Statizoid

Enforcing contracts: Court automation (0-4) (DB17-20 methodology) by country

The court automation evaluates four aspects: (i) whether the initial complaint can be filed electronically; (ii) whether the initial complaint can be served electronically; (iii) whether court fees can be paid electronically; and (iv) whether judgments rendered in commercial matters are made available to the...

Countries reporting
188
Highest
4 DB17-20 methodology
Estonia
Lowest
0 DB17-20 methodology
Yemen
Median
0.5 DB17-20 methodology
Years covered
5
2015–2019
Data points
950

What the numbers show

Enforcing contracts: Court automation (0-4) (DB17-20 methodology) is currently reported for 188 countries. The highest value is 4 DB17-20 methodology in Estonia; the lowest is 0 DB17-20 methodology in Yemen.

The median across all reporting countries is 0.5 DB17-20 methodology, and the mean is 1.09 DB17-20 methodology.

Enforcing contracts: Court automation (0-4): full country ranking

#Country LatestYear 10-year changeTrend
1 Estonia 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 South Korea 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Lithuania 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Norway 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
1 Rwanda 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
1 Singapore 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
1 Slovakia 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
1 Turkey 4 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
9 Germany 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
9 Denmark 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
9 United Kingdom 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
9 Palau 3.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
13 United Arab Emirates 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
13 Australia 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
13 Brazil 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
13 Canada 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
13 China 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
13 Czechia 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
13 Israel 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
13 Italy 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
13 Kazakhstan 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
13 Mauritius 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
13 United States 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
13 Taiwan 3 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
25 Azerbaijan 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
25 Brunei 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
25 Switzerland 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
25 Spain 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
25 Finland 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
25 Georgia 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
25 Hungary 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
25 Malaysia 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
25 Puerto Rico 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
25 Portugal 2.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
35 Argentina 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
35 Armenia 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
35 Austria 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
35 Bulgaria 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
35 Chile 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
35 France 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
35 Greece 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
35 Croatia 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
35 India 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
35 Iceland 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
35 Latvia 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
35 Moldova 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
35 North Macedonia 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
35 Namibia 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
35 Netherlands 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
35 Romania 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
35 Saudi Arabia 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
35 Solomon Islands 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
35 Sweden 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
35 Ukraine 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
35 Uzbekistan 2 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
56 Antigua and Barbuda 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
56 Belize 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
56 Colombia 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
56 Dominica 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
56 Grenada 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
56 Saint Kitts and Nevis 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
56 Saint Lucia 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
56 Malawi 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
56 New Zealand 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
56 Poland 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
56 Paraguay 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
56 San Marino 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
56 Serbia 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
56 Slovenia 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
56 Saint Vincent and the Grenadines 1.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
71 Albania 1 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
71 Bahrain 1 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
71 Cyprus 1 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
71 Hong Kong 1 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
71 Iran 1 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — rising
71 Jordan 1 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
71 Japan 1 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
71 Maldives 1 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
71 Malta 1 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
71 Montenegro 1 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
71 Mongolia 1 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
71 Mauritania 1 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
71 Panama 1 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
71 Papua New Guinea 1 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
71 Thailand 1 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
71 Uruguay 1 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
71 Venezuela 1 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
71 Vietnam 1 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
89 Indonesia 0.61 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
90 Bangladesh 0.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
90 Bahamas 0.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
90 Barbados 0.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
90 Costa Rica 0.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
90 Fiji 0.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
90 Micronesia (country) 0.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
90 Guatemala 0.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
90 Ireland 0.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
90 Jamaica 0.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
90 Kenya 0.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
90 Kiribati 0.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
90 Sri Lanka 0.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
90 Lesotho 0.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
90 Luxembourg 0.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
90 Mexico 0.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
90 Marshall Islands 0.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
90 Pakistan 0.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
90 El Salvador 0.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
90 Eswatini 0.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
90 Seychelles 0.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
90 Tonga 0.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
90 Trinidad and Tobago 0.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
90 Uganda 0.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
90 Vanuatu 0.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
90 Samoa 0.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
90 South Africa 0.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
90 Zambia 0.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
90 Zimbabwe 0.5 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — volatile
118 Afghanistan 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Angola 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Burundi 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Belgium 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Benin 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Burkina Faso 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Bosnia and Herzegovina 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Belarus 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Bolivia 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Bhutan 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Botswana 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Central African Republic 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Cote d'Ivoire 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Cameroon 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Democratic Republic of Congo 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Congo 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Comoros 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Cape Verde 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Dominican Republic 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Algeria 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Ecuador 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Egypt 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Eritrea 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Ethiopia 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Gabon 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Ghana 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Guinea 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Gambia 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Guinea-Bissau 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Equatorial Guinea 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Guyana 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Honduras 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Haiti 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Iraq 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Kyrgyzstan 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Cambodia 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Kuwait 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Laos 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Lebanon 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Liberia 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Libya 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Morocco 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Madagascar 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Mali 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Myanmar 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Mozambique 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Niger 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Nigeria 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Nicaragua 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Nepal 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Oman 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Peru 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Philippines 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Palestine 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Qatar 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Russia 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Sudan 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Senegal 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Sierra Leone 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Somalia 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 South Sudan 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Sao Tome and Principe 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Suriname 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Syria 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Chad 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Togo 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Tajikistan 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 East Timor 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Tunisia 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Tanzania 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat
118 Yemen 0 DB17-20 methodology 2019 — flat

Regions and income groups

Aggregates are excluded from the country ranking above so that a region can never outrank a country.

  • Kosovo 0 DB17-20 methodology

About this data

Indicator
Enforcing contracts: Court automation (0-4) (DB17-20 methodology)
Unit
DB17-20 methodology
Source
World Bank
Licence
CC BY 4.0 (World Bank Open Data)
Coverage
190 places, 950 data points, 2015–2019
Last refreshed

The court automation evaluates four aspects: (i) whether the initial complaint can be filed electronically; (ii) whether the initial complaint can be served electronically; (iii) whether court fees can be paid electronically; and (iv) whether judgments rendered in commercial matters are made available to the public. The index is computed based on the methodology in the DB17-20 studies.