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: 7 YEARS Identification of the exchange Hosting jurisdiction/institution: SSR ZUTPHEN, ARRONDISSEMENTSPARKET GRONINGEN City: THE HAGUE, UTRECHT, GRONINGEN Country: THE NETHERLANDS Dates of the exchange: FEBRUARY 1-12, 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 LUBLIN On 12 MARCH, 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 To point I - Programme of the exchange The Exchange Programme for judges and prosecutors, provided by EJTN, which took part in February 1-12, 2010, gave me the opportunity to acquaint myself with variety of legal institutions, both Dutch and international ones. As concern to the Dutch institutions, we have visited Dutch courts (of I and II instance), Dutch prosecutors offices, National Training Institute for the Judiciary (SSR) and the Council for the Judiciary. The international legal institutions we visited, were as the following: International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, International Criminal Court and Eurojust. We also had a visit to a prison and we had activities at the Police Training Centre, as well as other, less formal activities with the Dutch police were provided. Visit at the courts of both instances provided me with knowledge of various aspects of both the Dutch material criminal law, and the Dutch criminal procedure aspects. Those points of the programme, which concerned the courts, were also connected with hearings. The hearings were conducted by the Dutch judges using the Dutch proceedings and were authentic of course, so they had to be translated into English. The translators were provided by the organizers every time it was necessary and their job was done well, as they were professionally prepared to transcript from the legal terminology. Due to the programme I met many Dutch judges and prosecutors as well as the judicial staff from the courts and prosecutor s offices. Every meeting with them was organized in the way, which enabled me to ask questions, talk to them and discuss, also after the official part of meeting or conference. It is also worth to mention that the hosting institution provided all the participants with the written programme, which was perfectly and fully realized. To point II - The hosting institution National Training Institute for the Judiciary (SSR) was our hosting instution for the first week in the Netherlands. It also organized the frame schedule for the second week, which was spent in Groningen. The Institute takes care of different kinds of activities, such as trainings for judges and prosecutors and for the future judges and prosecutors as well. Its international department deals with international cooperation between analogical institutions for judiciary from different EU countries and organizes the conferences, studies and exchange programmes on this topic. National Training Institute for the Judiciary has its seat in Utrecht and in Zutphen, as well as
its small, local departments or cooperators in other cities in the Netherlands. It is important that in the second week of our exchange programme we have been also hosted by Prosecutor s Offices in Groningen, Leeuwarden and Assen (north part of the Netherlands), but the SSR prepared all the programme and coordinated it in a perfect way. To point III - law of the host country Throughout the Exchange Programme I had the opportunity to get to know an overview of the whole Dutch law system and main institutions of the Dutch state. But I was particulary interested in those aspects of the host country s national law that concern Dutch criminal procedure. The reason for that fact is that improvement of the procedure is one of the main of my professional interests in my job activity as a public prosecutor. I noticed that the criminal proceedings in the Netherlands is not so complicated as it is in Poland. Therefore, much less formal activities must be done between the information about a crime and the sentencing an accused person. But the situation of the prosecutor in the Dutch institutional system is the most significant thing for me, for the differences between Polish and Dutch prosecutor. The Dutch prosecutor does not have to obey higher-level prosecutors, as the supervision activities are not commonly used in the Netherlands, while in Poland the hierarchy system of Public Prosecutor Authority is very strong. It means that the Polish prosecutor often has to conduct his inquiry in a way imposed by another prosecutor, which is employed in higher-level prosecutor s office, sometimes even if does not agree with the point of view of the supervision. That is a very important feature of Polish Public Prosecutor Authority, which in my opinion should be delated from the Polish law system or considerably limited as soon as possible. That system of supervision does not exist in the Dutch law system nor in any other EU country law systems that I know, as it makes the prosecutors dependent on others. To point IV - The comparative law aspect in my exchange My professional interests focus, among other things, on comparative law (especially proceedings), so I am constantly interested in cooperation between different EU jurisdical institutions on this topic. I`ve attended on post-graduate studies on this topic in Poland as well. The Exchange Programme gave me an occasion to broaden my knowledge of how jurisdical institutions work in different countries, what solutions can be applied in my country law-system. This experience can be used in my professional daily life because Polish judges and prosecutors are often asked to give their own opinion about some projects of new rules in polish criminal or
civil law. My own opinion in the area of improving the rules, would be better if I use my European experience and the knowledge of other law systems. It is not possible to exemplify all the important differences between my own country legal system, proceeding and substantial law and those aspects in the Dutch system. But my experience make it easy to generalize that the Dutch proceedings, both criminal and civil, are less formal than the ones in Polish law-system. In the Dutch criminal procedure, not so much conditions must be done between the beginning of the inquiry and the court trail. The most important example is as following. If the Polish prosecutor knows the personal data of a person, who committed a crime, but it is impossible to hear to him during the inquiry because the prosecutor does not know where he is (and search by the police gave no result), the procedure cannot be followed to the court and verdict cannot be done. In such a case, the prosecutor must suspend the procedure till the criminal is found and heard by prosecutor or police officer. This solution does not exist in the Dutch or Italian system. The prosecutors in the Netherlands or Italy can make a case in the court and the court can make a verdict even if the criminal was never heard and seen by police, prosecutor or the judge (and if there are enough evidences of course). Such a simplicity in the Dutch criminal procedure system make that the verdict for a criminal person is more quick and more sure. Another example hearings of witnesses in the Netherlands can be conducted by telephone in urgent situations, but in Poland such a way of examination of a witness is never acceptable. Due to substancial law in the Netherlands, it is essential to indicate that the system is more tolerant as a whole, and some human activities as not criminalized, such as possessing or trade of the soft-drugs (to a certain extent), euthanasia (in strict conditions) and abortion. It is also necessary to indicate the most significant similarities between both systems. The essencial is that both the Dutch legal system and the Polish legal system derive frome the same origin and have the same basis. The civil law of these countries derives from the old Roman civil law. The Roman civil law had a hudge influence on all western-culture Europe countries as the institutiuons created at those times were perfectly suitable for typical problems the society may have even up till today. The Roman pattern survived for the next more than thousand years in all European countries and was only sliglty changed or developed in particular country systems. The example is the law of testimony, the law of the contracts (i.e. the institution of ability for the legal acitivities) or the law of civil responsibility for not fullfilling the contract, which are more or less similar in Poland, The Nethertherland and all the other countries in Europe. Concerning to criminal law, the common base derives partly from the old german lawsystem and partly from the old french law-system. Patterns taken from these two countries lay upon all the modern criminal law-systems in Europe. This is why the shape of all the main institutions in criminal and civil law-system in particular EU-countries is generally the same (except for common law countries of course, such as
Great Britain and Irland). And also differences or new institutions that came up, were introduced later and some of them were adopted in neighbourhood countries. Those facts explain in comparative way why the differences between the EU countries are not huge indeed. To point V - The European aspect of your exchange As refers to the implementation or references to Community instruments, conventions or judicial cooperation instruments, it is important that the Exchange Programme gave the opportunity to observe one institution, whose idea could be a model solution for the future European Union. In my opinion, that significant role is due to International Criminal Court (ICC), which is located in the Hague. So, the impressive way the ICC works, and the proceedings it applies, make a good patern for creating the basis of the future net of European courts, common for the whole European Union. This beautiful idea would work well in some areas like for instance insolvency law or consumers law and would make the Community more and more integrated. Eurinfra is another institution that is extremely important from the point of view of Community. This Dutch solution refers to reinforcing the knowledge of the European law within the Dutch judiciary. If any magnificent data-base system like that was forced in other EU countries, that would help to unify the particular systems within the whole Community and as a result will deepen and enforce the idea of real European Integration. From this point it would be only one step to common, unified law system of the modern Europe. Now, it is still only the dream of the future. To point VI - The benefits of the exchange The Exchange Programme for judges and prosecutors, provided by EJTN, which took part in February 1-12, 2010, turned out to be very fruitful and valuable for me. The variety of activities enabled me to broaden my knowledge about EU countries law systems and the differences between them, especially in the field of the comparative law. I also got in touch with judges and prosecutors from different EU countries who are interested in the same things. The most significant benefit what was indicated by me above is the experience and knowledge of well-functioning institutions used by other law systems. I always say that if we have a problem in a specific institution or some aspects of proceeding does not work as we expect, sometimes it is no use to produce new ideas on reforming that, but it is bettter to look for the solutions in different countries, where the problem does not exist. The most basic condition to be able to do that is knowledge of systems of other countries. The exchange programme gave great opportunity to get this experience and that knowledge, which I will use in my professional daily
life because polish judges and prosecutors are often asked to give their own opinions or suggestions on projects of new rules in polish criminal or civil law. My colleagues will also benefit of the knowledge I acquired during my exchange, because I share my experience with them on all important topics (on various meetings), so the knowledge and reflections from the Programme are not only in my head. Oral reports and reflections on the Programme are already done by me. To point VII - Suggestions In my opinion, all the aspects of the Exchange Programme were both prepared and realized perfectly, at least with regard to the programme provided by the EJTN and realized by the SSR in the Netherland, in which I was participated. So there are no meritoric aspects that could be improved. I have only one reservation, but it is concerned with the technical side of organization of the Exchange Programme. My proposal regarding the next Programmes is to send suggestions to all future participants to take the same place for their stay in the host country, i.e. the same city and the same hotel. There is a significant chance that such a suggestion (and nothing more than suggestion of course) would make majority of the participants live close together, and that circumstance will integrate them better. The reason why I wrote about that is because during my stay in the Netherlands, the informal every day integration, which should be performed in the afternoons or evenings AFTER official activities, was very difficult and almost did not exist at all. During the first week of my stay in the Netherlands, some of participants had their accommodation in the Hague, some of them in Utrecht, and some of them even in Amsterdam. And those of them, who were accommodated in the Hague for example, chose different hotels, some of them the Ibis Hotel, some of them other hotels. For that reason it was very difficult to continue our integration together after the formal activities, because all the people tended to come back to different places. My experience show that the evening integration is very fruitful. It is not only an occasion for a common party or other form of fun together, because during such informal meetings participants have chance to discuss much more about the matters concerned with the programme and later, on returning home, they know each other and have possibility to continue the discuss by e-mails. So in my opinion, any previous mail-suggestions, concerning the one place and the one hotel for all the future participants, would finally be very valuable, both for participants of the programme, and for the organizers as well.
SUMMARY The Exchange Programme for judges and prosecutors gave a great opportunity to acquaint myself with variety of legal institutions, both Dutch and international ones. As concern to the Dutch institutions, I visited Dutch courts, prosecutors offices, a typical prison, police station, National Training Institute for the Judiciary, the Council for the Judiciary and international legal institutions such as International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, International Criminal Court and Eurojust. This programme provided me with knowledge of various aspects of both the Dutch substantial criminal law, and the Dutch criminal procedure aspects. The hosting institution (for the first week) is called National Training Institute for the Judiciary (SSR). The Institute takes care of different kinds of activities, such as trainings for judges, prosecutors, future judges and future prosecutors. The second week of our exchange programme we have been also hosted by local Prosecutor s Offices in Groningen, Leeuwarden and Assen. Thanks to the Programme I got to know an overview of the whole Dutch law system and main institutions of the Dutch state, mainly concerning the Dutch criminal procedure. The situation of the prosecutor in the Dutch institutional system was especially interesting for me, for the differences between Polish and Dutch prosecutor. In Poland we have a strict system of supervision, which does not exist in the Dutch law system nor in any of other EU country law systems that I know. I was particulary interested in comparative aspects of the Programme, because I am looking for new, well-working solutions that can be applied in my country law-system. I can make a general statement that the Dutch proceedings, both criminal and civil, are less formal than the analogical ones in Polish law-system. Special simplifying solutions in the Dutch procedure systems, make that the final results such as agreements by the parties or verdicts by courts are reached more quickly and more sure. Concerning the similarities between both systems, it is essencial that both the Dutch legal system and the Polish legal system derive frome the same origins, such as the old Roman civil law, partly the old german criminal law and partly the old french criminal law. Patterns taken from these systems lay upon all the modern criminal law-systems in Europe. As refers to the Community instruments, it is important that the Programme gave the opportunity to observe institutions, whose idea could be a model solution for the future European Union. That significant role is due to International Criminal Court (ICC). The Court is a good patern for creating the basis of the future net of European courts, common for the whole European Union.
Eurinfra is another institution that is extremely important from the point of view of Community, as it refers to reinforcing the knowledge of the European law within the Dutch judiciary. All the substantial aspects of the Programme were prepared and realized perfectly. The only reservation concerns the technical side of organization. All participants of next Programmes should be provided with the suggestion to stay in the same city and in the same hotel in their hosting country, because that solution will contribute to closer integration between them.