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: Italian Country of exchange: Austria 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: Italian Functions: Public Prosecutor Length of service: 22 years Identification of the exchange Hosting jurisdiction/institution: Vienna Judiciary - City: Vienna Country: Austria Dates of the exchange: 9-20 September 2013 Type of exchange: one to one exchange group exchange general exchange specialized exchange (please specify : ) REPORT Logistic Starting meeting at of Monday 9th September We were a multinational group of four Spanish (---), one Danish (---), one Bulgarian (---), one French (--- ), one Polish (---) and me (the only Italian). None of us got the idea to get contacts between us in advance. Our first contact was in Vienna Court of Appeal building. Due to our lack of previous contacts, we are scattered all over Vienna downtown but most of us gathered together for every evening. Contacting my Embassy for suggestions, I reserved an apartment at Laudongasse, just beyond the Vienna Landsgericht. Maybe directions for accommodation in Vienna could help many of us to be in touch since beginning. Meeting point at Court of Appeal Supreme Court building. Address at 11 Schmerlingplatz. Trivial problem: the building is not marked, and I got not idea to obtain visual details of the building. A quarter of an hour spent moving form building to building just to locate the right one. Finally I meet the group of us, others already inside the Supreme Court

3 We are guest of the vice president of the Court of Appeal that introduces himself and the exchange program. Mag. Dr. M-E W-C takes care of us leading and giving us details for the two week scheduled program. Lunch at the top of the building with a wonderful view all over the core of Vienna. Day by day activity 9th September meeting point and introduction of the exchange program. Visit at Supreme Court Palace. Lunch at the top of SC palace. 10th September visit at Regional Court in Korneuburg and local prison. Meeting with colleagues working there. A guided tour concluded with a meeting at the terrace and chatting in the meeting room at the top of the building. Lunch at the prison and another tour through this building and its facilities. 11th September at morning at Vienna Commercial Court, Justice Tower. Meeting with Mag. P H. Topics: matters handled by the Commercial Court, then approaching and dealing cases with huge data amount and mediation service. Experience from various countries. Afternoon visit at Public Prosecutor Office for Economic Crimes and Corruption at Dampsfschiffrasse 4 (not to easy to find). 12th September, at morning visit to the Regional Court in Vienna (Landesgeritchsstrasse 11) and relations from Mag. C.S. and Mag. B. Z.. Afternoon: from Albertinaplatz a two hours tour with historical illustrations about crimes and executions in old times in many places of Vienna. 13th September morning: Human Rights and Austrian Training System for magistrates explained us by Mag. E. R. and historical movie about Vienna Palace of Justice assault in First real meeting and lunch with ours tutors 16th September at Staatsanwalt in Vienna. First day at 9 o clock for a trial court about a fraud case with and Italian indicted, not speaking German. Initial full involvement due to explanations given by the Public Prosecutor colleague (Dr. M.S., speaking in English) and to the Italian speaking of the defendant. From afternoon German spoken with translation service only to the defendant. End at p.m. No lunch suspension. 17th September. Introduction of Wein Staatsanwalt organization and working system for a public prosecutor magistrate by Dr B. R. Discussing with Vienna colleagues about MLA to Italy 18th September. At morning, hearing of the same trial. Language spoken: only in German. Afternoon first visit at Austrian Kriminaltechink Police Centre for ballistic matters, then visit at Vienna Police public order surveillance system for soccer matches and to the Prater Stadium 19th September Morning: visit to the prison building linked to the Regional Court and Public Prosecutor Offices. Evening dinner at Fischer Brau Gasthof and to Vienna pubs. 20th September: lunch at Supreme Court building with Mag. Dr. M-E W-C and certificates distribution. Afternoon: leaving from Vienna. Austrian Judiciary System The Austrian Justice web site ( offers a full brochure about civil and criminal justice organization, and it is in English ( pdf). Same career for judges and public prosecutor. Selection procedure held by Supreme Court, not by the Justice Ministry. The magistrates selection procedure is explained us as a stressing and competitive system, lasting for years. A semi volunteer term after graduation for every legal profession at the Court (or Public Prosecutor Office as well) for few month, then a long selection phase, in competition with all others candidates, working as appointed magistrate at the office. At the end of the four year term the real appointing.

4 After their criminal procedure reform (in 2008) Austrian authorities experimented an easy passage from legal professions (i.e. lawyers) to magistrate career in order to fill personal lacks at the Vienna Public Prosecutor Office (90 member structure). The short term solution (as soon as the minimum term passed the incoming professionals, legitimate magistrate, chose to change role, as judging one leaving the Public Prosecutor Office) induced to stop such an experience. As far as I can realize, co-optation system with a selection held with daily routine work by colleagues. Quite different form the Italian one. Austrian Criminal Procedure: report from an alien Our Austrian colleagues appear (and are) very proud to be extremely efficient in time- response for civil and criminal cases. A large number of causes decide within few months. Their attitude to solve even trivial problems (at Kroneuburg Justice Palace, just after the main entrance, is placed the cash service desk for the public and many sitting places for professional and public are surrounded by noise reduction materials, even colours and decorations at walls are studied for stress reduction) reveals a pragmatic approach leading to the best and most efficient service. I dare to refer only about Vienna Public Prosecutor Office and just form my personal experience. As I learned, in Vienna there are two different Public Prosecutor Offices. Public Prosecutor Office at Regional Court (Staatsanwaltschaft) and Public Prosecutor Office for serious economic crimes and corruption cases (Wirtschafts- und Korruptionsstaatsanwaltschaft WKStA) First one is composed by 90 magistrates with specialized departments (such as economical crimes or violence). This is the Office that handles even urgent matters as Police arrests or other topics. The second one is a newly constituted one (2009) with a 20 magistrate staff (to be increased up to 40). It is something similar (similar, not the same) of the UK Serious Frauds Office. They deal with up to 5 mln euro cases or more. Lesser serious crimes can be manage if extremely relevant. Their organized crime experience concern drug or human being trafficking ones. Each Public Prosecutor Office has his own consultants (i.e. Kriminaltechink Polizei for ballistic expertises or accountability experts at WKStA). All Justice Offices have a net connection nationwide, and from each Public Prosecutor Office a check can be done for cases regarding same parties (online and in real time). Each Public Prosecutor magistrate has at his disposal a large number of data banks (from commercial information to workers insurance). Every single case is registered in a db program and each step of the case is also recorded. The more time the magistrate is working, the lesser acts he adopted need a countersignature from senior magistrates leading the Office. At the end of the investigation phase, with no term, the Public Prosecutor magistrate can choose if drop the case or as the Court for the trial. Virtually Justice Minister could order, with a written request, to drop a single case, but it never happened. The trial at the Court can be to a single magistrate, a panel of three magistrates or even a Jury Court. The Jury Court deals with most serious crimes. This procedure does not require any motivation of the jury decision. As a result, trials for serious crimes ended with a no motivated decision. At trial start with the presence of the defendant - the Public Prosecutor introduces the case illustrating it to the Court. Then the Defence offers his/her vision of the case. The defendant is requested by the Court to answer (if he/she wants) starting with if he admitted or not crimes he is charged for.

5 Evidences collected during the investigation term by Public Prosecutor, transmitted directly to the Court for the trial, are verified by the Court. Questioning of witnesses is led by the Judge (single magistrate or the professional magistrate). Public Prosecutor and Defence add their questions at the end, if any. The Court can summon its own witnesses The Court can appoint his own consultants, also. Public Prosecutor can offer his own consultants for expertises. Private parts can not. This last point is under scrutiny of the Austria Supreme Court. Hearings appear to be held in sequence in order to achieve a decision within the term as short as possible. Time barren term is suspended during the trial. I ve got a view of a working system not overcrowded by tons of cases with a long term planning of the hearings. What I do appreciate, as Public Prosecutor, is the economical premium to be on duty for Public Prosecutors and Judges. An acknowledge for a night and day on duty term, in Italy we do not even consider (not even in term of rest). Considering the procedure, I do appreciate their system. In Italy, after the Criminal Procedure Reform in 1989 (and after a Constitutional intervention of the Parliament in 1999) we have a pure hearsay rule system. This approach, with a time barren term going on even during the trial and an in absentia procedure that leads most of the cases directly to the Court trial, are all factors that produced a judicial service appearing as collapsing one. From such an daily experience I ve got a panorama over a totally different system. The first lunch as the last day one, with the evening spent with a friendly group of Austrian magistrates (- --) at many Gasthof in Vienna are best memories of my Vienna experience. A thank to all of them and to all the people I met.

6 SUMMARY Difficulties I met at my approach this exchange experience (trivial problems, easy to fix for next groups). Activities done during the two working week term. Glances over Austrian judicial selection system, their public prosecutor offices organization e their trial systems: the point of view of an alien.

7 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?