Importantly, the three sources do not measure the same construct. The WJP GLNS measure used in this report captures respondents reporting high or some trust in judges and magistrates, and the reference population is restricted to respondents who experienced a nontrivial justice problem in the preceding two years. The OECD Trust Survey asks respondents how much they trust the courts and judicial system on a 0–10 scale, with responses from 6 to 10 classified as high or moderately high trust. The Eurobarometer measure is conceptually different. Rather than trust, it asks the general public to assess the justice system in terms of the independence of courts and judges, with “very good” and “fairly good” responses constituting a positive assessment. Flash Eurobarometer 554 is the general-public survey underpinning this indicator in the 2025 EU Justice Scoreboard.
The surveys also differ in their reference populations, sample sizes and substantive focus. In particular, the WJP indicator reflects the views of people with recent experience of a justice problem, whereas the OECD Trust Survey and Eurobarometer provide broader population-level measures; sample sizes and country coverage also vary across the three sources. The OECD Trust Survey itself applies country-specific samples and weighting to produce population estimates, while Eurobarometer is designed to capture perceptions among the general public. These differences can contribute to variation in country estimates, alongside differences in question wording, response scales and survey timing. The comparison should therefore be understood as a cross-source robustness check rather than a test of equivalence. The generally positive relationships provide some indication that the WJP indicator captures a similar underlying dimension of confidence in justice institutions, while the observed deviations underline the importance of interpreting individual country results in light of the specific methodology and construct measured by each survey.
People experience fewer justice problems over time
Prevention is represented through two complementary measures. The prevalence measure is the percentage of all respondents who report at least one nontrivial justice problem during the two years before the survey. It provides a standardised measure of the occurrence of justice problems and, when repeated over time using comparable methods, can inform assessment of primary prevention.
The hardship measure focuses on respondents who experienced a nontrivial justice problem and reports the share who experienced at least one of four types of consequence: loss of income or employment, relocation or financial strain; physical ill health, injury or stress-related illness; relationship breakdown or damage to a family relationship; or problems with alcohol or drugs. It is particularly relevant to tertiary prevention because it captures wider harms arising after a problem occurs. Neither measure on its own establishes the effect of justice policy: prevalence and reported hardship can also reflect socioeconomic conditions, exposure to different types of problems, problem recognition and reporting practices. Higher values on both measures indicate less favourable outcomes.
People obtain the information they need to recognise and solve their justice problems
The information indicator is calculated among respondents with a nontrivial justice problem and measures the share who agree or strongly agree that they knew where to obtain good information about resolving it. The measure captures awareness of an information source or pathway rather than whether information was actually obtained, understood or used, or whether it was accurate and suitable to the respondent's circumstances. It should therefore be interpreted as an indicator of access to an initial informational entry point and read alongside the more tailored support captured by the assistance and advice indicator.
People obtain the assistance and advice they need to solve their justice problems
The assistance and advice indicator focuses on respondents with a nontrivial justice problem who needed tailored support. Need is identified by combining respondents who obtained assistance or advice with those who did not obtain it because they encountered a barrier; respondents who did not obtain assistance because they reported not needing it are excluded. The numerator is the share of this reference population who received assistance or advice from an appropriate source. Appropriate sources include lawyers and professional advisers, legal aid, courts and government bodies, health or welfare professionals, employers or trade unions, community or religious organisations, civil society organisations, and relatives, friends or acquaintances with a legal background. The indicator therefore measures whether people who needed support obtained it, rather than the overall use of advice services in the population. It does not assess the quality, intensity or effectiveness of the support received.
People obtain access to the dispute resolution mechanism they need to solve their justice problems
The dispute resolution indicator measures access among respondents with a nontrivial justice problem who needed third-party support. Respondents are treated as needing a mechanism if they used one or if they did not use one because they encountered a barrier; those who did not use a mechanism because they reported not needing one are excluded. Access includes turning to a third-party individual or organisation to adjudicate, mediate or otherwise help resolve the problem and can therefore encompass courts, administrative bodies, mediation, conciliation and other formal or informal mechanisms. The full question sequence has been included in the GLNS since 2018, which limits coverage for countries surveyed earlier. As with the other access indicators, use or access should not be interpreted as evidence that the mechanism was timely, affordable, fair or effective in resolving the underlying problem.
