FINDINGS OF THE MONITORING BY JURISDICTION In 93% of civil cases the participants of the trial observed ethical norms and due communication culture. From the questionnaires of monitors on civil cases: “The parties openly quarreled with each other, paying no attention to the judge. The defendants made discriminatory remarks, and the court did not prevent this”. “The parties interrupted each other many times, the judge tried to calm them down. The defendant answered the court’s questions without standing up; the judge did not react to that. The defendant’s mobile phone rang loudly, the judge did not react”. In general, the indicators in these criteria in civil cases are worse than in other case types. CULTURE OF CONDUCTING THE TRIAL IN CIVIL CASES 3,9 -5 0 5 REASONABLE TIME According to the assessment of the monitors, the court used efficient actions to encourage the parties to settle only in 62% of those cases where it was necessary. Only in 14% of cases the court hearing started on time or with a delay of up to 5 minutes. The average delay in the cases visited by the monitors amounted to 31 minutes. The duration of the hearing was 29 minutes on average. Six cases were considered earlier than posted on the information board and on the court’s web-site. The hearings in these cases started from 6 to 30 minutes ahead of schedule, and sometimes ended before the time scheduled for their beginning. From all courts visited by the monitors, the courts of appeal more often delayed the beginning of the hearings for more than an hour (34 civil cases). In the first place, these violations are the result of the scheduling by courts of appeal of several cases for the same time. In reality, these cases may not be heard simultaneously, and as a result delays in the schedule occur. From the questionnaire of a monitor on a civil case: “The court hearing started with a 33-minute delay. The delay was caused by scheduling issues in the first part of the day, which caused the judges to go to lunch later and start their work after lunch later”. 46 MONITORING OF ADHERENCE TO FAIR TRIAL STANDARDS IN UKRAINE