Revista da EMERJ - V. 21 - N. 3 - Setembro/Dezembro - 2019 - Tomo 1

77  R. EMERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 21, n. 3, t. 1, p. 72-86, set.-dez., 2019  TOMO 1 The increasing use of indicators to evaluate and compare judicial systems may at first be difficult to understand. It is indeed pertinent to ask to what extent the diversity of arrangements and institutions through which justice is administered around the world can be grasped and equalized by a kind of one-size-fits-all toolbox of indicators. Answering this question would require a close look at the social processes surrounding the creation and use of indicators in the field of civil procedure. D. One can start along this path by assessing the impact of indicators on the reforms of the Italian civil justice system in the last ten years. In the early summer of 2014, the Renzi government announced a number of reforms of the judicial system. 14 The programme also included changes in the field of civil procedure, which were rapidly enacted in Autumn 2014. 15 These changes aim to both decrease the duration of civil proceedings at first instance and to reduce the huge backlog of cases before the Italian courts. Whether the legislator should take action is assessed through comparative data about the duration of civil proceedings in a dozen countries, drawn on the “Doing Business 2014” Report of the World Bank. Further numerical data about backlogs of cases, the “productivity” (i.e. clearance rate) of courts, and the duration of proceedings are taken from the 2014 edition of the “EU Justice Scoreboard”, issued by the EU Commission. 16 According to these surveys, when a business operating in Italy files a lawsuit, it must wait three times longer to obtain a final decision vis-a-vis competitors operating in Sweden, the best performing judicial system among those taken into consideration. The Italian government claims that undue delays hamper economic growth and, secondly, violate the right to a fair trial. 17 Relying on these data, the Italian government decided to take action, which involved promoting a kind of court-annexed arbitration, and negotiation supported by the parties’ counsel. 14 http://tinyurl.com/pnfz9tf , (zuletzt abgerufen 22.09.2017). 15 Decree no. 132/2014 and Law no. 162/2014. 16 http://preview.tinyurl.com/kvbxk4g, (zuletzt abgerufen 22.09.2017). 17 European Convention of Human Rights, Art. 6; Italian Constitution, Art. 111.