CIVIL CASES PUBLICITY The courts posted information about the hearings on the web-site in 98% of civil cases which were monitored. The information on the web-site was not always complete and accurate. In 4% of cases the information contained incorrect names of the judges, summary of the case and court buildings. Hearing schedules were posted on the information board less often – in 87% of cases. These rates are higher than in other case types (only hearing schedule in administrative cases were posted on the information board more often). At the same time, in 2% of cases the information on the case was incorrect. The general tendency shows that when the case is not posted on the information board, there is information about it on the court’s web-site. Only in 1% of cases information on civil cases was absent both on the information board and on the court’s web-site. From the questionnaire of a monitor on a civil case: “This judge conducted case hearings not according to a schedule posted on the web-site or the information board, but based on some unknown principle. I wanted to be present at one such hearing, but the secretary asked me to wait. Afterwards, she invited me in, but the judge informed me that the parties to the case had objected to the presence of monitors. I was forced to leave without due justification”. In 98% of cases the monitors were able to get inside the room where the hearing of the civil case took place (a courtroom or judges’ chambers). However, in some cases the monitors faced obstacles to their participation in open court hearings. From the questionnaire of a monitor on a civil case: “The secretary was rude in answer to my request to be present as an independent attendee, she closed the doors in my face and refused to answer my question regarding where the chief judge of the court would hear the case. I was forced to watch the parties and go into the room together with them. The secretary yelled at me again in a rude manner, saying that I was not a party to the case, and without permission of the judge (the chief judge of the court) I was not allowed to participate. Thus, I had to ask for the judge’s permission standing in the doorway to the courtroom where the parties were already present – the judge did not object”. In 73% of cases the judge considered the case in the courtroom. In each fifth case which was heard in the judges’ chambers, the monitors noted the existence of vacant courtrooms. From the questionnaire of a monitor on a civil case: “The case was considered in the judges’ chambers; however, the court has enough court ooms, part of which were vacant at the time of hearing of the case”. In most cases (70%) the judges did not take interest in who was present at the hearing of a civil case in addition to the trial participants. This indicator is much better than in other case types (except criminal). In other cases Report on the findings of the first trial monitoring programme in Ukraine 43