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

 R. EMERJ, Rio de Janeiro, v. 21, n. 3, t. 1, p. 72-86, set.-dez., 2019  78 TOMO 1 This short account brings to light a number of significant elements: first, the use of indicators to evaluate the performance of a judicial system in comparative perspective; second, the reliance on indicators created or propagated by international institutions, such as the World Bank and the European Commission, rather than on those produced by domestic agencies such as the National Institute for Statistics (Istat), 18 which is the main producer of statistical data in Italy, or the Ministry of Justice 19 , which is the main producer of judicial statistics, institutions which are in a closer position to gather data about the Italian judicial system; third, the overriding consideration that the performance of the domestic judicial system primarily impacts the country’s economic growth, and as a secondary concern delay jeopardises the right to a fair trial; fourth, the capacity of indicators to determine the need for reforms, stimulating them, and orientating their substance. Yet, the most surprising element does not emerge from the above narrative. It is the complete silence of Italian legal scholarship in civil procedure about this set of phenomena, 20 although their existence along with the reform process of civil procedure can be traced back to 2005, less than two years after the first appearance of the Doing Business Reports. 21 This is easily explained through illuminating the differences between the key aspects of the reform process in Italy before and after the advent of the Doing Business Project. E. Civil litigation in Italy is governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, which entered into force in 1942 and is still in force, although it has been heavily amended. 22 Most reforms had been adopted by specific laws, dedicated to civil procedure, mostly amending the code. 23 They pursued different, even opposing goals over time, and have been more or less successful at achieving these goals: lawyers’ laziness had been perhaps 18 www.istat.it/en , (zuletzt abgerufen 22.09.2017). 19 www.giustizia.it, (zuletzt abgerufen 22.09.2017). 20 Graziadei (Hg.), Annuario di diritto comparato e di studi legislativi, 2012, which does not specifically address the use of indicators in the field of civil procedure, the only (partial) exception being Takahashi, The emergence of judicial statistics in England and Wales, 81. 21 The first report Doing Business 2004 was published in 2003. 22 De Cristofaro/Trocker , Civil Justice in Italy, 2010, 1. 23 Cf. above all Law no. 581 of 1950; Law no. 533 of 1973; Law no. 533 of 1990; Law no. 374 of 1991; Law no. 51 of 1998.