More extensive communication on Survey results.
Judges of Europe are generally independent but under increasing pressure
The European Network of Councils for the Judiciary conducts every three years a survey of the judges of Europe about their independence. The survey is input for the indicators on Independence and accountability of the judiciary. The survey took place for the fifth time in the first quarter of 2025. In total 19,136 judges from 32 judiciaries of 30 countries participated.
The main findings are:
1. Judges generally evaluate their independence positively. On a 10-point scale, judges rate the independence of the judges in their country on average between 5.9 and 9.8 with the lowest score for Ukraine, followed by Montenegro (6.8), Hungary (7.0), Bulgaria and Bosnia and Herzegovina (both 7.1). The scores of ten judiciaries are 9 or higher. The respondents rate their personal independence even higher: between 6.8 and 9.9. Consistent with the positive assessment of independence, few judges report inappropriate pressure to influence judicial decisions.
2. Since 2015, when the first survey took place, independence has gradually improved on average for all judiciaries together. However, this trend comes to a halt in this survey, where depending on the yardstick the average score across countries remained the same or declined somewhat since the previous survey. Based on the experience of judges who have been working for many years, independence has improved over a longer period.
3. Examining the judiciaries individually, in most of them perceived independence remained high or improved since the first survey. However, in some judiciaries the respondents see declines. This is the case in Hungary which participated for the first time in 2019, but also in Montenegro and Greece (foremost civil and criminal courts) declines occurred and to a lesser extent in Slovenia. In Bosnia and Herzegovina the independence score is stable at a low level.
4. Judges rate the independence of councils for the judiciary on average per country between 3.4 and 9.7. The councils of Spain and Bulgaria are awarded very low scores, while the scores for Hungary, Ukraine and Bosnia and Herzegovina are low. Scores above 8 are found in Finland, Ireland, Romania and the UK. Having a council is not enough to guarantee judicial independence. This depends highly on the arrangements, for instance, with regard to the appointment of the members of a council, but it depends also on the way they act once elected or appointed as members of the council.
5. The issues that have been raised in the previous surveys continue to exist. In many judiciaries, judges are critical about human resource decisions concerning judges and, in particular, about appointment and promotion. In the view of respondents, also appointment to the Supreme Court/Court of Cassation remains problematic in a variety of countries.
6. Corruption remains an issue in several judiciaries. In a wider range of judiciaries, the judicial authorities are seen as not doing enough to address judicial misconduct and corruption.
7. Court management including the court presidents generally do not try to influence the content of judicial decisions. Some judges experience what - they see as - inappropriate pressure by court management to meet timeliness standards, and more judges experience inappropriate pressure from production targets.
8. The tensions between the judiciary and the other state powers are also not a new issue, but the difficulties have increased in many respects. The survey highlights in particular: (1) lack of implementation by governments of judicial decisions that go against the interest of government has increased, (2) working conditions are increasingly becoming a threat to independence, in particular the low/lagging remuneration of judges and high workload/insufficient court resources and (3) lack of respect for judicial independence by government and parliament is in many countries a large and increasing issue, according to the respondents.
9. In most judiciaries, judges feel inappropriate pressure from the (social) media at case level. Many of them feel that their independence is not respected by/on the (social) media.
10. For the first time, the survey looked into intimidation and threats as well as actual attacks on judges. In half of the judiciaries more than 10% of the judges experience intimidation or threats. These judiciaries vary from the UK, in particular Northern Ireland, to Norway, Hungary and Ukraine. While threats occur hardly regularly, occasional occurrence is quite common. Physical attacks on judges are rare.
The survey provides many insights into the functioning of the judiciary at national level. It is up to the Councils for the Judiciary and other governing bodies to analyse the outcomes for their judiciaries and address the issues that are raised by the respondents. While Councils are dependent on the other state powers for improvement of legislation and for adequate resources, judiciaries and in particular Councils can address many issues by themselves. Still, the problems are increasing with the other state powers, and more respect for independence is necessary.
Most of the issues raised in the survey are not new and require higher priority to resolve. In addition, the dialogue must be sought or continued with the other state powers and also with the media to promote a better understanding of the importance of judicial independence for the functioning of society and its economy. At the same time, it is advisable to put effort into increasing the resilience of judges and the governing institutions of the judiciary in the face of mounting tensions and threats.
For the full report see: www.encj.eu.
Direct link: https://pgwrk-websitemedia.s3.eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/production/pwk-web-encj2017-p/Report%20ENCJ%20Survey%20on%20Independence-compressed_0.pdf
[Note: Councils or other governing institutions may want to add specific findings for their judiciaries]