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: Polish Country of exchange: Denmark 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: Polish Functions: District Court Judge Length of service: 7 years Identification of the exchange Hosting jurisdiction/institution: District Court of Glostrup City: Glostrup Country: Denmark Dates of the exchange: 21st October - 1st November Type of exchange: one to one exchange group exchange general exchange specialized exchange (please specify : ) I. Programme of the exchange: Monday 21 October 2013 REPORT An introduction to the Danish court system and to the programme of the visit. Meeting with the head of secretariate and the President of the District Court of Glostrup. Taking part in a criminal case concerning driving under the influence of the alcohol and in the civil case concerning a complaint over an attorney. In a criminal case the hearing has been adjourned to examine more witnesses called by the defendant. In a civil case an oral draft of the judgment has been given by a judge but because the parties didn't consent to it the written judgment will be issued within four weeks. Tuesday 22 October 2013 Taking part in a criminal case concerning custody hearings of persons suspected of commiting several offences: drug trafficking and smuggling, armed bank robbery, rape. Taking part in a family law case - a petition to establish a quardianship over an elderly women in a bad physical condition. The court issued a
ruling in which the guardianship has been established limited to the decision making concerning the domicile of the defendant. Wendesday 23 October 2013 Visit in the Danish Court Administration. Taking part in a presentation concerning the role of the Danish Court Administration in a process of appointing the judges (Judicial Appointments Council), composition of the Judicial Appointments Council, its independence, consecutive stages to become a judge, training department. Thursday - 24 October 2013 Taking part in a family case concerning custody hearing - motion of a mother to have a sole custody over a child. Taking part in a criminal cases - constitutional hearing behind closed doors - suspicion of committing an offence of the robbery and blackmail. Taking part in a confession hearing - extortion of financial means. Friday - 25 October 2013 Visit in the High Court of Eastern Denmark. Meeting with the High Court Judge. Presentation concerning composition of the High Court and the issues concerning the burden of proof. Taking part in a hearing in a criminal case - battery. Saturday - 26 October 2013 (optional) Taking part in a "Glostrup Culture Night" in which the district court was opened to the public and mock trials have been held. Participation in a mediation in a civil case - infringement of the ownership and domestic peace. Monday - 28 October 2013 Visit in the bailiff's court and taking part in bailiff's cases and in a case concerning removal of children from the parents. Tuesday - 29 October 2013 Visit in the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions. Taking part in a presentantion concerning the organisation of the Danish Police and Prosecution Service, the role of the prosecutor, criminal justice system (essential principles), new national evaluation system in cooperation with the courts. Participation in a short tour in the Danish Appeals Permission Board. An introduction concerning establishment of the Appeals Permission Board, its composition, sphere of activity, statistical data. Wednesday - 30 October 2013 Taking part in two criminal cases with lay judges concerning a theft of employer's money and possesion of drugs. Both cases completed with judgments. Thursday - 31 October 2013 Visit in a probate court and taking part in a probate court case - ascertainment of the acquisition of the inheritance after deceased wife. Taking part in a civil "small case" hearing. Action for payment against a lessee who had left the premises. Friday - 1 November 2013
Meeting with the President of the District Court of Glostrup - summary of the visit, opinions and remarks. II. The hosting institution: The District Court of Glostrup (Retten i Glostrup) is one of the 24 District Courts in Denmark. There are 35 judges working in the abovesaid court amongst which 18 are appointed judges and the rest are deputy judges. The court deals with numerous different cases: from civil, criminal and bailiff's cases over cases on administration of estate (the probate court) to registration and the work of the notary public. The amount of cases which came up in the District Court of Glostrup in 2012 looked as follows: 15.000 criminal cases, 4.000 civil cases, 29.000 bailiff cases and 3.700 probate cases. The average processing time was 1 year on average also in more complicated cases. There are 396.000 citizens on the spread area within the jurisdiction of the District Court of Glostrup. The District Court of Glostrup, as the other District Courts in Denmark, is tying a great weight to the productivity. Since the case processing time is one of the elements of the productivity as such, it has a great importance to that District Court. Therefore, it it possible to summon the party to the conflict to the court session over the phone thanks to police database operating in the circuit of the District Court in Glostrup. The Court's main goals are to: - maintain high quality by seeing each other in the court as well as getting familiar with the judgment given by other courts and giving constructive criticism - maintain uniformity which is a quality in the Danish Judicial System by traveling around and collecting knowledge about best practices - maintain high trust in the courts in the society. III. The law of the host country: The District Courts, the High Courts (Eastern and Western) and the Supreme Court represent the three basic levels in the Danish legal system. The system is based in the two-tier system which ensures that the rulings of the district court can be appealed to a higher instance (the high court). If a case has been heard initially at district court it may, in special cases, be brought before a third instance - the Supreme Court. The departments of the District Court are also the Bailiff's Court, which helps to enforce the claims and the Probate Court which handles the administration of estates and can also handle administration of insolvency cases. There are two high courts in Denmark. Western High Court in Vuborg which processes the cases from Jutland and Eastern High Court in Copenhagen which processes cases from the rest of the country. The Supreme Court is a court of appeals processing rulings passed by the high courts and the specialized court - the Maritime and Commercial Court. If the case has begun in a district court it may be appealed to the Supreme Coutr if the Appeals Permission Board granted permission for the case to be brought before this court. The role of the Supreme Court is to determine the guidelines of how the district courts and high courts are in future to process similar cases as well as to develop jurisdiction by creating clarity as to how to interpret the law. Apart from the district courts, the high courts and the Supreme Court there are other institutions which function in a Danish legal system such as: - The Maritime and Commercial Court which is divided into the court department which deals with international commercial cases, competition cases and cases about patents, design and trademarks and the department of administration processing all cases from the Greater Copenhagen Area on bankruptcy, suspension of payments, compusory liquidation, debt restructuring and compulsory winding up of public and private companies. - The Land Registration Court which has a jurisdiction over a registration of real estate - The Court of Faroe Islands which encompasses the district consisting of all the Faroe Islands. Rulings issued by that court may be appealed to the Eastern High Court. - The Courts of Greenland which, since 1 January 2010, consist of 18 judicial districts, the Court of Greenland and the High Court of Greenland - The Appeals Permission Board established on 1 January 1996 with the purpose of considering petitions for second and third tier permissions to appeal in civil and criminal cases (before 1996 the permission was within the Ministry of Justice). Since 1 January 2007 the Appeals Permission Board has also the responsibility to consider complaints against the Department of Civil Affairs' rejections of applications
for a free legal aid. In general, the permission to appeal may be granted if the case raises issues of principle or that special circumstances call for permission. The Appeals Permission Board's department for permissions to appeal consists of a Supreme Court Judge (Chairman), one High Court judge, one District Court judge, a lawyer and a member representing the jurisprudence. The department for free legal aid consists of a High Court Judge (Department Chairman), one District Court judge and a lawyer. Decisions of a Board are being taken by simple majority. In 2012 the Appeals Permission Board department for permission to appeal received 1.582 cases, while the department for free legal aid received 1.170 cases. The decisions of the Board are being given without a reasoning. -The Special Court of Revision and Indictment which has the jurisdiction over disciplinary cases relationg to judges and other legal staff employed at Courts in Denmark and also cases related to the reopening of criminal cases and exclusion of defence counsel from criminal cases - The External Activity Review Board which handles a number of assignments relationg to the non - judicial activities of judges. - The Judicial Appoinments Council which submits recommendations to the Minister of Justice about appoinment of all judge position except for the position of the president of the Supreme Court. - The Danish Court Administration which is responsible for managing and developing Courts of Denmark as well as to strenghten the independence of the courts. The overall number of judges in Denmark is approximately 380 and the total number of emloyees approximately 2.500. To enable the easier access to the courts on 1 January 2008 a number of changes were introduced concerning: - the small claims procedure which is a simplified way of processing cases involving claims for less than 50.000 DKK - class action which enable a group of plaintiffs to file a suit together. - mediation which is an alternative to a traditional adversarial lawsuit. The future development goals of the courts in Denmark are to provide short case processing time, more consistency in the performace of duties, contemporary communication and to consider the courts to be an attractive workplace. Denmark has initiated the project "Learning with effect" supported by means derived from the Agency for Development in the State Sector which purpose is to create larger effect of the training afterwards. Journalists have access to the court database. It is also possible to get undisclosed information before the trial. The priority is an openess and transparency. The courts in Denmark are built upon strong values such as: - - accountability which comprises making justified and clear decisions in a timely manner, adjudicate by people with the highest quality and efficiency possible; - respectful treatment concerning understandng of the individual's situation and background and to respect diversity; - creditibility that provides that courts are not only impartial and neutral but also work according to the law and are not infuenced by extraneus considerations; - openess and receptiveness which guaranties that the courts must be opened and accessible to the public. One of the significant goals of the danish judiciary is to provide that the society knows what the court's are doing and understands it and to act in such a way not to loose touch with the society. The example of it is a jury composition of a court in most serious criminal cases. The court system in Denmark is cheap and effective. A lot of legal issues stands within the competence of the state administation bodies. IV. The comparative law aspects of the exchange. The proceedings in Denmark, on the contrary than in Poland, are quite informal, starting from the official outfit, finishing on the way of giving the final judgement, but the whole judicial system is based on the mutual trust (in a society and in courts). The trust in a society is a prority and a goal of judicial system in Denmark. This attitude is finding its reflection in the outcomes of statistical surveys which showed that the courts are the public institution in which the citizens have most confidence, At a global level, a survey from Transparency International performed in 2009 showed that the Danish population has less fear of corruption at the courts than any other population in the world. This confidence goes hand in hand with
openess and availability in order to make proceedings understandable for citizens. This perpective of the average citizen is being taken into the courts' decisions through lay judges, who act as lay assessors and jurors in some criminal cases. In order to mantain confidence in courts and make them more accessible, the courts in Denmark are developing new technological solutions that make it possible to handle cases electronically in court by the digitalisation of case processing and digitalisation of land registration. In civil cases, if there is no consent to the judgment, there is a possibility to write it down and send via e- mail to the parties to the conflict. In criminal cases hearing witnesses and suspected in custody is to a certain extent already performed by video link between, for example, the prison and the court. The Danish Court Administration which was established as an independent governemt institution on 1 July 1999 to secure the independency of courts, has a wider range of activity than Polish National Council of the Judiciary. In both countries the authorities have no influence on the judicial activity or the decisions of the courts and take part in the recruitment of judges but in Denmark the Danish Court Administration main goals are also budget and controlling, buildings, information technology, strategy and mission, implementantion of goals and strategy, legal issues and human resources development (education og all employees). Is is managed by a Board of Directors and a Director. The Board passes material resolutions in relation to administration of the courts, such as the Administration's budget and allocation of resources among courts. The Administration is formally an agency under the Ministry of Justice, but the Minister of Justice has no power of intruction in relation to the administration and cannot change the rulings of the Administration. In term of budget allocation the Court Administration and the courts form part of the Ministry of Justice. Another difference - significant and unique in the scale of Europe - is the existense of The Appeals Permission Board in a Danish legal system, which is an independent body that is neither a part of the judiciary system nor a part of the government services. Its main objective is to give permissions to appeal which require that the case raises issues of principle or that special circumstances call for permission. Moreover, the courts of second instance (the High Courts) in Denmark are in fact a control and revisory courts whereas in Poland - the courts as to the merits. I was especially interested in the organisation of the judiciary in civil cases. The civil procedure is very informal. In many cases concerning state administration, enforcement, division of marital property, there is a possibility for court clerks to deal with the case especially when there are no legal issues. According to the Polish Code of Civil Procedure all these issues are within the competence of a court or a bailiff, who is the authority seperated from the court, sometimes under court's supervision. Only if there is a consistent motion, the parties may resolve some legal matters in a notary public's office. In Denmark in bailiff's cases every day at 8.30 a.m. there is a court clerk present at bailiff's court in case the debtor appears willing to pay the amount due. An informality and short case processing time is also an objective for a probate court. In cases concerning the division of marital property the first authority that handles the case is state administration ( municipality). If former spouses don't consent to the division the case is submited to the probate court. First, there is a meeting before the court or before legally trained member of a staff (depending on the complexity of a case) to encourage parties to make an agreement. The case can be also sent to mediation (conducted by a qualified lawyer) or to the authorised state handler on a motion of at least one party who then has to place a security deposit and cover all the costs. Then the state handler gives a ruling. Each party can bring a complaint against the ruling to the probate court, which usually approves a ruling. If not, the parties can file an appeal to the High Court. In cases concerning succesion 90% of cases is completed by the trained courts clerks. A small claims procedure begins with serving documents to the defendant and scheduling a telephone meeting by the judge. If the defendant doesn't take part in a meeting the judge is entitled to deliver a default judgment. Then, within 4 weeks, the defendant may file a motion to reopen the case but if he/she is not present at the hearing, the default judgment remains in force. The case may be finished during phone meeting. If it isn't, the judge schedules the hearing. Parties are obliged to present all the evidence before the phone meeting. The court issues a judgment after finishing the hearing but it is also possible that the judgment will be rendered within one week after the hearing. In Poland in small claims procedure, there is no possibility to arrange a phone meeting, because each time a judge has to schedule a hearing, during which the default judgment can be rendered. The default judgment is then delivered to the defendant who can complaint against the judgment in two weeks time, fulfilling certain formal requirements (for example a fee).
In family cases a lot of issues such as regulation of contacts with children, stays within the competence of the state administration bodes. V. The European aspect of your exchange. Since 1993, Denmark has had four opt-outs covering defence policy, the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), Union citizenship and Justice and Home Affairs (JHA). All four Danish opt-outs were laid down in the Edinburgh Agreement and supplemented by a special protocol attached to the Treaty of Amsterdam and mantained in the Treaty of Lisbon. The Lisbon Treaty gave the JHA opt-out much greater significance. In the future, all aspects of JHA cooperation will involve supranational cooperation, including the police and criminal cooperation. If the opt-out for justice and home affairs is mantained, Denmark will stand completely outside the whole area of JHA cooperation in the course of few years But the Lisbon Treaty opens the possibility for Denmark, after having held a public referendum, to change the opt-out into an opt-out arrangement. With this arrangement, Denmark will be able to decide from case to case whether it wishes to accept a given law or not. Nowadays, in each individual case there is a need to find out whether specific EU legislation applies in Denmark. For example, within civil law, Denmark has implemented the regulation about small claims procedure. But still there is no possibility to receive the european order for payment as Denmark hasn't applied the provisions of the regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 creating a European order for payment procedure. Consequently the certificate of the European Enforcement Title still has to be verified in a bailiff's court. VI. The benefits of the exchange. The most amazing thing I encountered while being on the Exchange Programme in Denmark was the attitude of the judges, administration service and the staff to the parties to the conflict as well as to the judiciary system as such. I have also obtained knowledge of the hosting institution. Therefore, I consider The Exchange Programme as very satisfactory. The great advantage was a mixture of participants that enabled to gather knowlegde about other countries' legal systems, to know better and understand the daily work of judicial authorities in other European countries and enriched the discussions very much. The visit was also a unique experience from a linguistic point of view, as I became more acquainted with legal terminology not only in english but also in danish. I am truly convinced that judges in my country should consider as a good example, an attitude of the Danish judges. After all I have a strong feeling that irrespective of differences in legal systems in our countries, we all belong to a common judicial culture. VII. Suggestions. In my opinion the agenda of the Exchange Programme in Denmark was very diversed and interesting. It comprised not only participation in several cases in a District Court of Glostrup but also visits in other authorities functioning in the legal system such as the Danish Court Adminitration, the Appelas Permission Board, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and a High Court. Moreover we have had an opportunity to visit the District Court in Copenhagen, the Supreme Court and the Danish Parliament. During the visit I encountered the great hospitality and the will to explain the principles of the Danish legal system. The participation in cases in a foreign language was a great experience. Admittedly, it has been sometimes very time consuming, but it couldn't have been predicted in advance due to charakter of cases. Therefore, it would be very helpful for participants to have a possibility of current translation of the course of longer cases.
SUMMARY The Exchange Programme took place in the District Court of Glostrup in Denmark in a training period from 21 October to 1 November 2013. It has included several visits in the above-mentioned court, during which I have participated in the sequence of civil, criminal, family law cases as well as in cases related to the law of succession and execution. I had also a possibility to visit other authorities functioning in the Danish legal system such as the Danish Court Adminitration, the Appeals Permission Board, the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and a High Court. Moreover I have visited the District Court in Copenhagen, the Supreme Court and the Danish Parliament. I also took part in a "Glostrup Culture Night" during which the District Court of Glostrup has been opened to the public and mock trial has been held. The District Court of Glostrup (Retten i Glostrup) is one of the 24 District Courts in Denmark. It deals with numerous different cases: from civil, criminal and bailiff's cases over cases on administration of estate (the probate court) to registration and the work of the notary public. As the other District Courts in Denmark, the abovesaid Court is tying a great weight to the productivity. Therefore, it it possible to summon the party to the conflict to the court session over the phone thanks to police database. The Court's main goals are to: maintain high quality by seeing each other in the court as well as getting familiar with the judgment given by other courts ang giving constructive criticism, maintain uniformity which is a quality in the Danish Judicial System by traveling around and collecting knowledge about best practices and maintain high trust in courts in the society. Consequently, people in Denmark have a highest level of trust in courts (approximately 85%) among European countries (The European Social Survey concerning Trust in Justice, December 2011). The District Courts, the High Courts (Eastern and Western) and the Supreme Court represent the three basic levels in the Danish legal system. The system is based in the two-tier system which ensures that the rulings of the district court can be appealed to a higher instance (the high court). If a case has been heard initially at district court it may, in special cases, be brought before a third instance - the Supreme Court. The departments of the District Court are also the Bailiff's Court, which helps to enforce the claims and a Probate Court which handles the administration of estates and can also handle administration of insolvency cases. There are two high courts in Denmark - Western and Eastern High Court. The Supreme Court is a court of appeals processing rulings passed by the high courts and the specialized court - the Maritime and Commercial Court. If the case has begun in a district court it may be appealed to the Supreme Coutr if the Appeals Permission Board granted permission for the case to be brought before this court. The role of the Supreme Court is to determine the guidelines of how the district courts and high courts are in future to process similar cases as well as to develop jurisdiction by creating clarity as to how to interpret the law. Apart from the district courts, the high courts and the Supreme Court there are other institutions which function in a Danish legal system such as: The Maritime and Commercial Court, The Land Registration Court, The Court of Faroe Islands, The Courts of Greenland, The Appeals Permission Board, The Special Court of Revision and Indictment, The External Activity Review Board, The Judicial Appoinments Council and The Danish Court Administration. The overall number of judges in Denmark is approximately 380 and the total number of emloyees approximately 2.500. Since 1 January 2008 a number of changes were introduced concerning: the small claims procedure, class action and mediation. The future development goals of the courts in Denmark are to provide short case processing time, more consistency in the performace of duties, contemporary communication and to consider the courts to be an attractive workplace. The priority is an openess and transparency. The courts in Denmark are built upon strong values such as: accountability, respectful treatment, creditibility and openess and receptiveness. One of the most significant goals of the Danish judiciary is to provide that the society knows what the court's are doing and understands it and to act in such a way not to loose touch with the society. In order to relieve the judiciary a lot of legal issues stands within the competence of the state administation bodies.
The proceedings in Denmark, on the contrary than in Poland, are quite informal, starting from the official outfit, finishing on the way of giving the final judgement. As it was said before the mutual trust (in a society and in courts) is a prority and a goal of judicial system in Denmark. Confidence in courts goes hand in hand with openess and availability in order to make proceedings understandable for citizens. This perpective of the average citizen is being taken into the courts' decisions through lay judges, who act as lay assessors and jurors in some criminal cases. In order to mantain confidence in courts and make them more accessible the courts in Denmark are developing new technological solutions that make it possible to handle cases electronically in court by the digitalisation of case processing and digitalisation of land registration. The Danish Court Administration, which was established as an independent governemt institution on 1 July 1999 to secure the independency of courts, has a wider range of activity than the Polish National Council of the Judiciary. In both countries the authorities have no influence on the judicial activity or the decisions of the courts and take part in the recruitment of judges but in Denmark the Danish Court Administration main goals are also budget and controlling, buildings, information technology, strategy and mission, implementantion of goals and strategy, legal issues and human resources development (education of all employees). The Board passes material resolutions in relation to administration of the courts, such as the Administration's budget and allocation of resources among courts. The Administration is formally an agency under the Ministry of Justice, but the Minister of Justice has no power of intruction in relation to the administration and cannot change the rulings of the Administration. Another difference - significant and unique in the scale of Europe - is an existense of The Appeals Permission Board in Danish legal system, which is an independent body that is neither a part of the judiciary system nor a part of the government services. Its main objective is to give permissions to appeal which require that the case raises issues of principle or that special circumstances call for permission. Another difference is that the courts of second instance in Denmark (the High Courts) are in fact a control and revisory courts whereas in Poland - the courts as to the merits. Being particularly intrested in organisation of the judiciary in civil cases I have noticed that in many cases concerning state administration, enforcement, division of marital property, there is a possibility for court clerks to deal with the case especially when there are no legal issues. Moreover, a lot of issues stay within the competence of the state administration bodies. In cases concerning the administration of estates 90% is completed by the trained courts clerks. A small claims procedure begins with serving documents to the defendant and scheduling a telephone meeting. According to the Polish Code of Civil Procedure all these issues are within the competence of a court or a bailiff, who is the authority seperated from the court, sometimes under court's supervision. Only if there is a consistent motion, the parties may resolve some legal matters in a notary public's office. In small claims procedure, there is no possibility to arrange a phone meeting, because each time a judge has to schedule a hearing, during which the default judgment can be rendered. In 1993 Denmark has had four opt - outs covering defence policy, the Economic and Monetary Union, Union citizenship and Justice and Home. As a result Denmark is not bound by joint European Union rules in these areas, which on the one hand provides Denmark with the possibility to carry out a more independent policy and on the other hand, causes loss of influence, since Denmark does not have the right to vote and has a significantly reduced opportunity to influence development of the European Union policy in these areas. Nevertheless, the Lisbon Treaty has opened the possibility for Denmark, after having held a public referendum, to change the opt-out into an opt-out arrangement. Nowadays, in each individual case there is a need to find out whether specific EU legislation applies in Denmark. While being on the Exchange Programme in Denmark I have obtained knowledge of the hosting institution and of the legal system of the country. The great advantage was a mixture of participants that enabled to gather knowlegde about other countries' legal systems, to know better and understand the daily work of judicial authorities in other European countries and enriched the discussions very much. The visit was also a unique experience from a linguistic point of view, as I became more acquainted with legal terminology not only in english but also in danish. I am truly convinced that judges in my country should consider, as a good example, an attitude of the Danish judges, administration service and the staff to the parties to the conflict as well as the judiciary system as such and that the proceedings should be more
simplified in Poland. After all I have a strong feeling that irrespective of differences in legal systems in our countries, we all belong to a common judicial culture. The agenda of the Exchange Programme in Denmark was very diversed and interesting. During the visit I encountered the great hospitality and the will to explain all the principles of the Danish legal system. The participation in cases in a foreign language was also a great experience. Admittedly, it has been sometimes very time consuming, but it couldn't have been predicted in advance due to charakter of cases. Therefore, it would be very helpful for participants to have a possibility of current translation of the course of longer cases. In conclusion it is neccessary to point out that the way of exercising the judiciary in Denmark results from the idea of the "scandinavian legal realism" according to which the law cannot be conceptualized as a system of authoritative norms concerning the right and duties of persons but only as a system of legal rules grounded in interests and feelings that is actually maintained by the legal authorities in order to maintain peace and common social goals. This philosophy goes hand in hand with the high level of trust to judiciary which, in my opinion, should be one of the most important objectives of the legal system in each country.
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?