directorate general for internal policies legal affairs › regdata › etudes › etudes › join...

DIRECTORATE GENERAL FOR INTERNAL POLICIES

POLICY DEPARTMENT C: CITIZENS' RIGHTS AND CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

LEGAL AFFAIRS

JUDICIAL TRAINING IN THE EUROPEAN UNION

MEMBER STATES

ANNEX III. - IX.

PE 453.198 EN

This document was requested by the European Parliament's Committee on Legal Affairs AUTHORS John COUGHLAN Jaroslav OPRAVIL Wolfgang HEUSEL ERA - Academy of European Law RESPONSIBLE ADMINISTRATOR Danai PAPADOPOULOU Policy Department C - Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs European Parliament B-1047 Brussels E-mail: [email protected] LINGUISTIC VERSION Original: EN Translation: DE, FR Executive summary: BG, CS, DA, DE, EL, ES, ET, FI, FR, HU, IT, LT, LV, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, SV ABOUT THE EDITOR To contact the Policy Department or to subscribe to its newsletter please write to: [email protected] Manuscript completed in October 2011 © European Parliament, Brussels, 2011 This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/studies.do?language=EN http://www.ipolnet.ep.parl.union.eu/ipolnet/cms DISCLAIMER The opinions expressed in this document are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily represent the official position of the European Parliament. Reproduction and translation for non-commercial purposes are authorized, provided the source is acknowledged and the publisher is given prior notice and sent a copy.

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]://www.europarl.europa.eu/activities/committees/studies.do?language=ENhttp://www.ipolnet.ep.parl.union.eu/ipolnet/cms

Judicial training in the European Union Member States __________________________________________________________________________________________

3

CONTENTS CONTENTS 3 3. COURT STAFF’S EXPERIENCE OF TRAINING ................................... 5

3.1. AUSTRIA ............................................................................................. 5

3.2. BELGIUM .......................................................................................... 15

3.3. CZECH REPUBLIC ............................................................................... 27

3.4. GERMANY ......................................................................................... 39

3.5. LATVIA ............................................................................................. 51

3.6. POLAND ............................................................................................ 63

3.7. SLOVENIA ......................................................................................... 75

3.8. SWEDEN ........................................................................................... 85

4. NUMBER OF JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS IN THE EU MEMBER STATES AND TARGET RESPONSE RATE FOR QUESTIONNAIRE 1 ......................... 97 5. QUESTIONNAIRE 1: JUDGES’, PROSECUTORS’ AND COURT STAFF’S EXPERIENCE OF JUDICIAL TRAINING ................................................... 99 6. QUESTIONNAIRE 2: PROFILES OF JUDICIAL TRAINING ACTORS AT EU LEVEL .................................................................................................. 107 7. QUESTIONNAIRE 3: PROFILES OF JUDICIAL TRAINING ACTORS IN THE MEMBER STATES .......................................................................... 113 8. QUESTIONNAIRE 4: STAKEHOLDERS’ EVALUATION OF JUDICIAL TRAINING PROVISION AT EU LEVEL .................................................... 119 9. BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................... 121

Policy Department C: Citizens' Rights and Constitutional Affairs __________________________________________________________________________________________

4


5

3. COURT STAFF’S EXPERIENCE OF TRAINING

3.1. AUSTRIA

In Austria, the survey was distributed in the German language in the form of an online questionnaire. It was sent first to the Federal Ministry for Justice (Bundesministerium für Justiz), which distributed it among court staff falling within the following definition:

“Persons working in courts who are not judges but who have legal training and who (a) help prepare judgments, (b) make judicial decisions at least at a preliminary phase or (c) play a role in cross-border judicial cooperation.”

It is important to note that all questions to which the responses are presented in this report were posed in the form of multiple-choice questions with a closed list of answers. Respondents had the opportunity to provide answers varying from the closed list in a field marked “Other: …” but no significant variations compared to the multiple-choice answers were noted. A representative sample of respondents’ open comments and suggestions for improvement of judicial training are included in Section 2.

Survey characteristics RESPONSES

Total number of responses received from court staff: 40

PROFILE OF RESPONDENTS

Type of case dealt with by respondents:

Level of the national judicial system at which respondents work:

19

1

18

4

0

5

10

15

20

Criminal Civil Family Commercial

37

30 1

0

10

20

30

40

First instance Second instance Supreme instance Not applicable


6

Age of respondents: Number of years since first appointment:

Knowledge and experience of EU law Response to the following questions:

“How relevant do you assess the knowledge of EU law for your functions?”

“How often do you deal with issues of EU law?” “Has the number of cases involving EU law increased over the years?”

Under 305%

31-4035%

41-5037%

51-6023%

Less than 522%

6 to 1027%

11 to 1513%

16 to 2535%

More than 25

3%

Very5%

To some extent

33%

Only to a minor extent

46%

Not at all16%

Once a week

8%Once a month

8%

Once every 3

mths18%

Once a year5%

Less than once a year28%

Never33%

Yes88%

No12%


7

Types of cases with issues of EU law:

SUPPORT IN APPLYING EU LAW

Response to the following questions by respondents who indicated that they dealt with issues of EU law:

Source of support in finding out or understanding the applicable law (if received):

54%65%

23%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

Domestic Cross-border Both

Yes32%

No68%

Yes36%

No64%

0%

17%

0%

17%

0% 0%

8%

25%

8%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

“Did you get any support in finding out or understanding the applicable law?”

“Has any training you have received been helpful in deciding such a case?”


8

Academic legal studies Percentage of respondents who studied EU law, the European Convention on Human Rights or another Member State’s law as part of their law degree:

Initial training TRAINING

Percentage of respondents who received training in EU law, the European Convention on Human Rights or another Member State’s law as part of their initial training prior to assuming their functions:

TESTS

Percentage of respondents who had to pass a test on EU law, the European Convention on Human Rights or another Member State’s law in order to enter the profession:

6% 6% 6%

94%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

EU law ECHR Other Member State'slaw

None of thesesubjects

13% 13%0%

88%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



4% 0% 0%

92%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%




9

Continuous training PARTICIPATION IN TRAINING

Percentage of respondents who had participated in training on …

TRAINING PROVIDERS

Percentage of respondents who attended training organised by the respective organisations on …

Yes56%

No44%

Yes12%

No88%

33%

0%

18%15%

0%

38%

0% 0% 0% 0%

5%

0%3%

0% 0%3%

0%3%

0% 0%0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%

… a subject other than EU or other MS law … EU or other MS law

… a subject other than EU or another Member State’s law: … EU or another Member State’s law:


10

EVALUATION OF TRAINING

Response to the question “Did you find it useful in your subsequent career?” regarding continuous training on the respective subjects:

FREQUENCY AND DURATION OF TRAINING

Number of years since respondents last participated in continuous training on …

Length of last training session on…

59%

40%36%

60%

5%0%0% 0%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%

Subject other than EU or other MS law EU or other MS law

Very To some extent Only to a minor extent Not at all

> 168%

2 to 327%

4 to 50%

6 to 105%

10 +0%

> 10%

2 to 380%

4 to 520%

6 to 100%

10 +0%

> 1 day14%

1 day27%

2 days9%

3 days45%

> 1 week5%

1 week +0%

> 1 day0%

1 day80%

2 days0%

3 days0%

> 1 week20%

1 week +0%




11

REASON FOR PARTICIPATING IN EU LAW TRAINING

Motivation of respondents who had participated in continuous training on EU or another Member State’s law for doing so:

REASON FOR NOT PARTICIPATING IN TRAINING

Reason of respondents who had never participated in continuous training (on EU law or in general) for not having done so:

For ‘other than EU/other MS Law’, Total= 17 respondents, i.e. 43% of all respondents to the survey.

For ‘EU law/MS Law’, Total= 35 respondents, i.e. 88% of all respondents to the survey.

20%

60%

0% 0%

60%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Immediate needfor training (e.g.

case)

Needed for workin long term

Requested bysuperior

To be eligible forpromotion

General interest

65%

12%

0%

41%

0% 0%

74%

6% 3%

26%

3% 0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

No suchtraining

available

No time Not interested Not necessary No fundingavailable

Permissiondenied bysuperior

Training on subjects other than EU/other MS law Training on EU/MS law


12

DEMAND FOR EU LAW TRAINING

Selected EU law matters on which respondents would like more training (with distinction of types of cases dealt with):

Language training KNOWLEDGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

Percentage of respondents who know another EU language:

Percentage of respondents who know the indicated languages in addition to their principal working language:

50% 50% 50%

67%

8%

29%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

General principles of EU law Preliminary referenceprocedure

Regular updates on substantivelaw

administrative civil/commercial/family

Know another EU language

87%

Do not know another EU

language13%

85%

35%

18%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

English French Italian


13

LANGUAGE TRAINING

Reason for respondents who had never received language training for not doing so:

Contacts with foreign judges & prosecutors CONTACTS & NETWORKS

Response to the question “Have you ever contacted a foreign judge, prosecutor or other authority in connection with a case?”:

Yes10%

No90%

Very0% To some

extent25%


50%

Not at all

25%

64%

14%8%

42%

0% 0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

No suchtraining

available



Yes57%

No43%

Percentage of respondents who had received language training:

Response to the question “If yes, did you find it useful in your subsequent career?”:


14

EXCHANGES

Percentage of respondents who had participated in an exchange with judges, prosecutors and/or court staff from other Member States:

DEMAND FOR MORE CONTACTS

Response to the question “Would you appreciate measures to make it easier to contact foreign judges and/or prosecutors and, if yes, which?” (according to age groups):

Yes53%

No47%

0% 5% 0%

90%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

EJTN Bilateral Other Never participated in ajudicial exchange

50% 50% 50%

0%

50%43%

36%

57%

7%

29%33%

29%

58%

0%

17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

More exchanges More joint training Online database /directory

Other No

under 30 31-40 over 40

Response to the question “Are you aware of the European Judicial Network in Civil and Commercial Matters?” from respondents who indicated that they dealt with civil, commercial or family cases:


15

3.2. BELGIUM

In Belgium the survey was distributed in Dutch and French in the form of an online questionnaire by the High Council of Justice in cooperation with the Institute for Judicial Training to court staff falling within the following definition:








50

16

59

21 24 20

010203040506070

Criminal Civil Admin, socialor tax

Family Commercial Labour

92

13 153 4

0

20

40

60

80

100

First instance Second instance Higher instance Supreme instance Not applicable


16





Under 309%

31-4027%

41-5030%

51-6030%

Less than 518% 6 to 10

17%

11 to 1511%

16 to 2524%

More than 25

30%

Very6% To some

extent25%


39%

Not at all30%

Once a week

0%

Once a month

6%

Once every 3

mths13%

Once a year15%

Less than once a

year8%

Never58% Yes

70%

No30%


17





29%

76%

7%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%


Yes21%

No79%

Yes32%

No68%

0%

5%

0%

10%

0%

5%

10%

15%

0%0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%




18


Response to the question “Did you find it useful in your subsequent career?” regarding academic legal studies on the respective subjects:



21% 20% 19%

79%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



8% 8% 9%

36% 38%

4%

40%46%

65%

16%8%

22%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

EU law ECHR Other Member State's law


7% 7% 7%

93%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%




19

TESTS




TRAINING PROVIDERS


4% 10% 0%

90%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



Yes41%

No59%

Yes8%

No92%

4% 4% 6%

27%

3%

18%

0% 2%

10%

3%0% 1% 2%

4%1% 1% 1% 0% 2% 0%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%




20






54%

30%

42%

60%

0%10%

4% 0%0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%



> 151%

2 to 329%

4 to 58%

6 to 102%

10 +10% > 1

30%

2 to 340%

4 to 520%

6 to 1010%

10 +0%

> 1 day2% 1 day

25%

2 days8%

3 days22%

> 1 week16%

1 week +27%

> 1 day10%

1 day50%

2 days20%

3 days10%

> 1 week0%

1 week +10%




21

34%

13%9%

27%

3%0%

47%

14%10%

32%

3% 1%0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

No suchtraining

available










30%

50%

0% 0%

30%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


case)




General interest


22



Language training

KNOWLEDGE OF FOREIGN LANGUAGES

Principal working language of respondents:


50% 50%

0%

71%

14% 14%

67%

38%

29%

42%

13%

33%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%



employment/labour administrative civil/commercial/family criminal

Dutch64%

French36%


73%


language27%


23


LANGUAGE TRAINING

Reason for respondents who had never received language training for not having done so:

65%54%

26%15%

6%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

English French German Dutch Spanish

Yes22%

No78%

Very25%

To some extent

50%


21%

Not at all4%

19%

27%

6%

42%

4% 4%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

No suchtraining

available






24

Contacts with foreign judges & prosecutors

CONTACTS & NETWORKS


Response to the following questions from respondents who indicated that they dealt with criminal cases:

Yes26%

No74%

Yes7%

No93%

Yes32%

No68%

Yes39%

No61%


“Are you aware of the European Judicial Network in Criminal Matters?”

“Are you aware of Eurojust?”


25

EXCHANGES

Percentage of respondents who had participated in an exchange with judges and/or prosecutors from other Member States:



2% 2% 2%

76%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


27%

36%

64%

0%

27%18%

26% 29%

0%

35%

14%6%

20%

1%

35%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Other No



26


27

3.3. CZECH REPUBLIC

In the Czech Republic the survey was distributed in the Czech language in the form of an online questionnaire by the Ministry of Justice to court staff falling within the following definition:








3833

1518

13

6

05

10152025303540



63

115

010203040506070

First instance Second instance Supreme instance


28


Knowledge and experience of EU law “How relevant do you assess the knowledge of EU law for your functions?”


Under 30

43%

31-4029%

41-5020%

51-608%

Less than 558%

6 to 1016%

11 to 1515%

16 to 2510%

More than 25

1%

Very5% To some

extent22%


49%

Not at all24%

Once a week

4%Once a month

12%

Once every 3

mths25%

Once a year21%

Less than once a

year14%

Never24%

Yes56%

No44%


29





52%59%

14%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%


Yes44%

No56%

Yes46%

No54%

0%

9%

3%

19%

3%

25%

47%

31%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%




30





57% 55%51%

42%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


None of these subjects

14%

2% 3%

30% 33%

13%

49%43%

23%

7%

21%

62%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%



52% 52% 48%42%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%




31

Response to the question “Did you find it useful in your subsequent career?” regarding initial training on the respective subjects:

TESTS




19%

6%0%

19%

31%

13%

50%44%

27%

13%19%

60%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%



17% 17%

0%

76%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%



Yes79%

No21%

Yes24%

No76%



32

TRAINING PROVIDERS




36%

0%4%

61%

0%

20%

1% 0%9%

1%5%

0% 0%

17%

0%4%

0% 1% 0% 0%0%

10%20%30%

40%50%60%

70%


42%

24%

53%

29%

5%

41%

0%6%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%




33






> 178%

2 to 318%

4 to 52%

6 to 102%

10 +0%

> 167%

2 to 328%

4 to 55%

6 to 100%

10 +0%

> 1 day5%

1 day47%

2 days10%

3 days18%

> 1 week15%

1 week +5%

> 1 day5%

1 day61%

2 days6%

3 days6%

> 1 week22%

1 week +0%

22%

50%

0%6%

56%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


case)




General interest




34







25%

13%

0%

19%

0%

6%

34%

19%

2%

38%

5% 5%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

No suchtraining

available




20%

60%

20%

55%

45%

55%

33%29%

36%30% 30% 30%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%





35

Language training




LANGUAGE TRAINING


82%


language18%

68%

51%

21%

8% 5%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

English German Slovak French Spanish

Yes41%

No59%

Very26%

To some extent

29%


26%

Not at all

19%




36

Reason for respondents who had never received language training for not doing so:





42%

18%

2%

24%

11%

4%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

No suchtraining

available



Yes20%

No80%

Yes53%

No47%

Yes27%

No73%

Yes40%

No60%




37

EXCHANGES




0% 0% 0%

97%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


15%21%

42%

3%

58%

14%

23%

50%

0%

27%

5%

24%

33%

0%

38%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Other No



38


39

3.4. GERMANY

In Germany the survey was distributed in the German language in the form of an online questionnaire by the ministries of justice at state (Länder) level to court staff falling within the following definition:








130

33

106

7191

44

020406080

100120140



322

4114 3

72

050

100150200250300350



40


Knowledge and experience of EU law “How relevant do you assess the knowledge of EU law for your functions?”


Under 30

28%

31-4027%

41-5025%

51-6018%

Less than 5

3% 6 to 1017%

11 to 1522%

16 to 2531%

More than 25

27%

Very3% To some

extent28%


50%

Not at all19%

Once a week

5%

Once a month

7%Once

every 3 mths12%

Once a year17%


Never30%

Yes66%

No34%


41





38%

59%

8%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%


Yes25%

No75%

Yes23%

No77%

3%

25%

0%

13%

1%

33%

12%

37%

23%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%




42

Academic legal studies

Percentage of respondents who studied EU law, the European Convention on Human Rights or another Member State’s law as part of their law degree:




18% 15% 16%

81%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%



1% 0% 3%

13%

0%

9%

58%

41% 43%

27%

59%

46%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%



11% 10% 10%

89%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%




43

TESTS




TRAINING PROVIDERS


5% 1% 1%

94%

0%20%40%60%80%

100%



Yes62%

No38%

Yes10%

No90%

28%

6%

24%

17%

0%

33%

0% 0% 1%

8%

1% 0% 1%2%

0%

6%

0% 0% 0% 0%0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%




44






48% 48%49%43%

2%10%

1% 0%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%



> 174%

2 to 317%

4 to 54%

6 to 102%

10 +3%

> 131%

2 to 345%

4 to 57%

6 to 1012%

10 +5%

> 1 day1%

1 day21%

2 days28%

3 days29%

> 1 week17%

1 week +4%

> 1 day5%

1 day32%

2 days29%

3 days22%

> 1 week12%

1 week +0%




45

52%

14%

6%

53%

3% 1%

50%

9% 7%

56%

2% 2%0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

No suchtraining

available










33%

74%

0% 0%

17%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%


case)




General interest


46


Selected EU law matters on which respondents would like more training (according to types of cases dealt with):

Language training




50%

0%

15%

48%

0%

8%

39%

4%

17%

32%

1%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%





92%


language8%

91%

47%

9% 5% 4%0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

English French Spanish Italian Other


47

LANGUAGE TRAINING




Yes41%

No59%

Very25%

To some extent

15%


24%

Not at all

36%

51%

12%6%

55%

4% 2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

No suchtraining

available



Yes35%

No65%




48



EXCHANGES


Yes27%

No73%

Yes17%

No83%

Yes12%

No88%

0% 0% 1%

93%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%





49


Response to the question “Would you appreciate measures to make it easier to contact foreign judges and/or prosecutors and, if yes, which?” (according to age group):

34%

26%

44%

1%

21%

27%22%

52%

2%

21%

30% 29%

41%

3%

21%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


Other No



50


51

3.5. LATVIA

In Latvia the survey was distributed in the Latvian language in the form of an online questionnaire by the Latvian Judicial Training Centre and the Latvian Ministry of Justice to court staff falling within the following definition:



Survey characteristics

RESPONSES





11

2

11

4

8

3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12



18

10

2 10

5

10

15

20

First instance Second instance Supreme instance Not applicable


52



Under 30

58%

31-4019%

41-5023%

51-600%

Less than 552%

6 to 1036%

11 to 1512%

16 to 250%

More than 25

0%

Very4%

To some extent

58%


38%

Not at all0%

Once a week

7%Once a month

15%

Once every 3

mths31%

Once a year31%

Less than once a

year8%

Never8%


“How often do you deal with issues of EU law?”


53




Yes50%

No50%

58%

38%

13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Yes65%

No35%

Yes86%

No14%

“Has the number of cases involving EU law increased over the years?”




54


Academic legal studies

Percentage of respondents who studied EU law, the European Convention on Human Rights or another Member State’s law as part of their law degree:


0%

76%

6% 6%0%

24%

35%

47%

24%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

96% 88% 92%

4%0%

20%40%60%80%

100%120%



16%

30%

8%

52% 52%

33%28%

13%

42%

4% 4%17%

0%

20%

40%

60%




55




TESTS


63%

50%

63%

38%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%



20%25%

0%

60%

75%

60%

20%

0%

20%

0% 0%

20%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%



40%

20%

0%

40%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%




56

Continuous training

PARTICIPATION IN TRAINING


TRAINING PROVIDERS


Yes92%

No8%

Yes54%

No46%

19%

0% 4%

81%

0%8%

0% 0%

15%4%4% 0% 4%

38%

0% 4% 0%0% 8% 0%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%




57






42%

29%

54% 57%

4%14%

0% 0%0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%



> 179%

2 to 313%

4 to 58%

6 to 100% 10 +

0%

> 172%

2 to 314%

4 to 514%

6 to 100%

10 +0%

> 1 day0%

1 day71%

2 days17%

3 days0%

> 1 week

4%

1 week +8% > 1 day

15%

1 day57%

2 days7%

3 days0%

> 1 week7%

1 week +14%




58

0% 0% 0% 0%

50%

0%

25% 25%17%

8% 8%0%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

No suchtraining

available












7%

57%

7%

21%29%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%


case)




General interest

33% 33%

0%

57%

29%

86%

60%50%

30%

60%

80%

40%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


Regular updates onsubstantive law



59

Language training




LANGUAGE TRAINING


77%


language23%

77%

35%

12%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

English German Other

Yes31%

No69%

Very25%

To some extent

12%


50%

Not at all

13%




60


Contacts with foreign judges & prosecutors

CONTACTS & NETWORKS


78%

6% 0% 6%

28%

0%0%

20%40%60%80%

100%

No suchtraining

available



Yes19%

No81%

Yes55%

No45%



61


EXCHANGES




Yes27%

No73%

Yes55%

No45%

0% 0% 0%

88%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


40%

53%47%

20%

40%

60% 60%

0%

33%

67%

50%

17%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


No





62


63

3.6. POLAND

In Poland the survey was distributed in the Polish language in the form of an online questionnaire by the National Council of the Judiciary and by the Supreme Administrative Court to court staff falling within the following definition:








35

11

26

20 20

5

05

10152025303540



42

15

3 5 5

0

10

20

30

40

50



64



Under 30

53%

31-4042%

41-505%

51-600%

Less than 562%

6 to 1027%

11 to 159%

16 to 252%

More than 25

0%

Very26%

To some extent

35%


33%

Not at all6%

Once a week33%

Once a month

4%Once every

3 mths17%

Once a year24%

Less than once a

year14%

Never8%




65




Yes83%

No17%

56%61%

21%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%


Yes29%

No71%

Yes36%

No64%





66



0%

11%

0%

21%

5%

47%

79%

58%

37%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

76%68% 67%

21%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%




67





14%

0% 0%

24% 22%14%

44%51%

36%

18%27%

50%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%



68%61% 58%

29%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%



24%

5%0%

14%

37%

0%

43%

32%39%

19%26%

61%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%




68

TESTS


Continuous training



TRAINING PROVIDERS


47%

28%

0%

50%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%



Yes74%

No26% Yes

38%

No62%

42%

2% 3%

44%

0%

20%

0% 0% 3% 3%

12%

0% 0%

24%

0%

11%

2% 0% 2% 0%0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%50%




69






40%28%

33%

60%

27%

12%

0% 0%0%

10%20%30%40%50%60%70%



> 165%

2 to 329%

4 to 56%

6 to 100%

10 +0%

> 167%

2 to 325%

4 to 58%

6 to 100%

10 +0%

> 1 day4%

1 day6% 2 days

27%

3 days39%

> 1 week

2%

1 week +

22%

> 1 day0%

1 day4% 2 days

16%

3 days44%

> 1 week20%

1 week +16%




70









8%

60%

28%

8%

60%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%


case)




General interest

82%

6% 0% 0%12%

0%

95%

0% 0% 2% 2% 2%0%

20%40%60%80%

100%

No suchtraining

available




60%

40%

60%55%

50%

65%

49%

34%

46%

35%27%

42%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%





71

Language training




LANGUAGE TRAINING


85%


language15%

82%

26% 21%

8% 5%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

English German French Spanish Italian

Yes33%

No67%

Very64%

To some extent

18%


18%

Not at all0%




72




41%

11%

2%5%

25%

9%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

No suchtraining

available



Yes25%

No75%

Yes57%

No43%



73


EXCHANGES




Yes73%

No27%

Yes81%

No19%

0% 2% 0%

95%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%


34%49%

66%

17%

36%

68%

46%

11%

67%

100% 100%

0%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%


No





74


75

3.7. SLOVENIA

In Slovenia the survey was distributed in the Slovenian language in the form of an online questionnaire by the Judicial Training Centre attached to the Ministry of Justice to court staff falling within the following definition:








9

1

6

1

0

2

4

6

8

10

Criminal Civil Admin, social or tax Family

12

3 3

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

First instance Second instance Supreme instance


76



Under 30

71%

31-4029%

41-500%

51-600%

Less than 594%

6 to 100%

11 to 150%16 to 25

0%

More than 25

6%

Very25%

To some extent

62%


13%

Not at all0%

Once a week

0%

Once a month

12%

Once every 3

mths29%

Once a year18%


Never23%




77




Yes85%

No15%

46%

69%

15%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%


Yes37%

No63%

Yes46%

No54%





78




0%

17%

0%

17%

0% 0%

33%

50% 50%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

82% 82%71%

6%0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%



21%

0% 0%

29%

57%

25%

36%29%

33%

14% 14%

42%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%




79



TESTS


Continuous training



40% 40% 40%

60%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%



71%

43%

0%

29%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%



Yes35%

No65%

Yes47%

No53%



80

TRAINING PROVIDERS




6%

0% 0%

6%

0%

24%

0%

12%

24%

12%12%

0% 0%

6%

0%

29%

0%

6% 6%

0%0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%


> 140%2 to 3

60%

4 to 50%

6 to 100%

10 +0%

> 143%

2 to 357%

4 to 50%

6 to 100%

10 +0%



81






For ‘other than EU/other MS Law’, Total= 11 respondents, i.e. 65% of all respondents to th

directorate general for internal policies legal affairs › regdata › etudes › etudes › join...

Documents