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
117
Highest
4 DB17-20 methodology
Estonia
Lowest
0.5 DB17-20 methodology
Zimbabwe
Median
1.5 DB17-20 methodology
Years covered
5
2015–2019
Data points
955

What the numbers show

Enforcing contracts: Court automation (0-4) (DB17-20 methodology) is currently reported for 117 countries. The highest value is 4 DB17-20 methodology in Estonia; the lowest is 0.5 DB17-20 methodology in Zimbabwe.

The median across all reporting countries is 1.5 DB17-20 methodology, and the mean is 1.74 DB17-20 methodology.

The gap between the highest and lowest reporting country is a factor of about 8.

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

Share, cite or embed this page

Cite this page

Enforcing contracts: Court automation (0-4) by country. Statizoid. Retrieved 29 September 2026, from https://reference.statizoid.com/stat/enforcing-contracts-court-automation-0-4-db17-20-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-court-automation-0-4-db17-20-methodology/">Enforcing contracts: Court automation (0-4) by country</a> — Statizoid

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
191 places, 955 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.