IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ers/journl/vxxiiiy2020ispecial1p279-293.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Preliminary Identification of Quantitative Factors Determining the Duration of Court Proceedings in Commercial Cases

Author

Listed:
  • Przemyslaw Banasik
  • Monika Odlanicka-Poczobutt
  • Maciej Wolny
  • Sylwia Morawska

Abstract

Purpose: The aim of the article was to identify factors that are linear combinations of the variables under scrutiny that affect the duration of court proceedings. Design/Methodology/Approach: This research was conducted on commercial cases, based on the Principal Components Analysis (PCA). The original variables were grouped into factors that are correlated with each other. The Kaiser Criterion (own value >1) was chosen as the main criterion determining the number of factors. The conducted research was subordinated to six phases, largely linked to the data mining scheme (CRISP-DM). Seven variables of a strict numerical nature marked as (vn) were distinguished from the features describing court proceedings. Findings: Based on the analysis, two main quantitative factors characterising the examined cases were identified. The first factor groups the variables:(v4) Number of hearings in the first instance/second instance, (v5) The number of days from the first hearing to the case being settled, (v6) The judgement in the first instance (number of pages), (v7) Volume of files (number of volumes),and the second one:(v1) The court fee paid, (v2) The value of the subject matter of the dispute, (v3) The number of days to the first hearing. Further research will be conducted into the development of relations between the variables in different areas of their variability, particularly with respect to the value of the matter in dispute. Practical Implications: The identified factors can be used at the micro level, in case management by a judge, at the meso level in case management in court, as well as at the macro level the entire justice system. Originality/Value: The study identified factors that affect the efficiency of court proceedings.

Suggested Citation

  • Przemyslaw Banasik & Monika Odlanicka-Poczobutt & Maciej Wolny & Sylwia Morawska, 2020. "Preliminary Identification of Quantitative Factors Determining the Duration of Court Proceedings in Commercial Cases," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(Special 1), pages 279-293.
    • Handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xxiii:y:2020:i:special1:p:279-293
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ersj.eu/journal/1760/download
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Melcarne Alessandro & Ramello Giovanni B., 2015. "Judicial Independence, Judges’ Incentives and Efficiency," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(2), pages 149-169, July.
    2. Eisenberg, Theodore & Huang, Kuo-Chang, 2012. "The effect of rules shifting supreme court jurisdiction from mandatory to discretionary—An empirical lesson from Taiwan," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 3-18.
    3. Ramello, Giovanni B., 2012. "Aggregate litigation and regulatory innovation: Another view of judicial efficiency," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 63-71.
    4. Decio Coviello & Andrea Ichino & Nicola Persico, 2014. "Time Allocation and Task Juggling," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 104(2), pages 609-623, February.
    5. Christensen, Robert K. & Szmer, John, 2012. "Examining the efficiency of the U.S. courts of appeals: Pathologies and prescriptions," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 30-37.
    6. Marciano, Alain & Khalil, Elias L., 2012. "Optimization, path dependence and the law: Can judges promote efficiency?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 72-82.
    7. Dimitrova-Grajzl, Valentina & Grajzl, Peter & Sustersic, Janez & Zajc, Katarina, 2012. "Court output, judicial staffing, and the demand for court services: Evidence from Slovenian courts of first instance," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 19-29.
    8. Buscaglia, Edgardo & Ulen, Thomas, 1997. "A quantitative assessment of the efficiency of the judicial sector in Latin America," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 275-291, June.
    9. Di Vita, Giuseppe, 2010. "Production of laws and delays in court decisions," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 276-281, September.
    10. Voigt, Stefan, 2012. "On the optimal number of courts," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 49-62.
    11. Maria Antonelli & Veronica Grembi, 2013. "A microeconomic model of the demand of civil justice: is one institutional context better than another?," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 36(2), pages 295-318, October.
    12. Ramseyer, J. Mark, 2012. "Talent matters: Judicial productivity and speed in Japan," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(1), pages 38-48.
    13. Claire S. H. Lim, 2013. "Preferences and Incentives of Appointed and Elected Public Officials: Evidence from State Trial Court Judges," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(4), pages 1360-1397, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Przemysław Banasik & Katarzyna Metelska-Szaniawska & Małgorzata Godlewska & Sylwia Morawska, 2022. "Determinants of judges’ career choices and productivity: a Polish case study," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 53(1), pages 81-107, February.
    2. Roberto Ippoliti & Giovanni B. Ramello, 2018. "Governance of tax courts," Economics of Governance, Springer, vol. 19(4), pages 317-338, November.
    3. Melcarne Alessandro & Ramello Giovanni B., 2015. "Judicial Independence, Judges’ Incentives and Efficiency," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 11(2), pages 149-169, July.
    4. Stefan Voigt, 2016. "Determinants of judicial efficiency: a survey," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 42(2), pages 183-208, October.
    5. Grajzl, Peter & Silwal, Shikha, 2020. "Multi-court judging and judicial productivity in a career judiciary: Evidence from Nepal," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(C).
    6. Peter Grajzl & Shikha Silwal, 2020. "The functioning of courts in a developing economy: evidence from Nepal," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 101-129, February.
    7. Samantha Bielen & Peter Grajzl & Wim Marneffe, 2017. "Understanding the Time to Court Case Resolution: A Competing Risks Analysis Using Belgian Data," CESifo Working Paper Series 6450, CESifo.
    8. Berlemann, Michael & Christmann, Robin, 2017. "The Role of Precedents on Court Delay - Evidence from a civil law country," MPRA Paper 80057, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Moral, Alfonso & Rosales, Virginia & Martín-Román, Ángel, 2021. "Professional vs. non-professional labour judges: their impact on the quality of judicial decisions," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    10. Samantha Bielen & Wim Marneffe & Peter Grajzl & Valentina Dimitrova-Grajzl, 2018. "The Duration of Judicial Deliberation: Evidence from Belgium," Journal of Institutional and Theoretical Economics (JITE), Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, vol. 174(2), pages 303-333, June.
    11. Duol Kim & Heechul Min, 2017. "Appeal rate and caseload: evidence from civil litigation in Korea," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 44(2), pages 339-360, October.
    12. Dimitrova-Grajzl, Valentina & Grajzl, Peter & Slavov, Atanas & Zajc, Katarina, 2016. "Courts in a transition economy: Case disposition and the quantity–quality tradeoff in Bulgaria," Economic Systems, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 18-38.
    13. Bielen, Samantha & Peeters, Ludo & Marneffe, Wim & Vereeck, Lode, 2018. "Backlogs and litigation rates: Testing congestion equilibrium across European judiciaries," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 9-22.
    14. Roberto Ippoliti & Massimiliano Vatiero, 2014. "An analysis of how 2002 judicial reorganisation has impacted on the performance of the First Instance Courts (Preture) in Ticino," IdEP Economic Papers 1408, USI Università della Svizzera italiana.
    15. Dong, Xiaoge, 2021. "Efficiency of Courts in China – Does Location Matter?," ILE Working Paper Series 50, University of Hamburg, Institute of Law and Economics.
    16. Bartlomiej Biga & Michal Mozdzen, 2021. "Is it Darker in a Larger Courtroom? On the Relationship Between the Size of Regional Court and Exercising the Right to Public Information in Poland," European Research Studies Journal, European Research Studies Journal, vol. 0(1), pages 1189-1203.
    17. Svetlana Avdasheva & Svetlana Golovanova & Elena Sidorova, 2022. "Does judicial effort matter for quality? Evidence from antitrust proceedings in Russian commercial courts," European Journal of Law and Economics, Springer, vol. 53(3), pages 425-450, June.
    18. Castelliano, Caio & Grajzl, Peter & Watanabe, Eduardo, 2021. "How has the Covid19 pandemic impacted the courts of law? Evidence from Brazil," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 66(C).
    19. Rizos, Anastasios & Kapopoulos, Panayotis, 2021. "Judicial Efficiency and Economic Growth: Evidence based on EU data," MPRA Paper 107861, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    20. Berlemann, Michael & Christmann, Robin, 2020. "Disposition time and the utilization of prior judicial decisions: Evidence from a civil law country," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 62(C).

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Common court; commercial cases; excessive length of court proceedings; PCA.;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • K4 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior
    • K41 - Law and Economics - - Legal Procedure, the Legal System, and Illegal Behavior - - - Litigation Process

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ers:journl:v:xxiii:y:2020:i:special1:p:279-293. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Marios Agiomavritis (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://ersj.eu/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.