Türkiye’de  Adalet  Harcamaları  ve  Uluslararası  Karşılaş9rmalar  

Hazırlayan:                                Hande  Özhabeş  Katkıda  Bulunanlar:  Nurhan  Yentürk                                                                  Yakup  Kadri  Karabacak  

               Zafer  Kıraç  

TABLO 1: 2006-2014, ADALET HARCAMALARINI İZLEME TABLOSU, BİN TL

2006 GERÇEKLEŞEN

2007 GERÇEKLEŞEN

2008 GERÇEKLEŞEN

2009 GERÇEKLEŞEN

2010 GERÇEKLEŞEN

2011 GERÇEKLEŞEN

2012 KANUNLAŞAN

2013 BÜTÇE

ÖNGÖRÜSÜ

2014 BÜTÇE

ÖNGÖRÜSÜ

A: MERKEZİ YÖNETİM ADALET HARCAMALARI

ANAYASA MAHKEMESİ 4.824 5.686 6.441 9.852 10.316 14.088 24.718 26.573 28.501

YARGITAY 34.791 41.714 45.505 52.226 57.488 85.803 103.130 111.629 120.597

DANIŞTAY 25.418 33.197 36.511 40.483 46.476 58.050 70.742 76.206 82.108

SAYIŞTAY 48.412 62.922 76.204 85.573 94.474 120.951 142.162 140.584 147.414

ADALET BAKANLIĞI 1.948.265 2.687.651 2.852.435 3.460.036 3.923.871 5.079.250 5.277.312 5.698.593 6.458.088

HAKİMLER VE SAVCILAR YÜKSEK KURULU 17.027 35.512 37.690 40.171

MALİYE BAKANLIĞI (Adli Yardım) 14.094 15.049 20.644 24.653 26.469 30.295 33.421 35.000 38.000

MALİYE BAKANLIĞI (CMK) 121.431 4.525 10.322 12.326 13.235 15.148 16.711 18.000 20.000

AHİM TAZMİNAT ÖDEMELERİ 13.847 26.222 10.392 11.663 33.099 37.137 40.000 40.000 40.000

GENEL BÜTÇELİ KURUMLARIN ADALET HARCAMALARI 2.211.082 2.876.966 3.058.454 3.696.812 4.205.428 5.457.749 5.743.708 6.184.275 6.974.879

TÜRKİYE ADALET AKADEMİSİ BAŞKANLIĞI (hemen tümü Adalet Bakanlığı'ndan transfer edilmektedir) 2.525

5.564 8.016

7.958 11.176

10.944

11.767 12.564 13.430

CEZA VE İNFAZ KURUMLARI İLE TUTUKEVLERİ İŞYURTLARI KURUMU (en az yarısı Adalet Bakanlığı'ndan transfer edilmektedir)

648.062 800.465 443.080 816.955 833.086

955.716

772.457 844.669 916.495

ÖZEL BÜTÇELİ KURUMLARIN ADALET HARCAMALARI 650.587 806.029 451.096 824.913 844.262 966.660 784.224 857.233 929.925

MERKEZİ YÖNETİM ADALET HARCAMALARI TOPLAMI (Türkiye Adalet Aakademisvenin tümü ve Ceza ve İnfaz Kurumları ile Tutukevleri İşyurtları Kurumu'nun % 50'si hariç)

2.535.113 3.277.199 3.279.994 4.105.290 4.621.971 5.935.607 6.129.937 6.606.610 7.433.127

GSYH 758.391.000 843.178.000 950.534.000 952.559.000 1.098.799.000 1.294.893.000 1.426.000.000 1.572.000.000 1.733.000.000

TOPLAM ADALET HARCAMALARI /GSYH 0,33 0,39 0,35 0,43 0,42 0,46 0,43 0,42 0,43

italik tahmindir

ADALET  HARCAMALARINI  İZLEMEKTE  KULLANILAN  VERİ  KAYNAKLARI    ANAYASA  MAHKEMESİ,  YARGITAY,  DANIŞTAY,  SAYIŞTAY,  ADALET  BAKANLIĞI,  HAKİMLER  VE  SAVCILAR  YÜKSEK  KURULU  :  2006-­‐2011  gerçekleşmiş  harcamaları:    İdarelerin  gerçekleşmiş  harcamalarına  yıllık  olarak  hOp://stk.bilgi.edu.tr/stkButce.asp  adresinden  ulaşılabilmektedir.  Verilerin  orijinal  kaynağı  Maliye  Bakanlığı  Muhasebat  Genel  Müdürlüğü’dür.    2012-­‐2014  arası  kanunlaşan  ve  öngörülen  harcamalar:  İdarelerin  kanunlaşan  ve  iki  yıllık  öngörülen  harcamalarına    www.bumko.gov.tr  ,  bütçe  gerekçeleri  ve  bütçe  kanunu  ve  eklerinden  ulaşılabilmektedir.      ADLİ  YARDIM  VE  CMUK  :  2006-­‐2012  için  hOp://www.barobirlik.org.tr/Detay.aspx?ID=5429&Tip=Menu    2013-­‐2014  arası  tahmindir.    AHİM’E  YAPILAN  ÖDEMELER  :    18/04/2012  tarihli  Mllitvekili  Gürkut  Acar’ın  yazılı  soru  önergesine  Adalet  Bakanıl  Sadullah  Ergin’in  yazılı  cevabı,    TÜRKİYE  ADALET  AKADEMİSİ  BAŞKANLIĞI  ve    CEZA  VE  İNFAZ  KURUMLARI  İLE  TUTUKEVLERİ  İŞYURTLARI  KURUMU  :  2006-­‐2011  gerçekleşmiş  harcamaları:    İdarelerin  gerçekleşmiş  harcamalarına  yıllık  olarak  hOp://stk.bilgi.edu.tr/stkButce.asp  adresinden  ulaşılabilmektedir.  Verilerin  orijinal  kaynağı  Maliye  Bakanlığı  Muhasebat  Genel  Müdürlüğü’dür.    2012-­‐2014  arası  kanunlaşan  ve  öngörülen  harcamalar:  İdarelerin  kanunlaşan  ve  iki  yıllık  öngörülen  harcamalarına    www.bumko.gov.tr  ,  bütçe  gerekçeleri  ve  bütçe  kanunu  ve  eklerinden  ulaşılabilmektedir.    İki  kurumun  ödenekleri  ile  Adalet  Bakanlğının  ödenekleri  arasındaki  transferler  için  bkz.  Ödenek  cetvelleri,      Ödenek  cetvelleri  için  bkz.  www.bumko.gov.tr  

Türkiye’nin  Adalet  Harcamalarının  GSYH’ya  Oranı  (Yıllar  İçinde)  

Kaynak:  Adalet  Bakanlığı  Faaliyet  Raporu,  2010  

Tutuklu/Hükümlü  Oranları  

Kaynak:  Türkiye  Barolar  Birliği  İnsan  Hakları  Merkezi  Tutuklama  Raporu  2011  

2010  yılı  ijbariyle  çeşitli  jplerdeki  ceza  infaz  kurumlarını  gösterir  tablo    (Kaynak:  Adalet  Bakanlığı  2010  Faaliyet  Raporu  Syf  74)  

74

Sistem Merkezlerini kullanması sağlanmıştır.

kullanması sağlanmıştır.

Yüksek Seçim Kurulu (YSK) (SEÇSİS)

YSK ile 11.04.2006 tarihinde protokol imzalanmıştır.

SEÇSİS’in UYAP bilişim ağını kullanması sağlanmıştır.

SEÇSİS’in UYAP bilişim ağını kullanması sağlanarak seçmen kütüklerinin UYAP üzerinden güncellenmesi ve seçim sonuçlarının UYAP üzerinden kısa sürede alınması sağlanmıştır.

1.7. Ceza İnfaz Sistemine Yönelik Faaliyetler

2010 yılı itibariyle çeşitli tiplerdeki ceza infaz kurumlarını gösterir tablo aşağıda bulunmaktadır.

CEZA İNFAZ KURUMLARI BİNA DAĞILIM TABLOSU

S.NO TİPİ ADET KAPASİTE 1 A 10 490 2 A1 9 284 3 A2 13 564 4 A3 30 2.275 5 B 16 1.068 6 C 7 1.902 7 D 2 1.732 8 E 45 33.613 9 F 14 4.976

10 H 5 2.882 11 K1 77 3.359 12 K2 22 1.371 13 L 19 22.699 14 M 24 10.173 15 T 9 8.958 16 KAPALI 24 7.282 18 ÇOCUK EĞİTİMEVİ 3 360 19 ÇOCUK VE GENÇLİK 3 1.334 20 KADIN AÇIK 1 350 21 KADIN KAPALI 4 1.596 22 AÇIK 34 8.563

TOPLAM 371 114.831

Adalet  Bakanlığı  Ceza  ve  Tevkif  Evleri  Genel  Müdürlüğü  internet  sayfasından  istajsjkler:    

Tutuklu - Hükmen Tutuklu - Hükümlü Dağılımı

( Ekim 2011 İtibarıyla )

   Tutuklu   Hükmen  Tutuklu   Hükümlü   Genel  Toplam  

Ç   Y   T   Ç   Y   T   Ç   Y   T   Ç   Y   T  

Kadın   46   1474   1520   6   648   654   7   2335   2342   59   4457   4516  

Erkek   1577   31333   32910   185   17113   17298   200   72118   72318   1962   120564  122526  

Toplam   1623   32807   34430   191   17761   17952   207   74453   74660   2021   125021  127042  

   Ç=Çoçuk,  Y=Yejşkin,  T=Toplam  

Bu  tablo,  19/04/2008  tarihli  ve  26852  sayılı  Resmi  Gazete'de  yayımlanan  2008/13472  sayılı  Bakanlar  Kurulu  Kararı  ile  yürürlüğe  giren  Resmi  İstajsjk  Programı  kapsamında  olmayıp,  hizmete  özel  olarak  hazırlanmış9r  

Toplam  Hükümlü  &  Tutuklu  Sayısı  

Toplam  Cezaevi  Yatak  Sayısı  

Kapasite  Eksikliği  

127,042   114,831   12,211  

Cezaevleri  Kapasite  Eksikliği  

Adalet Bakanlığı 2010 Faaliyet Raporu s. 35  

Ceza  ve  Tevkif  evleri  Genel  Müdürlüğü    2010  harcaması                                                                                    

7,040,156  TL    

Ceza  İnfaz  Kurumları,  Tutukevleri  Ve  Eğijm  Merkezleri    2010  harcaması          

1,501,501,803  TL    

Toplam  Hükümlü&Tutuklu  Sayısı    

127,042    

Tutuklu  ve  hükümlü  başına  bütçe     Yıllık  11,819  TL  

Aylık  985  TL    

Kaynak:  Adalet  Bakanlığı  Ödenek  Cetveli,  2012,  www.bumko.gov.tr  

2012 Ödenek Cetveli, bin TL

Ceza ve Tevkifevleri Genel Müdürlüğü ve Ceza ve İnfaz Kurumları, Tutukevleri ve Eğitim Merkezleri

2.030.956

Personel Giderleri 7.372

Sosyal Güvenlik Kurumlarına Devlet Primleri 1.198Mal ve Hizmet Alımı 840Cari Transferler 1.070Ceza ve Tevkifevleri Genel Müdürlüğü 10.480

Ceza ve İnfaz kurumları ile Tutukevleri İşyurtları Kurumu'na transfer

603.000

Cezaevi İdaresi hizmetleri 1.417.476Ceza İnfaz Kurumları, Tutukevleri ve Eğitim Merkezleri

2.020.476

Ceza ve Tevkifevleri Genel Müdürlüğü (Merkez) 10.480

Ceza İnfaz Kurumları, Tutukevleri ve Eğitim Merkezleri (Taşra)

2.020.476

2011 2010 2009 2008

Hukuk Davaları İçin Ayrılan Adli Yardım Ödeneği

27.265.867,94 23.822.443,15 22.187.306,79 18.579.272,35

Ceza Davaları İçin Ayrılan CMK Ödeneği

15.147.704,40  

13.234.690,63  

12.326.281,56  

10.321.817,95  

TOPLAM

42.413.572,34 37.057.133,78 34.513.588,35 28.901.090,30

Yıllar  İçinde  Maliye  Bakanlığı’ndan  Barolara  Gönderilen  Toplam  Adli  Yardım  Ödeneği  

Kaynak:  hOp://www.barobirlik.org.tr/Detay.aspx?ID=5429&Tip=Menu    

Uluslararası  Karşılaş9rmalar  •  Avrupa  İnsan  Hakları  Mahkemesi  

–  2010  İhlal  İstajsjkleri  hOp://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/8ED60DCD-­‐FA01-­‐41C4-­‐A660-­‐9D31F23DD08F/0/TABLEAU_VIOLATIONS_2010_EN.pdf  –  2011  İhlal  İstajsjkleri  hOp://www.echr.coe.int/NR/rdonlyres/596C7B5C-­‐3FFB-­‐4874-­‐85D8-­‐F12E8F67C136/0/TABLEAU_VIOLATIONS_EN_2011.pdf  

 •  CEPEJ-­‐  Avrupa  Konseyi  Etkin  Yargı  Komisyonu  

– Avrupa  Yargı  Sistemleri  Raporu  2010  hOps://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc.jsp?Ref=CEPEJ(2010)Evaluajon&Language=lanEnglish&Ver=original&BackColorInternet=DBDCF2&BackColorIntranet=FDC864&BackColorLogged=FDC864  

     

2008  yılında  mahkemelere,  savcılıklara  ve  adli  yardıma  ayrılan  bütçe  (Euro)            Kaynak:  CEPEJ  2010  Raporı  

As a result, any state or entity will be able to compare itself to other states or entities deemed as similar. It will then, in the same way, be able to refer to the results on activity. In order to contribute to a better understanding of these reasoned comparisons, all the reported and studied figures have been made available. Ratios have been highlighted, in order to allow comparisons between comparable categories, by connecting the budgetary figures to the number of inhabitant and the GDP per capita, in the form of figures. Following the main table, figures are presented with the ratio of the budget per inhabitant and the ratio as a percentage of the GDP per capita, to compare realistically comparable categories. For the first time, the CEPEJ report aims at highlighting a few statistical series, showing the evolution of indicators over the years, by referring to the data of previous evaluation cycles (see Figure 3). Note for the reader: The budgets indicated correspond in principle (unless specifically mentioned otherwise) to the amounts as voted and not as effectively spent. All the amounts are given in Euros. For the countries which are not part of the Euro zone, the CEPEJ was very attentive to variations in exchange rates between the national currency and the Euro (unless stated otherwise, the value is taken on 1 January 2008). The rapid development of some national economies (for instance revenues coming from oil exploitation in Azerbaijan), or the inflation, may also explain a few significant budgetary evolutions. This fact must fully be taken into account while interpreting variations in states or entities outside the Euro zone. For a more in-depth analysis of the specificities in the budgets of the various member states or entities, the reader is invited to examine the detailed answers given by each state or entity which appear on the CEPEJ's website: www.coe.int/cepej. Table 2.1 Public budget allocated to courts, legal aid and public prosecution in 2008, in € (Q6, Q13, Q16)

Country��

Total�annual�approved�public�budget�allocated�to�all�courts�with�neither�prosecution�nor�legal�aid�

Total�annual�approved�public�budget�allocated�to�legal�aid�

Total�annual�approved�public�budget�allocated�to�the�public�prosecution�system�

Total�annual�approved�budget�allocated�to�all�courts�and�legal�aid�

Total�annual�approved�budget�allocated�to�all�courts�and�public�prosecution�

Total�annual�approved�public�budget�allocated�to�all�courts,�public�prosecution�and�legal�aid�

Albania� 10�615�948� 111�927 8�176�518 10�727�875 18�792�466� 18�904�393Andorra� 6�312�517� NA 758�437 NA 7�070�954� NAArmenia� 10�546�291� 350�420 5�687�641 10�896�711 16�233�932� 16�584�352Austria� NA� 18�400�000 NA NA 649�530�000� 667�930�000Azerbaijan� 30�114�000� 249�600 30�191�580 30�363�600 60�305�580� 60�555�180Belgium� NA� 60�277�000 NA NA 789�953�000� 850�230�000Bosnia�and�Herzegovina� 74�439�254� 5�150�716 22�323�841 79�589�970 96�763�095� 101�913�811Bulgaria� 128�186�163� 4�850�000 60�184�382 133�036�163 188�370�545� 193�220�545Croatia� NA� NA 40�702�227 NA NA� 266�657�951Cyprus� NA� NA 14�046�407 NA NA� 39�970�961Czech�Republic� 277�762�896� 25�995�515 86�410�548 303�758�411 364�173�444� 390�168�959Denmark� 228�761�776� 76�433�980 34�000�000 305�195�756 186�327�796� 339�195�756Estonia� 34�249�751� 2�934�624 11�024�913 37�184�375 45�274�664� 48�209�288Finland� 256�277�000� 56�600�000 38�906�310 312�877�000 295�183�310� 351�783�310France� NA� 314�445�526 NA NA 3�377�700�000� 3�692�145�526Georgia� 14�929�371� 1�192�758 8�817�891 16�122�129 23�747�262� 24�940�020Greece� NA� 2�000�000 NA NA 357�487�000� 359�487�000Hungary� 285�674�860� 319�765 120�500�000 285�994�625 406�174�860� 406�494�625Iceland� 6�832�940� 3�183�529 712�941 10�016�469 7�545�881� 10�729�410Ireland� 136�195�000� 89�900�000 44�522�000 226�095�000 180�717�000� 270�617�000Italy� 3�008�735�392� 115�938�469 1�157�955�737 3�124�673�861 4�166�691�129� 4�282�629�598Latvia� 47�510�897� 1�087�491 23�656�019 48�598�388 71�166�916� 72�254�407Lithuania� 60�629�000� 4�129�000 42�955�283 64�758�000 103�584�283� 107�713�283Luxembourg� NA� 2�600�000 NA 61�700�000� 64�300�000Malta� 9�073�000� 35�000 2�569�000 9�108�000 11�642�000� 11�677�000Moldova� 7�521�012� 251�118 5�256�788 7�772�130 12�777�800� 13�028�918

16

Total�annual�Total�annual� Total�annual� Total�annual�

approved�public� Total�annual�Total�annual� approved�public� approved� approved�public�

budget� approved�approved�public� budget� budget� budget�

allocated�to�all� budget�Country�� budget� allocated�to�the� allocated�to�all� allocated�to�all�

courts�with� allocated�to�all�allocated�to� public� courts�and� courts,�public�

neither� courts�and�legal�legal�aid� prosecution� public� prosecution�and�

prosecution�nor� aid�system� prosecution� legal�aid�

legal�aid�

Monaco� 4�786�100� 220�000 1�330�900 5�006�100 6�117�000� 6�337�000Montenegro� 19�625�944� 153�427 4�998�279 19�779�371 24�624�223� 24�777�650Netherlands� 889�208�000� 419�248�000 570�903�000 1 308�456�000 1�460�111�000� 1�879�359�000Norway� 161�163�043� 153�230�000 13�364�000 314�393�043 174�527�043� 327�757�043Poland� 1�204�202�000� 22�403�000 333�489�000 1�226�605�000 1�537�691�000� 1�560�094�000Portugal� 513�513�518� 36�432�072 NA 549�945�590 NA� NARomania� 380�932�306� 4�376�694 160�389�216 385�309�000 541�321�522� 545�698�216Russian�Federation� 2�406�286�197� 53�543�496 846�018�639 2�459�829�693 3�252�304�836� 3�305�848�332San�Marino� 4�573�250� � �Serbia� NA� NA 26�845�371 195�863�391 NA� 222�708�762Slovakia� 144�682�786� 901�547 59�017�760 145�584�333 203�700�546� 204�602�093Slovenia� 159�461�409� 2�821�428 17�811�140 162�282�837 177�272�549� 180�093�977Spain� NA� 219�707�018 NA NA 3�686�381�622� 3�906�088�640Sweden� 399�825�654� 142�633�089 128�301�090 542�458�743 528�126�744� 670�759�833Switzerland� 800�725�712� 61�524�211 220�168�990 862�249�923 1�020�894�702� 1�082�418�913FYROMacedonia� 25�287�606� 1�772�655 4�899�022 27�060�261 30�186�628� 31�959�283Turkey� 736�932�152� 49�570�981 NA NA 736�932�152� 786�503�133Ukraine� 144�954�555� 178�264 103�562�627 145�132�819 248�517�182� 248�695�446UKͲEngland�and�Wales� 1�437�326�465� 1�878�704�340 771�190�551 3�316�030�805 2�208�517�016� 4�087�221�356UKͲNorthern�Ireland� 74�600�000� 87�000�000 161�600�000 NA� NAUKͲScotland� 151�940�889� 150�000�000 129�300�000 301�940�889 281�240�889� 431�240�889Average� 376�168�280� 96�925�159 139�214�812 476�286�007 673�594�624� 747�988�485Median� 140�438�893� 5�000�358 34�000�000 161�941�419 188�370�545� 266�657�951Minimum� 4�573�250� 35�000 712�941 5�006�100 6�117�000� 6�337�000Maximum� 3�008�735�392� 1�878�704�340 1�157�955�737 3�316�030�805 4�166�691�129� 4�282�629�598

Comments Belgium: the budget for constructing new courts or maintaining existing buildings is excluded from the budget of the Federal Justice Public Service. Real property of the Belgium State is managed by the Régie des Bâtiments which does not hold separate a specific part for justice. Bulgaria: public budgets allocated to legal aid and to investment in (new) court buildings are part of the budget of the Ministry of Justice. Croatia: the budgets indicated include loans from the World Bank. Denmark: the figure on the “prosecution budget” includes the central part of the public prosecution system. Therefore, the sums calculated should be interpreted with caution as the budget allocated to 12 police districts are not available, being part of the local prosecution system. France: the total annual budget allocated to all courts amounts to € 3377,7 millions which break down into 3088,7 millions (2822,7 millions for judicial justice + 266 millions for administrative justice) + cost estimation for transportation of defendants under escort (117 millions) + cost evaluation of prosecuting officers (31 millions) + cost estimation of guarding courtrooms (81 millions) + the amount of the rental value of court buildings made available for free to the state by local authorities as part of the shift in costs following decentralisation (60 millions). Hungary: the court budget includes the budget of the Council of Justice. Moldova: does not include the budget allocated to military courts. Netherlands: the given budgets do not include those of the Supreme Court. These budgets were calculated in a different manner than in the 2008 Edition of the report. Norway: the specialised courts’ budgets are not included. The annual public budget devoted to court fees was excluded from the courts’ budget. Portugal: the given budget excludes major investments such as the construction of new buildings. Russian Federation: the budget of legal aid indicated covers only the participation of lawyers in criminal proceedings. The budget allocated to public prosecution does not include the budget of Investigation Committee under the Prosecution Service (this specialized body was introduced within the prosecution system on 7 September 2007, primarily for investigating certain types of crimes). Spain: the given budgets correspond with the budgetary plan within the political programme for justice. There are other budgetary lines regarding the operation of justice, such as those on social security for personnel of the justice administration, included within other policies. Total budget of the General Council of the Judiciary: € 72.863.890. Budget of the Ministry of Justice and other bodies: € 1.491.165.640. Budget of the Autonomous Communities: € 2.342.059.110. Sweden: a new accounting pattern has emerged since the 2008 Edition of the report, which makes it difficult to compare budgetary data.

17

2008  yılında  ülke  sakini  başına  bütün  mahkemelere,  savcılığa  ve  adli  yardıma  tahsis  edilen  yıllık  bütçe,  Avro  cinsinden    

Kaynak:  CEPEJ  2010  Raporı      ORTALAMA  47,1  EURO  

Figure 2.18 Total annual budget allocated to all courts and public prosecution (without legal aid) per inhabitant in 2008, in € (Q6, Q16)

22.9

5.4

10.3

52.8

81.4

57.5

55.7

36.8

40.3

7

69.9

25.1

40.6

24.7

31.9

23.6

5.440.477.9

34.9

48.8

54.4 31.3

30.8

89

25.2

48

37.7 3.6

5.1

33.8

5.9

132.6

74.1

14.8

87.5

39.7

125.4

83.7

28.1

196.7

TOTAL�ANNUAL�BUDGET�COURTS�AND�PROSECUTION�PER�INHABITANT�

(IN�EUROS)

Less�than�10�Euros

From�10�to�less�than�30�Euros

From�30�to�less�than�50�Euros

From�50�to�less�than�100�Euros

100�Euros�and�more

Data�not�supplied

Not�a�CoE�Member�State

Three zones can be identified from the geographical distribution of sums allocated to court and prosecution services’ budgets: given their transitional economic systems, Eastern European states report the lowest budgets; Central European states, much of which have recently joined the European Union, stand at an intermediate level; Western European states spend the largest budgets per capita in accordance with the state of their economy. In Europe, the average budget allocated to courts and prosecution services is 47,1 € per capita. The median level is 37,3 €. Of the 40 states or entities, Monaco, Switzerland and Luxembourg spend the largest amounts (more than 100 € per capita) for courts and public prosecution services. It must be borne in mind that sums per inhabitant in small states should always be put into perspective regarding the small number of inhabitants. Azerbaijan, Albania, Georgia, Ukraine, Armenia and Moldova spend less than 10 € per inhabitant on this system. A ratio including the GDP per capita must be analysed in order to compare these sums to the state’s prosperity. One can observe that efforts of public authorities are higher than what the raw data suggest in these countries. According to the previous analysis, the relative commitments of public authorities (supported by European and international funds) in the judicial system remain high in Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Poland.

35

2008  yılında  tüm  mahkemelere,  savcılık  hizmetlerine  ve  adli  yardıma  kişi  başına  GSYH  bağlamında  tahsis  edilen  kamu  bütçesi  (%)    

Kaynak:  CEPEJ  2010  Raporı    

Figure 2.19 Annual public budget allocated to all courts and prosecution service (without legal aid) as part (in %) of the GDP per capita, in 2008 (Q6, Q16)

7

89

48

5.4

3.6

5.4

5.1

5.9

40.6

54.4

10.3

57.5

87.5

37.7

22.9

25.1

40.3

36.8

39.7

28.1

14.8

31.3

30.8

69.9

23.6

48.8

40.4

31.9

52.8

55.7

33.8

81.4

34.9

25.224.7

74.1

77.9

83.7

196.7

125.4

132.6

TOTAL�ANNUAL�BUDGET�COURTS�AND�PROSECUTION�

PER�INHABITANT�AND�AS�PART�OF�THE�GDP�PER�CAPITA

Per�inhabitant,�in�€

Less�than�10�Euros

From�10�to�less�than�30�Euros

From�30�to�less�than�50�Euros

From�50�to�less�than�100�Euros

100�Euros�and�over

As�part�of�the�GDP�per�capita

Less�than�0.15%

From�0.15%�to�less�than�0.25%

From�0.25%�to�less�than�0.40%

0.40%�and�over

Data�not�supplied

Not�a�CoE�Member�State

36

2008’de  mahkemelere  ayrılan  bütçenin  bileşenleri  (Euro)  Kaynak:  CEPEJ  2010  Raporu  

Table 2.6 Break-down by component of court budgets in 2008, in € (Q8)

Country��Annual�public�budget�allocated�to�(gross)�salaries�

Annual�public�budget�allocated�to�computerisation�(equipment,�investments,�maintenance)�

Annual�public�budget�allocated�to�justice�expenses�

Annual�public�budget�allocated�to�court�buildings�(maintenance,�operation�costs)�

Annual�public�budget�allocated�to�investment�in�new�(court)�buildings�

Annual�public�budget�allocated�to�training�and�education�

Other�

Albania� 8�008�510� 71�124 2�127�166 59�992 20�985� 440�098

Andorra� 5�951�017� 17�500 1�079�876 22�561�

Armenia� 7�033�543� 228�138 NA 446�030 679�053� 2�159�528

Austria� 332�940�000� 28�400�000 258�790�000 47�800�000 ��

Belgium� 579�013�000� 30�811�000 89�713�000 67�072�000 9�085�000� 2�332�000� 72�204�000

Bosnia�&�Herzegovina�� 55�058�835� 1�173�770 5�597�961 7�338�704 309�603� 1�144�385� 8�966�713

Bulgaria� 76�506�902� 854�255 25�441�538 4�172�767 NA 78�222� 21�132�479

Croatia� 147�758�459� 13�294�887 32�551�399 5�829�162 13�814�864� 1�650�201� 11�076�752

Cyprus� 19�170�107� 56�808 1�509�155 2�733�106 2�357�920� 97�458�

Czech�Republic� 185�398�380� 3�019�657 46�289�115 1�735�763 102�692�

Denmark� 146�325�706� 14�158�815 8�788�694 40�376�850 2�018�842� 10�767�160

Estonia� 26�264�172� 331�382 959�308 4�835�697 456�543� 1�402�650

Finland� 183�400�000� 8�944�000 6�299�000 29�350�000 �� 28�284�000

France� 1�860�379�400� 52�050�000 405�000�000 335�300�000 118�000�000� 52�000�000� 555�000�000

Georgia� 8�849�797� 191�156 2�531�629 76�359 2�506�388� 448�051� 325�988

Greece� 343�360�000� 390�000 4�500�000 8�245�000 862�000� 130�000�

Hungary� 235�340�150� 8�800�000 5�200�000 31�300�000 7�200�000� 300�000�

Ireland� 58�677�000� 9�368�000 120�000 20�754�000 29�632�000� 1�229�000� 16�415�000

Italy� 2�390�027�432� 73�987�488 287�571�836 253�913�969 857�675� 118�315�458

Latvia� 34�710�887� 1�395�620 320�668 6�663�457 304�950� 2�587�042

Lithuania� 41�573�000� 721�067 1�989�900 7�314�585� 144�810� 579�240

Luxembourg� 50�400�000� 870�000 4�000�000 505�000 759�000� 60�000� 7�706�000

Malta� 6�520�000� 54�000 1 260�000 1�239�000 186�000� 1�000�

Moldova� 5�313�253� 182�665 286�677 1�356�535 231�097� 90�654� 60�131

Monaco� 3�569�700� �� 890�000 �� 546�400

Montenegro� 14�895�845� 144�000 3�646�500 220�000 �� 873�026

Netherlands� 620�748�000� 69�185�000 4�987�000 104�933�000 20�149�000� 40�535�000

Norway� 99�347�826� 6�326�087 34�021�739 1�630�435� 2�010�870� 17�826�086

Poland� 624�811�000� 15�163�000 145�365�000 86�661�000 69�107�000� 4�050�000� 307�671�000

Portugal� 398�809�928� 8�455�892 39�802�030 �� 66�445�668

Romania� 330�427�080� 7�409�000 23�532�000 15�259�755 5�331�256� 74�000� 3�275�909

Russian�Federation� 1�445�608�805� 41�507�668� 120�455�439� 145�313�583� 216�541�512� 2�825�805� 449�122�600�San�Marino� 4�230�000� 140�000 210�000 ��

Serbia� 133�565�955� �� 65�377�307 11�949�797� �� 7�121�534

Slovakia� 83�100�716� 3�651�140 1�001�763 3�773�155 5�218�914� 1�537�981� 47�300�664

Slovenia� 116�500�189� 4�710�655 32�374�344 6�801�841 60�000� 1�835�808�

Spain� 2�489�442�790� 59�530�490 2�944�000 56�252�870 33�051�440� �� 1�264�867�050

Sweden� 314�083�631� 10�305�719 58�392�988 6�150�369� 10�892�947

Switzerland� 223�450�047� 11�323�322 26�862�307 20�784�309 0 6�019�855� 14�769�286

FYROMacedonia� 20�682�085� 108�583 1�772�655 1�665�065 695�000� 523�322� 1�613�551

Turkey� 529�883�710� 11�689�140 117�630�542 904�977 126�389�786� 4�977�

Ukraine� 136�091�227� �� 5�503�109 1�818�182� 3�540�627�

UKͲEngland�&�Wales� 881�587�203� �� 274�915�184 95�431�366� �� 177�961�286

UKͲNorthern�Ireland� 36�300�000� 7�800�000 3�300�000 33�800�000 8�200�000� 300�000� 71�900�000

UKͲScotland� 82�950�000� 6�244�146 13�528�983 42�668�332 NAP� 1�040�691� 14�569�674

Comments Belgium: the budget for constructing new courts or maintaining existing buildings is excluded from the budget of the Federal Justice Public Service. Real property of the Belgium State is managed by the Régie des Bâtiments which does not hold separate a specific part for justice. France: the sum reported for the budget devoted to salaries includes € 475.206.175 for contributions allocated to a special “pensions” account aimed to fund retirements. The given salaries are those of all court staff, including members

23

2008  verilerinden  çıkarılabilecek  bazı  yorumlar…  

•  Mahkeme  bütçelerinin  ortalama  en  büyük  gider  kalemi  (%70)  hakimlerin  ve  mahkeme  çalışanlarının  maaşıdır.  Türkiye’de  bu  oran  yaklaşık  %  74’tür.  

•  Avrupa  ülkelerinde  bütçenin  bir  diğer  önemli  yüzdesi  adliyelerin  işletme  ve  yeni  adliye  yapım  masraflarına  harcanmaktadır.  (%  14)  Türkiye’de  ise  bu  oran,  tüm  ülkeler  arasında  en  düşük  seviyededir.  (%  0,1)  

•  Mahkemelere  ayrılan  bütçenin  ortalama  yüzde  3’ü  bilişim  teknolojilerine  harcanmaktadır.  Türkiye’de  bu  oran  yüzde  1  civarındadır.  

Kişi  başına  düşen  hakim  sayısı  (2006  verileri)  

CEPEJ  2010  Raporu  (2008  verileri)  Kaynak:  CEPEJ  2010  Raporı      

(sadece  profesyonel  hakimlik  olan  ülkeler  arası  kıyaslama)    

Toplam  hakim  sayısı   her  100,000  kişi  başına  düşen  hakim  sayısı  Arnavutluk   391   12,3  Andorra   23   27,2  Ermenistan   216   6,8  Avusturya   1,658   19,9  Azerbaycan   494   5,7  Kıbrıs   100   12,5  Hırvajstan   1,883   42,5  Gürcistan   282   6,4  Yunanistan   3,739   33,3  İrlanda   145   3,3  İzlanda   47   14,7  Malta   36   8,7  Moldovya   460   12,9  Karadağ   246   39,7  Hollanda   2,176   13,3  Romanya   4,142   19,2  Rusya   34,390   24,2  Sırbistan   2,506   34,1  Türkiye   7,198   10,1  Ukrayna   7,205   15,5  Ortalama   20  

Hakim  maaşları  (2008  verileri)  Kaynak:  CEPEJ  2010  Raporı  

205

Recommendation R(94)12, on the independence, efficiency and the role of judges, provides that the judges’ remuneration should be guaranteed by law and “commensurate with the dignity of their profession and burden of responsibilities”. The CCJE’s Opinion N°1 (2001) par. 61 confirms that an adequate level of remuneration is necessary to guarantee that judges can work freely and shield “from pressures aimed at influencing their decisions and more generally their behaviour”. Two different indicators are further analysed. The first concerns the judge’s salary at the beginning of her or his career. Differences are evident between states recruiting (young) judges graduating from a school for judicial studies and states recruiting judges among legal professionals who benefit from long working experiences often as lawyers. The second indicator is related to the judge’s salary at the Supreme Court or at the Highest Appellate Court, at the end of the career. At this level, differences between states may be more significant as they aren’t attributed to the kind of recruitment or a previous career. A comparison between the salaries at the beginning and at the end of the career allows to measure a judge’s possible progression within a state and to evaluate the consideration attributed to her/his social position. The ratio of the judge’s salary to the national average salary deepens the analyses and removes any biases inflicted by the exchange rate or GDP. In any case, data which are presented in the next table must be interpreted with caution. The allocated salaries depend on several factors which are connected to the exchange rate for non-euro states but also to the living standards, modalities of recruitment, seniority etc. It is important to take into account the special features for each state presented in the comments. Similar reserves to those made to the salary of judges should be made for prosecutors. The salaries of prosecutors are composed of a basic salary that can be supplemented with bonuses and/or other benefits (see the following title 11.4). Paragraph 5 d. of Recommendation R(2000)19 provides that: “reasonable conditions of service should be governed by law, such as remuneration, tenure and pension commensurate with the crucial role of prosecutors as well as an appropriate age of retirement.” 11.3.1 Salaries at the beginning of the career Table 11.11 Gross and net annual salaries of judges and prosecutors at the beginning of the career, in 2008 (Q118)

Country

Gross annual salary of a 1st instance professional judge

Gross salary of a judge in regard to national average gross annual salary

Net annual salary of a 1st instance professional judge

Gross annual salary of a Public Prosecutor

Gross salary of a prosecutor in regard to national average gross annual salary

Net annual salary of a Public Prosecutor

Albania 7 250 € 1.4 5 604 € 7 250 € 1.4 5 604 € Andorra 72 443 € 3.1 68 096 € 72 443 € 3.1 68 096 € Armenia 6 069 € 2.5 5 068 € 4 864 € 2.0 4 161 € Austria 45 612 € 1.1 48 427 € 1.1 Azerbaijan 8 256 € 2.9 6 684 € Belgium 59 934 € 1.6 31 707 € 59 934 € 1.6 31 707 € Bosnia and Herzegovina 24 015 € 3.5 14 946 € 24 015 € 3.5 14 946 € Bulgaria 7 227 € 2.2 7 227 € 2.2 Croatia 25 765 € 2.1 15 315 € 25 765 € 2.1 15 315 € Cyprus 71 668 € 2.9 Czech Republic 22 374 € 2.1 22 374 € 2.1 Denmark 78 348 € 1.6 49 998 € 1.0 Estonia 34 776 € 3.5 27 835 € 22 085 € 2.2 16 988 € Finland 53 000 € 1.5 37 000 € 45 200 € 1.3 33 000 € France 36 352 € 1.1 31 115 € 36 352 € 1.1 31 672 € Georgia 11 500 € 8 625 € 8 383 € 6 706 € Greece 51 323 € 2.1 38 123 € 51 323 € 2.1 38 123 € Hungary 19 176 € 2.0 11 506 € 19 176 € 2.0 11 506 € Iceland 57 234 € 2.1 73 463 € 2.7 Ireland 147 961 € 4.5 Italy 45 188 € 2.0 29 069 € 45 188 € 2.0 29 069 € Latvia 18 901 € 2.3 12 929 € 18 516 € 2.3 12 984 € Lithuania 16 525 € 2.2 12 330 € 13 207 € 1.8 10 830 € Luxembourg 76 607 € 1.8 76 607 € 1.8 Malta 32 584 € 2.5 24 873 € 1.9 Moldova 3 300 € 1.7 2 640 € 3 207 € 1.6 2 593 € Monaco 42 285 € 39 912 € 42 285 € 39 912 €

206

Country

Gross annual

salary of a 1st

instance

professional

judge

Gross salary of

a judge in

regard to

national

average gross

annual salary

Net annual

salary of a 1st

instance

professional

judge

Gross annual

salary of a

Public

Prosecutor

Gross salary of

a prosecutor in

regard to

national

average gross

annual salary

Net annual

salary of a

Public

Prosecutor

Montenegro 19 756 € 2.7 13 165 € 19 756 € 2.7 13 165 € Netherlands 70 000 € 1.4 40 000 € 56 500 € 1.1 28 000 € Norway 83 239 € 2.0 66 000 € 1.6 Poland 15 189 € 1.8 11 818 € 15 189 € 1.8 11 818 € Portugal 34 693 € 1.7 34 693 € 1.7 Romania 15 667 € 2.7 10 991 € 15 667 € 2.7 10 991 € Russian Federation 13 067 € 2.6 10 705 € 7 201 € 1.4 6 265 € San Marino 84 756 € 4.1 69 884 € 58 197 € 2.8 51 188 € Serbia 17 480 € 4.3 10 393 € 17 480 € 4.3 10 393 € Slovakia 25 303 € 2.9 23 898 € 2.8 Slovenia 26 949 € 1.6 16 402 € 29 256 € 1.8 17 592 € Spain 49 303 € 1.7 49 303 € 1.7 Sweden 56 104 € 1.9 36 058 € 64 500 € 2.2 29 500 € Switzerland 107 940 € 2.3 90 080 € 98 285 € 2.1 79 322 € FYROMacedonia 16 807 € 3.3 10 945 € 13 840 € 2.7 9 055 € Turkey 18 251 € 15 028 € 18 251 € 15 028 € UK-England and Wales 105 526 € 4.0 28 508 € 1.1 22 741 € UK-Northern Ireland 105 515 € 4.6 58 988 € UK-Scotland 128 296 € 5.1 28 665 € 1.1

Average 2.5 2.0 Median 2.2 2.0 Minimum 1.1 1.0 Maximum 5.1 4.3

Concerning Georgia, Monaco and Turkey it was impossible to report the gross salaries of judges and prosecutors in regard to the national average gross salary because of a lack of data on the national gross salary. Comments Albania: the figures provided do not include any benefits as bonuses or benefits for special working conditions. Belgium: the gross annual salary of a judge is based on the salary after three years of work experience. The net salary corresponds to a married judge with two children. Bosnia and Herzegovina: for the salary of a judge or a prosecutor, 3 years of work experience were taken into account. Czech Republic: salaries are increased after the first 5 years in service, after the 6th year of service and then every other 3 years of service. Denmark: regarding judges, the gross annual salary excludes additional benefits. Estonia: the judge’s salary does not include additional remuneration for added years of service (the additional remuneration for the 5th year of employment is 5% of the official salary, 10% for the 10th year of employment and 15% for the 15th year of employment). For calculating the net annual salary, the income taxes were deducted from the gross annual salary. Ireland: the figure provided as the judge’s salary corresponds to the salary of a judge of the District court. A judge of the Circuit court earns 177.554€ and the President of the District court earns 183.984€. Italy: net annual salaries depend on subjective percentages of taxation. Norway: since 1st October 2008, the gross annual salary of the judges was increased. This salary is indicated above. Slovakia: according to the law, the average monthly salary of a judge is equal to the monthly salary of a member of the parliament. The salary of the judge at the beginning of the career is 90% of the average monthly salary of the judge. The base salary of a prosecutor is 85% of the average salary of a judge. The gross annual salaries were calculated on a 14-

months basis as judges and prosecutors have the right to two additional monthly salaries paid in May and November. Slovenia: the figure given for the first instance court is the lowest possible salary. Spain: it is not possible to give a single net annual salary as it varies according to the individually applicable tax. Switzerland: the judge’s and prosecutor’s salaries correspond to the average salary paid in 22 cantons. "the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia": in 2009, the Parliament adopted a legislation in which public prosecutors are paid an equal salary to judges on the same instance level. UK-England and Wales: the figure given is for judicial salary group 7. In 2008/2009 judicial salaries ranged from 93.870€ (which includes London weighting) for Asylum Support Tribunal Adjudicators, the only post below group 7), to 245.915€ for salary group 1 (Lord Chief Justice). The judge’s net annual salary can not be given as it depends on individual tax and national insurance. The gross and average net salary provided for the prosecutor is for a national based prosecutor. For a London based prosecutor, the salaries are higher (the gross salary was 33.610€, the average net salary 23.728€). UK-Northern Ireland: averages have been provided. A net annual salary can not be given as it depends on individual national insurance code, tax code and rate of contribution to the pension scheme.

ADLİ  YARDIM  

•  Adli  yardım  bütçesi,  bir  ülkenin  hukuk  sistemini  erişebilir  hale  gejrme  çabasını  gösterir.(Avrupa  Konseyi  Etkin  Yargı  Komisyonu)    

•  “Adli  yardımın  amacı,  bireylerin  hak  arama  özgürlüklerinin  önündeki  engelleri  aşmak  ve  hak  arama  özgürlüğünün  kullanımında  eşitliği  sağlamak  üzere,  avukatlık  ücrejni  ve  yargılama  giderlerini  karşılama  olanağı  bulunmayanların  avukatlık  hizmetlerinden  yararlandırılmasıdır.”  Türkiye  Barolar  Birliği  Adli  Yardım  Yönetmeliği  Md  1  

2008  yılında  100,000  ülke  sakini  başına  adli  yardım  sağlanan  davaların  sayısı  ve  kamu  bütçesinden  dava  başına  ayrılan  adli  yardımın  ortalama  miktarı    

Kaynak:  CEPEJ  2010  Raporı  

52

Two thirds of the states or entities foresee the possibility of granting legal aid as regards the enforcement of judicial decisions. Some systems enable to grant legal aid within the framework of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) or transactional procedures (Bulgaria, France, Netherlands, Portugal, Slovakia)2. Legal aid can also consist in bearing the fees of technical advisors or experts in the framework of judicial expertises (Belgium, Slovenia, Spain), preparing the documents that are needed to file a judicial proceeding (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, UK-Scotland), or bearing (totally or partially) the cost of other legal professionals such as notaries, bailiffs (Greece, Turkey) or even private detectives (Italy). Travel costs can also be born by the legal aid system (Sweden). Finally, it is worth stressing that only 5 member states have allowed a free access to all courts: France, Iceland, Luxembourg, Monaco and Spain. This generalised access to court must be born in mind when comparing the legal aid budgets of these states with the budgets of other states which also draw revenues from court fees. 3.2 The budget for legal aid In chapter 2, budgetary data are given on the budget for legal aid in the member states in absolute numbers, per inhabitant and as a percentage of per capita GDP. In addition to this information, it is useful to identify the number of cases (criminal and other than criminal cases) that are supported through legal aid. On this basis, a calculation can be made on the average amount of legal aid allocated per case. 27 states or entities were able to provide data on the number of cases granted with legal aid. Therefore, it is possible to calculate the average amount of legal aid per case. Table 3.3 Number of legal aid cases per 100.000 inhabitants and average amount allocated in the public budget for legal aid per case in 2008 (Q24, Q13, Q14)

Country

Cases granted with legal aid per 100 000 inhabitants (total)

Criminal cases granted with legal aid per 100 000 inhabitants

Other than criminal cases granted with legal aid per 100 000 inhabitants

Average amount of legal aid allocated per case

Average amount of legal aid allocated per criminal case

Average amount of legal aid allocated per other than criminal case

Armenia 66.9 66.9 164 € 164 € Austria 165.9 Belgium 1 422.8 397 € Bosnia & Herzegovina 69.5 36.2 33.3 1 928 € 3 700 € Bulgaria 562.8 113 € Croatia 32.7 32.7 Denmark 62.9 (12 369 €) Estonia 2 612.3 2 408.8 203.4 84 € 76 € 189 € Finland 1 609.8 712.9 896.9 663 € France 1 392.0 626.8 765.2 353 € 263 € 427 € Georgia 210.0 192.7 17.3 130 € Hungary 435.9 28.2 407.7 7 € Ireland 1 419.3 1 249.7 169.6 1 432 € 1 001 € 4 619 € Italy 247.1 165.3 81.8 787 € 898 € 563 € Lithuania 1 313.5 1 043.6 270.0 94 € Luxembourg 740.0 714 € Moldova 125.7 125.7 56 € 56 € Montenegro 187.4 186.4 1.0 132 € 133 € Netherlands 2 482.3 963.4 1 518.9 1 029 € 994 € 1 052 € Portugal 1 036.9 331 € Romania 676.9 30 € Russian Federation 991.9 38 € San Marino 3.2 Slovakia 13.7 1 218 € Slovenia 322.9 42.1 431 €

2 See Chapter 6.1.3 below.

53

Country

Cases granted

with legal aid

per 100 000

inhabitants

(total)

Criminal cases

granted with

legal aid per 100

000 inhabitants

Other than

criminal cases

granted with

legal aid per 100

000 inhabitants

Average

amount of legal

aid allocated

per case

Average

amount of legal

aid allocated

per criminal

case

Average

amount of legal

aid allocated

per other than

criminal case

Spain 1 389.6 349 €

Switzerland 510.3

1 911 €

FYROMacedonia 141.3 139.5 1.7 614 € 120 € Turkey 8 298.6 4 276.9 4 021.7 8 € 13 € 3 € UK-England & Wales 3 051.1 1 144.4 1 906.7 1 131 € 1 931 € 651 € UK-Northern Ireland 4 843.9 1 740.2 3 103.7 1 021 € 1 656 € 598 € UK-Scotland 5 975.1 3 748.9 2 226.2 537 € 558 € 429 € Average 1 506.0 994.7 757.3 536 € 826 € 2 011 €

Median 866.0 626.8 169.6 353 € 411 € 598 €

Minimum 32.7 28.2 1.0 7 € 13 € 3 €

Maximum 8 298.6 4 276.9 4 021.7 1 928 € 3 700 € 12 369 €

Comments Albania: legal aid for non-criminal matters has been developed since 2010. France: since 2008, the annual public budget for legal aid has not only been fed through funds authorized by the law on finances but has also been completed by the amount of the legal aid spending recovered by the state against the convicted parties condemned to pay court fees and who are not subject to legal aid. This amount is directly allocated to the Ministry of Justice. In 2008, an amount of 8,9 million Euros has then been transferred to the Ministry of Justice by the Ministry entrusted with the budget which enables to spend more than the amount authorized by the law on finances. Are not taken into account here, the cases which have not been addressed by the Legal Aid Offices and for which legal aid is granted automatically under the following circumstances: investigation custody, disciplinary procedure, prison isolation. Hungary: only litigious cases are taken into account here. In non-litigious matters, 9.621 persons have been granted, in addition, legal advice and assistance for the drafting of legal documents and 29.941 persons have been given advice by the staff of the legal assistance service. Italy: the 2006 data which appears in the previous report regarding the amount allocated to legal aid for non criminal cases must be corrected (23.481.012 €). Moldova: the figures only take into account the cases from 1 July 2008 from which date the law on legal assistance was enforced. Montenegro: the legal framework of the legal aid system is being drafted. Slovakia: the number of legal aid cases represents only those handled by the Legal Aid Centre. The number of cases where lawyers are appointed free of charge by the judge in civil proceedings is not available. The number of criminal cases where an ex officio counsel is appointed for free to the defendant is not available. Slovenia: the two legal aid systems (which covered, on the one hand, all legal fields and, on the other hand, only criminal law cases) were merged on 1 September 2008. This evolution has had a significant impact on the 2008 data. Switzerland: data are those from 11 cantons which form a representative sample.

ÜLKELER   Personel    sayısı  

Mevcut   100  kişiye  düşen  

 personel  sayısı  

Bulgaristan   4884   9400   52  

Çek  C. 10505   22147   47  

Danimarka   5020   3645   138  

Fransa   29717   59655   50  

Almanya   37304   73592   51  

Macaristan   7602   15227   50  

İtalya   47688   58597   81  

Hollanda   12333   16416   75  

Polanya   26916   85313   32  

Romanya   12703   26718   48  

İspanya   24500   76771   32  

Türkiye   30532   122404   25  

Cezaevlerinde  100  Kişiye  Düşen  Personel  Sayısı    Ülkeler  Arası  Kıyaslama  (Kaynak:    ADAL  BAK.  CTE  Tetkik  Hakim  Hakan  Umut)  

Mahkum  Başına  Harcanan  Yıllık  Miktar-­‐  Ülkeler  Arası  Kıyaslama  

(Milli  Gelirler  için  kaynak:  Dünya  Bankası  2007  verileri)    

Ülke   Mahkum  Başına  Yapılan  Yıllık  Harcama  

Kişi  Başına  Milli  Gelir  

ABD    

20.000-­‐25.000  $   46.040  $  

Danimarka   Kapalı  cezaevi  için  141.292  $,  Açık  cezaevi  için  83.175  $  

54.910$  

İngiltere   63.900  $     42.740  $  

Güney  Afrika  Cumhuriyej    

5993  $     5760  $    

Türkiye   9230    $    

10.000  $    

Sorunlu  Alanlar/Göstergeler  •  Adalete  Erişimin  Sağlanması:  Adli  yardım  ödenekleri  

•  Yargıda  kapasite  yetersizliği:  Toplam  hakim  sayısı/Kişi  başına  düşen  hakim  sayısı/  Adliye  binalarının  fiziki  koşulları/  Hakim  maaşları  

•  Davaların  aşırı  derecede  uzunluğu:  AİHM  ihlal  kararları/Cezaevlerindeki  tutuklu&hükümlü  oranları  

•  Cezaevlerinde  kapasite  yetersizliği:  Mapus  başına  harcanan  yıllık  miktar/  mapus  başına  düşen  personel  sayısı/  Cezaevi  yatak  kapasitesi