outside criminal courts. This indicator examines the availability, accessibility, effectiveness, and impartiality of such mechanisms. 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.
*The finding on victims’ rights covers 25 out of the 27 EU Member States; this data was not collected in Denmark and Malta.
This indicator measures whether victims of crime are treated respectfully by agents of the criminal justice system and whether they have access to justice and any required support throughout their legal process. 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 the justice system functions the same regardless of where they live.
Percentage of respondents who agree that the criminal justice system respects the rights of victims.
Percentage of respondents who agree that the criminal justice system allows all victims of crime to seek justice regardless of who they are.
Percentage of respondents who agree that the criminal justice system provides victims of crime with the service and support they need.
This indicator measures adherence to due process in criminal matters, including presumption of innocence, impartiality, and non-discrimination, as well as the 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 express a lot or some trust in public defense attorneys and percentage of respondents who believe that most or all public defense attorneys are involved in corrupt practices.
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 a crime as 'innocent until proven guilty'.
*This finding on the rights of persons deprived of liberty covers 26 out of the 27 EU Member States; this data was not collected in Malta.
This indicator measures the conditions of detention to determine if individuals, whether sentenced or in pre-trial detention, are treated with dignity and respect. 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 criminal justice system guarantees the safety and human rights of people deprived of their liberty.
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.
Percentage of respondents who feel safe walking in their neighborhood at night.
Percentage of respondents who feel safe walking in their neighborhood at night, by sex.
Percentage of respondents who agree that the police resolve safety problems in their communities and treat all people with kindness and respect.
| 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 the 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: Justice & Safety
Print: ISBN: 978-1-951330-70-5
Digital: ISBN: 978-1-951330-71-2