DOCSLIB.ORG

Compilation Replies Questionnaire

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Compilation Replies Questionnaire CCPE-GT(2012)1 Bilingu e/ bilingual Strasbourg, 31 mai / May 2012 CONSEIL CONSULTATIF DE PROCUREURS EUROPEENS CONSULTATIVE COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN PROSECUTORS (CCPE) Questionnaire sur la gestion des moyens des ministères publics Questionnaire on management of the means of the prosecution services Compilation des réponses au questionnaire Compilation of replies to the questionnaire Contents Table des matières Albania/Albanie ..............................................................................................................................................3 Armenia/Arménie ...........................................................................................................................................9 Austria / Autriche ........................................................................................................................................ 15 Bulgaria / Bulgarie ...................................................................................................................................... 19 Croatia / Croatie .......................................................................................................................................... 26 Czech Republic / République Tchèque ...................................................................................................... 31 Denmark / Danemark .................................................................................................................................. 37 Estonia / Estonie ......................................................................................................................................... 41 Finland / Finlande ....................................................................................................................................... 46 France ......................................................................................................................................................... 52 Georgia / Géorgie ....................................................................................................................................... 57 Germany / Allemagne ................................................................................................................................. 64 Greece / Grèce ........................................................................................................................................... 69 Hungary / Hongrie ....................................................................................................................................... 71 Italy / Italie ................................................................................................................................................... 78 Latvia / Lettonie .......................................................................................................................................... 83 Liechtenstein ............................................................................................................................................... 87 Monaco ....................................................................................................................................................... 89 Poland / Pologne ........................................................................................................................................ 94 Portugal..................................................................................................................................................... 103 Montenegro / Montenégro ........................................................................................................................ 109 Norway / Norvège ..................................................................................................................................... 112 Romania / Roumanie ................................................................................................................................ 117 Russian Federation / Fédération de Russie ............................................................................................. 124 Slovakia / Slovaquie ................................................................................................................................. 135 Slovenia / Slovénie ................................................................................................................................... 143 Spain / Espagne ....................................................................................................................................... 156 Sweden / Suède ....................................................................................................................................... 161 Switzerland/Suisse ................................................................................................................................... 167 2 Ukraine...................................................................................................................................................... 174 Albania/Albanie SECTION I: Status of the prosecution services in the state administration 1. Please specify the status of the prosecutor and the prosecution service in your state. Is it an autonomous institution? If yes, how is this autonomy guaranteed? Prosecution service and the prosecutors in Albania are independent from the government. The General Prosecutor is the Head of the Service. He is appointed by the President of Republic, and the proposal must get the approval of the parliament. At least once in 6 months, the General Prosecutor presents a report to the Parliament or to the parliamentary commissions. The prosecutors are appointed by the President of Republic after he gets the proposals from the General Prosecutor. Article 54 of the Law on Prosecution Service specifies that the Council of Ministers is not allowed to recommend to General Prosecutor to proceed or not in a specified case. It can only give recommendations as to the priorities that must be kept in the fight against criminality in the current year. 2. Does the ministry of justice or another authority govern the activity of the prosecution service? If so, how? NO. 3. Which authority is responsible for the creation of prosecutor positions? The General Prosecutor proposes to the President of Republic the number of prosecutors positions, after has received the opinion of Ministry of Justice. 4. Please indicate if there is any connection between the prosecution service and the Ministry of Justice or another public authority in terms of financial and human resources, IT facilities etc. If so, please describe how this connection works. As regards the human resources (prosecutors), the answer is given above. As to the financial resources, the request is headed to the Ministry of Finances, which decides on the amount that is to be allocated to Prosecution Service or other institutions each year. At the start of each year the parliament approves a law on the budgetary funds and the number of employees. 5. Is the prosecution service independent from other institutions when implementing and managing its own budget? The law on the prosecution service, art.57, specifies that the Prosecution Service has an independent budget, which is drafted, administered and managed conform to the existing legal framework. Each fiscal year the Prosecution Service presents to the government and to the parliament its requests for the annual budget. SECTION II: Financial rules and regulations of the prosecution service 6. Does the law governing the prosecution service include provisions on financial management and on the executive’s obligation to provide it with the necessary infrastructure? The article 57 of the Law on prosecution service, mentioned above, is the only one to deal with this subject. 7. Please describe how and when the budget of the prosecution service is managed (preparation, distribution of funds between the budget lines). In March and April of each year, must be prepared the demands (detailed, taking in consideration all the needs the service has) for budgetary funds in the new budgetary year and for the 3 years period (medium term budgetary demands). In the first stage (April), the demands are headed to the Ministry of Finances which revise them. In August (second stage), a summary of all the demands is sent to the Ministry of Finances. In September, meetings take place with representatives of Ministry of Finances where are 3 examined the limits (funds allocated) posed by the Ministry and the additional demands of the institution. At the start of new year the budget and the total number of employees is approved by the parliament with the law on the budget. 8. Is there a specific department within the prosecution service responsible for the management of resources? Finance and Economical Department is responsible for the management of budgetary funds. 9. Is there a national and/or centralised IT system for managing, monitoring and evaluating the budget of the prosecution services? Does this system include a mechanism for increasing the efficiency of the resource management? Yes. The National System of Treasury, and an IT system in the Prime Minister Office. We don’t have any access in it. SECTION III: Resources of the prosecution service 10. Please specify the amount of budget of the prosecution service for 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 (€ equivalent), indicating the distribution between staff expenditure and other types of expenditure. Article EURO Code
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 1492 Reconsidered: Religious and Social Change in Fifteenth Century Ávila
    1492 RECONSIDERED: RELIGIOUS AND SOCIAL CHANGE IN FIFTEENTH CENTURY ÁVILA by Carolyn Salomons A dissertation submitted to Johns Hopkins University in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Baltimore, Maryland May 2014 © 2014 Carolyn Salomons All Rights Reserved Abstract This dissertation is an assessment of the impact of the expulsion of the Jews from Spain in 1492 on the city of Ávila, in northwestern Castile. The expulsion was the culmination of a series of policies set forth by Isabel I of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon regarding Jewish-Christian relations. The monarchs invoked these policies in order to bolster the faith and religious praxis of Catholics in the kingdoms, especially those Catholics newly converted from Judaism. My work shows how the implementation of these strategies began to fracture the heretofore relatively convivial relations between the confessional groups residing in Ávila. A key component of the Crown’s policies was the creation of a Jewish quarter in the city, where previously, Jews had lived wherever they chose. This transformation of a previously shared civic place to one demarcated clearly by religious affiliation, i.e. the creation of both Jewish and Christian space, had a visceral impact on how Christians related to their former neighbors, and hostilities between the two communities increased in the closing decades of the fifteenth century. Yet at the same time, Jewish appeals to the Crown for assistance in the face of harassment and persecution were almost always answered positively, with the Crown intervening several times on behalf of their Jewish subjects. This seemingly incongruous attitude reveals a key component in the relationship between the Crown and Jews: the “royal alliance.” My work also details how invoking that alliance came at the expense of the horizontal alliances between Abulense Jews and Christians, and only fostered antagonism between the confessional groups.
    [Show full text]
  • OEA/Ser.E CP/Doc.5610/20 18 May 2020 Original: Spanish/English
    PERMANENT COUNCIL OEA/Ser.E CP/doc.5610/20 18 May 2020 Original: Spanish/English TWENTY-EIGHTH REPORT OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL TO THE PERMANENT COUNCIL ON THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES MISSION TO SUPPORT THE PEACE PROCESS IN COLOMBIA (MAPP/OAS) Twenty-Eighth Report of the Organization of American States Mission to Support the Peace Process in Colombia (MAPP/OAS): Link CP42379E04 - 2 - TWENTY-EIGHTH REPORT OF THE SECRETARY GENERAL TO THE PERMANENT COUNCIL ON THE ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN STATES MISSION TO SUPPORT THE PEACE PROCESS IN COLOMBIA (MAPP/OAS) The following report is submitted pursuant to resolution CP/RES. 859 (1597/04), in which the Permanent Council of the Organization of American States requests the Secretary General to report periodically on the work of the Organization's Mission to Support the Peace Process in Colombia,1 hereinafter "MAPP/OAS" or "the Mission." This report cover the period between July 1 and December 31, 2019, and presents the findings of 1,251 field missions conducted in 594 communities pertaining to 191 municipalities in 20 departments of Colombia. Those communities included municipal capitals, townships, villages, indigenous reserves [resguardos], and community councils. In the period covered, the Mission logged a total of 295,933 kilometers by land, and 5,961 kilometers by river. The support of the international community is vital for the MAPP/OAS to be able to carry out the activities envisaged in its mandate. The GS/OAS therefore wishes to thank the donors and friends of the MAPP/OAS, in particular the Basket Fund countries (Germany, Canada, Spain, United States, Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Sweden) whose political and financial support makes it possible for the mission to carry out its functions.
    [Show full text]
  • Xenophobia, Radicalism and Hate Crime in Europe 2015
    European Centre for Tolerance European Centre for Democracy Development Institute for National Policy and Ethnic Relations Studie Šamir Biedrība XENOPHOBIA, RADICALISM AND HATE CRIME IN EUROPE 2015 Athens-London-Berlin-Paris-Moscow-Roma- Krakow-Budapest-Kiev-Amsterdam 2016 Editor in Chief and Project Head: Dr. Valery Engel, Chairman of the Expert Council of the European Centre for Tolerance Authors: Dr. Valery Engel (general analitics), Dr. Anna Castriota (Italy), Dr. Ildikó Barna (Hungary), Bulcsu Hunyadi Hungary), Dr. Vanja Ljujic (Germany, Netherlands), Tika Pranvera (Greece), Katarzyna du Val (Poland), Dr. Semen Charny (Russia), SOÓS Eszter Petronella (France), Ruslan Bortnik (Ukraine), Dr. Jana Salmina (Ukraine), Alex Carter (UK) Authors thank the Chairman of the European Centre for Tolerance, Mr. Vladimir Shternfeld, for his financial support of the project 2 УДК ББК Авторский знак Xenophobia, Radicalism and Hate Crime in Europe, 2015. − Editus, 2016. − ХХ с. The book analyses major manifestations of hatred in the European space in 2015, as well as factors that influenced the demand for radicalism in society. Special attention was paid to how European governments respond to modern challenges. Analysis is given on the basis of 8 EU countries (France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and the United Kingdom), as well as Russia and Ukraine, as countries who play a significant role in political and economic processes in Europe. ISBN © European Tolerance Center, 2016 © European Center for Democracy, 2016 © Šamir Biedrība, 2016 3 FOREWORD 2015 was a year characterised by an unprecedented migrant crisis, escalated terrorist activity, and increased influence of radical political parties. Growing xenophobic tensions were accompanied by the rise of populist parties on the one hand and the radicalisation of Muslim youths on the other, which played a significant role in the attitude and treatment of refugees and immigrants this year.
    [Show full text]
  • Conference of the Parties to the United Nations Convention Against
    United Nations CTOC/COP/WG.4/2017/INF/1/Rev.1 Conference of the Parties to the Distr.: General 22 September 2017 United Nations Convention English/French/Spanish against Transnational Organized Crime Working Group on Trafficking in Persons Vienna, 6-8 September 2017 LIST OF PARTICIPANTS States Parties Afghanistan Mohammad Naeem POYESH, Counsellor, Chargé d'Affaires, Permanent Mission to the United Nations, Vienna Abdul Subhan MOMAND, Third Secretary, Permanent Mission to the United Nations, Vienna Armin SCHULLER, Political Specialist, Permanent Mission to the United Nations, Vienna Nandini VENKATA, Intern, Permanent Mission to the United Nations, Vienna Algeria Faouzia MEBARKI, Ambassadeur, Représentante permanente, Mission permanente auprès des Nations Unies, Vienne Sid Ahmed MOURAD, Sous-Directeur de la Justice pénale spécialisée, Ministère de la Justice Boukabou Walid RIAD, Chargé du dossier de droits de l'Homme, Commandement de la Ge ndarmerie Nationale Anise AISSOU, Commissaire principal de police, Chef, Bureau de la prévention du banditisme, Direction Générale de la Sûreté Nationale Kahina MESTAR-LEBBAZ, Secrétaire des Affaires Étrangères, Mission permanente auprès des Nations Unies, Vienne Angola Maria DE JESUS FERREIRA, Ambassador, Permanent Representative, Permanent Mission to the United Nations, Vienna Mariano Joao BAPTISTA, Minister Counsellor, Alternate Permanent Representative, Permanent Mission to the United Nations, Vienna Paulo Nicolau CANDEIA, Second Secretary, Adviser to the Permanent Representative, Permanent Mission
    [Show full text]
  • Afghanistan's Fight Against Corruption
    AFGHANISTAN’S FIGHT AGAINST CORRUPTION Groundwork for Peace and Prosperity UNITED NATIONS ASSISTANCE MISSION IN AFGHANISTAN May 2019 UNAMA May 2019 | Anti-Corruption Report Contents 1. Introduction .......................................................................................................................................... 6 1.1 Afghan context .............................................................................................................................. 6 1.2 Purpose, scope and methodology of the report ........................................................................... 7 2. Anti-Corruption measures and reform framework (focus: executive branch) ...................................... 9 2.1. The Government’s delivery on international commitments to fight corruption ............................... 9 2.2. The High Council for Rule of Law and Anti-Corruption .................................................................... 12 2.3. The Anti-Corruption Strategy’s implementation and revision ......................................................... 14 2.4. Legislative reforms ........................................................................................................................... 17 2.4.1. The new Anti-Corruption Law ................................................................................................... 18 2.4.2. The new Law on Whistle Blower Protection ....................................................................... 21 2.4.3. The ongoing revision of the Supreme Audit
    [Show full text]
  • Mechanism for Follow-Up on Implementation of the Inter-American Convention Against Corruption
    MECHANISM FOR FOLLOW-UP ON OEA/Ser.L. IMPLEMENTATION OF THE INTER-AMERICAN SG/MESICIC/doc.479/16 rev. 4 CONVENTION AGAINST CORRUPTION 15 September 2016 Original: Spanish Twenty-Seventh Meeting of the Committee of Experts September 12-16, 2016 Washington, DC MEXICO FINAL REPORT (Adopted at the September 15, 2016 plenary session) SUMMARY This report contains the comprehensive review of the implementation in Mexico of the recommendations that were made to it in the Second Round in connection with Article III (5) and (8) of the Inter-American Convention against Corruption, in relation, respectively, to systems of government hiring and procurement of goods and services, and systems for protecting public servants and private citizens who, in good faith, report acts of corruption, as well as classification of the acts of corruption envisaged in Article VI thereof, including references, as appropriate, to new developments in the implementation of those provisions. The report also includes a comprehensive analysis of the implementation in Mexico of Article III (3) and (12) of the Convention, which concerned, respectively, measures to create, maintain, and strengthen instruction to government personnel to ensure proper understanding of their responsibilities and the ethical rules governing their activities, and the study of further preventive measures that take into account the relationship between equitable compensation and probity in public service, which were selected by the MESICIC Committee of Experts for the Fifth Round, likewise including
    [Show full text]
  • RULE of LAW for the 21St Century
    ADVOCACY PAPER RULE OF LAW for the 21st Century ‘Man’s capacity for justice makes democracy possible, man’s inclination to injustice makes democracy necessary’ — Reinhold Niebuhr Published by: Foundation for Democratic Reforms/Lok Satta For Copies: Foundation for Democratic Reforms #6-3-1187, 801 & 806, 8th Floor, Srinivasa Towers, Beside ITC Kakatiya Hotel, Begumpet, Hyderabad - 500016 Telangana Phone: +91-40-2341 9949 Fax: +91-40-2341 9948 Email: [email protected]; [email protected] www.fdrindia.org ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The ‘Rule of Law for the 21st Century’ Advocacy Paper aims to bring certain key areas of reform in the rule of law institutions to the forefront of public discourse. This effort was made possible with the invaluable insights of some of the leading experts in the areas of police, forensics, prisons, and judiciary. We would like to extend our heartfelt gratitude to the following for their guidance and support: 1. Justice M.N. Venkatachaliah, Former Chief Justice of India 2. Shri P. S. Ramamohan Rao, Former Governor, Tamil Nadu 3. Justice Jasti Chelameswar, Former Judge, Supreme Court of India 4. Shri C. Anjaneya Reddy, Former Director General of Police, Andhra Pradesh 5. Shri K. Padmanabhaiah, Former Union Home Secretary 6. Shri Kamal Kumar, Former Director, National Police Academy 7. Shri Justice G. Raghuram, Director, National Judicial Academy 8. Dr. Gandhi P. C. Kaza, Founder Chairman, Truth Labs 9. Dr. M.R. Ahmed, Former Director, Academy of Prisons and Correctional Administration Contents List of Tables List of
    [Show full text]
  • Download Review PDF , Format and Size of the File
    Volume 90 Number 870 June 2008 Address by General Jean-Rene´ Bachelet General Jean-Rene´ Bachelet (2nd Son) was General Inspector of the Armed Forces of the French Republic. In 1995 he commanded the Sarajevo sector in the former Yugoslavia for UNPROFOR, during the paroxysm of the siege until its lifting. Between 1999 and 2004 he led a study to draw up an ethical and behaviour framework for the army and initiated an ambitious reform of the initial training of officers at Saint Cyr, the foremost French military academy. He gave the following opening address at the Interregional Meeting on the Role of Sanctions in Ensuring Greater Respect for International Humanitarian Law, held in Geneva on 15–17 November 2007. When I was invited to introduce this subject, my initial fear was that you were taking a risk in giving the floor to someone who has spent 42 years in uniform and in the infantry at that. This is a meeting of experts and I am obviously no expert on international law, let alone on the sanctions which are intended to reinforce it. However, my impression that, in asking me to speak, you had picked the wrong person was dispelled when, having read your documentation, I realized that the backdrop for the subject was in fact wartime behaviour, a topic with which I am not exactly unfamiliar. The least I can do is to start by setting the scene. It is important and even crucial to appreciate the atmosphere surrounding wartime events if one wishes to understand what prompts people’s behaviour.
    [Show full text]
  • Engraved on Spain's Memory
    Engraved on Spain’s Memory A case study of political discourses present in the media concerning three cemeteries for victims of the Civil War and the Francoist dictatorship, and their contested contribution to national reconciliation. Francisco Soto Fernández Communication for Development One-year master 15 Credits June 2021 Supervisor: Kersti Wissenbach ABSTRACT This Degree Project deals with the current discourses present on several (web)sites of memory related to three selected cemeteries for victims of the Civil War and the Francoist dictatorship and analyzes their potential contribution to national reconciliation, taking into consideration the presumed social or political interests of the actors behind the (web)sites. Collective memory must be seen as a social construction since memory stems from the shared remembrances of society and relates to key social concepts such as identity. Memory is a changeable device forged through a transformative process in which different actors are involved, from direct witnesses to memory spaces, and recently, the Internet. Memory is also discourse and as discourse is aimed at achieving power by controlling the group. Lately, the Internet has become a battlefield for competing memories, and (web)sites of memory are an opportunity to impose, in the post-truth era, a partial version of historical events. With the purpose of providing answers about whether current discourses present on (web)sites of memory can help achieve national reconciliation, this DP makes use of Discourse Analysis as a primary method, and also in-depth semi-structured interviews - in a limited number - to attain a better understanding through the uniqueness of the knowledge generated by the respondents.
    [Show full text]
  • Cdl-Ad(2019)011
    Strasbourg, 24 June 2019 CDL-AD(2019)011 Opinion No. 910 / 2017 Or. Engl. EUROPEAN COMMISSION FOR DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW (VENICE COMMISSION) REPORT ON THE RECALL OF MAYORS AND LOCAL ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES Adopted by the Council of Democratic Elections at its 65th meeting (Venice, 20 June 2019) and the Venice Commission at its 119th Plenary Session (Venice, 21-22 June 2019) on the basis of comments by Mr Josep Maria CASTELLA ANDREU (Member, Spain) Ms Monique JAMETTI (Substitute Member, Switzerland) Ms Tanja KARAKAMISHEVA-JOVANOVSKA (Member, North Macedonia) This document will not be distributed at the meeting. Please bring this copy. www.venice.coe.int CDL-AD(2019)011 - 2 - Table of contents I. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 3 II. General remarks .......................................................................................................... 3 1. Scope and subject of the report ................................................................................... 3 2. International instruments and documents ..................................................................... 4 3. The basic principles: representative democracy and free mandate .............................. 5 III. National experience ..................................................................................................... 6 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................. 6
    [Show full text]
  • National Legislation
    LEGISLATION IN THE MEMBER STATES OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE IN THE FIELD OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN VOLUME II: ITALY to UNITED KINGDOM http://www.coe.int/equality EG (2007) 1 Volume II LEGISLATION IN THE MEMBER STATES OF THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE IN THE FIELD OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN VOLUME II: ITALY TO UNITED KINGDOM Directorate General of Human Rights Strasbourg, January 2007 Equality Division Directorate General of Human Rights Council of Europe F-67075 Strasbourg Cedex TABLE OF CONTENTS Italy ...................................................................................................................................................................................7 Latvia..............................................................................................................................................................................15 Liechtenstein..................................................................................................................................................................23 Lithuania.........................................................................................................................................................................29 Luxembourg ...................................................................................................................................................................41 Malta...............................................................................................................................................................................59
    [Show full text]
  • Midterm Evaluation Special Action Program – Forced Labor SAP-FL Implemented by the International Labor Organization – Financed by the US Dept
    Consolidating and Disseminating Efforts to Combat Forced Labor in Brazil and Peru Midterm Evaluation Special Action Program – Forced Labor SAP-FL Implemented by the International Labor Organization – Financed by the US Dept. of Labor July 2015 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Department of Labor. It was prepared independently by Management Systems International. Consolidating and Disseminating Efforts to Combat Forced Labor in Brazil and Peru Midterm Evaluation Special Action Program – Forced Labor (SAP-FL) in Brazil and Peru Implemented by the International Labor Organization Financed by the US Dept. of Labor July 2015 Contracted Under DOLJ129K33984 Management Systems International Corporate Offices 200 12th Street, South Arlington, VA 22202 USA Tel: + 1 703 979 7100 DISCLAIMER The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of Labor or the United States Government. Mid-Term Evaluation SAP-FL Project in Brazil and Peru 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms ....................................................................................................................................... 4 Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... 7 Project Description ..................................................................................................................... 10 Evaluation Objectives ................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]