Table 1
Calculation example for the aggrgated weighted caseload.
| CASE TYPE | ASSIGNED WEIGHTIN MINUTES | * | NUMBER OF INCOMING CASES IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR | = | WEIGHTED CASELOADPER CASE TYPE | WEIGHTED CASELOADIN TOTAL |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | 50 | * | 50 | = | 2,500 | 111,334 |
| B | 121 | * | 80 | = | 9,680 | |
| C | 676 | * | 60 | = | 40,560 | |
| D | 1279 | * | 22 | = | 28,138 | |
| E | 183 | * | 42 | = | 7,686 | |
| F | 414 | * | 55 | = | 22,770 |
Table 2
Calculation example for the Judge day value and the Judge year value.
| JUDGE DAY VALUE | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 8.5 daily working hours | – | 1 h for breaks and personal time | – | 1 h for non-case- related tasks | = | 6.5 h | = | 390 minutes |
| JUDGE YEAR VALUE | ||||||||
| Number of annual workdays (201) | * | Judge day value (390 m) | = | A single judge year (8,190 m) | * | Number of judge positions (11) | = | 90,090 m |
Table 3
Objectives of the case weighting systems.12
| COUNTRY | ESTIMATE OF THE NUMBER OF JUDGES NEEDED | ASSIGNMENT OF PROCEEDINGS WITHIN THE OFFICE | DISTRIBUTION OF JUDGES IN THE VARIOUS OFFICES | DISTRIBUTION OF NEW (ONLY) JUDGES IN VARIOUS OFFICES | VALUATION OF OFFICE PRODUCTIVITY | OTHER OBJECTIVES | VALUATION OF THE INDIVIDUAL JUDGES |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total | 15 | 14 | 9 | 8 | 9 | 7 | 6 |
| Austria | □ | ||||||
| Azerbaijan | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | |
| Belgium | □ | □ | |||||
| Bosnia- Herzegovina | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | ||
| Bulgaria | □ | ||||||
| Croatia | □ | □ | □ | ||||
| Czech Republic | □ | □ | □ | ||||
| Denmark | □ | □ | □ | □ | |||
| Estonia | □ | □ | |||||
| Finland | □ | □ | □ | □ | |||
| Germany | □ | □ | |||||
| Hungary | □ | ||||||
| Iceland | □ | ||||||
| Italy | □ | □ | |||||
| Lithuania | □ | □ | □ | ||||
| Malta | □ | ||||||
| Moldova | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | ||
| Netherlands | □ | □ | □ | ||||
| North Macedonia | □ | □ | |||||
| Romania | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | □ | |
| Serbia | □ | □ | □ | □ | |||
| Sweden | □ | □ | |||||
| Turkey | □ | ||||||
| Ukraine | □ | □ | □ | □ |
Figure 1
A scale to assess CW models based on their level of accuracy, detail and research effort.