REPORT ON THE EXCHANGE PROGRAMME

IDENTIFICATION OF PARTICIPANT:

NAME: FIRST NAME: NATIONALITY: ROMANIAN COUNTRY OF EXCHANGE: SLOVAKIA FUNCTION: JUDGE LENGTH OF SERVICE: 10 years

IDENTIFICATION OF THE EXCAHANGE:

HOSTING JURISDICTION/INSTITUTION: SLOVAK JUDICIAL ACADEMY, DISTRCIT COURT IN MIHALOVCE CITY: BRATISLAVA/MIHALOVCE COUNTRY: SLOVAKIA DATES OF EXCHANGE: 09-20.07.2012 TYPE OF EXCHANGE: ONE TO ONE EXCHANGE

REPORT

PROGRAMME OF THE EXCHANGE:

During my exchange programme I visited several institutions in several cities and I had informative discussions with several judges and prosecutors: District Court in Mihalovce, District Court in Preslov, Court of Appeal in Preslov, Prosecutor Office in Preslov, District Court and Court of Appeal in Kosice, Detention Center in Kosice, Judicial Academy in Pezinok, Special Criminal Court in Pezinok, Supreme Court and Ministry of Justice in Bratislava. All these discussions revealed precious information on judicial system in Slovakia that made me reach the conclusion that it is rather similar to the one in Romania.

THE HOSTING INSTITUTION

The courts in Slovakia are organized on hierarchical level: district courts that have general competence, courts of appeal that rule on appeals and the Supreme Court that is competent to decide on extraordinary remedies (concerning legal issuses). There is one district court in the main city of each of the 8 regions (e.g. District Court 1 in Kosice) that deals with most serious crimes for which the minimum penalty is 10 years imprisonment. The courts of appeal are also competent to issue decisions on extradition, EAWs and transfer of the convicted persons in order to continue executing the penalty. There is also an autonomous court, The Special Criminal Court in Pezinok that deals with organized crime, corruption of public reprezentatives and murders in the first degree and its decisions can be appealed at the Supreme Court. There are 8 Courts of Appeal and in each of them 5 to 8 district courts. In criminal matters, the district courts judge in panels of 3 (one professional judge and 2 non-professional judges) misdemenours and crimes punished with less than 5 years imprisonment comitted with intent or by neglijence and in panels of a single professional judge in all the other cases. The Courts of Appeal judge in panels of 3 professional judges.

The judges are recruited on an interveiw basis before a comission made of several members amongst whom the President of the Court and a person designated by the Minister of Justice and by the Council of Judges, after which they function as assitant of judge for a period of at least 3 years in the court for which they applied. During this period of three years they also attend courses organized by the Judicial Academy preparing the judicial exam, also organized by this institution. After passing the judicial exam they are appointed by the President of the Republic, provided that they are at least 30 years old. Prosecutors are recruited through a similar system and there is no age condition for them. Judges may express their option to become prosecutors during their professional career (prosecutors also may request switching to judges).

The Judicial Academy of the Slovak Republic was set on the 1st of September 2004. Before this date there was the Slovak Association of Judges that was organizing the initial and continuous training of judges.

It is an educational institution with nation-wide coverage, an independent legal entity, a non-profit budgetary organization under the Ministry of Justice of the Slovak Republic. It manages funds specifically allocated for the purpose of education of judges, prosecutors and court officials.

The legal seat and the administration of the Academy is in the municipality of Pezinok, 30 kilometers away from the Slovak capital, Bratislava. The courses are organized in a different location in the Slovak countryside, in Omšenie, next to the spa town of Trenčianske Teplice in West Slovakia. In order to ensure the training regional centers were set in Pezinok, Banska Bystrica and Kosice.

The academy prepares and subsequently verifies the professional knowledge of the future judges, prosecutors and court officials organizing the professional judicial exam. It also creates, administrates and protects the data base of files concerning criminal law, administrative law, labour law, family law, commercial law and civil law that can be consulted by the candidates when preparing the judicial exam.

The pedagogical staff comprises of heads of departments (permanently working at the Academy) and external members (mainly judges, prosecutors and other experts who are chosen by the Board of the Academy).

The Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic was established by Constitution of the Slovak Republic. The powers of the Court are regulated by Articles 124 to 140 of the Constitution and details on organisation of the Constitutional Court, on the proceedings before the Court and on the status of its Judges are stipulated in law No. 38/1993.

Pursuant to § 79 of law No. 38/1993, the Plenary Session of the Constitutional Court has approved the Procedure and standing order of the Constitutional Court No. 114/1993 Coll. as amended, defining the internal conditions of the Constitutional Court during the decision-making, the status of the Plenary session, Senates, Judges, Judges-Rapporteurs, Legal Advisors and other persons taking part in activities of the Constitutional Court, as well as disciplinary proceedings against the judges.

The tasks connected with the organisational, personal, administrative and technical aspects of the activity of the Constitutional Court are carried out by the Chancellery of the Constitutional Court. Details on the organisation and activity of the Chancellery of the Constitutional Court and on the status of its staff are set out in the Organisation schedule, approved by the Plenary Session of the Constitutional Court.

The Constitutional Court manages its finances from the state budget as an independent budget category in accordance with law No. 523/2004 Coll. on budgetary rules as amended.

The Supreme Court is organized in 4 sections: commercial, civil, administrative and criminal and currently has 80 judges. The Court judges in panels of 3 or 5 judges and it decides on extraordinary remedies and appeals against the decisions issused by the Special Criminal Court or by the courts of appeals in cases concerning the recognition of a foreign judicial decision. Two or three times a year the judges from each section adopt in a general assemby general recomandations for the inferior courts.

The Council of Judges is formed of 18 members: 9 members elected by judges, 3 appointed by the President of the Republic, 3 by the Governement and 3 by the Parliament and the candidates can be either judges or professors. The Council decides whether a candidate is competent to become a judge, on career of judges (transfer, promotions) and it is the disciplinary body for the judges.

The Special Criminal Court in Pezinok was set in 1st of September 2004 and is dealing with corruption cases, organized crime, terrorism, first degree murder. There are 13 judges functioning in this Court that has the assistance of police and prosecutors specially designated. The cases are judged in panels of three judges and there is an average of 15-20 cases per year.

In the District Court in Mihalovce are functioning 15 judges. Each judge has a secretary (who is typing the paper work) and an assistant (who does the research for the cases and writes down the decisions). In order to become an assistant of judge one must pass a written and oral exam, as well as a linguistic exam (translation from Slovak to English).

The Court of Appeal in Preslov is organised in 4 sections: civil, commercial, administrative and criminal and has 40 judges.

In the Prosecutor Office in Preslov- regional level are functioning 15 prosecutors: 4 in the organized Crime Division, 4 in the International Division and 7 in the Civil Division.

The Detention Centre in Kosice started to function on 1st of July 1968, after the prisoners had helped with the construction of the building. Initially was a medium security facility, but nowadays it is a minimum security prison. Currently there are 660 inmates detained in this center. The cells were built to harbour 8/9 inmates, but currently, due to the lack of space, in each cell there are an average of 11 detainees and there are still 1500 convicted persons in the region awaiting outside to execute their sentence. The juvenils are held separatly, also the women are separated from men and the prime offenders from the ones with prior criminal record. The regime is decided by the judge in each case (whether the convicted person will execute the sentence in a maximum, medium or minimum security facility). For executing life imprisonment there are 2 separate facilities. A month before finishing the sentence, the inmate is prepaired for the release by the Pre- release Department and he has several meetings with a social worker, with a pedagog and a psychologist. The inmates can obtain a leave of absence of maximum 5 days to visit their families on the decision of the director of the penitenciary. In case of an inmate breaking the internal regulations, there is a disciplinary procedure that can end with sanctions as restriction of the right for shopping or isolation after work (the pedagog can decide a sanction up to 10 days of isolation and the head of departament up to 20 days isolation). The confiscation as a disciplinary sanction is decided solely by the director of the penitenciary. The inmates must work through executing the sentence (inside or outside the detention center) and they can be excused in case of illness.

THE LAW OF THE HOST COUNTRY AND THE COMPARATIVE LAW

The information obtained through the discussions I had with judges and prosecutors, as well with other representatives of the judicial system lead to the conclusion that in criminal matters the Romanina and Slovak systems are rather similar. The investigation phase is supervised and controlled by the prosecutor but the judges decide on the liberties of the defendants (arrest warrant, search warrant, interception of the phone) even in this phase. A first instance court will decide whether the defendant is guilty or not guity and apply a sentence if the case. This decision can be appealed before the Court of Appeal. The difference may reside in the option that the Romanian system made to have first instance competence for each level of the courts (from district courts to the High Court of Cassastion and Justice) and to have 4 levels of hierchiezed courts (district courts, tribunals, courts of appeal and Supreme Court). Unlike the Romanian system where there are only professional judges, in Slovakia in certain matters there can be also two non-professional judges (elected from a list of citizens sent by the local administrative authorities) to be a part of the panel. Also, the role of the assistant of judge is rather important, doing the research on internal and international law and jurisprudence, whilest in Romania the legal clerk is doing the job of a scribe.

EUROPEAN ASPECTS OF THE EXCHANGE

Unfortunately, I didn’t have the chance to directly observe implementation of the Community instruments, the ECHR or other judicial cooperation instruments since judges do not seem very keen to applying European legislation claiming the internal legislation is respecting the European standards.

BENEFITS OF THE EXCHANGE AND SUGESTIONS

After two weeks in Slovakia, where I have met some wonderful people, who gladly sacrificed their time in order to allow me to have at least a glimpse of the judicial system, I can estimate that this programme offered me a complex perspective that can lead to a better understanding of the national law with the possibility to propose law ammendaments and improvements. I trust that this exchange helped strenghten mutual confidence through a greater awareness, knowledge and understanding of both Romanina and Slovak judicial systems. Also, the contact with magistrates coming from a different area of culture, along with their specific national identity, values and traditions, helped me I myself as human being, but also acquire that sense of belonging to single area of justice, shared by justice practitioners in the Member States. I intend to share the information I have gained from this training with my fellow magistrates through the descentralized training programe with the approval of the Court of Appeal and to directly apply it in my future activity as a criminal law judge.