REPORT ON THE EXCHANGE AND SUMMARY Instructions: 1. The report must be sent to the EJTN (exchange@ejtn.eu) within one month after the exchange. 2. Please use the template below to write your report (at least 4 pages). 3. The report must be filled in English or French. If not possible, the report could 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 (1-2 pages) shall contain a synthesis of the most important information of the report. 6. If you agree for your report and/or summary to be published on the EJTN website, please tick the relevant box below. Identification of the participant Name: First name: Nationality: Polish Functions: Prosecutor Length of service: one year Identification of the exchange Hosting jurisdiction/institution: SSR in Utrecht, Public Prosecutor s office in Groningen, Leewarden, Assen City: Den Haag, Utrecht, Groningen, Leewarden, Assen Country: Netherlands Dates of the exchange: 1.02.2010 12.02.2010 Type of exchange: one to one exchange group exchange general exchange specialized exchange (please specify : ) Authorization of publication I undersigned hereby authorize the publication of this report and/or summary on the website of the. In Warsaw On 12.03.2010 Signature / (aisbl) Rue du Luxembourg 16B, B-1000 Bruxelles; Tel: +32 2 280 22 42; Fax: + 32 2 280 22 36; E-mail: exchanges@ejtn.eu
REPORT I- Programme of the exchange During my exchange programme I visited following international and Dutch institutions: - National Training Institute for the Judiciary (SSR) - The Council for the Judiciary - International Criminal Court for the former Yugoslavia - International Criminal Court - Eurojust - Prosecutor s office in Groningen, Assen and Leeuwarden - Police training Center - District Court and Appeal Court - Prison facility of the Grittenborgh Hoogeveen At above mentioned institutions I met judges, prosecutors, policemen and administrative staff. II- The hosting institution During the first week the hosting institution was SSR in Utrecht the school for the future judges and prosecutors. Training program of the school comprises an internship at a district court and the district prosecutions office, an external internship and further theoretical education. It takes six years to finish the school. The training is the same for future judges and prosecutors. During the second week the hosting institutions were public prosecutor s office in Groningen, Leewarden, Assen. III- The law of the host country During my exchange programme I was particularly interested in the present Dutch drug policy. The Netherlands is the only country I know where soft drugs are legalized. The theory behind this policy was that if one makes small amounts of less harmful substances available for sale in a control setting (coffee shop) this will prevent users from buying them from an illegal dealer who may persuade him to try and buy hard drugs. This theory has its genesis in the social crisis in the 1970 when arising amount of people start to try heroine. During this hippie times a distinction was made between the hard and soft drugs. Soft drugs are substances with acceptable health risks such as marihuana and weed. Hard drugs are those with unacceptable health risks such as heroine, cocaine, XTC and other synthetic drugs. Soft drugs which are available at the coffee shops are strictly separated from the market for hard drugs illegally distributed by drug dealers. Moreover drug users are under medical care that helps to improve their health and they are not treated as criminalists. However, tolerance has never been extended towards the drug trade and production. Also soft drugs can not be supplied in a large scale. Therefore the drug policy is concentrated on catching and punishing drug dealers instead of investigating drug users the law. Soft drugs are available in coffee shops which owners need get licence from the local authorities. There are a lot of conditions that have to be fulfilled to get a licence. Some of them are prohibition
of alcohol trade in the coffee shop as well as minimum distance from the school. In addition coffee shop owners are not allowed to advertise their products, to sale them to juveniles. Moreover, soft drugs can be sold only in small quantities. Certainly hard drugs sale is also forbidden. When these conditions are not respected local authorities may withdraw the licence and close the coffee shop. The number of coffee shops is also under control of local authorities. It does not mean that coffee shops are tolerated in the whole country. There is major part of districts that decided not to allow for the existence of coffee shops. After years of the great tolerance the authority realised that so open soft-drug policy is not a simple remedy for the drug addiction problem. Therefore in recent years we can observe far less tolerant policy towards soft drugs. IV- The comparative law aspect in your exchange Main similarities compared to Polish law: a) organization and investigation proceedings - the Prosecutors at the District Prosecutors Offices are divided into 2 kinds of units: the territorial and the functional unit. The territorial units deal with all criminal cases in a designated territory. The functional units deal with crimes, regardless of the territory in which they have been committed. Furthermore, there are specialized units for organized crimes, fraud crimes, economic crimes. b) court organization and proceedings - the judges are independent, have life tenure and are separate from the Ministry of Justice, - there is no jury system - a judge can be educated in the school for the judges and prosecutors or he can be a former prosecutor, barrister or a person who possessed knowledge and experience of the criminal justice system c) substantial law - civil law legal system not common law - no capital punishment Main differences: a) organization and investigation proceedings Poland Witnesses are heard by the Police and by the Prosecutor In small cases, such as theft, Policemen and the Prosecutors collect evidence. Afterwards the indictment act is made by the Prosecutor or by the Policemen authorised by the Prosecutor on paper. The indictment act with all files is sent to the court. Netherlands Witnesses are heard only by the Police In small cases, such as theft, the paper documents, like hearings of the witness, are scanned by the police officers and send to the Prosecutor s office. These electronic documents are used by the administrative staff to write an electronic indictment act. The indictment act is
first seen by the Prosecutor before the court session. The paper documents are directly sent by the Police officers to the court. There are no Prosecutors clerks. Prosecutors have to collect the evidence by themselves or request to do this Policemen. Most staff are Prosecutors. In most cases also Prosecutors are responsible for management and organizational matters. The Chief of the Prosecutor s Office is always Prosecutor. Every prosecutor has to gain wide forensic knowledge. There rule of one prosecutor one case. Fast procedures exist only in theory but it doesn t exist in practice. Highly developed vertical organization structure of Prosecutors (many instances: General Prosecutor, Country Prosecutors Office, Appeal Prosecutors Offices, Regional Prosecutors Offices, District Prosecutors Offices). After recent law amendment the General Prosecutor is independent from the Ministry of Justice. There are Prosecutors clerks who collect all the evidence, help with preparing prosecutorial decisions, check the police files to see whether there is sufficient evidence for a prosecution. There is high specialization in organization of work of Prosecutor s Office. Staff is divided into prosecutors (responsible for the legal proceedings) and Office management (the Chief of the Prosecutor s Office, business administration). The latter is usually specialized in economics, management etc. according to their role in the organization. There are forensic prosecutors who have specific knowledge about DNA tests, examination of writing documents etc. They help other prosecutors to deal with complicated cases. Team working is a standard practice. The fast procedure since the crime commitment to the sentence announcement takes about one week owing to above mentioned simplicity of proceedings. The organization structure of Prosecutors state system is more flat (fewer instances). The Board of Prosecutors General is under supervision of the Ministry of Justice. b) court organization and proceedings Poland Every witness who was heard during the investigation procedure and is mentioned in the indictment act has to be heard during the trial. Netherlands In court session there is no obligation to hear the witnesses who were heard during investigation procedure. Electronic devices almost not used (only record of Better usage of electronic devices during the trial.
created to help provide safety within an area of freedom, security and justice. the session and hearing of the witness by the clerk of the court). Only paper documents. Judges are appointed by the President of Poland. Unlike in Poland the judge and prosecutor have access to electronic system with the scanned evidence documentation). Judges are appointed by the Crown. c) substantial law Poland A significant stress is pointed to severity of the law. Law enforcement is not so strong. Generally the minimum age of criminal responsibility is 17 years old but in serious crimes (such as murder) the criminal responsibility age is 15. Netherlands Strong law enforcement. More liberal and softer law. The minimum age of criminal responsibility is 12 years old. Children under this age cannot be prosecuted for criminal offences. V- The European aspect of your exchange During the first week of exchange I was a guest at Eurojust. One of the member of the Eurojust gave our group a speach how this cooperation body is organized and how it helps to resolve the legal problems between members states. VI- The benefits of the exchange Benefits of my exchange was to gain knowledge of Dutch law, the organization of the prosecutor s office, cooperation of countries in Eurojust, International Criminal Court and International Tribunal for Former Yugoslavia in respect of crime investigation. VII- Suggestions Generally all exchange programme was professionally organized. However the only issue it could be improved during the first week (introduction programme) is that the host gave a long list of hotels without recomendation of the one that is the most suitably located for the programme purposes. The programme was so organized that the participant was traveling each day to other cities and had to use long distance public transport (trains). It could be good for the integration of the participants to locate each of them in one hotel especially that they had not known each other before the exchange.
SUMMARY This report covers my experience from the exchange programme in Netherlands. It consists of the information about the organization of Dutch criminal justice system which I noticed during the exchange. During the exchange I had possibility both to participate in lectures that gave me the theoretical knowledge and meet the judges and prosecutors who shared with me their experience. In the report is enclosed the guidance of the exchange. Moreover I presented my impressions and feelings about the exchange.