DOCSLIB.ORG

Admissibility of OLAF Final Reports As Evidence in Criminal Proceedings

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Admissibility of OLAF Final Reports As Evidence in Criminal Proceedings Admissibility of OLAF Final Reports as Evidence in Criminal Proceedings Fabio Giuffrida and Katalin Ligeti (eds.) June 2019 Prof. Peter Alldridge Prof. Martin Böse Koen Bovend’Eerdt Prof. Michele Caianiello Dr. András Csúri Aart de Vries Prof. Ton Duijkersloot Fabio Giuffrida Argyro Karagianni Dr. Giulia Lasagni Prof. Katalin Ligeti Prof. Michiel Luchtman Prof. Anne Schneider Prof. Juliette Tricot Prof. John Vervaele Prof. Rob Widdershoven This project was funded by the European Commission/OLAF under the HERCULE III programme (HERCULE-LT-AG-2017). Name of the action: ‘Admissibility of OLAF final reports as evidence in criminal proceedings — ADCRIM’. The content of this publication represents the views of the authors only and is their sole responsibility. The European Commission does not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains. University of Luxembourg © the authors This publication is protected by international copyright law. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. ISBN 978-99959-0-485-2 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS AC Appeal cases ACPR Autorité de contrôle prudentiel et de résolution (French Prudential Supervision and Resolution Authority) ADCRIM ‘Admissibility of OLAF final reports as evidence in criminal proceedings’ (name of the present project) ADLC Autorité de la concurrence (French Competition Authority) AFCOS Anti-Fraud Coordination Service AFSJ Area of Freedom, Security and Justice AG Advocate General AIDP Association Internationale de Droit Pénal AMF Autorité des marchés financiers (French Financial Market Authority) AMR Avis de mise en recouvrement (notice of recovery) AO Abgabenordnung (Fiscal Code) APA Hungarian Act on Administrative Procedure AW-Prax Außenwirtschafts-Praxis BaFin Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority) BB Betriebsberater BFH Bundesfinanzhof (Federal Fiscal Court, Germany) BGHSt Bundesgerichtshof (German Federal Court of Justice) BKartA Bundeskartellamt (German Competition Authority) BVerfG Bundesverfassungsgericht (German Federal Constitutional Court) CCP (or CPP) Code of Criminal Procedure (or Code of Penal Procedure) CEPS Centre for European Policy Studies CFR Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union CJEU Court of Justice of the European Union CMF Code monétaire et financier (French Monetary and Financial Code) LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS V COM Communication CONT Committee on Budgetary Control (European Parliament) CRD IV Capital Requirements Directive (Directive 2013/36/EU) CRvB Centrale Raad van Beroep (Central Appellate Court, the Netherlands) CSSF Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (Luxembourgish Financial Sector Supervisory Commission) DAR Deutsches Autorecht DCPJ Direction centrale de la Police judiciaire (French Central Directorate of the Judicial Police) DDHC Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen de 1789 (Declaration of the Rights of the Man and of the Citizen of 1789) DE Germany DG COMP European Commission’s Directorate General for Competition EAEC (Euratom) European Atomic Energy Community EAW European Arrest Warrant EC European Community ECA European Court of Auditors ECB European Central Bank ECHR European Convention on Human Rights ECJ European Court of Justice ECN European Competition Network ECtHR European Court of Human Rights EDP European Delegated Prosecutor EIO European Investigation Order ELEA European law enforcement authorities ELI European Law Institute EPPO European Public Prosecutor’s Office ERA Academy of European Law ESMA European Security and Market Authority EU European Union Eurojust European Union Agency for Criminal Justice Cooperation VI Europol European Union Agency for Law Enforcement Cooperation EuZW Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht EWCA (Civ) England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil division) FG Finanzgericht (Fiscal Court, Germany) FIOD Fiscale inlichtingen- en opsporingsdienst (Fiscal Information and Investigation Service, the Netherlands) FR France GALA Dutch General Administrative Law Act (Algemene wet bestuursrecht or Awb) GG Grundgesetz (German Basic Law) GVG Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz (German Courts Constitution Act) GWB Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen (German Act against Restraints of Competition) HMRC Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs HR Hoge Raad (Supreme Court of the Netherlands) HU Hungary IBOA Institution, body, office or agency IT Italy JA Juristische Arbeitsblätter JHA Justice and Home Affairs JLD Juge des libertés et de la détention (French Liberty and Custody Judge) KWG Kreditwesengesetz (German Banking Act) LPP Legal professional privilege LU Luxembourg MS Member State NCA National competition authorities (but also national competent authorities for ECB-related matters) NJOZ Neue Juristische Online-Zeitschrift NJW Neue Juristische Wochenschrift NL The Netherlands NZV Neue Zeitschrift für Verkehrsrecht LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS VII OJ Official Journal of the European Union OLAF European Anti-Fraud Office OLG Oberlandesgericht (Higher Regional Court, Germany) OM Openbaar Ministerie (Dutch Public Prosecutor’s Office) OSCOLA Oxford Standard for the Citation Of Legal Authorities OTC Over-the-counter OWiG Ordnungswidrigkeitengesetz (German Act on Regulatory Offences) PIF Protection des intérêts financiers PPU Urgent preliminary ruling procedure QB Queen’s Bench QPC Question prioritaire de constitutionnalité RENFORCE Utrecht Centre for Regulation and Enforcement in Europe SEC Staff Working Documents (prior to 2012) SSM (FR) Single Supervisory Mechanism (Framework Regulation) StGB Strafgesetzbuch (German Criminal Code) StPO Strafprozessordnung (German Code of Criminal Procedure) SWD Staff Working Document TEC Treaty of the European Community TEU Treaty on the European Union TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union TUB Testo Unico Bancario (Italian Banking Act) TUF Testo unico delle disposizioni in materia di intermediazione finanziaria (Italian Financial Intermediation Act) UCLAF Unité de coordination de la lutte anti-fraude UK The United Kingdom UKFTT (TC) United Kingdom First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) UKHL United Kingdom House of Lords USA United States of America VAT Value Added Tax VwVfG Verwaltungsverfahrensgesetz (German Act on Administrative Proceedings) VIII WpHG Wertpapierhandelsgesetz (German Securities Trading Act) ZollVG Zollverwaltungsgesetz (German Customs Administration Law) TABLE OF CONTENTS List of abbreviations and acronyms iv 1. INTRODUCTION 1 F. Giuffrida and K. Ligeti 1. Background 1 2. Aim and scope of the research 4 3. Methodology and plan of the study 5 2. EU ADMINISTRATIVE INVESTIGATIONS AND THE USE OF THEIR 7 RESULTS AS EVIDENCE IN NATIONAL PUNITIVE PROCEEDINGS M. Luchtman, A. Karagianni and K. Bovend’Eerdt 1. Introduction 7 2. Europe’s shared legal order and the admissibility of evidence: Three 8 types of problems 2.1 Diverging standards I: From the non-punitive to the punitive 8 2.2 Diverging standards II: From one legal order to another 10 2.3 Diverging standards III: From the administrative law sphere to the 12 criminal 3. The EU framework for the admissibility of evidence 13 3.1 An overview of the general EU principles 13 3.2 The added value of specific EU rules I: Defence rights, procedural 16 safeguards and the recognition of equivalence 3.3 The added value of specific EU rules II: Towards a legal rule of non- 18 inquiry? 3.4 Foto-Frost and the validity of EU investigative actions 22 3.5 In the absence of EU law: Effectiveness, the Charter and procedural 23 autonomy 3.6 Interim conclusions 26 4. DG COMP 28 4.1 Introduction 28 4.2 The rationale of having in place a rule on the admissibility of evidence 29 4.3 How the legal framework of EU competition law enforcement deals 30 with diverging standards 4.3.1 The regime of evidence sharing between the authorities involved in the 30 enforcement of Articles 101 and 102 TFEU 4.3.2 Dealing with diverging standards: Purpose limitation and presumption 33 of equivalent protection of legal persons’ defence rights 4.3.3 Dealing with diverging standards of defence rights of natural persons 34 4.4 Parallel and consecutive proceedings 35 5. ECB 36 5.1 Introduction 36 X 5.2 Follow up by the ECB’s national counterparts 38 5.3 Punitive follow up by national criminal investigative authorities 39 5.4 Parallel proceedings at the EU and national levels 39 6. OLAF 40 6.1 Introduction 40 6.2 The reason for a rule on the admissibility of evidence in OLAF’s legal 42 framework 6.3 The logic of OLAF’s rule on the admissibility of evidence 43 6.4 From gathering by EU administrative investigations to use in national 47 punitive proceedings: Regulation of consecutive and parallel proceedings in OLAF’s legal framework 6.5 Proposed amendment to the OLAF Regulation 49 7. Conclusions 52 3. LAWFUL AND FAIR USE OF EVIDENCE FROM A EUROPEAN 56 HUMAN RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE J.A.E. Vervaele 1. Introduction – The gathering and use of evidence in a transnational 56 setting 2. Rationale of the admissibility and the nullity/exclusion of evidence 59 3. Admissibility of (cross-border) evidence in the EU: Legislative 62 initiatives 4. Mapping the problem from the point of view of effective enforcement 67 and due process 5. Human rights case law on evidence and its exclusion in punitive 71 proceedings: Common standards?
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Germany (1950-2018)
    Germany Self-rule INSTITUTIONAL DEPTH AND POLICY SCOPE Germany has two-tiered regional governance consisting of sixteen Länder and (Land)Kreise. Several Länder have a third tier between these two, Regierungsbezirke (administrative districts). Two Länder have a fourth tier of regional governance, Landschaftsverbände in North-Rhine Westphalia and Bezirksverband Pfalz in Rhineland-Palatinate.1 The 1949 Basic Law of the German Federal Republic granted eleven Länder extensive competences, which include legislative powers for culture, education, universities, broadcasting/television, local government, and the police (C 1949, Art. 74; Council of Europe: Germany 1999; Hrbek 2002; Swenden 2006; Watts 1999a, 2008). Länder also exercise residual competences (C 1949, Art. 70). In addition, the Basic Law states that Länder are responsible for the implementation of most federal laws (C 1949, Arts. 83–85). The federal government may legislate to preserve legal and economic unity with respect to justice, social welfare, civil law, criminal law, labor law, and economic law (C 1949, Art 72.2), and it has authority to establish the legislative framework in higher education, the press, environmental protection, and spatial planning (C 1949, Art. 72.3; Reutter 2006). The federal government exercises sole legislative authority over foreign policy, defense, currency, and public services (C 1949, Art. 73; Council of Europe: Germany 1999; Hrbek 2002; Swenden 2006; Watts 1999a, 2008). It also has exclusive authority over immigration and citizenship (C 1949, Arts. 73.2 and 73.3), though Länder administer inter-Land immigration and have concurrent competence on residence (Bendel and Sturm 2010: 186-187; C 1949, Arts. 74.4 and 74.6).2 However, this is not enough to qualify for the maximum score on policy scope.β The constitutional division of authority was extended to the five new Länder after unification in 1990.
    [Show full text]
  • The Concept of Stare Decisis in the German Legal System – a Systematically Inconsistent Concept with High Factual Importance
    Pobrane z czasopisma Studia Iuridica Lublinensia http://studiaiuridica.umcs.pl Data: 01/10/2021 21:41:15 Part 4. Studia Iuridica Lublinensia vol. XXVII, 1, 2018 DOI: 10.17951/sil.2018.27.1.121 Peter Stainer Attorney-at-law, Frankfurt am Main, Germany [email protected] Dominik König Inhouse legal counsel, Bad Homburg, Germany [email protected] The Concept of Stare Decisis in the German Legal System – A Systematically Inconsistent Concept with High Factual Importance Koncepcja stare decisis w systemie prawa niemieckiego – niespójna systemowo koncepcja posiadająca wysoką realną wartość SUMMARY It is worth mentioning that the German legal system is based on the codified law. This system lacks in stare decisis and precedentsUMCS in general, which – in principle – does not raise doubts. The role of precedent in the decisional process is relative and dependent on the question as to whether the case may be resolved pursuant to a legal act. In that case, precedents would not play any or almost any role at all. However, the role of precedents increases, when there is a lack of appropriate legal rights, or if legal rights require inter- pretation. It should be emphasised that stare decisis understood as a formally binding precedent refers only to rulings issued by the Federal Constitutional Court, whereas precedents of higher courts have a significant meaning to everyday judicial practice in Germany, despite the fact that they are not formally binding. Keywords: stare decisis; precedent; German legal system; Federal Constitutional Court INTRODUCTION Stare decisis is an abbreviation of the Latin phrase stare decisis et non quieta movere, meaning “to stand by decisions and not to disturb settled matters”1.
    [Show full text]
  • Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Monitoring Committee)
    Committee on the Honouring of Obligations and Commitments by Member States of the European Charter of Local Self-Government (Monitoring Committee) Original: English CG-MON(2020)17-03prov Restricted 22 June 2020 Monitoring of the European Charter of Local Self-Government in Austria Rapporteurs1 : Marc COOLS, Belgium (L, ILDG) Andrew DISMORE, United-Kingdom (R, SOC/G/PD) Preliminary draft recommendation ................................................................................................................ 2 Draft explanatory memorandum .................................................................................................................... 5 Summary This report is prepared following the second monitoring visit to Austria since the country ratified the Charter in 1987. It welcomes the constitutional and legal recognition and substantial implementation of the principle of local self-government in Austria, the introduction of the Länder Administrative Courts to strengthen the Austrian federalism, the extension of the competences of the associations of local authorities to cooperate and the reforms carried out since 2011 with a view to clarifying the distribution of competences between the Federation, the Länder and local authorities. The adoption of the New Government Plan with the objective, among other things, to tackle some of the outstanding issues reflected in this report has also been welcomed. At the same time, the rapporteurs stress that in Austria, there is still a high degree of complexity in the allocation of
    [Show full text]
  • Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft in Respect of Non-Equity Securities Within the Meaning of Art
    Base Prospectus 17 November 2020 This document constitutes the base prospectus of Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft in respect of non-equity securities within the meaning of Art. 2 (c) of Regulation (EU) 2017/1129 of the European Parliament and of the Council of June 14, 2017 (the “Prospectus Regulation”) for the purposes of Article 8(1) of the Prospectus Regulation (the “Base Prospectus”). Deutsche Lufthansa Aktiengesellschaft (Cologne, Federal Republic of Germany) as Issuer EUR 4,000,000,000 Debt Issuance Programme (the “Programme”) In relation to notes issued under this Programme, application has been made to the Commission de Surveillance du Secteur Financier (the “CSSF”) of the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg (“Luxembourg”) in its capacity as competent authority under the Luxembourg act relating to prospectuses for securities dated 16 July 2019 (Loi du 16 juillet 2019 relative aux prospectus pour valeurs mobilières et portant mise en oeuvre du règlement (UE) 2017/1129, the “Luxembourg Law”) for approval of this Base Prospectus. The CSSF only approves this Base Prospectus as meeting the standards of completeness, comprehensibility and consistency imposed by the Prospectus Regulation. Such approval should not be considered as an endorsement of the economic or financial opportunity of the operation or the quality and solvency of the Issuer or of the quality of the Notes that are the subject of this Base Prospectus. Investors should make their own assessment as to the suitability of investing in the Notes. By approving this Base Prospectus, the CSSF does not assume any responsibility as to the economic and financial soundness of any issue of Notes under the Programme and the quality or solvency of the Issuer.
    [Show full text]
  • Financial Constitutional Law: a Comparison Between Germany and South Africa
    Financial constitutional law: A comparison between Germany and South Africa DIRK BRAND KONRAD-ADENAUER-STIFTUNG • OCCASIONAL PAPERS • JOHANNESBURG • NOVEMBER 2006 © KAS, 2006 All rights reserved While copyright in this publication as a whole is vested in the Konrad-Adenauer- Stiftung, copyright in the text rests with the individual authors, and no paper may be reproduced in whole or part without the express permission, in writing, of both authors and the publisher. It should be noted that any opinions expressed are the responsibility of the individual authors and that the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung does not necessarily subscribe to the opinions of contributors. ISBN: 0-9802543-2-9 Published by: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung 60 Hume Road Dunkeld 2196 Johannesburg Republic of South Africa PO Box 1383 Houghton 2041 Johannesburg Republic of South Africa Telephone: (+27 +11) 214-2900 Telefax: (+27 +11) 214-2913/4 E-mail: [email protected] www.kas.org.za Editing, DTP and production: Tyrus Text and Design Printing: Stups Printing Acknowledgements The author would like to express his sincere appreciation to the Konrad- Adenauer-Stiftung for the publication of this study as well as to the University of Stellenbosch, which gave permission for the publication. iii The author Dr Dirk Brand* was a constitutional advisor in the Western Cape Provincial Government from the end of 1995 and was, among other things, coordinator of a team of technical advisors responsible for the drafting of the Western Cape Provincial Constitution, 1998. As legal advisor, Brand’s responsibilities included the drafting of legislation, such as the Western Cape Languages Act, 1998, as well as legal opinions on a variety of issues.
    [Show full text]
  • The Federal Supreme Finance Court
    Der Bundesfinanzhof The Federal Supreme Finance Court (English Edition) Contents I. Introduction 4 II. The history of the Federal Supreme Finance Court 1. The period up to 1918 7 2. Establishment of the Reich Supreme Finance Court 8 3. The period from 1933 to 1945 12 4. The Presidents of the Reich Supreme Finance Court 12 5. The Supreme Fiscal Court 13 6. Establishment of the Federal Supreme Finance Court 13 7. The Presidents of the Federal Supreme Finance Court 14 III. The structure of fiscal jurisdiction 1. The arrangement of courts in the Federal Republic of Germany 16 2. Fiscal jurisdiction 17 IV. The organisation of the Federal Supreme Finance Court 1. The individual senates 20 2. The Large Senate 22 3. The Joint Senate of the Supreme Federal Courts 23 V. Procedure at the Federal Supreme Finance Court 1. The individual remedies a) Revision 24 b) Appeals against denial of leave to appeal 25 c) Objections 25 d) Applications 26 2. Compulsory representation 26 3. Parties to the proceedings 26 VI. How cases are handled at the Federal Supreme Finance Court 1. Registration and preliminary handling 29 2. Preparation of proceedings 29 3. Deliberation and voting 30 4. Decisions 30 5. Announcements of the decisions 33 VII. The workload of the Federal Supreme Finance Court Settlement and duration of cases 34 VIII. Significance of Federal Supreme Finance Court decisions; their publication 1. Adjudication on specific cases 36 2. Leading decisions 36 3. Publication a) Decisions bound for publication 37 b) Decisions not bound for publication 38 c) Pending proceedings 39 IX.
    [Show full text]
  • Maritime Arrest Legal Reflections on the International Arrest Conventions and on Domestic Law in Germany and Sweden
    University of Stockholm Faculty of Law Maritime Arrest Legal Reflections on the International Arrest Conventions and on Domestic Law in Germany and Sweden Thesis for obtaining the degree of a “Master of International Law” with specialization in Maritime and Transport Law (LL.M.) Andree Kirchner 6 March 2001 Supervisor: Professor Dr. Hugo Tiberg Director, Axel Ax:son Johnsons Institut för Sjörätt och annan Transporträtt Maritime Arrest CONTENTS ABBREVIATIONS ........................................................................................................................III Andree Kirchner I. THE ARREST CONVENTIONS............................................................................................ 2 A. THE 1952 ARREST CONVENTION.............................................................................................2 B. THE 1999 ARREST CONVENTION.............................................................................................8 II. GERMANY............................................................................................................................ 14 A. INTRODUCTION.....................................................................................................................14 B. MARITIME ARREST...............................................................................................................15 1. Requirements of Arrest.................................................................................................... 15 a) Claim of Arrest ............................................................................................................15
    [Show full text]
  • Country Compendium
    Country Compendium A companion to the English Style Guide July 2021 Translation © European Union, 2011, 2021. The reproduction and reuse of this document is authorised, provided the sources and authors are acknowledged and the original meaning or message of the texts are not distorted. The right holders and authors shall not be liable for any consequences stemming from the reuse. CONTENTS Introduction ...............................................................................1 Austria ......................................................................................3 Geography ................................................................................................................... 3 Judicial bodies ............................................................................................................ 4 Legal instruments ........................................................................................................ 5 Government bodies and administrative divisions ....................................................... 6 Law gazettes, official gazettes and official journals ................................................... 6 Belgium .....................................................................................9 Geography ................................................................................................................... 9 Judicial bodies .......................................................................................................... 10 Legal instruments .....................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • European Rule of Law Mechanism
    European Rule of Law Mechanism Austrian Input European Rule of Law Mechanism Austrian Input Vienna, May 2020 Imprint Austrian Federal Chancellery Ballhausplatz 2, 1010 Vienna +43 1 531 15-0 [email protected] bundeskanzleramt.gv.at Design: BKA Design & Grafik Vienna, 2020 Contents Introduction 5 I Justice System 7 A Independence 8 B Quality of justice 15 C Efficiency of the justice system 18 II Anti-corruption framework 25 A The institutional framework capacity to fight against corruption (prevention and investigation / prosecution) 25 B Prevention 28 C Repressive measures 37 III Media Pluralism 42 A Media regulatory authorities and bodies 43 B Transparency of media ownership and government interference 45 C Framework for journalists’ protection 47 IV Other institutional issues related to checks and balances 50 A The process for preparing and enacting laws 50 B Independent authorities 53 C Accessibility and judicial review of administrative decisions 58 D The enabling framework for civil society 61 Introduction Respect for the rule of law in the Member States and the Union is an important foun- dation for the cooperation within the EU. There can be no compromises on European fundamental values. In its 2020–2024 programme, the Austrian Federal Government emphasises the importance of respecting fundamental European values, advocates strengthening the instruments for safeguarding the rule of law at European level and provides for a number of initiatives at national level. Austria strongly supports the new Rule of Law Cycle proposed by the European Commis- sion in July 2019 and considers the regular and systematic review of all Member States to be an essential step towards strengthening the rule of law.
    [Show full text]
  • BO-ECLI Conference Implementation of the European Case Law Identifier
    Federal Office of Justice BO-ECLI Conference Implementation of the European Case Law Identifier in Germany ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2017:rk20170125.2bvr255716 ECLI:DE:BGH:2017:190117BIZB94.16.0 ECLI:DE:BVerwG:2017:120117B1B115.16.0 ECLI:DE:BFH:2017:U.301116.VR48.15.0 ECLI:DE:BAG:2017:151216.U.6AZR430.15.0 ECLI:DE:BSG:2017:250117UB3P215R0 CC-RIS June 8, 2017 Federal Office of Justice National ECLI coordinator Bundesamt für Justiz [Federal Office of Justice] Kompetenzzentrum Rechtsinformationssystem des Bundes [Federal Competence Centre - Legal Information System] (CC-RIS) Adenauerallee 99-103 53113 Bonn Germany Phone: +49 228 99 410-5801 E-Mail: [email protected] Internet: www.bundesjustizamt.de CC-RIS June 8, 2017 Federal Office of Justice Implementation at Federal Level court assignment of ECLI allocation for the EU crawler Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) implemented in 2015 yes (2016) Federal Court of Justice (BGH) implemented in 2016 to be done Federal Administrative Court (BVerwG) implemented in 2013 yes Federal Fiscal Court (BFH) implemented in 2016 to be done Federal Labour Court (BAG) implemented in 2015 to be done Federal Social Court (BSG) implemented in 3/2017 to be done Federal Patent Court (BPatG) implementation planned to be done CC-RIS Page: 3 June 8, 2017 Federal Office of Justice ECLI-identifiers at Federal Level ECLI country court year of the ordinal number code code decision Federal ECLI : DE : BVerfG : 2017 : rk20170125.2bvr255716 Constitutional Court Federal Court ECLI : DE : BGH : 2017 : 190117BIZB94.16.0
    [Show full text]
  • Kuj - Englisch - Seiten001-800.Indb 1 05.08.2008 19:32:16 Ef - Kuj - Englisch - Seiten001-800.Indb 2 05.08.2008 19:32:26 Child and Youth Policy
    Child and Youth Policy Child and Youth Services in the Federal Republic of Germany Structures – Institutions – Organisations ef - kuj - englisch - seiten001-800.indb 1 05.08.2008 19:32:16 ef - kuj - englisch - seiten001-800.indb 2 05.08.2008 19:32:26 Child and Youth Policy Child and Youth Services in the Federal Republic of Germany Structures – Institutions – Organisations New edition expanded and updated for 2008 By: Stefan Becsky Marie-Luise Dreber Dirk Hänisch with the assistance of: Katrin Althoetmar ef - kuj - englisch - seiten001-800.indb 3 05.08.2008 19:32:26 IJAB – Fachstelle für Internationale Jugendarbeit der Bundesrepublik Deutschland e. V. [IJAB – In- ternational Youth Service of the Federal Republic of Germany] (formerly: International Youth Exchange and Visitors’ Service of the Federal Republic of Germany) works in the fi elds of international youth work, in- ternational youth policy and youth information. The expert agency works on behalf of the Federal Ministry for Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth (BMFSFJ), its member organisations and other central child and youth service providers. IJAB’s range of services includes the organisation of worldwide programmes for children and youth service professionals in the context of the bilateral youth policy relations of the Federal Republic of Germany, train- ing and qualifi cation for professionals from a wide spectrum of providers as well as a comprehensive range of information and consultation services on all matters of international youth work. With its activities, the expert agency wants to make a contribution to the mutual understanding of young people from various countries and cultures, to promote the acquisition of intercultural skills, to support non- formal education processes and to strengthen the international knowledge transfer in the fi eld of child and youth services and child and youth policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Germany (Numbers of 2017), a Total of 17000 Are Members of the DRB
    CCJE-BU(2020)1 Strasbourg, 29 January 2020 CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN JUDGES (CCJE) Questionnaire for the preparation of the CCJE Opinion No. 23 (2020): “The role of the Associations of Judges in supporting the judicial independence” Please in your answers do not send extracts of your legislation but describe the situation in brief and concise manner. General 1. How many Associations of Judges (please note that they can have different names) exist in your country? a) For judges of all jurisdictions and all court levels: 2 b) For judges of certain jurisdictions only: 1 for administrative court judges c) For judges of certain court levels only: 1 for the magistrate/district court judges d) Are there Associations of Judges on some other criteria (i.e. women judges): 0 (only 1 for female lawyers in general, not restricted to judges, “djb”) Total number of all types of Associations of Judges: … Other objectives _____ It is difficult to determine the number of Associations of Judges. 1 The biggest Association of Judges is the Deutsche Richterbund (DRB). It is the oldest Association (founded on 1.1.1909). It is a national member association. This Association has national member associations with respective sub associations/regional divisions on state level or divisions for highest federal courts. It consists of 25 respective sub associations. 16 of the sub associations belong to the federal states; 5 sub associations belong to the highest federal courts (Bundesgerichtshof – Federal Court of Justice/ Generalbundesanwalt – Federal Prosecutor General, Bundesarbeitsgericht – Federal Labour Court, Bundessozialgericht – Federal Social Court, Bundesfinanzhof – Federal Fiscal Court and the Bundespatentgericht – Federal Patent Court).
    [Show full text]