DOCSLIB.ORG

The Register Is to Mainly Be a Guide for Easy Access to Further Information

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Register Is to Mainly Be a Guide for Easy Access to Further Information ENCJ WORKING GROUP Quality and Access to Justice 2009-2010 Register Version 1 May 2011 With the support of the European Union Avec le soutien de l’Union européenne 2 REGISTER Working Group on Quality and Access to Justice European Network of Councils for the Judiciary Table of Contents Introductory remarks ............................................................................................................................ 4 1. Financial Hindrances........................................................................................................................ 6 1.1. Court Fees - (variable costs and reimbursement of wins costs ............................................. 6 1.2. Legal assistance (legal aid for free/reduced cost, initial advice and representation) .......... 14 1.3. Impairing by financing systems (insurance, public aid) ..................................................... 23 2. Geographical Hindrances ............................................................................................................... 24 2.1. Size of court districts........................................................................................................... 24 2.2. Number of permanent or temporary court locations within the district .............................. 35 2.3. Facilitating transportation ................................................................................................... 40 2.4. Video conferences ............................................................................................................... 42 2.5. Telephone conferences ........................................................................................................ 46 2.6. Written testimonies ............................................................................................................. 47 3. Physical hindrances ........................................................................................................................ 50 3.1. Location of courts (public transport, parking facilities, etc.) .............................................. 50 3.2. Opening days and hours in the courts ................................................................................. 51 3.3. Access for disabled persons ................................................................................................ 54 3.4. Hearing aid in court rooms.................................................................................................. 56 4. Technological Hindrances.............................................................................................................. 57 4.1. Electronic in- and outgoing communication (fax, e-mail, electronic signature) ................ 57 4.2. Access to information – (internet, pamphlets) .................................................................... 67 5. Psychological Hindrances .............................................................................................................. 75 5.1. Attire and arranging of court rooms .................................................................................... 75 5.2. Information and assistance and explanation of outcome (court decision and others) ........ 79 5.3. Education and survey of judges .......................................................................................... 83 5.4. Treatment of other users of the courts (witnesses) ............................................................. 88 6. Hindrances to Personal Appearance .............................................................................................. 91 6.1. Mandatory professional representation ............................................................................... 91 6.2. Simple procedure cases (family cases, cases involving minor amounts and others) .......... 96 6.3. Practical possibilities for personal appearance ................................................................. 100 6.4. Oral or written opening and procedure ............................................................................. 103 6.5. Requirements to written applications and facilitating by use of blanks and the like ........ 106 6.6. Assistance and guidance by the judge ............................................................................... 110 3 7. Social Hindrances ........................................................................................................................ 112 7.1. Awareness of rights and use of professional language ..................................................... 112 7.2. Linguistic hindrances and hindrances for minority groups, immigrants, and aliens ........ 113 8. Time Hindrances .......................................................................................................................... 121 8.1. Delays................................................................................................................................ 121 8.2. Fast track procedures ........................................................................................................ 135 8.3. Pre-trial evidence .............................................................................................................. 140 8.4. Interim provisions ............................................................................................................. 141 8.5. Injunction .......................................................................................................................... 142 9. Hindrances to Enforcement .......................................................................................................... 144 9.1. Enforcement by bailiffs within the judiciary or by private executors ............................... 144 9.2. Direct enforcement ............................................................................................................ 150 9.3. Execution, eviction etc. on basis of documents or other simple means of proof .............. 153 9.4. Fees, legal aid, time involved and debtors‟ rights............................................................. 157 10. Treatment of Victims of Crime .................................................................................................. 161 10.1. Advice, support and assistance ....................................................................................... 161 10.2. Involvement in proceedings ............................................................................................ 169 10.3. Ability to influence the sentence of the offender ............................................................ 179 10.4. Compensation.................................................................................................................. 182 11. Contact Persons for further details ............................................................................................. 190 11.1. Member States................................................................................................................. 190 11.2. Observers ........................................................................................................................ 191 4 REGISTER Working Group on Quality and Access to Justice European Network of Councils for the Judiciary Introductory remarks When commencing this work the Working Group considered carefully which topics to choose for the research. The Group decided on the topics stated in the headlines below, as they were found to all encompass clear and present issues related to access to justice. The members were asked to give a short description of the hindrance relevant to the situation in their countries and of any initiatives taken by the court system to facilitate access by meeting the hindrance. Some members of the Working Group prefer to use the term “obstacles” rather than “hindrances”, but both address impediments which may be overcome, avoided or mitigated in their effect. The choice of words is therefore not of great significance and both terms appear in this report. The aim of the Register is to mainly be a guide for easy access to further information. The aim is therefore not to have a thorough comparative description of the regulation in each country on each topic. If the reader needs more details please find the contact details of experts on the described activities and initiatives listed at the end of the Register. In their descriptions the members mainly focus on civil cases keeping also the scope of the work – informing of initiatives to meet hindrances to access to justice – in mind. Some contributions do however include information on issues that do not fall within this scope – e.g. information on the rights of the defendant in criminal proceedings. Some contributions contain detailed information on status in the country in question, whereas other contributions have left out information on the topic. The fact that some members have left out in- 5 formation on an issue in the Register does not imply that the country in question does not have a regulation, similar to that described in contributions from other countries. As the aim of ENCJ is to share experience it was decided at the ENCJ General Assembly in London in June 2010 to have the Register continue as a live document and thus to have it both supplemented by contributions from the Members and Observers who did not participate in the Working Group on Quality and Access to Justice and to have it continuously updated by all Members and Observers. The Project Team on Timeliness
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Mimetic Evolution. New Comparative Perspectives on the Court of Justice of the European Union in Its Federal Judicial Architecture
    Mimetic Evolution. New Comparative Perspectives on the Court of Justice of the European Union in its Federal Judicial Architecture Leonardo Pierdominici Thesis submitted for assessment with a view to obtaining the degree of Doctor of Laws of the European University Institute Florence, 29 February 2016 European University Institute Department of Law Mimetic Evolution. New Comparative Perspectives on the Court of Justice of the European Union in its Federal Judicial Architecture Leonardo Pierdominici Thesis submitted for assessment with a view to obtaining the degree of Doctor of Laws of the European University Institute Examining Board Prof. Loïc Azoulai, European University Institute Prof. Bruno De Witte, European University Institute Prof. Giuseppe Martinico, Scuola Superiore Sant'Anna - Pisa Prof. Laurent Pech, Middlesex University London ©Title Leonardo Name Pierdominici,Surname, Institution 2015 Title Name Surname, Institution No part of this thesis may be copied, reproduced or transmitted without prior permission of the author Researcher declaration to accompany the submission of written work Department of Law – LL.M. and Ph.D. Programmes I Leonardo Pierdominici certify that I am the author of the work “Mimetic Evolution. New Comparative Perspectives on the Court of Justice of the European Union in its Federal Judicial Architecture” I have presented for examination for the Ph.D. at the European University Institute. I also certify that this is solely my own original work, other than where I have clearly indicated, in this declaration and in the thesis, that it is the work of others. I warrant that I have obtained all the permissions required for using any material from other copyrighted publications.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Protection Order for Victims > Criminal Judicial Cooperation and Gender-Based Violence
    Información ORGANISING COMMITTEE Palau de Pineda UIMP courses in Valencia are 4 Plaza del Carmen, 4 Manuel de Lorenzo Segrelles, Bar Association of Valencia. 46003 Valencia validated by elective credits International Congress Gemma Gallego Sánchez, Judge, former member of the General Tel. +34 963 108 020 / 019 / 018 in public universities Fax: +34 963 108 017 of the Valencian Community. Council of the Judiciary of Spain. Administrative Secretary opening hours*: Check with the home Elena Martínez García, Senior Lecturer of Procedural Law, University 10,00 - 13,30 h. university the number of Thursday: credits recognised of Valencia. 16,30 - 18,00 h. The European Protection Order for Laura Román, Senior Lecturer of Constitutional Law, Rovira i Virgili * CLOSED AUGUST 1st TO 24th Victims University, Epogender porject. The registration gives the The registration period for the congress right to obtain Criminal judicial cooperation and gender-based is o p e n until the b e g inning o f the s e m ina r a certificate of attendance while places are still available. (a tte n d a n c e violence SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE at more than 85% of Registration fees: Beatriz Belando Garín, Senior Lecturer of Administrative Law, sessions). University of Valencia. - 75 euros (55 euros academic fees + 20 euros secretary fees) for students Christoph Burchard, Lecturer, Ludwig Maximilian University Munich, enroled in all the universities of the Germany. Valencian Community. Directors: Elisabet Cerrato, Lecturer of Procedural Law, Rovira i Virgili University, - 108 euros (88 euros academic fees Teresa Freixes Sanjuán Epogender project. + 20 euros secretary fees) for students Elena Martínez García Laura Ervo, Professor of Procedural Law, Örebro University, Sweden.
    [Show full text]
  • Report to the Spanish Government on the Visit to Spain Carried out by The
    CPT/Inf (2013) 6 Report to the Spanish Government on the visit to Spain carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 31 May to 13 June 2011 The Spanish Government has requested the publication of this report and of its response. The Government’s response is set out in document CPT/Inf (2013) 7. Strasbourg, 30 April 2013 - 2 - CONTENTS Copy of the letter transmitting the CPT’s report............................................................................5 I. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................6 A. Dates of the visit and composition of the delegation ..............................................................6 B. Establishments visited...............................................................................................................7 C. Consultations held by the delegation.......................................................................................9 D. Co-operation between the CPT and the authorities of Spain ...............................................9 E. Immediate observations under Article 8, paragraph 5, of the Convention .......................10 II. FACTS FOUND DURING THE VISIT AND ACTION PROPOSED ..............................11 A. Law enforcement agencies......................................................................................................11 1. Preliminary remarks ........................................................................................................11
    [Show full text]
  • 001-004 JUECES 80.Indd
    INFORMACIÓN Y DEBATE R. Sáez Valcárcel, Justicia universal en España. T. Vicen- te y C. Berzosa, El triunfo de las finanzas capitalistas y el deterioro de los derechos. E. Calvo Rojas, La denominada ‘doctrina jurisprudencial vinculante’. Comisión de Derecho Privado de JpD, La protección de los clientes de banca y las últimas reformas legislativas. A. del Moral García, Justicia penal y corrupción. N. Maurandi Guillén, El control de la discrecionalidad técnica. Grupo de trabajo de JpD, Sobre el anteproyecto Gallardón de LOPJ. F. J. Pereda Gámez, Los tribunales de instancia. G. Alcoba Gutiérrez, Jueces en expectativa de destino. F. Zubiri de Salinas, Acceso a los recursos y tutela judicial. Jaume González Calvet, Las medidas cautelares en el proceso de ejecución social. P. Gi- lligan, La Red Europea de Consejos de Justicia. 80 julio / 2014 INFORMACIÓN Y DEBATE nº 80 julio 2014 En este número: Alcoba Gutiérrez, Gonzalo, juez en expectativa de destino, Juzgado de Pri- mera Instancia e Instrucción n.º 5 de El Ejido (Almería). Berzosa Alonso Martínez, Carlos, catedrático de Economía, Universidad Complutense (Madrid), presidente de la Sociedad de Economía Mundial y presidente de la Comisión Española de Ayuda al Refugiado (CEAR). Calvo Rojas, Eduardo, magistrado, Sala Tercera, Tribunal Supremo. Del Moral García, Antonio, magistrado, Sala Segunda, Tribunal Supremo. Gilligan, Paul, presidente de la Red Europea de Consejos de Justicia; magis- trado del Tribunal Superior de Justicia (Irlanda) González Calvet, Jaume, magistrado, Juzgado de lo Social n.º 30, Barcelona. Maurandi Guillén, Nicolás, magistrado, Sala Tercera, Tribunal Supremo. Pereda Gámez, Fco. Javier, magistrado, Audiencia Provincial, Barcelona. Sáez Vácárcel, Ramón, magistrado, Sala de lo Penal, Audiencia Nacional.
    [Show full text]
  • Development of Minimal Judicial Standards III Report 2012-2013
    ENCJ PROJECT TEAM Development of Minimal Judicial Standards III Minimum Standards regarding evaluation of professional performance and irremovability of members of the judiciary Report 2012-2013 With the support of the European Union INDEX 0. Abstract .-_________________________________________________________________ 3 1. Introduction.- ______________________________________________________________ 3 1.1. Background.- __________________________________________________________ 3 1.2. The Report ____________________________________________________________ 6 1.3. The Questionnaire ______________________________________________________ 7 2. Proposals of Minimum Standards regarding evaluation of professional performance of judges and (where relevant) prosecutors.- ________________________________________ 10 2.1 Potential aims of the systems of evaluation.- ________________________________ 12 2.2 Criteria applied to the evaluation of professional performance.- ________________ 13 2.3 Competent body to conduct the evaluation of professional performance.- ________ 16 2.4 Process for the evaluation of professional performance.- ______________________ 17 3. Proposals of Minimum Standards regarding irremovability of judges.- _______________ 18 4. Summary of proposals ___________________________________________________ 21 Annex - Participants List – 2012/2013 ___________________________________________ 25 ENCJ Project Team Development of minimum judicial standards III 2012-2013 - 2 - REPORT Project Team on Development of Minimum Judicial Standards
    [Show full text]
  • General Council of the Judiciary
    INNOVATOR STORY General Council of the Judiciary Web analytics help to measure the success of the site and overall performance, equipping the CGPJ with the tools it needs to present users with a relevent and responsive experience, supported by multimedia content. FIGURE 3.5: PoderJudicial.es The General Council of the Judiciary (Consejo General del Poder Judicial or CGPJ) was established by the Spanish Constitution in 1978 as the constitutional body that governs the Judiciary of Spain. The CGPJ wanted to combine its systems into an online portal to provide citizens with personalized access to the information and services they needed. The new portal would support a variety of communication channels in multiple languages. On the back end, the system would be required to integrate all corporate services of the Judiciary Council to streamline collaboration, provide integrated services such as online applications, allow for the secure management of information, and comply with current regulations around transparency, accessibility, multilingualism, Law 11/2007, and more. An e-government solution was selected as the basis for the CGPJ website and judiciary extranet, providing the Council with a technologically sound and manageable platform for the future. The multilingual portal supports a substantial number of hits and is readily scalable. The web publishing process is more efficient; self-service capabilities have significantly reduced the time it takes to publish up-to-date information. The system went live internally with 6,500 active users and 5,400 messages exchanged on its forums. Members of the Judiciary can participate and collaborate using the system’s virtual environments, 45 communities of practices, and shared files.
    [Show full text]
  • A Kafkaesque Experience Before Spanish 'Justice'
    CORRUPTION IN SPAIN AND THE JUDICIAL ‘FRAMING’ OF JUDGE BALTASAR GARZÓN REAL (Part two) by George Venturini * A Kafkaesque experience before Spanish ‘justice’ During half of January and the whole month of February 2012, Judge Garzón sat in his judicial robe next to his lawyer Francisco Javier Baena Bocanegra before the judges of the Second Chamber of the Criminal Division of the Supreme Court, defending himself from the charges brought against him by private individuals and organisations rather than the State. In fact, during investigations and at the trials, public prosecutors had recommended Judge Garzón’s acquittal. What was happening to Judge Garzón had undoubtedly a bad political odour. The three private prosecutions had been brought by a curious outfit, a fictitious trade union called Manos Limpias, Clean Hands, directed by Miguel Bernad Remón, an official of the far-Right party Fuerza Nueva, another seedy organisation called Libertad e Identitad, Liberty and Identity and the Falange de la JONS, which is an acronym for Juntas de Ofensiva Nacional-Sindicalista, Phalanx of the Assemblies of the National Syndicalist Offensive - a Neo-Francoist set-up, and by lawyers connected with gaoled persons who had been involved in wide-spread corruption mainly for the advantage of people in the Popular Party, and by other lawyers who were accusing Judge Garzón of corruption. The specific charge against Judge Garzón is: delito de prevaricacion - which means the use by a judge of his authority intentionally to subvert the course of justice, and that in violation of art. 446.3 of the Criminal Code. This is a very serious criminal offence punishable by suspension from any judicial activity for up to twenty years.
    [Show full text]
  • Report on the Operation of the European Judicial Network 24 December 2008 – 24 December 2010
    Report on the operation of the European Judicial Network 24 December 2008 – 24 December 2010 Report on the operation of the European Judicial Network 24 December 2008 – 24 December 2010 Report on the Operation of the European Judicial Network 24 December 2008 – 24 December 2010 [2] Report on the operation of the European Judicial Network 24 December 2008 – 24 December 2010 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This Report on the operation of the European Judicial Network has been elaborated in accordance with Article 13 of the Council Decision 976/JHA of 16 December 2008 on the European Judicial Network. In more than 12 years of existence, the European Judicial Network (EJN) has proved to be an efficient tool for facilitating and improving judicial co-operation in criminal matters within the area of freedom, security and justice of the European Union. The activities of the EJN Contact Points as “active intermediaries” have helped the judicial authorities from the Member States and candidate countries to solve problems occurred in criminal cases with foreign elements that required international co-operation. However, these activities had not really been quantified at EU level until now, because the EJN Contact Points have carried out their EJN tasks in addition to their normal functions as judges, prosecutors or officials of the Ministries of Justice. For the first time, with the entry into force of Council Decision 976/JHA of 16 December 2008 on the European Judicial Network, the EJN must report on its activities and management to the European Parliament, the Council and the Commission every two years. This is a separate exercise from the regular annual report on the implementation of the Work Programme presented to the Network by the EJN Secretariat.
    [Show full text]
  • President of GRECO Ms Ana Andrés Ballesteros Head of Delegation of Spain in GRECO Ministry of Justice, Madrid
    Please quote: DGI/GE/lsl/hrs President of GRECO Ms Ana Andrés Ballesteros Head of Delegation of Spain in GRECO Ministry of Justice, Madrid Strasbourg, 14 October 2020 Dear Ms Andrés Ballesteros, I am writing to you with reference to the legislative proposal to amend the existing system of selection of the members of the General Council of the Judiciary of Spain. The proposal is to replace the requirement of a vote by Parliament through 3/5 qualified majority with that of simple majority. This legislative initiative departs from the Council of Europe standards concerning the composition of judicial councils and election of their members and may result in a violation of the Council of Europe anti-corruption standards. As you know, these standards have been the subject of GRECO’s 4th evaluation round. Councils of the Judiciary, in the member States where they exist, are meant to be independent bodies that seek to safeguard the independence of the judiciary and of individual judges which, in turn, is a conditio sine qua non for an effective fight against corruption. Our standards provide that at least half of the council’s members should be judges elected by their peers from all levels of the judiciary. GRECO has repeatedly stressed that political authorities shall not be involved, at any stage, in the selection process of the judicial shift. I further remind you that Spain has not yet implemented a recommendation issued by GRECO to Spain, almost seven years ago, in its Fourth Evaluation Round. The recommendation called for an evaluation of the legislative framework governing the General Council of the Judiciary and of its effects on the real and perceived independence of this body from any undue influence, with a view to remedying any shortcomings identified.
    [Show full text]
  • SPAIN Country Case Study
    ETUC ‘Safe at Home, Safe at Work’ SPAIN Country Case Study by Dr. Jane Pillinger 2017 1 1. Introduction 1.1 Overview This report gives an overview of the Spanish country case study carried out as part of the ETUC ‘Safe at Home, Safe at Work’ project. It documents the measures taken by Spanish unions to address gender-based violence at work. It covers two specific areas: gender-based violence in the workplace and the impact of domestic violence on the workplace. Both aspects of the report are discussed in relation to the overall legal context, the role of collective bargaining and other union initiatives, as well as the challenges faced by unions and the recommendations made by unions for the future. The quest for equal treatment and opportunities for men and women, especially through the fight to eradicate sexual discrimination in the workplace has meant that the need for protection against gender-based harassment and violence has received a lot of publicity in recent years. These problems are widespread and they require the appropriate action to be taken in order to prevent, tackle and eradicate the effects these events can have on the health and professional development of those affected. Trade unions have identified action to be taken in the workplace. They propose improving the working conditions of those affected as well as preventing incidents and raising awareness by showing the effects of these types of violence, above all through collective bargaining. 1.2 Methodology In order to carry out this study and investigate how the prevention of and protection against gender-based harassment and violence is put into practice, interviews have been held with union representatives with proven experience in the field of gender equality and in particular, harassment and violence in the workplace.
    [Show full text]
  • Basque Country Within the Spanish State
    The University of Maine DigitalCommons@UMaine Honors College 5-2014 An Analysis of the Basque Independence Movement and the Political Position of the Basque Country Within the Spanish State Ariel Bothen University of Maine - Main Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/honors Part of the Anthropology Commons, Basque Studies Commons, and the Political Science Commons Recommended Citation Bothen, Ariel, "An Analysis of the Basque Independence Movement and the Political Position of the Basque Country Within the Spanish State" (2014). Honors College. 152. https://digitalcommons.library.umaine.edu/honors/152 This Honors Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by DigitalCommons@UMaine. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors College by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@UMaine. For more information, please contact [email protected]. AN ANALYSIS OF THE BASQUE INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT AND THE POLITICAL POSITION OF THE BASQUE COUNTRY WITHIN THE SPANISH STATE by Ariel Bothen A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for a Degree with Honors (International Affairs-POS and Anthropology) The Honors College University of Maine May 2014 Advisory Committee: Dr. James W. Warhola, Professor and Chair of Political Science, Advisor Dr. Seth Singleton, Professor of Political Science Dr. Paul Roscoe, Professor of Anthropology Dr. Gene Del Vecchio, Professor of Spanish, Honors College Dr. Robert Glover, Professor of Political Science, Honors College ABSTRACT The Basque desire for independence or self-governance has been a part of Basque political culture since the medieval era. The Basques have a history of democracy and preserved their self-governance in the face of invasion and domination for many centuries.
    [Show full text]
  • Download the Pdf Version of This Booklet
    SPAIN EUROPEAN ETHICAL - LEGAL PAPERS N° 15 PATIENT RIGHT IN THE EU SPAIN EUROPEAN ETHICAL - LEGAL PAPERS N°15 PATIENT RIGHTS IN THE EU Sarah Defloor Herman Nys Kris Dierickx Tom Goffin SPAIN EUROPEAN ETHICAL - LEGAL PAPERS N° 15 © Kris Dierickx and Herman Nys Preferred citation: S.DEFLOOR, et al., “Patient Rights in the EU - Spain”, European Ethical-Legal Papers N°15, Leuven, 2008. All rights reserved ISBN: 978 90 334 7063 9 FOREWORD Within the Centre for Biomedical Ethics and Law of the Catholic University of Leuven - one of the leading bioethical and legal research centres in Europe - we are involved as coordinator, partner or participant in different European research projects. Biomedical ethics and law are rapidly evolving disciplines. Although there exists already a great number of specialized peer reviewed journals and series of books in both disciplines we felt a growing need for a medium through which the results of our research can directly be presented to the research community and the interested community at large. To meet this need we decided to start the European Ethical-Legal Papers. Such papers will also contribute to the transparency we owe to society that finances our research efforts. We also hope that it will contribute to the discussion and the exchange of information and ideas among researchers in Europe and elsewhere. Herman NYS Kris DIERICKX Professor Medical Law Associate Professor Medical Ethics I II TABLE OF CONTENTS Foreword ............................................................................................... I Table of Contents................................................................................III I. Introduction...............................................................................1 II. Brief Description of Spain ........................................................3 § 1. Political and legal system..........................................................3 § 2. Health care system ....................................................................4 III.
    [Show full text]