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: AUSTRIA

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: AUSTRIA

Functions: JUDGE

Length of service: 4 years

Identification of the exchange

Hosting jurisdiction/institution: Glostrup

City: GLOSTRUP

Country: DENMARK

Dates of the exchange: 21/10/2013 - 1/11/2013

Type of exchange:

one to one exchange group exchange

general exchange specialized exchange (please specify : )

REPORT

1. Programme of the exchange:

The programme started on Monday, 21st of October at 10.00 a.m. at the Glostrup district court. A group of 6 judges from the Netherlands, Italy, Romania, Poland and Austria was warmly welcomed by the president of the district court, L.L., the head of the secretariat M.A. and deputy judge D.A.

We were given a presentation of the programme for the next two weeks. The programme consisted of different types of activities. Whereas on the one hand side we were shown different hearings in civil, criminal, bailiff and probate cases, we visited on the other hand side various institutions in the area, such as the Danish Court Administration Office, the High Court of Eastern Denmark, the General Prosecutor's Office, the Danish Parliament and the . We also visited a very special and unique institution, namely the Appeals Permission Board.

The visit at the above - mentioned institution always included a guided tour and a presentation of the tasks of the institution by internals and closed with a general discussion and comparison between the different member states' system. At the Danish Parliament (Folketinget) there was the possibility of a

European Judicial Training Network With the support of the European Union Exchange Programme for Judicial Authorities discussion with two members of parliament about the legal affairs committee and the present situation in Denmark and present developments (e.g. gang - crime related laws).

II. The hosting institution:

We were glad to be hosted by a very well organised team from the district court of Glostrup. The district court of Glostrup has jurisdiction over approximately 396.000 inhabitants within the dense inhabited greater Copenhagen area with about 690 inh./km². At the Glostrup district court there are about 38 judges. 19 judges out of this number are appointed judges and the rest of them are so - called "deputy judges". Deputy judges are judges, that are hired by the presidents of the district courts. Their salary is lower than those of the appointed judges but they work under the same constitutional protection of judges as well. Although there is no regulation about that, it is usual, that you can only became an appointed judge, when you have fulfilled a nine - months training and evaluation at the High Court, passed a hearing at the Judicial Appointments Council and when you are no younger than 40 years old. Therefore the established posts for appointed judges are stated by law and can not be transferred or changed by the administration of the courts.

The Glostrup district court annualy deals with about 13.600 criminal cases, 4.400,-- civil cases, 29.000 bailiff cases an 3.700 probate court cases on average.

The Glostrup district court is one of the 24 district courts of Denmark. The district courts are the courts of first instance. Every case starts at this level, even big criminal cases with a jury. In the court system there are two High Courts that build the Courts of second instance, namely the Eastern High Court and the Western High Court. At the top of the court system there is the Danish Supreme Court. There are also two specialised courts: the Maritime and Commercial Court and the Land Registration Court.

Besides the courts there are also other institutions that secure a balanced and well functioning court system: - the Appeals Permission Board - the Judicial Appointments Council - the External Review Board - the Danisch Court Administration

Denmark itself has about 5,8 mill. inhabitants. There are about 360 appointed judges. Besides the appointed judges there are numerous deputy judges, approximately 500 - 600. This number varies throughout a year. The wages of the judges are when compared with the average earnings, quite high. The public has a very high trust in the court system. This is a result of a very transparent public adminstration and a very transparent court system. The media have special rights to receive judgements and informations about proceedings. In every court rooum there are special places for the media.

It is indeed usual, that a judge both deals with civil and criminal cases. Some judges deal with family cases, bailiff cases or probate cases too. Usually an average week of a judge consists of two days of hearings in civil cases and two days of hearings in criminal cases. One day per week the judges have a day off to work out the written decisions and prepare for the hearings.

It is very common that judges have side - jobs as well. As there are no administrative courts, there are several special boards, where a judge has to be the chairman. The board that controls this activities is the External Review Board.

The Glostrup district court depends on the budget of the Danish Court Administration Office, that is fully independent from the ministry of Justice. The Danish Court Administration Office and the General Prosecutors' Office put very much effort in getting the best graduates from university in order to have the best legal trained persons as judges. With good marks at university and good personal requirements it is

European Judicial Training Network With the support of the European Union Exchange Programme for Judicial Authorities quite simple to become a deputy very quickly. Then there continues a stage of a training period of about three years, that closes with a test. The better the evalution of the test (that you can't fail) the more likely you once will become an appointed judge.

III. The law of the host country: Denmark already shows some influence of case - law systems. It is not very common like in central European countries, that in the regulations every detail is stipulated precisely. Therefore it is without any doubt very necessery to know similar rulings in a specific area of law. What struck me most was the length of civil proceedings that are indeed kept very short. Since summer 2013 there is the possibility to summon parties by phone calls to court. I was also particularly interested in the possibility to hold hearings via telephone - conferences, e.g. the first hearings in civil cases. This is a very fast an speedy way of starting a case.

One more fact of the law of the host country that interested me was the law about the court structure. In 2007 the court systems was restructured. The number of courts very cut and there was put an empasis on more efficiency. One part of this was the centralised Land Registration Court that was put on the country side to put a balance of job offers between the city area of Copenhagen and the countryside. This Court works very fast an deals with registration of real estate and cars. Applications for registration can be sent electronically and very easily, there are hardly any formal criterias. The applications are treated within some days.

IV: The comparative law aspect in your exchange: In my opinion there were a lot of interesting inputs I could experience in Denmark. The main difference between Austria and Denmark was, in my point of view, the role a judge plays in a court room. While a judge in Austria leads a process, asks questions and shows a very active role in the hearings, a judge in Denmark really "hears" a case and takes over a more passive role. This is in fact a very good understanding in favour of being unbiased and not to help one party through asking the right questions. Moreover it is very rare, that judges interfere, when a laywer holds a speech presenting the evidences or his conclusion, although they are often repeating themselves. Whereas you could think that the judge doesn't follow the whole process, you could also get the idea of this passive role, that every party gets a chance to present their case without being disturbed or interrupted. Finally the judgements are kept very short too. Whereas in Austria a judgement has to be very detailed an precise, especially in weighing the presented evidence and the grounds for the ruling, the judgements in Denmark are much shorter. This is of course a consequence of the proceedings at the High Courts, where the proceedings are repeated completely and new evidence is allowed.

At this point I want to point out two differences between Austria and Denmark when it comes to legal aid and appeals. In general legal aid is centralised and decided by clerks at a specialised office. The requirements are proved equally for each party. If a party is not granted legal aid, there is the possibility of filing an appeal to the Appeals Permission Board, that consists of two chambers. Each chamber has a Supreme Court judge as a chairman, a High Court judge, a district Court judge, a law professor from university and and one person from the public. One chamber deals with legal aid quests and the other one decides in minor crime cases (less than 30 days of prison) and minor civil cases if an appeal can be filed. If the decision is negative, the proceedings end at the first instance court and there is no possibility to file an appeal. This system is quite rare but approved by the European Court of Human Rights. It helps to keep proceedings short and prevents that the High Courts and the Supreme Courts are floated with cases.

One major similarity between Austria and Denmark was the possibility of oral rulings and the very emerged electronically equipment and programmes in order to receive statistics.

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

V. The European aspect of your exchange: The sitution in Denmark is very difficult when it comes to the implementation of EU - regulations and directives. Concerning European cooperation there are Danish opt - outs especially concerning defence policy, justic and home affairs, the euro and union citizenship, stated in the Edinburgh Agreement. Whereas these opt - outs grant Denmark a more independent policy, it also means a loss of influence for Denmark, because they can not take part in decisions. The judges are very unsatisfied with the present situation. The obstacle that makes Denmark a little bit an alone - standing member state in the area of the judiciary is the constitution itself. The Danish constitution states, that before a change of the constitution can be made via an EU - regulation or directive and to change this opt - outs in opt - ins, the present government has to resign, hold a referendum on this topic and be reelected afterwards.That deters every government so that there is little chance of changing this for the future. The Danish therefore put, instead of implementing the regulations and directives, the content of the EU - matters in a Danish law and it passes parliament as Danish law.

VI. The benefits of the exchange: It is absolutely clear that going abroad and exchanging opinions broadens your sight on your home judicial system. It is not only the host country, where you can pick up different ideas and different ways of solving problems in a certain area of law, it is as also a very worthful benefit to have discussions with judges from other member states about their systems, their concerns, their successful and less successful measures and about their point of view in order what can be changed to make things work more smoothly. The exchange moreover helps to understand problems in other countries, when it comes to mutual legal requests.

VII. Suggestions: To my mind it is important to continue the EJTN - exchange programme and create incentives to reach even more judges and prosecutors to take part. The most valueable thing about the exchange was the group exchange itself that provides one with even more information and inputs also from other member states and not only from the host country. Sometimes it seems there is still a lot to be discussed and exchanged. That's the reason why our group decided that we want to keep in touch and organise meetings of the group in the future in order to continue this fruitful exchange!

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

SUMMARY

The report treats the position of the Glostrup district court within the Danish court system, points out the role of Danish judges and gives an overview about the caseload that judges in Denmark have to deal with. Moreover the report shows some institutions embedded in the court systems that have special tasks, e.g. the Danish Court Administration Office and the Appeals Permission Board. Furthermore there are some specific details that can help shortening civil proceedings that are pointed out in the report, like phone call meetings and phone call summonses. With regard to the European Union "legislation", the Danish position is explained. At the end of the report the participant compares and makes suggestions for future exchange programmes.

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