Revista da EMERJ - V. 21 - N. 2 - Maio/Agosto - 2019

 R. EMERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 21, n. 2, p. 11-39, Maio-Agosto, 2019  18 by 365 (days) 21 . According to this formula 22 , in 2013 the disposition time by the Supreme Courts amounted to slightly more than three years and three months (1,193days). These indicators (in particular the latter) are of limited value, how- ever, as they can only give an overview of the average duration of cases; they fail to take into account the moment in which the appeal has been lodged, as well as the validity, contents, and complexity of the cases. They fail, thus, to differentiate the flow of cases into discrete classes and to determine the real duration of the cases accordingly. By way of example, consider the average duration in 2013 (1,193 days), which was about an 18% increase in comparison to 2012. 23 At first sight, one might think that this increase in the average duration of litigation is a sign of a worsening of the situation. Quite the opposite holds true, as the increase was a result of successful efforts to tackle the backlog of cases. In fact, the greater the number of preexisting proceedings the Court disposes of in a given time span, the more the average length of resolved cases will increase in the same period 24 , but of course this will be a temporary increase. Court delays are not the only consequence of the heavy workload and the flood of applications. The large numbers of decisions requires a large number of judges: in 2013 there were 121 civil judges who decided approximately 240 cases per capita 25 : subtracting 30 days of holidays and 52 weekends from 365 day, each judge of the Supreme Court writes slightly 21 Cf. CEPEJ , Report on European Judicial Systems, p. 190 f.: “A case turnover ratio and a disposition time indicator pro- vide further insight into how a judicial system manages its flow of cases. Generally, a case turnover ratio and disposition time compares the number of resolved cases during the observed period and the number of unresolved cases at the end of the observed period. The ratios measure how quickly a judicial system (or a court) ‘turns over’ the cases received – that is, how long it takes for a type of case to be resolved. The relationship between the number of cases that are resolved during an observed period and the number of unresolved cases at the end of the period can be expressed in two ways. The first measures the share of resolved cases from the same category in the remaining backlog […].The second possibility, which relies on the first data, determines the number of days necessary for a pending case to be solved in court. This prospective indicator […] is an indicator of timeframe, more precisely of disposition time, which is calculated by dividing 365 days in a year by the case turnover ratio […]. It needs to be mentioned that this ratio does not provide a clear estimate of the average time needed to process each case”. 22 A slightly different formula used to calculate delay is (C1 + C2) : (E + U) = g. C1 is the number of proceedings pending at the beginning of a period (normally, a year), C2 is the number of proceedings pending at the beginning of the following period, E is the number of cases filed during the year, U is the number of cases disposed of during the year, and finally g is the average duration in years and fractions of years. 23 Ministero della giustizia , Piano della performance 2015–2017, p. 15. 24 Cf. Corte suprema di cassazione , Relazione sull’amministrazione della giustizia nell’anno 2013, www.cortedicassazione. it, p. 60. 25 Cf. Corte suprema di cassazione , Relazione sull’amministrazione della giustizia nell’anno 2014, p. 61.