Statizoid

Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) (DB16-20 methodology) by country

The case management evaluates six aspects of the court case management system: (i) whether there are regulations setting time standards for key court events; (ii) whether there are regulations on adjournments and continuances; (iii) whether performance measurement reports are publicly available; (iv) whether a...

Countries reporting
165
Highest
5.5 DB16-20 methodology
Australia
Lowest
0 DB16-20 methodology
Zambia
Median
2 DB16-20 methodology
Years covered
5
2015–2019
Data points
955

What the numbers show

Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) (DB16-20 methodology) is currently reported for 165 countries. The highest value is 5.5 DB16-20 methodology in Australia; the lowest is 0 DB16-20 methodology in Zambia.

The median across all reporting countries is 2 DB16-20 methodology, and the mean is 2.31 DB16-20 methodology.

Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6): full country ranking

#Country LatestYear 10-year changeTrend
1 Australia 5.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 China 5.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
1 Latvia 5.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
4 United Kingdom 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
4 Greece 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
4 Kazakhstan 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
4 Namibia 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
4 Portugal 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
4 Rwanda 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
4 Turkey 5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
11 United States 4.7 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
12 Denmark 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
12 Israel 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
12 Lithuania 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
12 Singapore 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
12 Serbia 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
12 Taiwan 4.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
18 United Arab Emirates 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
18 Argentina 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
18 Austria 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
18 Brunei 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
18 Hungary 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
18 Italy 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
18 South Korea 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
18 Malta 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
18 Malaysia 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
18 Norway 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
18 Romania 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
18 Russia 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
18 Slovakia 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
18 Sweden 4 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
32 Chile 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
32 Costa Rica 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
32 Estonia 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
32 Georgia 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
32 Croatia 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
32 North Macedonia 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — falling
32 Montenegro 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
32 Puerto Rico 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
32 Paraguay 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
32 Saudi Arabia 3.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
42 Mexico 3.34 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Armenia 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
43 Antigua and Barbuda 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Azerbaijan 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
43 Bahrain 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
43 Brazil 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Bhutan 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Cape Verde 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Czechia 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Dominica 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 France 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Grenada 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Saint Kitts and Nevis 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Saint Lucia 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Moldova 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Mauritius 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
43 New Zealand 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Slovenia 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
43 Ukraine 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
43 Uruguay 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
43 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 3 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
63 Indonesia 2.78 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
64 Bulgaria 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
64 Bosnia and Herzegovina 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
64 Belarus 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
64 Botswana 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
64 Cote d'Ivoire 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
64 Spain 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
64 Nigeria 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
64 Peru 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
64 Kosovo 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
64 Kosovo (UNSCR 1244) 2.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
74 Canada 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
74 Ecuador 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
74 Finland 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
74 Fiji 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
74 Hong Kong 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
74 Honduras 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
74 Iceland 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
74 Jamaica 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
74 Jordan 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
74 Kenya 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
74 Liberia 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
74 Morocco 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
74 Madagascar 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
74 Marshall Islands 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
74 Mozambique 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
74 Malawi 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
74 Sierra Leone 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
74 El Salvador 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
74 Eswatini 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
74 Thailand 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
74 Tajikistan 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
74 Trinidad and Tobago 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
74 South Africa 2 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
97 Angola 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
97 Albania 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
97 Belize 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
97 Bolivia 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
97 Colombia 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
97 Cyprus 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
97 Germany 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
97 Guinea-Bissau 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
97 Guyana 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
97 India 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
97 Philippines 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
97 Palau 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
97 Papua New Guinea 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
97 Poland 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
97 Solomon Islands 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
97 Sao Tome and Principe 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
97 Tanzania 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
97 Uganda 1.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
115 Pakistan 1.15 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
116 Afghanistan 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
116 Belgium 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
116 Benin 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
116 Burkina Faso 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
116 Bangladesh 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
116 Bahamas 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
116 Barbados 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
116 Switzerland 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
116 Ethiopia 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
116 Micronesia (country) 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
116 Ghana 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
116 Ireland 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
116 Iran 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
116 Japan 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
116 Kyrgyzstan 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
116 Cambodia 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
116 Kiribati 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
116 Kuwait 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
116 Sri Lanka 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
116 Lesotho 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
116 Luxembourg 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
116 Myanmar 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
116 Mongolia 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
116 Mauritania 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
116 Niger 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — rising
116 Oman 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
116 Panama 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
116 Senegal 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
116 San Marino 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
116 Seychelles 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
116 East Timor 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
116 Tonga 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
116 Uzbekistan 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
116 Vietnam 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
116 Vanuatu 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
116 Zimbabwe 1 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
152 Burundi 0.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
152 Democratic Republic of Congo 0.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
152 Djibouti 0.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
152 Dominican Republic 0.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
152 Equatorial Guinea 0.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
152 Guatemala 0.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
152 Haiti 0.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
152 Lebanon 0.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
152 Nicaragua 0.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
152 Netherlands 0.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
152 Nepal 0.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
152 Venezuela 0.5 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — flat
164 Samoa 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
164 Zambia 0 DB16-20 methodology 2019 — volatile

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) by country. Statizoid. Retrieved 25 September 2026, from https://reference.statizoid.com/stat/enforcing-contracts-case-management-0-6-db16-20-methodology/

Embed or link this data

Paste this into a page to link back to these figures. The data itself is free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data); please keep the attribution.

<a href="https://reference.statizoid.com/stat/enforcing-contracts-case-management-0-6-db16-20-methodology/">Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) by country</a> — Statizoid

About this data

Indicator
Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) (DB16-20 methodology)
Unit
DB16-20 methodology
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
191 places, 955 data points, 2015–2019
Last refreshed

The case management evaluates six aspects of the court case management system: (i) whether there are regulations setting time standards for key court events; (ii) whether there are regulations on adjournments and continuances; (iii) whether performance measurement reports are publicly available; (iv) whether a pretrial conference is available; (v) whether an electronic case management system for judges is available; and (vi) whether an electronic case management system for lawyers is available. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.