Creating

62 DOING BUSINESS IN 2006
Who is reforming?
Serbia and Montenegro, the country with the third
longest delay in 2003, went from 1,028 days to 635 days.
Two new laws—on civil procedure and enforcement
of judgments—were passed. These contain strict time
limits. For example, a debtor has only 3 days to file an
appeal after the judge rules. The judge then has 3 days
to decide its merit. Previously this back-and-forth could
take 10 months.
Africa has the least efficient courts. But 2 countries
made significant reforms in 2004. Burundi introduced
a new summary procedure for debt recovery, requiring
fewer steps and written statements. In addition,
the deadline for filing an appeal was cut from 60 days
to 30. And enforcement can now be done by private
bailiffs, not just by court officials. Similar reforms in
Colombia in 2003 and in Slovakia in 2002 have enjoyed
tremendous success.
Rwanda created specialized chambers in trial courts
for litigation related to business, financial and tax matters.
Moreover, 1 professional judge now presides over
such cases, assisted by 2 lay judges. Previously a 3-judge
jury was required. “I was suspicious of the changes at
first, but now I am a believer. Cases that sat in the courts
for years are now resolved in months,” says Andre, a
trader. Still, big problems remain: some chambers have
yet to become operational for lack of trained lay judges.
The top 10 reformers cut the average time to resolve
TABLE 10.2
Major court reforms in 2004
Reform
Streamlined appeals
Shortened time
for enforcement
Set time limits
on judgments
Introduced summary
proceedings
Established case
management
Source: Doing Business database.
Country
Belarus, Brazil, Burundi, Czech Republic,
Romania, Rwanda, Serbia and Montenegro
Germany, Kazakhstan, Latvia,
Poland, Rwanda
Philippines, Rwanda, Serbia
and Montenegro, Vietnam
Burundi, Latvia
Slovenia
a dispute by 12%, with Serbia and Montenegro reducing
delays by 38% and Rwanda by 22% (figure 10.2).
Reforms also lowered costs—for example, in Rwanda attorney
fees fell by 15%. The most popular court reform
in 2004—introduced in 7 countries—dealt with delays
in appeals (table 10.2). Burundi, Romania and Rwanda
introduced a rehearing with the judge who presided over
the original case and has already reviewed the evidence.
This is in lieu of a first appeal and saves considerable
time. Previously appellate judges reviewed the evidence
from scratch. Now they review the process, not the evidence.
Brazil and Serbia and Montenegro set time limits
on the filing of appeals. These reforms may seem like an
attack on due process, and there is clearly a balance to
be struck between the rights of debtors and creditors.
Yet the trend in streamlining appeals suggests that excessive
delays deny justice more than a well-intentioned but
prone-to-abuse appeals process.
The second most common reform—introduced in
6 countries—shortened time for the enforcement of
judgments. Establishing case management systems in
the courts continues to be the main reform in transition
economies. In Armenia reforms have become so popular
that the country’s most-watched television drama
features the deputy minister of justice in an improvised
court. Viewers are now asking for legal advice and assistance
as they recognize that the courts can now resolve
disputes effectively.