REPORT ON THE EXCHANGE AND SUMMARY Instructions: 1. The report must be sent to the EJTN (exchanges@ejtn.eu) 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: Country of exchange: netherlands 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: +32 2 280 22 42; Fax: + 32 2 280 22 36; E-mail: exchanges@ejtn.eu
For completion by EJTN staff only Publication reference: Identification of the participant Nationality: german Functions: judge Length of service: 3 months (before 2 years in a prosecutors office) Identification of the exchange Hosting jurisdiction/institution: SSR and prosecutors office Maastricht City: The Hague and Maastricht Country: netherlands Dates of the exchange: 05.09.2011-16.09.2011 Type of exchange: one to one exchange group exchange general exchange specialized exchange (please specify : ) I. Programme of the Exchange REPORT The EJTN-Exchange Programme 2011 took place in the netherlands. It was divided into two parts. The first week took place in The Hague where we learned about the Dutch Law System in general and visited the different international institutions. The second week was much more practical. We stayed in Maastricht and visited the prosecutors office and the court. There we had direct contact with the judges, prosecutors and also to the police. The Hague: On the first day we met in Utrecht at the National Training Centre for the Judiciary (SSR). The exchange was planned and organized by members of the SSR who told us about their work first. The rest of the day and the following tuesday (back in The Hague) different people (judges and prosecutors) explained the Dutch Law System in an overview so that we had an idea about the law in our host contry.
On wednesday we started with a visit at Europol, a european institution where policemen from all the member states work together. Their main work is an exchange of information between the member states. So they don t go out in the streets for investigations but mainly stay in the highly secured building. Just across Europol there is the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. We were supposed to attend a hearing in the Karadzic case and afterwards we should have had the possibility to talk to one of the judges of the tribunal. Unfortunately the hearing was already over for that day when we arrived, because one of the witnesses didn t come. But everybody had the chance to come back the following friday when we had a day off. Then we were told that the judge who promised to answer our questions was sick that day But one of the assistants of the judges told us about the work in the tribunal in general and about some of the cases in particular. Although the Tribunal should already have been closed (for it is only temporarily put up), it will stay for a long time, because all the cases take years before a sentence can be pronounced. On thursday we started with a visit at the International Criminal Court. There we attended a hearing in a case against a Kongolesian where a witness testified. It was very interesting to see how the big cases are handeled where the files have millions of pages and are scanned in a computer system so that every member of the case can read the files during the hearing on his own screen. At last we visited Eurojust. There a group of 27 EU prosecutors and judges, always one nominated by each member state, work together. The aim of this institution is to deal more effectively with serious cross border crime. Therefore an effective exchange of information, a good cooperation between the states and a better coordination of cross-border investigations and prosecutions are needed. That is what Eurojust is about to guarantee. Maastricht: In Maastricht we were only two of the group who stayed at the Public Prosecution Service of the Netherlands, District Maastricht. The whole group was divided and spread over the netherlands to different courts and prosecutors offices. The manager of the prosecutions office of Maastricht organized the whole week for us and made it possible to see nearly everything interesting in the Office. We could talk to many judges and prosecutors. In these dialogues we were told about their work and which problems they have to deal with mainly. Then we could tell them about our law and the problems in our system in return. Because of that all of us profited from these discussions. Beside these sessions that took place during the whole week again and again we could attend criminal sessions of a Police Court Judge and a Youth Court Judge. After these hearings we always had the possibility to ask questions and talk to the judges and prosecutors involved. Very interesting were two visits at the following institutions: For a few hours we were in Heerlen at the Euregional Police Information and Coordination Centre and the International Legal Assistance Centre. Because Maastricht and the whole district Limburg has borders to Germany and Belgium the police and judicial system must cooperate to keep up with the criminals who don t care about borders. For the same reason the Police Joint Hit Team was installed. It is a small police team which concentrates on drug criminals - a big problem in this area. The leader of the Joint Hit Team also took his time to tell us about their work and good cooperation with the prosecutor responsible. The height of this week for me was the visit at the Youth Detention Centre that is quite different to the system we have in germany. This second week we have seen nearly everything important in the Judiciary System in Masstricht.
II. The Hosting Institution The hosting institution in The Hague was the National Training Centre for the Judiciary System (SSR). They organize the Training of all judges and prosecutors in the netherlands. The institution has its headquarters still in Utrecht, but will soon be moved to Zutphen. They are responsible for people still in training to become a judge or prosecutor but also for experienced members of the judiciary system. All of them must take part in the trainings again and again for their whole working life. Our hosting institution in Maastricht was the Public Prosecution Service of the netherlands, District Maastricht. This prosecutors office is accomodated in the same building as the court of Maastricht. The prosecutors there have many people who help and support them. Each of them has at least 1 person who has also studied law and secretaries to help with the paperwork. They take part in hearings about 2 days a week and work closely together with the police. Based on the idea to improve the work of prosecutors and the communication among them as well as to other institutions there is a quality officer who has to look for the weak points in the organisation and who must find ways to get rid of them. III. The Law of the Host Country One aspect I was particularly interested in was the way of dealing wit juvenile crime. In the netherlands children are of responsible age from 12 years on. There is a special criminal law for juveniles who commit crimes when they are from 12 to 18 years old. But when the delinquent is 16 or 17 years old and he has committed a severe crime there is a possibility to punish them after the same criminal law as adults. The other way round it is also possible to use the juvenile criminal law for delinquents at the age of 18 to 21 years, when they are still like a juvenile. No matter which kind of law is used, the crimes of a juvenile will always be brought in front of a youth court judge and persons that are 18 years old or older will always have their hearing with a judge for adults. In hearings of a youth court judge both parents of the delinquent must be present. If the father or the mother doesn t show up in court, the hearing cannot take place. The hearing will then be scheduled again for another time. It is even possible for the judge to send the police after the parents to bring them to court so that the hearing can take place. The personal situation of the juveniles is a very important aspect in hearings of youth court judges and will be discussed mainly. Young people should not only be punished for what they have done, but the hearing should also help to educate them in the right way so that they will not commit any crimes in the future. The most common sentence is work for the public benefit. Here it can be up to 200 hours of work. Or when they already work, they have to pay a fine. For severe crimes a juvenile can also be sent to prison. Here my colleague and me had the chance to see a juvenile prison in the netherlands. For a few hours we visited the Youth Detention Centre in Cadier en Keer. There an employee and a social worker told us about their work with juveniles and showed us around. The kids go to school, work and also have many possibilities to spend their free time usefully. Unfortunately the rate of recidivism is high. Even if the juveniles develop in a positive way in the Detention Centre they still have problems when they are released and commit crimes again.
IV. The Comparative Law Aspect of my Exchange There are a lot of similarities between the judicial system and the law between the netherlands and germany. But of course I have also learned about differences. Just 3 examples: One big difference is the way to become a judge or prosecutor. In the netherlands for example you need to work as a lawyer for some years before you can apply for judge or prosecutor. That is not necessary in germany. Another aspect is that juveniles are of responsible age from 12 years on, in germany it is 14. A big difference in the system itself is that the prosecutors and the police are one institution in the netherlands and therefore the cooperation and teamwork is very close. In germany they are 2 different organisations where the prosecutors lead the investigations and decide what has to be done and the Police has to carry out these orders (especially when it is a severe crime). But the police in germany also has preventive issues they deal with alone. V. The European Aspect of my Exchange The first week of the Exchange had a clear european aspect by visiting the international and european institutions. Most of all at Europol and Eurojust we were told about the importance of working together and helping euch other in the European Union. Criminals don t care about borders and because we cannot ignore them during the investigations, we often depend on the help of the member states. In the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia just as in the International Criminal Court it was obvious that sometimes countries cannot prosecute their (political) criminals and others must help. In the district Limburg (where Maastricht is located) it is important for the whole Euregio netherlands, belgium and germany to work close together, because especially there many criminals use the local circumstances of near borders. VI. The Benefits of the Exchange The biggest benefit of this exchange was getting in contact with other judges and prosecutors from different european countries and sharing our experiences from the different judicial systems. It became obvious that the member states often have many similarities but also big differences in their law. Of course there are some aspects I thought would be useful also to have integrated in the judicial system of germany. But for me I can only talk about it with my colleagues about that but I will not be able to change our system in any way VII. Suggestions The exchange was a wonderful experience. I cannot think of anything to improve about the programme itself.
The only thing I missed during the first week, when the whole group was together, was to spend the evenings together. That was not possible because everybody was in a different hotel and even in different cities. So if maybe for the next exchange it would be possible if one or two hotels were recommended by the hosting institution?
SUMMARY The group exchange was a very good experience. The chances to talk to other judges and prosecutors from different EU member states are rare. Also the programme of the exchange was well organized. Visiting the international institutions in The Hague and having the possibility to discuss with people working there, improved my understanding of european cooperation. A good idea was to divide the exchange into two weeks. The first days helped me to understand the dutch law system in general and to get an overview of the law in the host country. That made it easier for me to stay for the second part directly in a prosecutors office for I already had the background about their organisation. It was easy to follow the explanations of the prosecutors and judges about their work in detail now. I am convinced that not only me, the visitor, profited from this time but also the judges and prosecutors in the netherlands who learned about our system in germany in return. I also learned about similarities and differences between the law and the judicial systems not only of the netherlands and germany, but also from the other EU member states. Each member of the group explained the way his state deals with special problems and how things are organised there. I can recommend a group exchange in an EU member state to everyone interested in european cooperation and different judicial systems.
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?