European Judicial Training Network Exchange Programme for Judicial Authorities With the support of the European Union 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: Romanian Country of exchange: Germany 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] For completion by EJTN staff only Publication reference: Identification of the participant Nationality: Romanian Functions: Judge at a first instance court in Bucharest Length of service: since October 2004 Identification of the exchange Hosting jurisdiction/institution: Regional Court in Berlin and Local Court Potsdam City: Berlin, Potsdam Country: Germany Dates of the exchange: 7-18 of November 2011 Type of exchange: one to one exchange x group exchange general exchange specialized exchange (please specify : ) SUMMARY My exchange took place in two cities: Berlin, the capital city of Germany and one of the 16 states of Germany, and Potsdam, the capital city of the German federal state of Brandenburg and part of the Berlin/Brandenburg Metropolitan Region. The exchange programme was organized by the tutor appointed, Mrs B.P., from Senate Department for Justice, Berlin Brandenburg Joint Board of Legal Examiners, and it combined both group and individual training, which I think was excellent because it gave us the possibility to deepen the relation between participants and tutors and also the opportunity to know more about the legal systems of different countries and not only about the one of the hosting country. In Berlin: - I visited the Regional Court (Landgericht Berlin), divided into two divisions for civil and criminal cases. In the German court hierarchy, it is above the eleven local courts (Amtsgerichte) of the city and below the Kammergericht. The Landgericht Berlin is the largest Landgericht in Germany. - I had a meeting with a streetworker from the Gangway society, Incorporated Society for Streetsocialwork, who told us about his activity as a streetworker and the importance of the Gangway society in this field. - I also visited the Charlottenburg Prison in Berlin, a medium security facility, where I could find out that the prisons in Germany are not fully occupied. In Potsdam I attended several criminal trials at the Local Court, accompanied by my tutor, judge O.K, who translated the main content of the statements in the trial and made me acquainted with several German colleagues. One aspect of the host country’s national law that I was particularly interested in was the lay judges. European Judicial Training Network With the support of the European Union Exchange Programme for Judicial Authorities Lay judges (Schöffen) are effectively short-term, non-professional judges. Except for most crimes for which the trier of fact is a single professional judge, and serious political crimes which are tried before a panel of professional judges, all charges are tried before mixed tribunals on which lay judges sit side by side with professional judges. Another very interesting aspect for me was the existence of the Gangway Society and their vision on helping the young people. As far as the German law is concerned, impartiality and independence of judges are considered fundamental in the judicial system, same as in Romania. However, I observed some significant differences in comparison to our Romanian system. In Germany is considered to be incompatible with the independence of judges the obligation to be present at court at least within a certain timeframe each day. Regarding the attribution of files to a judge, in Germany it is managed by a schedule of responsibilities set up for the relevant year, when in Romania the computer attributes the incoming files to the judges and sets up the time schedule of their session as far as the first court session is concerned. Another aspect of the German law regardes the possibility to maintain a convicted person in prison after he/she has executed the entire imprisonment punishment, when this person is still considered to endanger the public order, based on the decision made by the responsible judge. When discussing with my colleagues, participants in the exchange programme, and my German colleagues about the implementation of the jurisprudence of ECHR by the criminal procedure in our countries, they were very surprised to know how accurately Romanian criminal procedure has implemented the principles and the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights regarding the preliminary detention. This exchange gave me the opportunity to meet people from another country, to learn about the German law and the German vision on a judge’s work and to establish contact points useful in future judicial cooperation, since judicial cooperation has become a part of the daily work of European judges. REPORT I- Programme of the exchange My exchange took place in two cities: 1. Berlin, the capital city of Germany and one of the 16 states of Germany; located in northeastern Germany, it is the center of the Berlin-Brandenburg Metropolitan Region; 2. Potsdam, the capital city of the German federal state of Brandenburg and part of the Berlin/Brandenburg Metropolitan Region, situated on the River Havel, 24 km southwest of Berlin city centre. The name "Potsdam" originally seems to have been "Poztupimi" from a West Slavonic name meaning "beneath the oaks", highlighting the area's many grand oak trees. During the first week, after meeting at Senate Department for Justice, Berlin Brandenburg Joint Board of Legal Examiners with tutor appointed, Mrs B.P., and the colleagues from the exchange group, I was hosted at the Regional Court (Landgericht Berlin) and the Local Court in Potsdam. I spent the second week of my exchange in Potsdam, at the Local Court, participating in several criminal trials and after that I visited the Charlottenburg Prison in Berlin. At the and Regional Court (Landgericht Berlin) we were hosted by judge L. J., working in the civil section of the court. He explained to us the course of the incoming files, presenting us the department of the incoming files, the court archive and his own office. After the presentation, he was so kind as to answer our question about the German legal system, mainly concerning the civil area. European Judicial Training Network With the support of the European Union Exchange Programme for Judicial Authorities During our visit in Local Court in Potsdam, we attended a court session in a criminal main trial, presided by judge B.T. We were hosted there by two English speaking judges, one of them working in the civil section and the other in the criminal section of the court. They were so kind as to translate us the main content of the statements and the given sentence in the trial. Also in the first week we had a meeting with Mr. S.S. at the Gangway society, Incorporated Society for Streetsocialwork, who told us about his activity as a streetworker and the importance of the Gangway society in this field ( for details, see below chapter III). In the second week I had a three-day individual exchange at the Local Court Potsdam, where I was hosted by judge O.K., who participated in 2007 to an exchange programme that took place in Romania. He made me acquainted with several colleagues, among them Mrs. A. who was very kind to give me the opportunity to attend several of her court hearings. Mr. O.K., a judge specialized in financial crimes, explained to me some aspects of the German criminal law and was so kind as to interpret the main content of the hearings that I attended there. A highlight of my stage during the second week was the visit to the Charlottenburg Prison in Berlin, a medium security facility. Me and my colleagues were hosted there by Mr. S. and an English speaking teacher working with the prisoners. They told us that the prisons in Germany are not fully occupied and that every prisoner has his own cell. Our tutor also organized for us a visit to the House of the Wannsee Conference and the Plötzensee Memorial Center ( in Berlin). In the House of the Wannsee Conference – a former industrialist’s villa built in 1914-15 and used from 1941 to 1945 by the SS as a conference centre and guest house – on 20 January 1942, fifteen high-ranking representatives of the SS, the NSDAP (Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei) and various ministries met to discuss their cooperation in the planned deportation and murder of the European Jews.