Transparency in the Cost of Justice - Statistics Project Example

Transparency in the Cost of Justice May 29, Table of Contents Introduction 4 Introduction 4 1. Types of cases studied 4 2. Analysis of Data 5 2. Analysis of Data 5 2.1. Costs of Justice Case Study 1 A 5 2.2. Costs of Justice Case Study 1 B 10 2.3. Costs of Justice Case Study 4A 16 2.4. Costs of Justice Case Study 4B 21 2.5. Costs of Doing Business 26 2.6. Average costs for each cost head 30 2.7. Answer to tables for each case study 34 3. Conclusions 36 3. Conclusions 36 References 36 References 36 Appendix 39 Appendix 39 A1. Table of costs 39 A2. Computed costs 53 A3. Case details 83 List of Figures and Tables As with all the cases above, the pattern that the table and figure immediately above shows is that the lawyer cost is always higher than the two other variables, which are court cost and bailiff cost. Separate analysis is therefore performed for the lawyer cost and the two other costs. 28 Graph 2.6. Court costs for the four cases 31 Graph 2.7. Bailiff costs for the four cases 32 Graph 2.8. Lawyer costs for the four cases 33 Table 2.6. Average costs and std. deviation for the four cases 33 Graph 2.8. Cost analysis of the four cases 34 1. Introduction This document presents an analysis of litigation cost data collected from lawyers based in different European countries. The analysis is carried out for four model case studies, and the litigation costs in 28 European countries are compared. Data was also obtained from Doing Business, an organisation that compiles litigation costs. Cost data was obtained for four cost heads, namely court costs, lawyer costs, bailiff costs and appeal costs. Four types of court cases are considered in this document and the costs are computed for each case. Cost data is presented in Appendix A1. Table of Costs and A2. Computed Costs. 1.1. Types of cases studied The four cases considered are: CA1A: National situation: a couple gets married. Later they separate and agree to a divorce. CA1B: Transnational situation: Two nationals from a same Member State (Member State A) get married and later file for a divorce. CA4A: National situation: Commercial Law and Contract CA4B: Transnational situation: Commercial Law and Contract Detailed information about the four cases is given in Appendix A3. Case details 2. Analysis of Data This chapter analyses the court costs data, which were collected from different sources. Graphs are used to represent the data and further analysis is performed using statistical functions of MS Excel1. 278 2.1. Costs of Justice Case Study 1 A Costs are obtained for each country for different cost heads in Euros for court costs, lawyer costs and bailiff costs. Table 1: Raw Data on three prevailing cost for CA1A Costs/Country Court Cost Lawyer Cost Bailiff Cost Germany 247 391 0 Austria 210 2049 0 Belgium 52 1500 0 Bulgaria 18 82 0 Cyprus 397 1200 930 Croatia 0 200 0 Denmark 89 1500 0 Spain 0 1500 150 Estonia 20 2237 460 Finland 116 975 110 France 0 975 256 Greece 12 1500 0 Hungary 48 200 48 Ireland 0 3000 25 Italy 0 4000 0 Latvia 71 711 0 Lithuania 29 1000 29 Luxembourg 0 2500 0 Malta 150 400 14 Netherlands 196 1200 81 Poland 225 2860 0 Portugal 336 1500 10 Czech Republic 46 364 0 Romania 8 500 32 UK 501 1847 120 Slovakia 90 300 0 Slovenia 36 587 0 Sweden 48 427 0 The data given in the table are further computed into a graph for better and visible interpretation. Figure 1: Graphical Representation of CA1A From the data represented above, there are a number of statistical significances and interpretations that can be made. Lawyer Cost In all the 38 countries, the lawyer cost turned out to be the modal variable with highest cost. The country with the highest lawyer cost is Italy, which charges 4000. The country with the least lawyer cost is Bulgaria, charging 28. Based on this, the countries can be categorised into three, so as to have a frequency distribution. To ensure that that division are even, the lowest lawyer cost is subtracted from the highest and divided by 3. That is, (4000 – 28) / 3 = 3972 / 3 = 1324 From the figure of 1324, all countries charging from 28 to 1324 can be put in one frequency distribution category and referred to as low lawyer cost countries. Those from 1324 to 2648 can also be put in another frequency distribution and referred to as medium lawyer cost countries. Finally, those from 2648 to 4000 will be put in another category and referred to as high lawyer cost countries. From this statistical analysis, a new table is constructed and interpreted below. Table 2: Frequency Distribution of Countries according to Lawyer Cost Low Lawyer Cost Countries (28-1324) Medium Lawyer Cost Countries (1325-2648) High Lawyer Cost Countries (2649 – 4000) Germany Bulgaria Croatia Finland France Hungary Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Czech Republic Romania Slovakia Slovenia Sweden Austria Belgium Cyprus Denmark Spain Estonia Greece Luxembourg Portugal UK Ireland Italy Poland From the able above, the actual liability on those seeking justice in terms of the amount of money to pay to lawyers is clearly exemplified. Those in the first column of the table would have to pay the lowest form of costs as compared to those in column 2 and 3. Those in column 2 would also have to pay more than those in column 1 but less than countries in column 3. Countries in column 3 are those that pay the highest for divorce cases where distribution of matrimonial property is not involved and where the parties involved in the litigation from the same countries. Other Costs There are two other costs, which are court cost and bailiff cost. Table 1 indicates that these two forms of costs are not as high as lawyer cost. Very significantly, it will be noted that, there is no country that has any of these other costs being higher than lawyer costs. This means that personal services are generally higher in terms of cost than institutional cost. Of the three other costs, the instance where parties pay the least is in bailiff cost. Table on shows that, 15 out 28 countries; representing 53.57% does not take any fee at all from bailiff. The highest bailiff cost is in Cyprus, where 490 is charged. Table 3: Statistical analysis of costs for CA1A   Court cost Lawyer Bailiff Mean 105.1785714 1268.035714 80.89285714 Standard Error 25.07713252 185.2987755 36.72190425 Median 48 1100 0 Mode 0 1500 0 Standard Deviation 132.6957125 980.5089564 194.3140527 Sample Variance 17608.15212 961397.8135 37757.95106 Kurtosis 2.089703803 0.804057574 14.23007112 Skewness 1.607860565 1.034372301 3.606477372 Range 501 3918 930 Minimum 0 82 0 Maximum 501 4000 930 Sum 2945 35505 2265 Count 28 28 28 In order to have a vivid interpretation of the statistical table as presented in table 2, one major issue will be looked at, which is the relationship between variables. In this it can be said that differences in mean between lawyer cost is very wide apart from court cost and bailiff cost, whiles court cost and bailiff cost are relatively close. Between the court cost and bailiff cost also, the modes are the same, which is 0. This means that more countries within the region prefer not to charge any amount for people in CA1A to get bail and court hearing. Between the court cost and bailiff cost however, the maximum cost for bailiff is higher than that of court cost, but the mean for the two produces a reverse situation. 2.2. Costs of Justice Case Study 1 B Costs on case CA1B are obtained for each country for different cost heads in Euros for court costs, lawyer costs and bailiff costs. These costs are for the same situation of divorce where the couples were not from the same country but in a transnational situation. What is different here is that the countries stated are the countries where justice is being sought. When the cost involved in the 3 dependent variables were weighed for each country, the findings that were produced have been indicated in the table below. Table 4: Transnational Cost for Divorce Costs/Country Court Cost Lawyer Cost Bailiff Cost Germany 247 391 0 Austria 21 2,049 0 Belgium 52 15 0 Bulgaria 18 82 0 Cyprus 397 225 1,325 Croatia 0 200 0 Denmark 89 1,500 0 Spain 0 1,500 150 Estonia 20 4,793 460 Finland 116 975 110 France 21 975 256 Greece 12 1,500 0 Hungary 48 400 48 Ireland 0 3,000 25 Italy 0 4,000 0 Latvia 71 711 0 Lithuania 29 1,000 29 Luxembourg 0 2,500 150 Malta 150 400 14 Netherlands 196 1,200 81 Poland 485 2,860 0 Portugal 912 1,500 10 Czech Republic 46 364 0 Romania 8 500 32 UK 501 1,847 120 Slovakia 90 800 0 Slovenia 36 587 0 Sweden 48 427 0 The results in table 3 have been represented in the visual chart below Figure 2: Graphical Representation of Transnational Cost for Divorce From the costs provided in table 3 and figure 2, two major divisions of cost can be drawn, using discretional statistical evidence. These are lawyer cost and other costs. The divisions have been made given the fact that the lawyer costs are extremely higher in all cases, compared to the other costs, which are relatively lower. Lawyer Cost As it was done in the case CA1A, the 28 countries can be regrouped by the use of frequency distribution, categorised in three divisions. The divisions are low lawyer cost, medium lawyer cost, and high lawyer cost. To get the categorisations right, the highest cost, which is the cost of Estonia will be subtracted from the lowest cost, which is the cost of Bulgaria. After this, the amount will be divided by 3. This is computed as follows: (4973 – 15) / 3 = 4958 / 3 = 1652.67 ≡ 1653 Based on the value of 1653, all countries charging from 15 to 1653 will be categorised as low lawyer cost; those charging from 1653 to 3305 will be categorised as medium lawyer cost, whiles those charging from 3305 to 4973 will be categorised as high charging. With this in mind, the following table can be produced. Table 5: Frequency Distribution for Transnational Cost of Divorce Low Lawyer Cost Countries (15-1653) Medium Lawyer Cost Countries (1654-3305) High Lawyer Cost Countries (3306 – 4973) Germany Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Croatia Denmark Spain Finland France Greece Hungary Latvia Lithuania Malta Netherlands Portugal Czech Republic Romania Slovakia Slovenia Sweden Austria Ireland Italy Luxembourg Poland UK Estonia From table 4, it is indicated that 21 countries representing 75% of the total sample are in the low lawyer cost category. It means that for these countries, couples seeking divorce that does not involve matrimonial property distribution can be assured of a relatively lower cost of justice to get the services of lawyers. 6 countries, representing 21.43% of the sample are in the medium lawyer cost category, meaning the couples will pay higher than those in the low lawyer cost countries. As for the higher lawyer cost category, there was only 1 country, which represents 3.57% of the sample. There is a pattern created in the trend of lawyer cost, which is of statistical significance. That is, as the cost increases, the number of countries decreases. Other Costs In terms of the other cost, there are a number of patterns seen from table 3 and figure 2, which are of statistical relevance. The first of this is the fact that bailiff cost is the least charged in most of the countries in the sample. Very significantly, there were a total of 14 countries, representing 50% of the sample that did not charge bailiff cost at all. Surprising though, in most of the countries that charged bailiff cost, this cost was higher than court cost itself. This trend was seen in 7 out of the remaining 14 countries. These countries were Cyprus, Spain, Estonia, France, Ireland, Luxembourg, and Romania. In 2 countries, which were Hungary and Lithuania, the bailiff cost and court cost were the same. This means that only 5 countries, representing 17.86% hard court cost which were higher than bailiff cost. Table 6: Statistical analysis of costs for CA1B   Court Cost Lawyer Bailiff Mean 129.0357143 1296.464286 100.3571429 Standard Error 39.49407169 226.8834426 49.25245983 Median 47 975 5 Mode 0 1500 0 Standard Deviation 208.9829839 1200.554331 260.6195204 Sample Variance 43673.88757 1441330.702 67922.53439 Kurtosis 6.801262237 1.79344304 19.38291524 Skewness 2.509363563 1.43534674 4.214400867 Range 912 4778 1325 Minimum 0 15 0 Maximum 912 4793 1325 Sum 3613 36301 2810 Count 28 28 28 A number of relations will be looked for in other to make a statistical meaning from table 6. For example, the table shows great disparity between lawyer cost on one side and court cost and bailiff cost on the other. Whiles the court and bailiff costs are similar, the lawyer cost is far apart, indicating the highest source of cost to parties involved in CA1B. Between the court cost and bailiff cost, it is seen that even though the mean for court cost is higher, the maximum cost charged produces a reverse situation, having an effect on the range. The mode for court cost and bailiff cost also remains the same, indicating that more countries prefer to take nothing for these two variables. Comparative analysis of CA1A and CA1B: Comparing CA1A to CA1B, not much difference is seen in the statistical trend of events. This is because in both cases, parties had to pay the most for justice in terms of lawyer cost. In both cases also, the bailiff cost was the least. It was also seen that in both cases, transiting into an appeal required the payment of more money to get justice. In terms of the quantitative sums of money involved however, there is a clear indication that quantum of cost increased from CA1A, which involved partners in the same countries to CA1B, which involved countries from different countries. In the chart below, there is a comparison between the number of countries offering low lawyer cost, medium lawyer cost and high lawyer cost for CA1A and CA1B. 15 -10 – 3 21 - 6 – 1 Figure 3: Comparison between Lawyer Cost in CA1A and CA1B From the graph above, it is seen that in both CA1A and CA1B, the number of countries that charge high for lawyers reduce as the cost goes up. In CA1B however, there are more countries taking low lawyer cost as compared to CA1B. There were however more countries in the high lawyer cost category for the CA1A as compared to CA1B. 2.3. Costs of Justice Case Study 4A Costs are obtained for each country for different cost heads in Euros for court cost, lawyer costs, and bailiff costs. In this Case, the researcher emphasised on situations where contracts are signed between parties from the same nation. As with the previous case study, the 28 EU countries were used as independent variables and 3 major costs used as dependent variables. The dependent variables were court cost, lawyer cost and bailiff cost. In table 7 and figure 4, the cost incurred by parties going through court case, lawyer services, bail, and appeal are displayed and later given a statistical analysis. Table 7: Cost of Justice involving Contracts in 28 EU Countries Costs/Country Court Cost Lawyer Cost Bailiff Cost Germany 869 839 98 Austria 607 8,870 0 Belgium 35 2,000 420 Bulgaria 803 570 1,400 Cyprus 397 1,200 930 Croatia 15 700 200 Denmark 509 2,600 100 Spain 200 4,000 0 Estonia 20 4,793 2,029 Finland 164 6,000 418 France 50 5,000 130 Greece 633 1,800 80 Hungary 1,200 1,500 3,000 Ireland 70 4,000 100 Italy 178 6,000 150 Latvia 561 2,489 28 Lithuania 600 2,300 300 Luxembourg 0 3,000 1,050 Malta 654 1,020 14 Netherlands 440 7,500 81 Poland 1,174 3,332 400 Portugal 691 1,500 1,152 Czech Republic 800 1,607 107 Romania 8 2,000 2,000 UK 589 5,897 800 Slovakia 1,200 600 4,000 Slovenia 303 500 0 Sweden 48 2,140 0 Figure 4: Graphical Representation of Cost in Contracts Lawyer Cost Very readily, it is seen that in commercial law, the cost of settling for lawyers is higher than in the domestic cases. The figures indicate that the highest lawyer cost charged is 8870, which is paid in Austria. The least charged lawyer is 500, which is paid in Slovenia. From the same formula used earlier, there can be a categorisation of the countries into three frequency distribution divisions, namely low lawyer cost countries, medium lawyer cost countries and high lawyer cost countries. This is done by subtracting the lowest cost from the highest cost and dividing by 3 to get the average charge. This is mathematically represented as 8870 – 500 / 3 = 8370 / 3 = 2790 With 2790 found as the lower percentile, all countries charging from 500 to 2790 will be put in the low lawyer cost category, those charging from 2790 to 5580 will be put in the medium lawyer cost category, and 5580 to 8870 placed in the high lawyer cost category. With these emphasised, the table below gives a clear outlook of the categorisation. Table 8: Categorisation of Lawyer Cost for Contract Justice Low Lawyer Cost Countries (500 – 2790) Medium Lawyer Cost Countries (2791 - 5580) Low Lawyer Cost Countries (5580 – 8370) Germany Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Croatia Denmark Greece Hungary Latvia Lithuania Malta Portugal Czech Republic Romania Slovakia Slovenia Sweden Spain Estonia France Ireland Luxembourg Poland Austria Finland Italy Netherlands UK From the table above, it will be noticed that within the EU region, a lot of countries are in the low lawyer cost category as compared to the other categories. Of the total of 28 countries, 17 are in the low lawyer cost category, which represents 60.71% of the sample. 6 countries, representing 21.43% are in the medium lawyer cost category, and 5 countries representing 17.86% are in the high lawyer cost category. From the percentages, the statistical significance that can be drawn is that the number of frequencies within the distribution decreases as the lawyer cost increases. Other Costs There are two other costs given as part of the dependent variables. These are court cost, and bailiff cost. Among these two other costs, there is none of them that can readily be pointed to as the least charging. This is in contrast with what prevailed in the family case where the bailiff cost was free in most of the countries and the lowest among the three other dependent variables. With the contracts, it can be seen that there are some countries that actually charge higher for bailiff cost than court cost itself. Statistically, there are fifteen of such countries, which represent 53.58% of the total sample. As this percentage exceeds 50%, it can be said that the practice of paying more as bailiff cost than court cost is a common practice in the EU region. Four countries namely Austria, Spain, Slovenia, and Sweden however do not charge anything as bailiff cost. Table 9: Statistical analysis of costs for CA4A   Court Cost Lawyer Bailiff Mean 457.7857143 2991.321429 678.1071429 Standard Error 72.17907179 425.6785186 188.5324929 Median 474.5 2220 175 Mode 1200 2000 0 Standard Deviation 381.9357477 2252.478997 997.6201808 Sample Variance 145874.9153 5073661.634 995246.0251 Kurtosis -0.706973942 0.355902202 4.096855788 Skewness 0.483023555 1.036768563 2.047192339 Range 1200 8370 4000 Minimum 0 500 0 Maximum 1200 8870 4000 Sum 12818 83757 18987 Count 28 28 28 Unlike the cases involving divorce, these contract cases have bailiff mean that is higher than court mean. The fact that maximum bailiff cost is higher than maximum court cost is however maintained. But again, the mode obtained for all three variables are different, which has not been the case in earlier cases. One other trend that remains same is that the difference in mean between lawyer cost on one side and court cost and bailiff cost on the other are so vast that they cannot be compared. However, the mean with court cost and bailiff cost are relatively similar. This is however not reflected in their range, as the ranges are wide apart. The minimum for court and bailiff courts are however the same. 2.4. Costs of Justice Case Study 4B Costs are obtained for each country for different cost heads in Euros for court cost, lawyer costs, and bailiff costs. In Case 4, which was code named CA4B, the same type of contract cases was revealed. This time round however, it was a transnational situation, involving parties from two different countries. The countries stated as independent variables are the countries where the justice is being sought. In table 10, the cost involved in court case, lawyer cost and bailiff cost are given for the 28 countries. This is later represented in figure 5, using bar charts. Table 10: Transnational Costs Involved in Contract Cases Costs/Country Court Cost Lawyer Cost Bailiff Cost Germany 869 839 98 Austria 607 8,870 0 Belgium 35 2,000 420 Bulgaria 803 570 1,400 Cyprus 397 2,250 1,325 Croatia 15 700 400 Denmark 509 2,600 100 Spain 200 4,000 0 Estonia 20 4,793 2,029 Finland 164 6,000 418 France 50 5,000 130 Greece 633 1,800 80 Hungary 1,200 1,500 3,000 Ireland 70 4,000 100 Italy 178 6,000 150 Latvia 561 2,489 28 Lithuania 600 2,300 300 Luxembourg 0 3,000 1,050 Malta 654 1,020 14 Netherlands 440 7,500 81 Poland 1,174 3,332 400 Portugal 691 1,500 1,152 Czech Republic 800 2,727 107 Romania 8 2,000 2,000 UK 589 5,897 800 Slovakia 1,200 1,000 4,000 Slovenia 303 990 0 Sweden 48 2,600 0 Figure 5: Graphical Representation of Contract Costs From the table and figure reviewed above, there is an indication of differences in the cost that has to be incurred for justice. Two patterns are however drawn, where the lawyer costs are quantitatively higher than the other three costs. It was for this reason that the other three costs were not statistically analysed with the lawyer cost. Because of this, there is a separate analysis for the lawyer cost from the other costs. Lawyer Cost To ensure consistency in the study, the same procedure for categorising the lawyer costs that has been used before will be used. This requires setting three frequency distributions, which are low cost, medium cost, and high cost. To get this, the lowest cost, which is 570 charged in Bulgaria, will be subtracted from the highest cost, which is 8870 charged in Austria. The resulting amount is them divided by 3. This is computed as follows (8870 – 570) / 3 = 8300 / 3 = 2766.67 ≡ 2767 From the percentile range of 2767, all countries charging below this amount will be categorised as low lawyer cost. Those between 2767 and 5533 will be categorised as being in the medium lawyer cost, then those above 5533 will be labelled as high lawyer cost. With this ideal in mind, the table below can be produced for the categorisation. Table 11: Categorisation of Transnational Cost of Justice Low Lawyer Cost Countries (570 – 2767) Medium Lawyer Cost Countries (2768 - 5533) Low Lawyer Cost Countries (5534 – 8870) Belgium Bulgaria Cyprus Croatia Denmark Greece Hungary Latvia Lithuania Malta Portugal Czech Republic Romania Slovakia Slovenia Sweden Spain Estonia France Ireland Luxembourg Poland Austria Finland Italy Netherlands UK As in the case of the national situation, there were 17 countries in the low lawyer cost, 6 in the medium lawyer cost, and 5 in the high lawyer cost. The percentages of these are given as 60.71%, 21.43%, and 17.86% respectively. Significantly, the number of countries charging high for lawyers decrease as the cost goes up. Other Costs This time round, the cost of bailiff is much lower as compare to the other costs, which are court cost and appeal cost. There were however good number of countries having their court cost going higher than the bailiff cost or the same. There were 14 such countries, which is 50% of the total sample. Since the percentage does not exceed 50%, there cannot be a generalisation that countries in the EU region charge more for bailiff than court cost. Table 12: Statistical analysis of costs for CA4B   CA4B CA4B CA4B   Court Cost Lawyer Bailiff Mean 457.7857143 3117.035714 699.3571429 Standard Error 72.17907179 410.6945449 189.2018058 Median 474.5 2544.5 225 Mode 1200 2000 0 Standard Deviation 381.9357477 2173.191261 1001.161852 Sample Variance 145874.9153 4722760.258 1002325.053 Kurtosis -0.706973942 0.510645042 3.800131643 Skewness 0.483023555 1.051881666 1.970571591 Range 1200 8300 4000 Minimum 0 570 0 Maximum 1200 8870 4000 Sum 12818 87277 19582 Count 28 28 28 The statistical table shows that with this case, the order of variables that put much cost on parties are lawyer, bailiff and court cost in a descending order. The difference between the lawyer cost, which is the highest paying fee is however fair more than the difference between the other two costs. In both court and bailiff cost, the minimum amounts one is likely to be charged is 0. Notwithstanding the fact that the mean for bailiff cost is higher than court cost, the most likely amount that one is likely to pay for bailiff cost is 0, whiles that of court cost is 1200, as showed by the mode. In times of lawyer cost, the least one is likely to pay is 570. Comparative analysis of CA4A and CA4B: In terms of categorisation for lawyer costs, there is no difference seen in the number of countries in each of the categories between CA4A and CA4B. With the other costs, the difference seen is that there are more countries that charge more for bailiff cost as compared to court cost when compared to transnational situation. 2.5. Costs of Doing Business The costs of doing business is analysed in each country for the roles of bailiff, lawyer and the court costs. Table 13: Raw Data for Cost of doing Business DB DB DB Court Cost Lawyer Bailiff Germany 1040.00 1320.00 480.00 Austria 820.00 2700.00 30.00 Belgium 940.00 2000.00 600.00 Bulgaria 1200.00 2000.00 1640.00 Cyprus 100.00 2160.00 1020.00 Croatia 520.00 1720.00 520.00 Denmark 660.00 1000.00 3000.00 Spain 0.00 2540.00 1160.00 Estonia 2380.00 1800.00 100.00 Finland 2319.81 954.38 1553.30 France 540.00 1140.00 800.00 Greece 540.00 2000.00 340.00 Hungary 1600.00 1000.00 400.00 Ireland 460.00 3760.00 1160.00 Italy 580.00 3000.00 1040.00 Latvia 1282.00 2860.00 478.00 Lithuania 1200.00 1704.00 1800.00 Luxembourg 20.00 1740.00 180.00 Malta 600.00 6320.00 260.00 Netherlands 1000.00 2740.00 1040.00 Poland 1000.00 2400.00 400.00 Portugal 360.00 2140.00 100.00 Czech Republic 980.00 2620.00 3000.00 Romania 2240.00 1440.00 2000.00 UK 740.00 7000.00 240.00 Slovakia 1200.00 2800.00 2000.00 Slovenia 700.00 1520.00 320.00 Sweden 620.00 5600.00 20.00 The data presented in the table can be graphically represented as follows. Figure 6: Graphical Representation of Cost of doing business As with all the cases above, the pattern that the table and figure immediately above shows is that the lawyer cost is always higher than the two other variables, which are court cost and bailiff cost. Separate analysis is therefore performed for the lawyer cost and the two other costs. Lawyer Cost Three frequency distributions can be set, which are low, medium and high lawyer costs. To do this, the lowest fee s deducted from the highest fee and divided by 3, which comes up to 7000 – 954.38 / 3 = 6045 / 3 = 2015.21≡2015 This helps in setting a percentile range, where all countries charging below 2015 can be said to be in low lawyer cost, with those from 2016 to 4013 to be in the medium lawyer cost. Then those above 4014 will be placed in the high lawyer cost. From this analysis, a categorization can be produced as indicated in the table below Low Cost (0 – 2015) Medium Cost (2016-4013) High Cost (above 4013) Germany Belgium Bulgaria Croatia Denmark Estonia Finland France Greece Hungary Lithuania Luxembourg Romania Slovenia Austria Cyprus Spain Ireland Italy Latvia Netherlands Poland Portugal Czech Republic Slovakia Malta UK Sweden Whereas 14 countries are in the high lawyer cost category, there were 11 in medium category, and 3 in high category. Table 14: Statistical analysis of costs for Doing Business   DB DB DB   Court Cost Lawyer Bailiff Mean 915.7790179 2499.227679 917.1892857 Standard Error 117.6377959 286.727928 159.0676859 Median 780 2070 560 Mode 1200 2000 3000 Standard Deviation 622.4807053 1517.221583 841.7070768 Sample Variance 387482.2284 2301961.331 708470.8032 Kurtosis 0.902005498 3.126290952 0.763282293 Skewness 1.005138188 1.828028133 1.171391971 Range 2380 6045.625 2980 Minimum 0 954.375 20 Maximum 2380 7000 3000 Sum 25641.8125 69978.375 25681.3 Count 28 28 28 The cost of doing business gives no much difference in the statistical trend that has been seen so far. This is because in this also, mean for court cost and bailiff cost are very close but the two are widely set apart from the lawyer cost. In this situation however, one is likely to pay a fee in all three variables, given the fact that there is a numerical reading for mode in all three cases. This notwithstanding, the minimum cost for court cost is 0 and that of bailiff is 20. Like in the case of the contracts, the mean for bailiff cost is higher than court cost, but only slightly. This is reflected in the range of court cost and bailiff cost, where the value for bailiff cost is higher. 2.6. Average costs for each cost head The average costs of court costs, lawyer costs, and bailiff costs are analysed for all the countries. Data for these calculations is taken from columns 17, 18, and 19 from A2. Computed Costs. A graph of the computed costs is given for each cost head using MS Excel2. Court Costs Case Studies: Please refer to the following graph, which illustrates the average court costs for the four case studies for each country. From the graph, it is evident that Slovakia has the highest average court costs. Graph 2.6. Court costs for the four cases Bailiff Costs Case Studies: Please refer to the following graph, which illustrates the average bailiff costs for the four case studies for each country. From the graph, it is evident that Slovakia has the highest bailiff costs. Graph 2.7. Bailiff costs for the four cases Lawyer Costs Case Studies: Please refer to the following graph, which illustrates the lawyer costs for the four case studies, for each country. From the graph, it is evident that Austria has the highest lawyer costs. Graph 2.8. Lawyer costs for the four cases Average costs and standard deviation for the four cases: The following table gives the computed values for average costs and standard deviation for the four cases. It is evident that average costs and standard deviation for cases CA1A and CA1B that deal with divorce, show a small amount of difference. The same pattern is repeated for cases CA4A and CA4B that deal with commercial contracts. Hence, the assessment is that for similar types of cases, the variance is less but substantial when a comparison is made for different cases. Table 2.6. Average costs and std. deviation for the four cases   CA1A CA1B CA4A CA4B Average costs 494.78 519.58 1404.40 1455.20 Variance per case study 661551.35 845740.60 3448241.32 3464123.59 Std. Deviation per case study 813.36 919.64 1856.94 1861.22 Please refer to the following graph, which illustrates the distribution of the values. Graph 2.8. Cost analysis of the four cases 2.7. Answer to tables for each case study As a part of the case study analysis of costs, we are required to enter costs for the four cases studies. Average costs are computed for court costs, lawyer costs, bailiff costs, and appeal costs. For cases CA1A and CA1B: Case Study Court Fees Appeals 1 Family Law - Divorce Case CA1A 105.18 94.68 Case CA1B 129.04 95.71 Case Study Lawyer Avg Fees Bailiff Avg Fees 1 Family Law - Divorce     Case CA1A 1268.04 80.89 Case CA1B 1296.46 100.36 For cases CA4A and CA4B: Case Study Court Appeals 2 Commercial Law - Contract     Case CA4A 457.79 495.25 Case CA4B 457.79 495.25 Case Study Lawyer Bailiff 2 Commercial Law - Contract     Case CA4A 2991.32 768.11 Case CA4B 3117.04 699.36 3. Conclusions The paper analysed data on four types of costs for four case studies for data obtained from 28 countries of Europe. Detailed statistical analysis was performed and a graphical analysis of the analysis and trends was presented. References Dretzke, B, Statistics with Microsoft Excel, 5th ed., Pearson, London, 2012. Appendix A1. Table of costs 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Costs/country CA1A CA1A CA1A CA1B CA1B CA1B CA4A CA4A CA4A CA4B CA4B CA4B CA1A CA1B CA4A CA4B Court cost Lawyer Bailiff Court Cost Lawyer Bailiff Court Cost Lawyer Bailiff Court Cost Lawyer Bailiff Appeal Cost Appeal Cost Appeal Cost Appeal Cost Germany 247 391 0 247 391 0 869 839 98 869 839 98 489 489 1,157 1,157 Austria 210 2,049 0 21 2,049 0 607 8,870 0 607 8,870 0 278 278 934 934 Belgium 52 1,500 0 52 15 0 35 2,000 420 35 2,000 420 121 121 186 186 Bulgaria 18 82 0 18 82 0 803 570 1,400 803 570 1,400 18 18 400 400 Cyprus 397 1,200 930 397 225 1,325 397 1,200 930 397 2,250 1,325 395 395 395 395 Croatia 0 200 0 0 200 0 15 700 200 15 700 400 15 15 15 15 Denmark 89 1,500 0 89 1,500 0 509 2,600 100 509 2,600 100 123 123 509 509 Spain 0 1,500 150 0 1,500 150 200 4,000 0 200 4,000 0 0 0 350 350 Estonia 20 2,237 460 20 4,793 460 20 4,793 2,029 20 4,793 2,029 20 20 20 20 Finland 116 975 110 116 975 110 164 6,000 418 164 6,000 418 2 2 164 164 France 0 975 256 21 975 256 50 5,000 130 50 5,000 130 150 150 150 150 Greece 12 1,500 0 12 1,500 0 633 1,800 80 633 1,800 80 22 22 505 505 Hungary 48 200 48 48 400 48 1,200 1,500 3,000 1,200 1,500 3,000 32 32 1,200 1,200 Ireland 0 3,000 25 0 3,000 25 70 4,000 100 70 4,000 100 0 0 100 100 Italy 0 4,000 0 0 4,000 0 178 6,000 150 178 6,000 150 0 0 0 0 Latvia 71 711 0 71 711 0 561 2,489 28 561 2,489 28 71 71 280 280 Lithuania 29 1,000 29 29 1,000 29 600 2,300 300 600 2,300 300 29 29 600 600 Luxembourg 0 2,500 0 0 2,500 150 0 3,000 1,050 0 3,000 1,050 0 0 0 0 Malta 150 400 14 150 400 14 654 1,020 14 654 1,020 14 150 150 1,050 1,050 Netherlands 196 1,200 81 196 1,200 81 440 7,500 81 440 7,500 81 248 248 600 600 Poland 225 2,860 0 485 2,860 0 1,174 3,332 400 1,174 3,332 400 155 155 1,000 1,000 Portugal 336 1,500 10 912 1,500 10 691 1,500 1,152 691 1,500 1,152 19 48 960 960 Czech Republic 46 364 0 46 364 0 800 1,607 107 800 2,727 107 36 36 800 800 Romania 8 500 32 8 500 32 8 2,000 2,000 8 2,000 2,000 5 5 5 5 UK 501 1,847 120 501 1,847 120 589 5,897 800 589 5,897 800 147 147 885 885 Slovakia 90 300 0 90 800 0 1,200 600 4,000 1,200 1,000 4,000 90 90 1,200 1,200 Slovenia 36 587 0 36 587 0 303 500 0 303 990 0 36 36 402 402 Sweden 48 427 0 48 427 0 48 2,140 0 48 2,600 0 0 0 0 0 European Average 105.18 1268.04 80.89 129.04 1296.46 100.36 457.79 2991.32 678.11 457.79 3117.04 699.36 94.68 95.71 495.25 495.25 Variance 17608.15 961397.81 37757.95 43673.89 1441330.70 67922.53 145874.92 5073661.63 995246.03 145874.92 4722760.26 1002325.05 15658.00 15525.47 173258.34 173258.34 Std.Dev 132.70 980.51 194.31 208.98 1200.55 260.62 381.94 2252.48 997.62 381.94 2173.19 1001.16 125.13 124.60 416.24 416.24   CA1A CA1B CA4A CA4B average costs 494.78 519.58 1404.40 1455.20 Variance per case study 661551.35 845740.60 3448241.32 3464123.59 St. Deviation per case study 813.36 919.64 1856.94 1861.22 A2. Computed costs 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Cost/Country Average Average Average CA1A CA1B CA4A CA4B Case studies DB DB DB DB Court Cost Lawyer Bailiff Costs CA1A Costs CA1B Costs CA4A Costs CA4B Average Court Cost Lawyer Bailiff Total Costs Germany 690.50 615.00 39.20 638.00 638.00 1806.00 1806.00 1222.00 1040.00 1320.00 480.00 2840.00 Austria 483.63 5459.50 0.00 2259.00 2070.00 9477.00 9477.00 5820.75 820.00 2700.00 30.00 3550.00 Belgium 98.50 1378.75 168.00 1552.00 67.00 2455.00 2455.00 1632.25 940.00 2000.00 600.00 3540.00 Bulgaria 309.75 326.00 560.00 100.00 100.00 2773.00 2773.00 1436.50 1200.00 2000.00 1640.00 4840.00 Cyprus 396.00 1218.75 902.00 2527.00 1947.00 2527.00 3972.00 2743.25 100.00 2160.00 1020.00 3280.00 Croatia 11.25 450.00 120.00 200.00 200.00 915.00 1115.00 607.50 520.00 1720.00 520.00 2760.00 Denmark 307.50 2050.00 40.00 1589.00 1554.50 3209.00 3209.00 2390.38 660.00 1000.00 3000.00 4660.00 Spain 137.50 2750.00 60.00 1650.00 2100.00 4200.00 4200.00 3037.50 0.00 2540.00 1160.00 3700.00 Estonia 20.00 4154.00 995.60 2717.00 2406.50 6842.00 6842.00 4701.88 2380.00 1800.00 100.00 4280.00 Finland 111.50 3487.50 211.20 1201.00 3082.00 6582.00 6582.00 4361.75 2319.81 954.38 1553.30 4827.49 France 90.13 2987.50 154.40 1231.00 2525.00 5180.00 5180.00 3529.00 540.00 1140.00 800.00 2480.00 Greece 344.00 1650.00 32.00 1512.00 1216.50 2513.00 2513.00 1938.63 540.00 2000.00 340.00 2880.00 Hungary 810.67 900.00 1219.20 7692.00 1350.00 5700.00 5700.00 5110.50 1600.00 1000.00 400.00 3000.00 Ireland 42.50 3500.00 50.00 3025.00 2035.00 4170.00 4170.00 3350.00 460.00 3760.00 1160.00 5380.00 Italy 44.50 5000.00 60.00 4000.00 3089.00 6328.00 6328.00 4936.25 580.00 3000.00 1040.00 4620.00 Latvia 245.75 1600.00 11.20 782.00 1525.00 3078.00 3078.00 2115.75 1282.00 2860.00 478.00 4620.00 Lithuania 314.50 1650.00 131.60 1058.00 1450.00 3200.00 3200.00 2227.00 1200.00 1704.00 1800.00 4704.00 Luxembourg 0.00 2750.00 450.00 2500.00 1500.00 4050.00 4050.00 3025.00 20.00 1740.00 180.00 1940.00 Malta 501.00 710.00 11.20 564.00 837.00 1688.00 1688.00 1194.25 600.00 6320.00 260.00 7180.00 Netherlands 371.00 4350.00 64.80 1477.00 3970.00 8021.00 8021.00 5372.25 1000.00 2740.00 1040.00 4780.00 Poland 671.00 3096.00 160.00 3085.00 2253.00 4906.00 4906.00 3787.50 1000.00 2400.00 400.00 3800.00 Portugal 577.13 1500.00 464.80 1846.00 1095.50 3343.00 3343.00 2406.88 360.00 2140.00 100.00 2600.00 Czech Republic 420.50 1265.50 42.80 410.00 1203.50 2514.00 3634.00 1940.38 980.00 2620.00 3000.00 6600.00 Romania 6.50 1250.00 812.80 540.00 1004.00 4008.00 4008.00 2390.00 2240.00 1440.00 2000.00 5680.00 UK 530.50 3872.00 368.00 2468.00 3243.00 7286.00 7286.00 5070.75 740.00 7000.00 240.00 7980.00 Slovakia 645.00 675.00 1600.00 390.00 900.00 5800.00 6200.00 3322.50 1200.00 2800.00 2000.00 6000.00 Slovenia 194.25 666.00 0.00 623.00 401.50 803.00 1293.00 780.13 700.00 1520.00 320.00 2540.00 Sweden 24.00 1398.50 0.00 475.00 1094.00 2188.00 2648.00 1601.25 620.00 5600.00 20.00 6240.00 A3. Case details CA1A: National situation: a couple gets married. Later they separate and agree to a divorce CA1B: Transnational situation: Two nationals from a same Member State (Member State A) get married. The marriage is celebrated in Member State A. After the wedding, the couple moves to live and work in another Member State (Member State B) where they establish their residence. Shortly thereafter, the couple separates with the wife returning to Member State A and the husband remaining in Member State B. The couple agrees to a divorce. Upon her return to Member State A, the wife immediately files for a divorce before the Courts of Member State B. CA4A: National situation: A company delivered goods worth 20.000 Euros. The seller has not been paid because the buyer considers that the goods do not conform to what was agreed. The seller believes that the goods conform to what was agreed and asks for payment in full because he asserts that the goods were purpose made and he will not be able to sell them to someone else. The seller decides to sue to obtain the full payment of the price. CA4B: Transnational situation: A company whose head office is located in Member State B delivers goods worth 20.000 Euros to buyer in Member State A. The contract is subject to Member State B’s law and written in Member State B’s language. This seller has not been paid because the buyer located in Member State A considers that the goods do not conform to what was agreed. The seller believes that the goods conform to what was agreed and asks for payment in full because he asserts that the goods were purpose made and he will not be able to sell them to someone else. The seller decides to sue in Member State A to obtain full payment of the price as provided under the contract with the buyer. Read More