Funding the Judiciary: how budgeting systems shape justice: The impact of budget practices on allocative efficiency, organisational development, and judicial values.

How judicial organizations and courts receive funding from the state budget, manage it, and account for their expenditures is crucial for ensuring the independence and proper functioning of the judiciary. Surprisingly, budgeting remains a neglected topic in studies on the management of judges and court organizations in Europe. In the early days of the New Public Management movement, budgets played a pivotal role in enhancing planning, policy development, and accountability in public administration. However, many European Union Member States' judicial organizations did not adapt to these new management techniques, especially in budgetary planning. Often, budgets were based solely on historical costs. In recent years, some countries have adopted performance-based budgeting models for their judicial organizations and courts. These models link organizational costs, outputs, policy development, resource allocation, performance targets, managerial discretion, and accountability. This study examines the performance budgeting models in Italy, Finland, and the Netherlands. Italy employs a national program budget, but court fund allocation often relies on historical criteria. Finland utilizes a weighted caseload system and is in the process of negotiating fund allocations. The Netherlands uses a detailed "costs per type of case" calculation to determine budget needs based on the number of cases decided. The findings suggest that transparent and objective funding criteria result in more rational resource allocation, improving the performance of court organizations without unduly pressuring judges. Effective organization appears to be a critical factor for these funding models' success. These funding models can serve as examples for other countries looking to reform their judiciary's budgetary processes. Importantly, they underscore the significance of rational and transparent funding criteria for maintaining both independence and accountability within the judicial system, ensuring equal treatment for all citizens under the law