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: Romanian Country of exchange: Sweden 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: Romanian Functions: Judge Length of service: 3.5 years Identification of the exchange Hosting jurisdiction/institution: The District Court of Falun City: Falun Country: Sweden Dates of the exchange: September 1-15, 2013 Type of exchange: one to one exchange group exchange general exchange specialized exchange (please specify : ) I. PROGRAMME OF THE EXCHANGE REPORT I have been selected to participate in Sweden to an exchange in the framework of the Exchange Programme for Judicial Authorities 2013 implemented by the (EJTN). My exchange took place in The District Court of Falun, Sweden in September 1 15, 2013 period. My practice mainly consisted of hearing trials (both criminal and civil cases), but also study visits to other legal authorities (Custody of Falun and Administrative Court of Falun). I also listened some of their legal staff, who explained me the Swedish legal system. The trials were all conducted in Swedish but the judges and the clerks gave me reviews in English before and after the trials. II. THE HOSTING INSTITUTION The Court handles all sorts of criminal and civil cases from the southern part of the region of Dalarna. Including the Chief Judge there are 12 judges in the court. Also 11 law clerks work at the court and 24

3 secretaries and administrative personal. In the same building there is also the County administrative court of Falun situated. Its staff is almost the same size. III. THE LAW OF THE HOST COUNTRY The law in Sweden is formed by a base law (Common Lows and Procedure) and the collateral law. Administrative courts are completely separate from civil and criminal courts, having a structure and an independent organization. There are District Courts, Courts of Appeal and The Supreme Court. Despite Romania, in Sweden a Constitutional Court does not exists. Before proceding the civil and commercial trials, the judges must try to mediate the case, in a preliminary phase. IV. THE COMPARATIVE LAW ASPECT IN YOUR EXCHANGE Unlike Romania, where administrative disputes shall be settled by administrative departments of each court in part, in Sweden administrative courts are completely separate from civil and criminal courts, having a structure and an independent organization. In Sweden, the assignment of the cases to judges is made by the presiding judge (who is named till his retring) and in Romania through the random distribution, the random system being given by the software. Double degree of jurisdiction is the same in both countries but we have different court cases settled according to the legal nature of the contested act or depending on the size of tax liabilities established. However, in Romania there are 4 instances levels, including the Supreme Court (Hight Court of Cassation and Justice). As in Romania, in Sweden there is an obligation for members of the panel not to prejudge the case throughout the trial. Representation in court by lawyers is the same in the two countries. In both countries, representing or assisting the parties before the court is not required in any phase of the trial. The new procedure civil code implemented in Romania in 2013 requires representation by lawyer before the second degree of jurisdiction. In Romania the judges and clerks wear robes and in Sewden not. Various are the rules of procedure on evidence administration and witness in court. The witnesses are called one by one in Romania in the judging room, to avoid hearing whichother, and we always ask for an ID from the party or from the whitnes. Who is speaking to the judge, always stands up. It is mandatory for the romanian judge to hear the 10 years old and above minors. These are not happening in Sweden at all. Despite Sweden, in Romania the claimer has to pay a fee, according to the claimed sum of money or the nature of the claim. In both countries, the hearings ar in the same order and the proofs are administered by the court. Oral proceedings are often encountered in completing any part of the process, assisted or not by lawyers and having the opportunity to orally requesting admission considerations for action. The convicted criminal in Sweden often don't get susspended sentence, even if the prison time is less then 1 year. The big difference is that in Romania the judge is the the only one who decides about the case. In criminal cases in Sweden, the board is formed by a judge and three peoples elected by the city council. The judge and the laymens votes toghether, as equal. Often, in small cases, even clerks are presinding and judging the cases. The Courts in Romania are more crowded then in Sweden. In Sweden, in civil and commercial cases, the judge must mediate the trail before judging. V. THE EUROPEAN ASPECT OF YOUR EXCHANGE

4 During the training period I found that Swedish judges know and apply EU law in processes settled, as Romainan judjes. The most used Regulation is "Bruxelles II", in my court in the hosting court. The European law is more and more applied and because of this our justice systems become closer and closer. VI. THE BENEFITS OF THE EXCHANGE During the exchange program I came in contact with other legislation with which I work, administrative law matters, and I could in this way have a comparative view on two legal systems, systems that are particulary different. This view helped me to identify comparative advantages and disadvantages of substantive or procedural rules of law and to take to know about the solutions chosen by the legislature and the practitioner in Sweden law to solve problems often common in the Romanian civil and criminal law matters. I had the wonderful opportunity to see a system of law that works with good results, a system in which ordinary individual has great confidence. I also found that the two countries have common principles and values all of them being in accordance with the rules and European values. VII. SUGGESTIONS I think the exchange program was very well organized and that has brought real benefit to all participants. If I make a recommendation I think it would be appropriate in this program for the applicants to easy find a link in the Draft Guide of the Program to the template of this report and online evaluation.

5 SUMMARY My practice mainly consisted of hearing trials (both criminal and civil cases), but also study visits to other legal authorities (Custody of Falun and Administrative Court of Falun). I also listened some of their legal staff, who explained me the Swedish legal system. The trials were all conducted in Swedish but the judges and the clerks gave me reviews in English before and after the trials. As a conclusion, I could say that despite the fact that there are cultural differences between our countries which are leading to a different law, the basic rules are almost the same, so the justice is accomplished as well. I really appreciate my tutor and all his stuff because they were very kindly and always took from their times to answer my questions and either listen how the justice system works in Romania. I also received some brochure in English about Custody of Falun and Administrative Court of Falun which I will show to my colleagues in Romania. It also was a pleasure for me to discover Falun and its surroundings. There is plenty to see and the tutor guided and presented me some brochure and maps in English. I really spent a good time with some of judges who took care about my free time, so we could talk more about the justice systems we are part of. Personally, I want to thank EJTN for my selection and congratulate all the District Court of Falun stuff for the perfect organization.

6 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?