European Judicial Training Network Exchange Programme for Judicial Authorities

REPORT ON THE EXCHANGE AND SUMMARY

Instructions: 1. The report must be sent to the EJTN ([email protected]) within one month after the exchange. 2. Please use the template below to write your report (recommended length: 4 pages). 3. Please write in English or French. Should this not be possible, the report can be written in another language but the summary must be in English or French. 4. Please read the guidelines for drafting the report (in Annex). Feel free to add any other relevant information in your report. 5. The summary shall contain a synthesis of the most important information of the report. 6. Please note that NO NAMES, neither yours nor the ones of the persons you met during your exchange, should appear in the report in order to ensure anonymity1. Initials can be used when necessary.

Identification of the participant

Name:

First name:

Nationality: polish

Country of exchange:

Publication For dissemination purposes and as information for future participants in the Programme please take note that, unless you indicate otherwise, EJTN may publish your report in its website. In this case the report will remain anonymous and your name and surname will not appear. To this aim, please do not mention any names in the reports. Initials can be used instead.

Please tick this box if you do not wish for your report to be published

For completion by EJTN staff only Publication reference:

1 To that purpose, the first page of this report will be taken out before any possible publication

Réseau Européen de Formation Judiciaire/European Judicial Training Network (aisbl) Rue du Luxembourg 16B, B-1000 Bruxelles; Tel: +32 2 280 22 42; Fax: + 32 2 280 22 36; E-mail: [email protected]

With the support of the European Union

For completion by EJTN staff only Publication reference:

Identification of the participant

Nationality: polish

Functions: judge

Length of service: 6,5 years

Identification of the exchange

Hosting jurisdiction/institution: Supreme Court in Tartu

City: Tallinn

Country: Estonia

Dates of the exchange: 2 to 13 September 2013

Type of exchange:

one to one exchange group exchange

general exchange specialized exchange (please specify : )

REPORT

I. Programme of the exchange The exchange took place from 2 to 13 September 2013 in Tallinn, but one day we were also in Tartu and Johvi. My group consists of six judges: from Italy - civil judge, Germany - administrative judge, Romania - administrative judge, Finland - administrative judge, France - civil judge and one from Poland - criminal judge (me).

First day-2 September 2013 At. 9:30 we visited Ministry of Justice in Tallinn. There we had a lecture about court system in Estonia, especially about CIS (Court Information System). This system automatically allocates cases to all judges. There are public e-files. That means that each Estonian citizen via his identity card has a posibility to contact with his case in a court. This identity card is putting to the computer with internet and with the help of two secret codes you can contact with all institutions including courts in Estonia. It is conected with digital signature. With the help of your ID card you can also vote, register your car, pay in e-shops or check your penality. I also got there an information that judges in Estonia have specialisation. It means that judge dealing with a criminal law is specialised for example in robbery cases or judge dealing with a civil law is specialised for example in tax cases.

European Judicial Training Network With the support of the European Union Exchange Programme for Judicial Authorities

Then, about 11:30 we visited Tallinn Circuit Court and Tallinn Administrative Court. It is in the same building in the center of Tallinn. Our host was the president of the court. He told us about courts and judges in Estonia in general and about his duties. After lunch, at 15:00 we visited Office of Prosecutor General. Each of our group got written information about prosecutors and districts in Estonia. Our host explained us the structure of office of prosecutors in Estonia and obligations of public prosecutors, the ways how to become a prosecutor and disciplinary proceedings. The Prosecutor's office leads the pre-trial proceeding ensuring the legality and effectiveness of it and represents public prosecution in court. Prosecutors decide: whether the police must start criminal proceedings or to initiate these proceedings himself; in what manner and how much evidence must be gathered; whether to allow or apply for a court permission for coercive measures or special investigative means; whether to close a criminal case or send it to the court or in which form the criminal case must be processed in the court. Worth mention is that the author of indictment must attend hearing of his case since district court to Supreme Court. There is 165 active public prosecutors in Estonia. They are working in 4 different districts: Northern District Prosecutor's Office, Southern District Prosecutor's Office, Western District Procecutor's Office and Viru District Prosecutor's Office. Each District is divided into departments. The Prosecutor General directs the activities of the Prosecutor's office at national level. Chief State Prosecutors control the Procecutor's Offices work in the field of criminal procedure by managing the respective departments. State prosecutors deal with cross-border, international and advanced level priority crimes. Distict Prosecutor's offices are administered by a Chief Porsecutor. Departments of the District Prosecutor's Office are managed by Senior Prosecutors. Special prosecutors work in district prosecutor's office and deal in a project based manner with specific crimies. District Prosecutors deal with so called "ordinary crime" in the region. There is also assistant prosecutor who has the same powers as prosecutors, except for the right to participate independently in adversarial procedures. Public prosecutor may terminate criminal proceedings if: circumstances which preclude criminal proceedings become evident, the person who committed the criminal offence has not been ascertained and it is not possible to gather additional evidence, the criminal offence has been committed by a minor (under 14 years old) or by a person between age of 14 and 18 and it is not reasonable to punish him, the guilt is small and the case has no public interest, a punishment is not appropriate as the person is already serving a punishment for something else, the criminal offence is committed by foreign citizens or in foreign states, a person has substantially contributed to the investigetion of a serious crime, reasonalbe proceeding time is exceeded or penal mediation is applicaable. In Estonia as a public prosecutor is working 31 % men and 69 % women. 44,4 % of prosecutors is between 31 - 40 years old, 27,5 % is between 41-50 years. In the evening we had a dinner and before guided tour in the Old City Center in Tallinn.

3 September 2013 at. 9:30 we visited Harju Country Court . We were shown the whole building of court and were informed about the structure of the court. It was a meeting with some civil judges and changing experiance. Then, about 11:30 we visited Estonian Parliament (). We had a trip in the building of Parliament. Our guide told us about the history of the building and it's architecture and also about estonian parliamentary system. We saw the main hall. Then we had a meeting with one member of Parliament and former president of Supreme Court in Tartu. It was really interesting conversation. After lunch, about 15:00 we were also visiting the Office of the of Justice. We hadn't possibility to meet him, but we were talking with 2 women working in his office. They told us in detail about this institution and about thier work. We were shown some statistics. We were comparing competences of Chancellor of Justice in Estonia with Ombudsman in other countries.

4 September 2013 At 9:30 we visited the Harju Country Court - Criminal Court.

European Judicial Training Network With the support of the European Union Exchange Programme for Judicial Authorities

We met there the president of court and my mentor judge. We were also told a little bit about criminal proceedings and about the structure of the court. We met some lawyers who help judges in their work. At 11:30 we visited Estonian Bar Association in Tallinn. We met one member of this association. He presented us a little bit of history, organisation, disciplinary proceedings and some statictics. Bar Association in Tallinn has 869 members. It means that it is 1 lawyer for 1,864 people. At 15:00 we visited Office of the . We had a tour in President's palace. Our guide told us history about the building, it's equipment and about former presidents and present president of Estonia. President of Estonia - was born in Stockholm and has spent much of his life living and working of five different countries. He is the president since 2006. Before he was member of european parliament, member of parliament of the Republic of Estonia, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Chairman in North Atlantic Institute, Ambassador of the Republic of Estonia to the USA, Canada and Mexico, Head of Estonian Deck in Radio Free Europe in Germany, analyst and researcher for the research unit of Radio Free Europe, lecturer in Estonian Literature and Linguistic Simon Fraser University in Canada, director and Administrator of Art in Vancouver Arts Center in Canada, Assistant Director and English teacher in Open Education Center in the USA and research assistant in Columbia University in the USA. Toomas Hendrik Ilves had published many essays and articles in Estonian and English on numerous topics ranging from Estonian language, history and literature to global foreign and security policy. His books include essay collections in Estonian, Finnish, Latvian and Hungarian. He has also many decorations. According to §77 of Constitution of the Republic of Estonia the President is the head of state of Estonia. The President: 1)represents the Republic of Estonia in its international relations; 2) appoints and recalls diplomatic agents of the Republic of Estonia on the proposal of the Government of the Republic, and receives the credentials of diplomatic agents accredited to Estonia; 3) calls regular elections of the Riigikogu and, pursuant to §§ 89, 97, 105 and 119 of the Constitution, extraordinary elections of the Riigikogu; 4) convenes the new Riigikogu pursuant to § 66 of the Constitution, and opens its first sitting; 5) makes proposals to the Speaker of the Riigikogu to convene an extraordinary session of the Riigikogu pursuant to § 68 of the Constitution; 6) proclaims laws pursuant to §§ 105 and 107 of the Constitution, and signs instruments of ratification; 7) issues presidential decrees pursuant to §§ 109 and 110 of the Constitution; 8) initiates amendments of the Constitution; 9) nominates the Prime Minister candidate pursuant to § 89 of the Constitution; 10) appoints to and releases from office members of the Government of the Republic pursuant to §§ 89, 90, and 92 of the Constitution; 11) makes recommendations to the Riigikogu regarding appointments to the office of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Chairman of the Board of the Bank of Estonia, Auditor General and Chancellor of Justice; 12) on the recommendation of the Board of the Bank of Estonia, appoints the president of the Bank of Estonia; 13) on recommendations of the Supreme Court, appoints judges; 14) [repealed – RT I, 27.04.2011, 1 – entry into force 22.07.2011]; 15) confers national awards and military and diplomatic ranks; 16) is the supreme commander of national defence of Estonia; 17) makes proposals to the Riigikogu to declare a state of war, to order mobilisation and demobilisation and, pursuant to § 129 of the Constitution, to declare a state of emergency; 18) in the case of aggression against Estonia, declares a state of war and orders mobilisation pursuant to § 128 of the Constitution; [RT I, 27.04.2011, 1 – entry into force 22.07.2011] 19) by way of clemency, grants release or commutation of sentence to convicted offenders at their request; 20) initiates the bringing of criminal charges against the Chancellor of Justice pursuant to § 145 of the Constitution.

European Judicial Training Network With the support of the European Union Exchange Programme for Judicial Authorities

The President is elected by the Riigikogu or, in the case provided in paragraph four of this section, by the Electoral College. The right to nominate a candidate for the election of the President rests with not less than one-fifth of the members of the Riigikogu. Nominations of candidates for President may be made from among citizens of Estonia by birth who have attained at least forty years of age. The President is elected for a term of five years. No one may be elected to the office of the President for more than two consecutive terms.

5 September 2013 In the morning we went to Johvi, where at 11.00 we visited Courthouse. Johvi is situated 164 km from Tallinn. In this city the building of the court is new and very modern. Johvi and all east - northern part of Estonia is mostly russian -speaking. That's why judges from this part of country have to know not only estononian, but also russian language. We had a meeting with the president of the court and some judges.We were talking about translation problems during hearings. Estonian code of criminal proceedings provides, that all hearings must be in estonian language, but if everybody agree it can be also in foreign language. At 13:00 we visited Viru Prison in Johvi. We had lunch at the prison canteen and guided tour with vice-director of this prison. The buildings of prison are very modern, because the prison was built in 2007. There is custody and arrested house and in both about 1000 prisoners can be kept. We were visiting different departments of prison (for instance: custody, for juvenile) and industry were prisoners were employed . They made coffins from wood and things from meal. This industry is inside prison and it is managed by outside company. Close to this prison there is open-regime prison. We went to Tartu in the evening.

6 September 2013 At 9:30 we visited Supreme Court in Tartu. We had quick tour in Supreme Court building. We saw courtrooms and heard a history of the building, which used to be a hispital in the past. We also had a short lecture about estonian court system. Ministry of Justice has no disciplinary authority over the judges.

At 12:00 we visited Tartu Courthouse - Country and Circuit Court. We had meeting with judges. At 15:30 we visited University Faculty of Law. We met professor of law and we had a short lecture about Faculty of Law and it's history. She told us about a soviet period in Estonia and it was really interesting. In the afternoon we came back to Tallinn.

Next week we had individual exchanges. Friends from my group from Germany, Finland and Romania dealing with administrative law had thier trainig in Tallinn Administrative Court and the Administrative Chamber of Tallinn Circuit Court. Judges from Italy nad France dealing with civil law had trainig in Harju Country Court. I had my training in Harju Country Court in Liivalaia street. It is a criminal court in first instance. On Monday 9 of September 2013 I attend some hearings: first was postponed because defendant didn't come and judge decide to forced him by police to come to court. Next hearing was about laundering money and public prosecutor gave some new documents. During last hearing defendant explained and he didn't plead guilty. He was accused of murder. Defendant's lawyer apply to interrogate 3 new witnesses and judge agreed. In this case victim's family want to get 5000 euro from defendant as a compensation. After hearing I was reading files of theres cases and discussed about it.

On Tuesday, 10 of September 2013 I was shown e-court system and all it's possibilities. I also attended some hearings. First was about laundering money. There were 4 defendants and translator, because they were russian-speaking Estonians. I attend hearing in fast procedure. It took place in the judge's office. Defendant was accused of pickpocketing. I also saw compromise procedure (plea bargaining). It's an agreement between defendant and public procecutor. There were two defendants who stole caviar from the shop. Public prosecutor upholded an agreement with one defendant and withdrew an agreement with the other, because he became to be accused in the meantime. This day I also attend some hearing

European Judicial Training Network With the support of the European Union Exchange Programme for Judicial Authorities connected to change unpaid fine to community service or custody. There was one defendant from France. He was speaking English and there was also a English translator. Judge decide to change his unpaid fine to community service. Another hearing was via huge screen, because it was videoconference. This case was postponed because lawyer didn't come. In the afternoon I came to the Civil Cuircuit Court. I am dealing with criminal cases, but sometimes victims of crimes apply for compensation and I am of course obliged to know this field of law. And that's why I decided to go to this meeting with the chairman of civil chamber. She gave us some statistics, and explained the way of appeal in civil court. We attened an appeal hearing about common property. There was a dispute about the value of real estate.

11 September 2013 We went to detention center for illegal immigrants in Harku-12 km from Tallinn. There were some hearings via videoconference. Illegal immigrant was in detention center and judge, translator, representative of a state (border police) and lawyer were in administrative court in Tallinn.The immigrant didn’t apply for legal stay in Estonia before. Judge didn't announce his verdict. The verdict in later time was sent to immigrant. We were also informed about this detention center. It was open in 2003 and it has 80 place. Men and women are separate, except when they are family. There are 4 persons in one no-locked room. They can go outside, but they can't move from the center. They can learn language, play games and make some other avtivities. They have no compuer access with internet, because of security reasons. Maybe in near future they will have limited access to internet. Detention center is closly coopereted with Red Cross. Daily cost of one illegal immigrant is 12 euros. When they leave center, they got an invoice and obliged to pay. Illegal immigrants in Estonia are mostly from Vietnam, Moldova, Ukraine, Russia and Georgia. We had a trip inside and outside center. Our guide told us about daily life in center and information about regulations.

12September 2013 At 9:00 o' clock delegation of judges from Thailand visited Administrative Court and I was also attending this meeting. At 10:00 I came back to Criminal Court. I attend to preliminary hearing. The case was about financial cheat with a civil claim. Each difficult case start from preliminary proceedings. On this hearing parties can give new evidences, but they have to justified the reason.When the case is not so difficult judge is arranging terms of hearings with public procecutor and defendant. Then, my mentor gave my files from cases of 13 September 2013 and explained me procedure and we were talking about these cases. This day I also attend to hearing with videoconference. Defendant who was in prison applied for parole.

13 September 2013 It was my last day of training. I attend two hearings in a short procedure. In one of these case the verdict was announced and everybody was obliged to stand up. After, judge gave short justification and all parties signed that they are not going to appeal. That's why verdict became into force immedialety.

II. The hosting institution The hosting institution was Supreme Court (Riigikohus) in Tartu. Supreme Court is the third instance in estonian system of law. The reason that Supreme Court is situated in Tartu, not in capital city is to seperate judges of this court of any political influences. There are four general chambers of Supreme Court: 1) Civil - it is the highest court in civil matters 2) Criminal - it is the highest court in criminal matters 3) Administrative 4) Constitutional Review.

European Judicial Training Network With the support of the European Union Exchange Programme for Judicial Authorities

There is also the Supreme Court en banc. It is the highest body of Supreme Court, which is comprised of all19 justices of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court en banc is convened and chaired by the chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Theres are also ad hoc chambers, consisting of members of different Chambers, are set up if necessary. Each justice of the Supreme Court belongs to one of the Civil, Administrative Law or Criminal Chambers. The activities of Chambers are directed by the chairmen. The Chairmen and members of the Chambers are appointed by the Supreme Court en banc. Verdicts of Supreme Court cannot be appealed and it is reviewed by panels of three judges. An oral hearings are organised only if a participant has requested or if the court deems it necessary. So general rule is written proceedings. The judgments are based on the facts established by the judgement of the lower instance court. It means that in Supreme Court there is dispute only on the points of law. An appeal to Supreme Court can be filed olny through a qualified representative. An appeal can be filed by a person only in administrative cases. The appeal can be refused to be accepted for proceedings if there is no grounds for acceptance. The appeal is accepted if court applied a provision of substantive law incorrectly in its judgment or violated a provision of procedural law. Supreme Court make a judgement within 30 days after court session. This term can be extended for up to 60 days with a good reason. Verdict of Supreme Court can for example: amend a judgment of lower court or return the case to lower court. There is also Director of the Supreme Court who coordinates the work of court and is responsible for execution of the budget of the court. Besides Director there is also the Supreme Court Office, The Accounting Departament, The Personnel Departament, the Assets management departament, the Informatin Technology Departamenet, Legal Information Departament, the Public relations Departament, the Judicial training Departament and Executive Assistant to the Chier Justice. Ministry of Justice has no disciplinary authority over the judges of Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is a member of the following international organizations: World Conference on Constitutional Justice (WCCJ), Conference of European Constitutional Courts, Association of Councils of State and Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions of the European Union (ACA-Europe), Network of the Presidents of European Supreme Judicial Courts of the European Union and others.

III. The law of the host country In Estonia I was particularly interested in the Chancellor of Justice, because for me it was something new. This institition was established in 1938, but today there are some differences. There are only 3 of Justice in the world: in Sweden, Finnland and in Estonia. The Chancellor of Justice in Estonia is Indrek Teder. In general the Chancellor of Justice is a genereal body for petitions (kind of ombudsman) and he is a guardian of constitutionality in the country. He can make some recommendations, but it is not binding. The Chancellor of Justice is a kind of ombudsman for children, but he can't represent children in court. He also can't start proceedings protecting children. He is obliged to protect the rights of children in their relations with the individuals and authorities that perform public functions. Also he must ensure that all those who make decisions affecting children are guided by their best interests. In Poland the Human Rights Defender must safeguard the liberties and rights of citizens as set forth in the Constitution and in other legal acts. On matters concerning children the Defender shall co-operate with the Children’s Rights Defender. Due to § 139 Constitition of the Republic of Estonia the Chancellor of Justice is a government offical who scrutinises legislative instruments of the legislative and executive branch of government and of local authotities for conformity with the Constitition and the laws. He is indepemdent in discharging his duties. The Chancellor of Justice considers proposals made to him concerning the amendment of laws, the passage of new laws and the work of government agencies and if necessery reports his findings to Parliament. The Chancellor of Justice is appointed to office by the Parliament for term of 7 years on a recommendation of the President. He can be removed form office by a court judgement. The Chancellor of Justice may participate in sittings of the Parliament and in the meetings of the Government of The REpublic with a right to speak. If the Chancellor of Justice finds that a legislative instrument passed by the legislative or executive branch of government or by a local authority is in conflict with the Constitution or a law, he or she makes

European Judicial Training Network With the support of the European Union Exchange Programme for Judicial Authorities a proposal to the body which passed the instrument to bring it into conformity with the Constitution or the law within twenty days. If the instrument is not brought into conformity with the Constitution or the law within twenty days, the Chancellor of Justice refers the matter to the Supreme Court who may declare the instrument invalid. The Chancellor of Justice presents an annual report to the Riigikogu on the conformity of legislation passed by the legislative and executive branch of government and by local authorities with the Constitution and the laws. He can also do inspection visits for the prevention of ill-treatment and then he's doing report of the visit. For example in 2013 he visited Sõmera Home of Hoolekandeteenused and give them some suggestins. Ltd. Another place which was visited by him was Psychiatry Department of Narva Hospital. They were also given some suggestions, for instance: to use a specific register on the application of restraining measures that contains the details of all cases in which restraining measures are applied, to adhere to the requirement of personal and immediate assessment of a person’s condition by a doctor when restraining measures are applied or to guarantee that persons held in the department for involuntary treatment have the opportunity to get fresh air every day. And as a result of the inspection by the Chancellor of Justice in Haapsalu Welfare Centre he made the following suggestion to guarantee the fundamental rights and freedoms of persons: to guarantee the existence of an isolation room in the welfare centre that meets all requirements . The legal status of the Chancellor of Justice and the organisation of his office are to be provided by law. Criminal charges may be brought against the Chancellor of Justice only on the proposal of the President, and with the consent of a majority of the members of the Riigikogu.

IV. The comparative law aspect in your exchange Similarities: 1) trials are open for the public. 2) when judge is announcing the verdict everybody have to stand up 3) in Poland and in Estonia there is a speed proceeding in criminal cases and settlement between defendant and public prosecutor called in Estonia compromise procedure (plea bargaining). It is an agreement between parties about punishment without going to trial. Judge can approve this aggreement or not

Differences: 1)in Estonia theres is a barrister for almost each defendant in criminal cases in Estonia 2) recording and minutes. In Poland during hearings judge dictate minutes and secretary have to write it on computer. There is no recording. In Estonia secretary is also writing a minute, but also they record speeches of the parties. 3) in Estonia verdicts are send via e-mails with e-signature to defendants, lawyers and public procecutors in Estonia 4) sending and getting documents via e-mail with e-signature by a court in Estonia 5) in Poland before starting a hearing secretary is going out of the courtroom and loudly has to announce the case. In Estonia they don't. 6) In Poland judge before trial is sitting in the courtroom and waiting for the parties, but in Estonia everybody can enter the courtroom and is waiting for a judge 7) e-system in Estonia which digitally allocates cases to each judge. In Poland chairman of each division alllocates cases to judges 8) In Poland not only judge, but also public prosecutor and barrister is obliged to put gown (special official suit) during hearings. In Estonia public prosecutor and barrister have't gowns. 9) specialisation In Estonia judges have specialisation, for example criminal judge can specialise in robbery cases. In Poland it is impossible - each criminal judge must deal with all kinds of penal cases. 10) in Estonia there is no Constitutional Court, but there is Constitutional Chamber in the Supreme Court 11) in Estonia there is Chancellor of Justice - he has close competenties to ombudsman from Poland

European Judicial Training Network With the support of the European Union Exchange Programme for Judicial Authorities

12) in Poland the Supreme Court is in Warsaw, but in Estonia the Supreme Court is situated not in the capital city. It's because to avoid the influence of politicians on judges. 13) in polish criminal procedure public prosecutor send to the court indictment with all evidences. Judge must know all evidences before trial. In Estonia public prosecutor send only indictment. Jugde during the trial is finding out all the evidences, for example when witnesses is testify or when prosecutor bring documents to hearing. 14) In Estonia court call for witnesses by e-mail. In Poland court is obliged to use traditional post or call for a witness with the help of the police. 15) In Estonia speed proceeding takes place in judge ' s office. In Poland speed proceedings take place in courtroom. 16)In Estonia jugde don't start a new case until the current isn't close 17) In Estonia the author of indictment must attend hearing of his case since district court to Supreme Court. In Poland there is no such rule. In one case in criminal proceedings for each hearing may come different prosecutors.

V. The european aspect of your exchange During my exchange in Tallinn I didn't have an opportunity to observe the implementation or references to community instruments or the Convention of Human Rigths. But me and my judge-mentor were discussed some verdicts from European Court of Human Rights conected with Estonia. The judicial cooperation was discussed during a meeting in Ministry of Justice and also between people from my group. We exchanged our experience in this field and we were talking about our national law conected with this kind of cooperation.

VI. The benefits of the exchange It's obvious that there are a lot of benefits of this exchange. First of all, the opportunity to observe the estonian system of law. For each lawyer all over the world it's very interesting to see different system of law from inside. It's not only theory, but also practice. Next advantage is talking with judges from Estonia and other countries.I had the possibility to know many interesting things about other judicary systems, not only estonian, but also about french, italian, german and romanian judiciary. The last benefit I can mention is possibity to use my English, especially legal English expressions. Additionaly, I can say that the exchange makes me more open minded. I also hope to uphold contact with people from my group and maybe meet them in the future. These benefits can be usuful in my judicial practice, because we were exchanging our experience with european arrest warrant and international cooperation. Nowadays, when borders are open in Europe international cooperation is very imoprtant topic. We were talking for instance about calling witnesses from abroad. Colleagues from my court were very interesting about the exchange and about estonian courts. I told them everything about international cooperation and about e-system in Estonia. Everybody was impressed!

VII. Suggestions In my opinion it's hard to find which aspects in Exchange Programme could be improved, because all organisation of this exchange was perfect. Before exchange I received e-mails with all important and usuful information. And also during exchange our mentors were very kind and helpful to explain everything.

European Judicial Training Network With the support of the European Union Exchange Programme for Judicial Authorities

SUMMARY

My exchange took place in Tallinn from 2 to 13 September 2013. It was wonderful and very interesting time! The hosting institution was Supreme Court in Tartu, but my practice took place in district court (Harju Maakohus) in Tallinn. My group consisting of one judge from Poland (me), one person from Romania, one person from Germany, France, Finnland and Italy . In my group were judges dealing with civil and administrative law. Each of us had his own mentor and we allocated to different courts according to our experience. We were attending hearings and assisting in tutor's daily work. Additionaly, we had arranged study visits in many institutions, such as: Ministry of Justice, Supreme Court, Bar Association, prison and at University Faculty of Law in Tartu. The whole schedule of the exchange was very usuful, because it has practical and also theoretical issues.

I am very pleased to have an opportunity to take part in exchange programme in Estonia. For me it was an unforgettable experience. I met a great numer of intresting judges, we exchanged many information and views. It was extremely fruitful use of time. That's why I want to thank for possibility going to Estonia.

European Judicial Training Network With the support of the European Union Exchange Programme for Judicial Authorities

ANNEX GUIDELINES FOR DRAFTING THE REPORT

I- Programme of the exchange Institutions you have visited, hearings, seminars/conferences you have attended, judges/prosecutors and other judicial staff you have met… The aim here is not to detail each of the activities but to give an overview of the contents of the exchange. If you have received a programme from the hosting institution, please provide a copy.

II- The hosting institution Brief description of the hosting institution, its role within the court organisation of the host country, how it is functioning…

III- The law of the host country With regard to the activities you took part in during the exchange, please develop one aspect of the host country’s national law that you were particularly interested in.

IV- The comparative law aspect in your exchange What main similarities and differences could you observe between your own country and your host country in terms of organisation and judicial practice, substantial law..? Please develop.

V- The European aspect of your exchange Did you have the opportunity to observe the implementation or references to Community instruments, the European Convention of Human Rights, judicial cooperation instruments? Please develop.

VI- The benefits of the exchange What were the benefits of your exchange? How can these benefits be useful in your judicial practice? Do you think your colleagues could benefit of the knowledge you acquired during your exchange? How?

VII- Suggestions In your opinion, what aspects of the Exchange Programme could be improved? How?

European Judicial Training Network With the support of the European Union Exchange Programme for Judicial Authorities