REPORT ON THE EXCHANGE AND SUMMARY

Transcription

1 REPORT ON THE EXCHANGE AND SUMMARY Instructions: 1. The report must be sent to the EJTN 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 anonymity 1. Initials can be used when necessary. Identification of the participant Name: First name: Nationality: Bulgarian Country of exchange: Poland 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/ (aisbl) Rue du Luxembourg 16B, B-1000 Bruxelles; Tel: ; Fax: ; exchanges@ejtn.eu

2 For completion by EJTN staff only Publication reference: Identification of the participant Nationality: Bulgarian Functions: Prosecutor Length of service: 3 years Identification of the exchange Hosting jurisdiction/institution: National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution City: Warsaw Country: Poland Dates of the exchange: 09/16/ /27/2013 Type of exchange: one to one exchange group exchange general exchange specialized exchange (please specify : ) REPORT I was involved in the Exchange programme in Poland in the period of 09/16/ /27/2013. The hosting institution was the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution in Warsaw. The trained group consisted of 13 judges and prosecutors from Spain, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Slovenia and Bulgaria. In the period of 09/16/ /20/2013 the training was held in Warsaw. In the period of 09/23/ /27/2013 the group was divided into regional prosecutor's offices and regional courts in Poland. I was in the Regional Prosecutor's Office of Puck. On 16 th September 2013 I attended a seminar regarding the structure of the National School of Judiciary and Public Prosecution. It is the central institution responsible for initial and continious training of the judiciary and prosecution staff in Poland. It conducts the general initial training, judge's initial training and prosecutor's initial training. The National School trains and enhances the professional competence of judges, prosecutors, prosecutor's assessors, court referendaries, judge's assistants, prosecutor's assistants, probation officers and the officials of common court of law and public prosecutor's offices. The National School manages international cooperation and interacts with the leading colleges and universities which conduct training in the legal faculty. On 17 th September 2013 I took part in a discussion regarding the principles of Polish criminal substantive and procedural law and the principles of Polish civil substantive and procedural law.

3 I was very impressed of the provisions of the Polish Code of criminal procedure concerning the right of the prosecutors from the regional offices to represent the Prosecution in front of courts of higher instance /appelate courts and supreme courts/. It was very interesting for me to understand that according to Polish criminal substantive law some acts are crimes, but they are not crimes according to Bulgarian criminal substantive law /for example drunk biking/. I visited the General Prosecutor's Office on 18 th September I received detailed information for these legal aspects: - The organisational structure and tasks of the Public Prosecution in Poland; - International legal assistance in criminal matters; - Tasks of the Department of Organised Crime and Corruption and methods of combating crime, especially transborder crime; - Public Prosecution and Human Rights. There were presented in detail the methods of the international cooperation in the area of criminal law. I was impressed of this meeting, because there were quoted decisions of the European Court for Human Rights in which one of the party is Bulgaria. I heared detailed analisis of the motives of the European Court for Human Rights in the decision "Lukanov vs Bulgaria". On 19th September 2013 I visited the Supreme Court of the Republic of Poland. The Supreme Court is a judicial body according to art. 1 of the Act on the Supreme Court. It exercises supervision over common and military courts regarding their judgement and performs other activities specified in the Constitution and statutes. I was informed about the structure of the Supreme Court and its role in judicial practise. The Supreme Court is divided into several Chambers: The Civil Law Chamber, The Criminal Law Chamber, The Labour Law, Social Security and Public Affairs Chamber and Military Chamber. I visited hearings in a lawsuit concerning the security of the social system in Poland. On 20th September 2013 I visited the Sejm /Lower house/ of the Parliament in Poland. According to the Constitution of the country the legislative functions are performed by the bicameral Parliament, which consists of the 460-seat Sejm (lower house) and the 100-member Senate (upper house). I attended a plenary session at the lower chamber. After visiting the Parliament I attended court hearings in the Supreme Administrative Court of Poland. The Supreme Administrative Court exercises supervision over the activity of first-instance administrative courts within the scope of making judicial decisions and hears means of appeal against the decisions of these courts and adopts resolutions explaining legal issues. The superior authority over the administrative courts with regard to court administration is conferred on the President of the Supreme Administrative Court. The Supreme Administrative Court is divided into three Chambers: The Financial Chamber, The Commercial Chamber and The General Administrative Chamber. In the Supreme Administrative Court I took part in a discussion with the administrative judges from the Court concerning the problems, which the European magistrates solve in their daily work. I agreed with the judge's opinion that the Polish and Bulgarian civil, criminal and administrative procedures are very formal. The Bulgarian and Polish judges have to write lengthy reasoning of their decisions, although this may be a very simple case. In the period of 09/23/ /27/2013 I was in the Regional Prosecutor's Office, which is situated in Puck /a town in northwestern Poland/. I had the opportunity to receive detailed information for the structure of the Prosecutor's Offices in Puck and Gdansk, the activities of the prosecutors in the offices and the structure of the prosecutor's acts. I visited hearings in the Regional Court in Puck and I saw what was the procedural behavior of the parties in public and privite criminal lawsuits. I visited the Police Station in Puck. The police officers informed me about the organisational structure of the Police in Poland. They presented to me different methods of investigating crimes and of checking identity of a person. I saw the material base in the Police station and the conditions in which every police officer works. The activities of the prosecutors and police officers according to Bulgarian and Polish criminal procedures are similar. There is no difference between the organisational structure and the role in protecting society of the Prosecution in Bulgaria and Poland.

4 SUMMARY It was very interesting for me to participate in the Exchange programme 2013, because I had the opportunity to be informed about a judicial system, which is similar to Bulgarian system. I am very impressed of the provisions of the Polish Code of criminal procedure concerning the right of the prosecutors from the regional offices to represent the Prosecution in front of courts of higher instance /appelate courts and supreme courts/, because in Bulgaria there is no such procedure. It was very interesting for me to understand that according to Polish criminal substantive law some acts are crimes, but they are not crimes according to Bulgarian criminal substantive law. I recieved a lot of information concerning useful judicial practices in Poland, Spain, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy and Slovenia, which the Bulgarian magistrates can apply in their daily work. I presented this information to my colleges.

5 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?