Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) in Equatorial Guinea
Equatorial Guinea: Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) was 0.5 DB16-20 methodology in 2019. ▬ Flat
Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) in Equatorial Guinea, 2015–2019
Source: World Bank. Measured in DB16-20 methodology.
Analysis
The most recent figure for enforcing contracts: case management (0-6) in Equatorial Guinea is 0.5 DB16-20 methodology, measured in 2019. That is the highest value across all 5 years on record.
That represents a change of unchanged over five years.
Equatorial Guinea ranks 152nd of 191 countries on this measure, in the bottom quarter.
Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) in Equatorial Guinea, year by year
| Year | DB16-20 methodology | Change |
|---|---|---|
| 2015 | 0.5 DB16-20 methodology | — |
| 2016 | 0.5 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2017 | 0.5 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2018 | 0.5 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
| 2019 | 0.5 DB16-20 methodology | +0.0% |
Equatorial Guinea compared with similar countries
- Equatorial Guinea's 0.5 DB16-20 methodology is below the median for upper middle income countries, which is 2.25 DB16-20 methodology, 22% of the median. (56 countries reporting)
- Equatorial Guinea's 0.5 DB16-20 methodology is below the median for Sub-Saharan Africa, which is 1 DB16-20 methodology, 50% of the median. (48 countries reporting)
Countries ranked near Equatorial Guinea
- 152 Burundi 0.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 152 Democratic Republic of Congo 0.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 152 Djibouti 0.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 152 Dominican Republic 0.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 152 Guatemala 0.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 152 Haiti 0.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 152 Lebanon 0.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 152 Nepal 0.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 152 Netherlands 0.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 152 Nicaragua 0.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
- 152 Venezuela 0.5 DB16-20 methodology compare
More reference data data for Equatorial Guinea
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Agricultural Soils 0.0083 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure applied to Soils 0.0013 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Indirect emissions (N2O) - Manure left on Pasture 0.007 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) (AR5) - Manure applied to Soils 1.11 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) from N2O (AR5) - Agricultural 9.48 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (CH4) - Manure Management 0.0337 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (CH4) - IPCC Agriculture 0.5218 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (CH4) - Enteric Fermentation 0.4882 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) from CH4 (AR5) - Manure Management 0.9434 (2050)
- Emission Totals - Emissions (CO2eq) from CH4 (AR5) - IPCC Agriculture 14.61 (2050)
Frequently asked questions
- What is enforcing contracts: case management (0-6) in Equatorial Guinea?
- Enforcing contracts: case management (0-6) in Equatorial Guinea was 0.5 DB16-20 methodology in 2019, according to the World Bank.
- What is the highest enforcing contracts: case management (0-6) recorded in Equatorial Guinea?
- The highest recorded value was 0.5 DB16-20 methodology in 2015.
- What is the lowest enforcing contracts: case management (0-6) recorded in Equatorial Guinea?
- The lowest recorded value was 0.5 DB16-20 methodology in 2015.
- How does Equatorial Guinea rank for enforcing contracts: case management (0-6)?
- Equatorial Guinea ranks 152nd out of 191 countries with data for 2019.
- Where does this Equatorial Guinea data come from?
- The figures come from the World Bank, published as part of Enforcing contracts: Case management (0-6) (DB16-20 methodology). Statizoid updates them automatically from the source API.
Download this data
CSV · JSON — 5 observations, free to reuse under CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data).
About this data
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.