Facebook  Twitter  LinkedIn  Slideshare

At a glance
About the CCJE
A word from the President
Meeting reports
10th anniversary of the CCJE
Status and situation of judges in member States
Cooperation with other bodies
CCJE Opinions
CCJE Opinions and Magna Carta
Preliminary works
For a proper use of CCJE Opinions...
ECHR Judgments
Reference documents
Press releases
Simple search
Advanced search
Restricted access to the collaborative workspace
Coe Bodies, international organisations and research centres


Strasbourg, 16 April 2013



Questionnaire for the preparation of CCJE Opinion No. 16
on the relationship between judges and lawyers and the concrete means to improve the efficiency and quality of judicial proceedings


Natalie Fricero

(as of 28 February 2013 29 States)

A. Professional ethics, conduct and responsibility of judges and lawyers

1. Does your country have a Code of Ethics or equivalent for judges?

Albania: Yes, Code of Judicial Ethics (2000) for all judges
Germany: No code (federal system), but some judges’ associations at Länder level hold seminars on the issue; judges are bound by the obligations of civil servants and disciplinary rules
Belgium: Yes, Guide for Judges (Judicial Service Commission and Advisory Council of the Judiciary)
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Code of Ethics for Judges
Bulgaria: Code of Ethics and Conduct for Bulgarian Judges
Cyprus: No code of ethics, but ethical rules in the Constitution and an act passed in 1964
Croatia: Code of Ethics for Judges (judges’ association, 1999), 2005 Code of Ethics for all judges
Denmark: No code for judges, but there is a law on the administration of justice which sets out ethical rules
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Code of Judicial Ethics (1994, Macedonian Association of Judges)
Finland: Ethical Principles for Judges (May 2012, Union of Judges)
France: Compendium of ethical obligations (published by Dalloz in 2010)
Georgia: Code of Ethics for Judges
Hungary: Code of Ethics for Judges, with an Ethics Council (12 judges), which responds to requests by judges
Italy: First European country to adopt a Code of Ethics for Judges and Prosecutors (amended 2010)
Liechtenstein: No specific code; ethical principles in the Employment Code for Judges (Richterdienstgesetz)
Lithuania: Code of Ethics for Judges
Luxembourg: No
Monaco: No
Montenegro: Code of Ethics for Judges (2008) adopted by a conference of judges
Norway: Ethical Principles of Norwegian Judges (2010) adopted by the Association of Judges. The principles have been adopted by the judges in several courts
Netherlands: Yes, Code of Conduct for Judicial Personnel adopted in 2010, for all personnel in the judiciary; the Association of Magistrates produced a Guide to Judicial Conduct in 2011. The documents are based on international rules
Czech Republic: No
Romania: Code of Ethics for Judges and Prosecutors
United Kingdom: Yes, a Judicial Code of Conduct
Slovakia: Yes, issued by the Association of Slovak Judges; some basic principles set out in the Act on Judges No. 385/2000 Coll.
Slovenia: Core principles set out in the Constitution of Slovenia, and a Code of Judicial Ethics was adopted by the judges’ association in October 1972 and amended in 2001
Switzerland: (majority tendency in the 26 cantons): no code of ethics for judges (mostly former lawyers); the Constitution makes provision for independence and impartiality, as do the various laws and the judges’ oath. Some courts have adopted a charter of judicial ethics
Turkey: No code, but work is in progress on the Bangalore principles
Ukraine: Code of Professional Ethics for Judges adopted in 2002, new edition in 2013

2. Does your country have a Code of Ethics or equivalent for lawyers

Albania: The National Bar Association adopted a code of ethics for lawyers in 2005 (ethics serving justice and clients)
Germany: There are federal acts and acts on professions which set out ethical principles
Belgium: Yes, a Code for French-Speaking Lawyers and German-Speaking Lawyers and a Code for Dutch-speaking Lawyers
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Code of Ethics for Lawyers
Bulgaria: Code of Ethics for Lawyers
Cyprus: Rules of Professional Conduct (2002)
Croatia: Code of Ethics for Lawyers (Assembly of the Bar association)
Denmark: Yes, Code of Conduct for Lawyers (October 2011) adopted by the Bar Association
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Law on Advocacy and Code on Professional Ethics of Lawyers, Associates and Legal Trainees adopted by the Macedonian Bar Association
Finland: Code of Ethics for Lawyers (2009, Finnish Bar Association)
France: Decree No. 2005-790 of 12 July 2005 and national Bar regulations
Georgia: Code of Ethics for Lawyers
Hungary: The codes are separate, Code of Ethics for Lawyers
Italy: A text was adopted by the National Bar Council in 1997
Liechtenstein: No, but the Code on Lawyers (Rechtsanwaltsgesetz) and the guidelines of the Liechtenstein Bar set out ethical principles
Lithuania: Code of Ethics for Lawyers
Luxembourg: Bar Association rules of procedure
Monaco: No
Montenegro: Code of Professional Ethics for Lawyers (1999)
Norway: Code of Ethics for Norwegian Lawyers (adopted by the Norwegian Bar Association)
Netherlands: Yes, Code of Conduct for Lawyers (1992)
Czech Republic: No
Romania: No (reference to EU code of conduct for lawyers)
United Kingdom: Yes, codes of professional conduct for both barristers and solicitors
Slovakia: Code of Ethics for Lawyers (Slovak Bar Association)
Slovenia: Code of Professional Conduct for Lawyers, adopted by the Assembly of the Bar Association in 2001
Switzerland: The Swiss Lawyers’ Federation adopted a Code of Ethics in 2005
Turkey: The Union of Turkish Bar Associations adopted disciplinary rules in 1971, but there is no code of ethics
Ukraine: The High Qualification Commission of the Bar adopted Rules on Lawyers’ Ethics in 1999

3. Does your country have any joint codes, rules and/or regulations concerning ethics of judges and lawyers?

Albania: No, but the Codes of Civil (and Criminal) Procedure include legal provisions governing the relationship between lawyers and judges, as does the code of ethics for lawyers. Lawyers must show respect towards judges and their colleagues
Germany: No
Belgium: No, because of the difference between their responsibilities
Bosnia and Herzegovina: No, there are separate codes
Bulgaria: No
Cyprus: No
Croatia: No
Denmark: No joint code
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: No
Finland: No
France: No
Georgia: No
Hungary: No
Italy: No
Liechtenstein: No
Lithuania: No
Luxembourg: No
Monaco: No
Montenegro: No
Norway: No
Netherlands: No
Czech Republic: No
Romania: No
United Kingdom: No
Slovakia: No
Slovenia: No, but there are some common principles (independence, rule of law, dignity and competence)
Switzerland: No, but the Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure include rules on disqualification (recusation)
Turkey: No
Ukraine: No

4. Does your country plan to establish codes, rules and/or regulations concerning professional ethics, conduct and responsibility of both judges and lawyers, or to develop the existing ones?

Albania: No
Germany: No
Belgium: No, but changes are possible
Bosnia and Herzegovina: No
Bulgaria: No
Cyprus: No
Croatia: No, the codes are separate
Denmark: No
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Yes, following seminars on the relationship between judges and lawyers; the two professions are considering the matter
Finland: No
France: No
Georgia: No
Hungary: Plans to amend the 2005 code for judges; no plans for joint code
Italy: No
Liechtenstein: No
Lithuania: No
Luxembourg: A working group is drawing up a code of ethics for the entire judicial service
Monaco: No
Montenegro: A bill on judges is being prepared and will regulate judges’ conduct
Norway: No
Netherlands: No, but the two professions share some core deontological principles (independence, professionalism, the rule of law). A legislative proposal to amend the Act on Advocates will include the principles of impartiality, independence, confidentiality, expertise and integrity
Czech Republic: No
Romania: N/A
United Kingdom: No
Slovakia: No
Slovenia: No
Switzerland: The Swiss Association of Judges is currently working on the subject
Turkey: Yes, the High Council of Judges and Prosecutors (HCJP) is working on this
Ukraine: Many legal acts cover ethical standards (Constitution, Criminal Code, Code of Civil Procedure, etc)

5. Does your country have any rules and/or regulations dealing in any manner with the issues of relations between judges and lawyers or is there any intention to establish such instruments in a joint manner for both groups (judges and lawyers)? If yes, please specify

Albania: No
Germany: No
Belgium: No
Bosnia and Herzegovina: No
Bulgaria: Yes, in various codes: Code of Civil Procedure, Code of Criminal Procedure, Bar Act, Codes of Ethics for judges and lawyers (eg, lawyers must not knowingly give untruthful information in court)
Cyprus: No
Croatia: No
Denmark: No, but the issues may be discussed in joint seminars
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Judges and lawyers take part in working groups established in the Ministry of Justice to prepare laws. They have excellent relations there (including with prosecutors)
Finland: Chapter 8 of the Lawyers’ Code deals with relations with judges
France: No
Georgia: Article 7 of the Code of Ethics for Judges prohibits judges from communicating with the parties until the judgments take effect
Hungary: The Codes of Ethics for Judges and Lawyers include corresponding provisions
Italy: No, but the Codes of Ethics for Judges and for Lawyers both contain rules governing relations between judges and lawyers
Liechtenstein: No
Lithuania: No, but relations are mostly regulated by law
Luxembourg: No
Monaco: No
Montenegro: No
Norway: No
Netherlands: There are some legal principles governing relations between the professions; there is a requirement to respect the judicial authorities
Czech Republic: No
Romania: No
United Kingdom: No
Slovakia: Yes, relations are covered in the Code of Ethics for Judges
Slovenia: No, but some lawyers are members of the Judicial Council; the disciplinary tribunal for lawyers includes judges and its president is a judge
Switzerland: No
Turkey: There are rules in the Law on Judges and in the Disciplinary Rules for Lawyers
Ukraine: Various legal acts

6. In your opinion, what are the main principles which should govern the ethics of

Competence, courtesy and respect, honesty, private conduct such as to inspire public trust, independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety, equality, competence and diligence (Albania)
Discussion in progress on identifying ethical rules; independence, fairness, respect for court users, confidentiality, thoroughness, good time management, careful behaviour in out-of-court activities (Germany)
Independence, impartiality, integrity, duty of discretion, diligence, respect for court users, listening skills, competence, availability, collegiality, fairness, courage, open-mindedness, commitment and dedication, wisdom and compassion (Belgium)
Independence, impartiality, fairness, transparency, respect, tolerance, honesty, honour, competence, confidentiality, compliance with rules on incompatibility, and no conflicts of interest (Bulgaria)
Independence, impartiality (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
Impartiality, independence, respect and courage (Cyprus)
Legality, humanity and ethics, independence, impartiality, fairness, competence, dignity, responsibility, diligence, freedom of association, and relations with the public, the media, other judges and court staff (Croatia)
Independence, impartiality, honesty and honour in all aspects (Denmark)
Independence, professionalism, humanism, understanding of social justice, solidarity, impartiality, courage, audacity, competence, proper relations with other judges and court staff, defence of human rights, acquaintance with cultural values, dignity, authority, diligence, further training, resistance to corruption, competence in mediation and alternative dispute resolution (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)
Independence, impartiality and rule of law and fundamental rights (Finland)
Independence, impartiality, integrity and competence (France)
Independence and impartiality (Georgia)
Respecting the work of the other professions; taking the parties’ interests into consideration (Hungary)
Independence and impartiality, integrity, diligence and obligation to maintain competence, social sensitivity (Italy)
Independence and impartiality and impeccable behaviour (Lithuania)
Independence, impartiality, integrity, dignity, integrity, fairness, diligence, efficiency (Luxembourg)
Independence, impartiality (Monaco)
Legality, independence, impartiality, integrity, incorruptibility, dignity, diligence (Montenegro)
Independence, impartiality, integrity, equality, dignity and proper conduct, respect for lawyers, who should not be identified with their clients (Norway)
Principles common to all professions: impartiality, independence, confidentiality, competence and integrity (Netherlands)
Independence, objectivity and impartiality, integrity, rule of law, defence of fundamental rights and freedoms, dignity and honour, compliance with rules on incompatibility (Romania)
Moral standing, experience (Czech Republic)
Should be guided by principles of professional conduct drawn up by judges themselves and implemented by a commission composed exclusively of judges which advises judges on ethical issues (Slovakia)
Liechtenstein: no reply
Independence, impartiality, integrity, competence, diligence, ensuring equality of treatment (Slovenia)
Independence, impartiality, integrity, probity and fairness; rule of law, proper conduct, discretion and confidentiality (Switzerland)
Independence, impartiality, honesty, consistency, integrity, equality, merit (Turkey)
Integrity, independence, no conflicts of interest, efficiency, honesty (United Kingdom)
Fairness, impartiality and independence; but inadequate behaviour is sometimes observed on account of the economic crisis and the low level of judges’ pay, as well as the poor quality of legislation (Ukraine)

Independence, confidentiality, observance of the law, respect for rules on incompatibility, publicity, clients’ interests (Albania)
Independence, engagement for the interests of clients, respect towards the court, following procedural rules, good time management (Germany)
Independence, fairness, confidentiality, no conflicts of interest, dignity, integrity, proper conduct, collegiality, diligence and competence (Belgium)
Independence, honesty, confidentiality, standing up for clients’ rights, non-discrimination, compliance with rules on incompatibility (Bulgaria)
Defending the interests of clients regardless of pressures (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
Courtesy, independence, integrity and honour (Cyprus)
Relations with clients, responsibility, humanity, dignity, legality, independence, competence and diligence, confidentiality, free legal assistance, relations with other lawyers, the Bar and other authorities (Croatia)
Defence of clients’ rights, freedom of action, independence and integrity, including in conduct vis-à-vis the state (Denmark). Like judges, competent and diligent, responsible and reliable.
Independence, confidentiality, dignity, honour, integrity, defence of clients’ interests, conscience (the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia)
Loyalty towards clients, independence (Finland)
Independence, integrity, fairness and competence (France)
Defence of clients’ interests in compliance with the law (Georgia)
Respecting the work of the other professions; taking the parties’ interests into consideration (Hungary)
Independence from the interests of clients, integrity, diligence and competence (Italy)
No conflicts of interest; loyalty to clients, confidentiality (Lithuania)
Fairness towards clients, opposing parties and judges (Monaco)
Same principles as for judges (Montenegro)
Independence, confidentiality, no conflicts of interest, dignity, loyalty to clients, respect and courtesy towards courts while defending the interests of clients honourably and fearlessly (Norway)
Same principles as for judges (Netherlands)
Compliance with rules on incompatibility, fair relations with judges and prosecutors (Romania)
Same requirements as for judges (Slovakia)
Liechtenstein: no reply
Same principles as for judges: independence, impartiality, integrity, dignity, integrity, fairness, diligence, efficiency (Luxembourg)
Independence, respect, competence, rule of law, confidentiality, fairness towards clients and opposing parties (Slovenia)
General conduct (diligence, no conflicts of interest), with other lawyers, clients and judges (Switzerland)
Honesty, consistency, integrity, competence and merit (Turkey)
Same principles as for judges (integrity, independence, no conflicts of interest, efficiency, honesty) (United Kingdom)
Defence of clients’ interests, independence, confidentiality, competence and fairness, responsibility, rule of law, mutual respect for court (Ukraine)

B. Training of judges and lawyers

7. Which are, in your country, the training institutions:

Albania: School of Magistrates (Act of 1996); initial training (three years) and further training for judicial personnel (including for Ministry of Justice staff)
Germany: Joint initial training for judges and lawyers, organised by the state, then first exam, followed by practical training, then second state exam in law, and court training
Belgium: Judicial Training Institution
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Centre for the Education of Judges and Prosecutors
Bulgaria: National Institute of Justice
Cyprus: None
Croatia: Judicial Academy
Denmark: Danish Court Administration
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Academy for Judges and Public Prosecutors
Finland: No specific academy, judges receive in-service training in courts of appeal (10 years), no Council for the Judiciary, further training is provided by the Ministry of Justice, not compulsory
France: Ecole nationale de la Magistrature (National School for the Judiciary)
Georgia: High School of Justice
Hungary: Judicial Academy, with initial training for judges (and prosecutors) and some joint sessions with lawyers
Italy: Italian School for the Judiciary
Liechtenstein: Practical court training (Court of Justice)
Lithuania: Training Centre of the National Courts Administration
Luxembourg: 18-months’ initial training overseen by a special commission; practical training in court for attachés de justice (with judge supervisors)
Monaco: French National School for the Judiciary (Ecole nationale de la Magistrature)
Montenegro: Training Centre for Judicial Office Holders
Norway: Norwegian Court Administration
Netherlands: Training and Study Centre for the Judiciary (SSR) under the responsibility of the Council for the Judiciary
Czech Republic: Academy of Justice
Romania: National Judicial Institute
United Kingdom: Judicial College
Slovakia: Judicial Academy of the Slovak Republic
Slovenia: Judicial Training Centre (Ministry of Justice)
Switzerland: No specific national school (a Swiss Judicial Academy (Académie Suisse de la magistrature) runs two-year training courses leading to a qualification which is useful for candidates for posts as judges)
Turkey: Turkish Justice Academy
Ukraine: National School of Judges (2010)

Albania: Under an Act of 2003, the National Bar Association is responsible for training (in July 2012, it was tasked with establishing a national school to provide the training)
Belgium: Practical training; courses organised by the Bar for lawyers’ qualification (CAPA)
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Bar associations and Criminal Defence Section (Ministry of Justice)
Bulgaria: Krastyo Tzoncev Foundation Advocates Training Centre
Cyprus: None
Croatia: Lawyers Academy (Bar Association)
Denmark: Danish Bar and Law Society
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Macedonian Bar Association
Finland: The Finnish Bar Association arranges the Bar Examination, as well as initial and further training
France: Regional Bar training centres
Georgia: Georgian Bar Association
Hungary: Specific training by the Bar
Italy: National Bar Association
Liechtenstein: Practical training in a law firm
Lithuania: Training division of the Bar
Luxembourg: No training body; the Bar and university hold training seminars; practical training in a law firm
Monaco: Examination held by the Monaco Directorate of Judicial Services
Montenegro: Seminars held by the Bar Association
Norway: Centre for Continuing Legal Education, independent association founded by the Norwegian Bar Association and the Norwegian Association of Lawyers
Netherlands: The Netherlands Bar Association is responsible for initial training (three years); further training is organised in some universities in partnership with the Bar Association
Czech Republic: Bar
Romania: National Training and Further Training Institute
United Kingdom: Law schools provide training for professional examinations; followed by in-house training in law firms
Slovakia: Slovak Chamber of Barristers
Slovenia: Bar Association
Switzerland: Depends on cantonal legislation on Bar associations
Turkey: Justice Academy and Turkish Bar Association Training Centre
Ukraine: Academy of Advocates of Ukraine set up in 2011 (previously, in 1995, the Ukrainian Bar Corporation set up a training institute with an international partner)

8. Which kind of training curricula (initial and continuous training), in brief, do these training institutions have:

Albania: Initial training (three years) and further training (20 days a year or 60 days over five years)
Germany: Further training is provided at national, Länder and regional level
Belgium: Initial training: universities, then practical judicial training after competitive examination; then further training in all areas of law
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Further training
Bulgaria: Initial training in substantive and procedural law, ethics, European law, human rights; judges’ status; further training (including regional training, which also covers mediation and interdisciplinary training)
Cyprus: N/A
Croatia: Candidates are persons who have passed the Bar exam and have two years of work experience, they are trained by the Judicial Academy
Denmark: Initial and further training
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Initial and further training
Finland: Training on legislation
France: Training in the various functions, introduction to major social issues
Georgia: Initial training (substantive and procedural laws) and further training
Hungary: Initial and further training by the Judicial Academy, training also provided at local/regional level by courts
Italy: Initial and further training (often open to lawyers)
Liechtenstein: No official training programme indicated
Lithuania: Initial and further training
Luxembourg: Six months’ initial training on justice and ethics
Monaco: As above (training in France)
Montenegro: The Act on Training for Judicial Authorities (2007) sets out the training programme (for judges, prosecutors and judicial service personnel)
Norway: The judges recruited are experienced jurists, and initial training is limited to five weeks (functioning of the court system, ethics, role of judges, communication with the media, etc). Further training focuses on updating knowledge of substantive and procedural law
Netherlands: A new system of initial training is due to be introduced in October 2013: two years of work training after university; then introductory training, followed by work in a court as a trainee judge. Further training of at least 30 hours a year
Czech Republic: Academic and practical training
Romania: Two years’ initial training and further training open to judges and prosecutors
United Kingdom: Judges: practical training on how to conduct trials
Slovakia: Procedural and substantive law, conduct of proceedings; training managed by the Judicial Academy of the Slovak Republic
Slovenia: Two years’ initial training (judges and lawyers) giving access to state exam, then three years of training for judges
Switzerland: No official course for becoming a judge; further training: annual training seminar held by the Swiss Association of Judges, training also provided by the Foundation for Further Development
Turkey: Initial training of eight months; further training in accordance with timetable laid down by the Justice Academy
Ukraine: Initial and further training at the National School of Judges

Albania: Substantive law, theory and practice
Germany: Further training, by private institutions
Belgium: Training provided for by law; three years of practical training; courses and examination for lawyers’ qualification (CAPA)
Bulgaria: Various seminars
Cyprus: N/A
Croatia: Initial training then bar exam followed by practical training in a law firm
Denmark: Initial and further training
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: seminars, round tables, further training
Finland: Training by the Finnish Bar Association on substantive and procedural law
France: Rules on professional techniques, drafting of legal documents, ethics, professional activities
Georgia: Ethics, laws, with compulsory annual training (credits)
Hungary: Courses organised by the Bar separately from judges
Italy: Training for Bar examination; further training is now compulsory
Liechtenstein: No training programme indicated
Lithuania: No structured training scheme
Luxembourg: Not indicated
Monaco: Three years of practical training for trainee lawyers, with lectures by judges
Montenegro: Not indicated
Norway: There is compulsory training for qualification as a lawyer. Courses are run by the Centre for Continuing Legal Education, with two mandatory sessions. Further training of two days a year is compulsory (80 hours over five years, including five hours on ethics)
Netherlands: Initial training is provided and there is further training of 20 hours a year
Czech Republic: Academic and practical training
Romania: Two years’ initial training and further training of 60 hours over three years (20 hours a year)
United Kingdom: Lawyers: courses in procedural law and professional procedures
Slovakia: N/A
Slovenia: Four years of practical legal experience, at least one of which after the state exam
Switzerland: Practical training in law firm and as court registrar; in some cases, Bar associations hold training seminars; trainee lawyers then take an examination
Turkey: Course of 120 hours during practical training
Ukraine: The Academy of Advocates provides training in two departments: three years of studies, with practical training

9. What is the duration of the initial training:

Albania: Three years
Germany: Two years
Belgium: Three years
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Three years
Bulgaria: Nine months
Cyprus: N/A
Croatia: Two years after Bar exam
Denmark: 15 years of postgraduate practice
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Two years
Finland: Approximately 10 years’ practice
France: 31 months
Georgia: Initial training, 12 months
Italy: 18 months
Liechtenstein: Three years of practical training
Lithuania: From a few weeks to a month
Luxembourg: 18 months, extended by 18 months if necessary
Monaco: Same as France
Montenegro: Initial training, one year; then further training
Norway: Five weeks
Czech Republic: Three years
Romania: Two years
United Kingdom: Three weeks
Slovakia: Further training
Slovenia: Two years’ preparation for state exam, then three years’ practical training
Switzerland: N/A
Turkey: Eight months
Ukraine: Six months

Albania: One year
Germany: Two years
Belgium: Three years
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Two years’ practical training as mandatory initial training
Bulgaria: No initial training
Cyprus: N/A
Denmark: Three years of postgraduate practice, including 20 days of training over the period
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: No reply
Finland: Two years’ practical training
France: 18 months
Georgia: No initial training, but there are mandatory seminars which give credits
Italy: No provisions in terms of duration
Liechtenstein: Two years’ practical training in a law firm
Lithuania: No initial training
Luxembourg: Two years’ practical training
Monaco: Three years
Montenegro: Not indicated
Norway: Two sessions (duration not indicated)
Czech Republic: Three years
Romania: Two years
United Kingdom: After university, one year at law school, then two years’ further training for solicitors (three years for barristers)
Slovakia: N/A
Slovenia: Two years’ preparation for exam, and four years’ practical legal experience
Switzerland: Initial training not indicated; further training: colloquies at universities; specialisation; training courses also provided by the Swiss Lawyers’ Federation
Turkey: Two months
Ukraine: Two years’ legal experience, then six months’ probationary training

10. Does the initial training include issues related to the professional ethics, conduct and responsibility of judges and lawyers, their relations with each other, as well as their co-operation with a view of fair and efficient conclusion of judicial proceedings?

Albania: No
Germany: Yes, but priority is given to law
Belgium: Yes
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Yes, with an annual seminar
Bulgaria: Yes
Cyprus: N/A
Croatia: Yes
Denmark: Yes, in initial training for judges and lawyers
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Yes
Finland: Yes in the case of ethics, no in the case of relations between judges and lawyers
France: Yes
Georgia: Yes, but not on relations between judges and lawyers
Hungary: Yes, but there is no specific ethics course
Italy: Yes, especially with regard to criminal proceedings
Liechtenstein: No detailed answer
Lithuania: Measures to integrate new judges smoothly into the judicial system; training on law, ethics, psychology; further training on law and ethics
Luxembourg: Yes in the case of judges
Monaco: Yes
Montenegro: Yes, included in annual programme
Norway: Yes, for both judges and lawyers
Netherlands: Yes, moral competencies are important; independent spirit, moral courage and integrity; the Training and Study Centre for the Judiciary offers courses in ethics
Czech Republic: Yes
Romania: Ethics module in training institutes, including the aspect of relations between judges and lawyers
United Kingdom: Yes
Slovakia: Yes
Slovenia: Yes
Switzerland: Yes
Turkey: Yes in the case of ethics, but no training on relations between the two professions
Ukraine: Yes in the case of initial training for judges

11. Are there joint training courses for judges and lawyers?

Albania: There are joint training courses organised by the School of Magistrates for all judicial service personnel, but they are not mandatory
Germany: Joint initial training; further training with some joint seminars. Participation is not mandatory and fees are paid by the participants
Belgium: No, except for courses open to all legal practitioners
Bosnia and Herzegovina: No
Bulgaria: Yes, occasionally (seminars), not mandatory, co-operation with the National Institute of Justice and sometimes the European Commission (preventing and combating crime)
Cyprus: N/A
Croatia: No
Denmark: Yes, there are some joint courses (alternative dispute resolution, family law, criminal law), but no mandatory courses for judges. Fees for judges are paid by the Danish Court Administration. Lawyers have to pay for the courses
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Lawyers can take part in further training for judges, some even are members of the training teams; training is funded by the Academy for Judges, sometimes with international funding
Finland: Some Courts of Appeal arrange courses in co-operation with the local Bar association and with local university units (legislative reforms)
France: Yes, young judges training at the National School for the Judiciary (ENM) do six months’ practical training in a law firm; lawyers can do six-month “placements” in courts. The ENM’s further training courses are sometimes open to lawyers (partnership agreement between the ENM and the National Bar Council (CNB))
Georgia: Joint seminars are not mandatory, their content varies and they are often funded by international organisations
Hungary: No
Italy: Yes, some courses are open to judges and a limited number of lawyers; they are not mandatory; funded from the budget of the Italian School for the Judiciary
Liechtenstein: No mandatory joint training; some conferences and seminars organised by the university and the judges’ association may be of interest to both judges and lawyers
Lithuania: No
Luxembourg: No, but conferences organised by the university and the Bar are open to all
Monaco: No
Montenegro: Judges and lawyers take part in seminars and conferences together; judges involved with representatives of Bar associations in the committees that develop laws
Norway: Judges can participate in courses arranged by the Centre for Continuing Legal Education together with lawyers and other legal professionals. Some courts have arranged joint seminars with regional Bar associations. But judges have their own training courses
Netherlands: No, but the two professions sometimes attend joint seminars; it would be beneficial for that to be more frequent
Czech Republic: No
Romania: A co-operation agreement has been signed by the Judicial Service Commission and the Romanian National Bar Union (joint programmes on issues of common interest, legislative reforms); there is a further agreement on initial and further training.
United Kingdom: No
Slovakia: No
Slovenia: There is joint initial training for the state exam; after the exam, training separates (Judicial Training Centre and Bar). No joint training after the state exam
Switzerland: Further training conferences are joint; a large number of judges are former lawyers; there are no plans to merge training
Turkey: No
Ukraine: Yes, there are joint programmes (sometimes with the Council of Europe or the European Commission)

If not, are they planned or discussed?

Belgium: No
Bosnia and Herzegovina: No reply
Croatia: No
Italy: N/A
Liechtenstein: No
Luxembourg: No
Monaco: No
Czech Republic: No
United Kingdom: No
Slovakia: Yes, there are discussions of the subject within the Slovak Association of Judges
Turkey: Yes, as part of the project on judicial ethics

C. Efficiency and quality of judicial proceedings

12. Are there any procedural instruments to facilitate the interaction between judges and lawyers during the proceedings? If yes, please specify

Albania: No
Germany: Numerous procedural rules make provision for interaction: exchange of papers; time limits; setting of hearings, adjournment of hearings, etc. Judges play an active role in proceedings; lawyers have to observe certain formalities; time limits, hearing dates (changes possible only on serious grounds). Courts have a duty to seek friendly settlements (special preliminary hearings may be held); the figures vary from region to region
Belgium: Under the Code of Civil Procedure, the parties may agree a timetable for exchanges, of which the court takes note, or the court itself may set a case management timetable. It sets the dates for the hearings on that basis. Penalties apply (dismissal of late evidence or submissions)
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Question deemed unclear
Bulgaria: No specific instruments; judges and lawyers communicate on the basis of the Code of Civil Procedure; judges may put questions to lawyers on points of fact and law
Cyprus: No
Croatia: Laws govern the rights of the parties
Denmark: Legislation lays down detailed rules for interaction between judges and lawyers during proceedings
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Some sections of the codes (administrative, civil, criminal) make provision for written, postal or, at hearings, oral communication. E-mail communication is being tested
Finland: No
France: Case management timetable laying down time limits and procedural obligations, set in consultation or agreement with the parties; judges ensure respect for the adversarial principle and can issue instructions or impose penalties
Georgia: Some articles in the codes of procedure cover representation by lawyers and penalties for violation of the rules
Hungary: No
Italy: No in criminal cases; in civil cases, case management timetables are discussed with the parties
Liechtenstein: No
Lithuania: Yes, judges have instruments for setting time limits for the submission of documents, for instance
Luxembourg: Judges have enhanced case management powers, and interaction takes place. In criminal cases, there is draft legislation making provision for agreements to be reached
Monaco: No
Montenegro: No reply
Norway: Yes, legislation which entered into force on 1 January 2008 makes provision in civil cases for courts to summon the parties (lawyers) at an early stage to discuss a plan for further proceedings, including a timetable with time limits and the necessary measures. Points covered include possible mediation, the communication of evidence, the possible appointment of experts, and setting of the date of the main hearing. The discussions may be conducted by videoconference
Czech Republic: The Codes of Civil and Criminal Procedure
Romania: Preliminary proceedings are provided for by law
United Kingdom: There is constant interaction
Slovakia: Codes (Civil and Criminal Procedure)
Slovenia: Yes, in settlement conferences and pre-trial hearings; conducted by judges to determine facts and legal issues.
Switzerland: Some courts set case management timetables with the agreement of lawyers (in line with the CEPEJ’s work, Studies No. 16)
Turkey: No
Ukraine: No

13. If not, how are they planned?

Albania: No information
Germany: No specific plans
Bulgaria: Not planned
Cyprus: No
Finland: No
Hungary: Not known
Italy: N/A
Monaco: Talks are under way regarding “judicial contracts” between courts and the Bar to speed up case management
Czech Republic: Being considered by the Union of Judges
Romania: N/A
United Kingdom: They are not “planned”
Turkey: In the project on judicial ethics

14. How is the communication between judges and lawyers organised? Is it efficient? Are there computerised information systems to that end?

Albania: On the basis of the Code of Civil (or Criminal) Procedure
Germany: Formal communication is still in paper form; given the increase in e-justice projects, electronic means are expanding; informal communication is by telephone or email, and the Internet is sometimes used for listing hearing dates; there are forums for general exchanges between judges and lawyers (eg on family and juvenile law)
Belgium: Applications to set timetables are made in the originating writs, in applications submitted to court registries or at initial hearings (not electronically for the time being)
Bosnia and Herzegovina: No computerised communication; written submissions by post or personal delivery which are entered in the court management system, which is computerised
Bulgaria: Efficient communication, employing traditional means (post, courier, telephone, telefax, telegram) and electronic means. Information about courts and procedures is provided on the Internet
Cyprus: No institutionalised communication. Court registrars are responsible for communication
Croatia: Communication is governed by regulations. Court presidents communicate with local Bars to resolve particular problems
Denmark: Usually written (letters, telefaxes and emails); information is provided on court webpages. The Danish Court Administration is working on e-justice, including electronic data exchanges in criminal cases and the establishment of an online legal database with decisions from all first instance and appeal courts, as well as the Supreme Court
Finland: Telephone and e-mail are used. Especially in complicated cases, timetables and case management arrangements are agreed in co-operation with lawyers
France: In the case of appeal courts, communication between registries and lawyers is computerised; this method is also becoming more widespread in civil courts. At the Court of Cassation, the procedure is entirely computerised
Georgia: Communication only takes place during actual proceedings. No other communication is allowed.
Hungary: Written and oral communication; the Internet may also be used
Italy: N/A
Liechtenstein: All judges and lawyers know one another (small number) and communicate without any problems
Lithuania: An e-justice system is being implemented
Luxembourg: Exchanges of papers
Monaco: Communication using written submissions. Urgent applications by telefax
Montenegro: No specific communication; written submissions are exchanged during hearings
Norway: After the preparatory meeting, communication is mainly in writing
Netherlands: Judges and lawyers do not communicate in person during the pre-trial proceedings, except during the hearing; communication with lawyers is handled by the court registries, sometimes using computerised systems; the communication of documents and evidence between the parties and the judge is regulated by law; an oral hearing takes place at an early stage in the proceedings; the judges and the parties discuss the course of the proceedings and consider possible mediation
Czech Republic: No communication is organised
Romania: Communication in writing, by telefax, telephone notes and email
United Kingdom: Usually orally, sometimes email
Slovakia: Communication is possible (no details given)
Slovenia: Judges and lawyers communicate at hearings; lawyers receive information in person or by telephone, as well as computerised information systems
Switzerland: By post; since 2001, also by email, subject to the consent of the recipients (marginal use)
Turkey: Communication using a computerised system is possible (National Judiciary Informatics System)
Ukraine: In court room; no computerised systems

15. Are there possibilities, procedures and mechanisms for judges and lawyers to come to an agreement concerning the judicial resolution of the case?

Albania: Act of 2011 on mediation (judges may refer cases to mediation and validate any agreements reached)
Germany: Yes (courts hold hearings to this effect)
Belgium: Yes, conciliation procedure before cases are referred to court, with active involvement of judges, who officially endorse any agreements and officially record the parties’ discontinuance of proceedings
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Plea bargaining and judicial mediation both exist
Bulgaria: Judges must inform parties of friendly settlement procedures. Lawyers play a decisive part in the negotiations
Cyprus: Yes (no details)
Croatia: Judges have a duty to try to reach a friendly settlement; ADR may be employed during proceedings; any agreement is compulsory
Denmark: Detailed rules are laid down by the Administration of Justice Act. Section 268 requires courts to seek negotiated settlements between parties in civil cases. Negotiated settlements are also possible in appeal proceedings
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: There is provision for settlements in civil, administrative and criminal proceedings
Finland: Discussions during the official preparatory meetings are important; in 2011, the Code of Civil Procedure introduced new regulations on friendly settlements; the judge has to explain the options to the parties; settlement procedures can take place inside or outside courts
France: The Code of Civil Procedure has transposed the 2008 EU directive on mediation, which exists alongside conciliation. Parties who agree settlements may ask courts to validate them and make them enforceable
Georgia: There is a possibility during actual proceedings
Hungary: Judges may suggest that parties should reach an agreement, but may not take part in the negotiations; they must make sure that any agreements comply with the law
Italy: N/A
Liechtenstein: Yes (no details)
Lithuania: Yes, judges can arrange conciliation meetings in civil cases; but no plea bargaining in criminal cases
Luxembourg: Mediation in family and criminal law; judges can order parties to appear and can make visits with a view to reaching friendly settlements
Monaco: No
Montenegro: Yes, in criminal proceedings (plea bargaining)
Norway: Yes, mediation is highly organised (judges are required to attempt mediation at all stages in the proceedings); there is “ordinary mediation” (before a court, which may not present proposals for a solution) and “judicial mediation” (separate from court proceedings; judges may make proposals for resolving the matter, if the mediation fails, the judges concerned may not take part in further proceedings). Mediation agreements may be validated and are enforceable.
Netherlands: In civil cases, the parties often reach settlements; judges are trained for this purpose
Czech Republic: Friendly settlements exist
Romania: Parties in civil cases may negotiate to resolve disputes
United Kingdom: Yes, occasionally a judge will assist the parties in arriving at a compromise
Slovakia: Yes
Slovenia: At all stages in civil proceedings, parties may reach settlements; courts advise the parties of the possibilities
Switzerland: Courts may attempt to bring about conciliation
Turkey: No
Ukraine: No; agreements concerning judicial resolution of cases are not possible

16. If yes, is such agreement compulsory?

Albania: Yes
Germany: Yes, once it has been signed by the parties, it is enforceable, but the court has no power to “order” a settlement
Belgium: Yes, an agreement officially recorded by a court is binding on the parties
Bosnia and Herzegovina: No
Bulgaria: Yes, agreements may be approved by courts and become enforceable (no possibility of appeal)
Cyprus: No
Croatia: Yes
Denmark: Yes, if the agreement is approved by a court
Finland: No reply; in the absence of agreements, judges take the necessary decisions
France: Agreements are binding if approved by the courts
Georgia: Yes, if approved by a court
Hungary: If approved by a court, the agreement has the same status as a final judgment
Liechtenstein: Yes, possible
Lithuania: N/A
Luxembourg: No
Norway: Yes
Netherlands: Yes, like a final judgment
Czech Republic: No
Romania: No
United Kingdom: No
Slovakia: No. But judges may try to bring about friendly settlements at any stage in the proceedings if appropriate
Slovenia: Enforceable
Switzerland: Unconditional withdrawal, acceptance and settlement bring proceedings to an end. Procedural agreements are directive and sanctions apply

17. Do they negotiate certain phases of the procedure?

Albania: Yes (no details)
Germany: Yes, in pre-trial friendly settlement hearings
Belgium: Yes, there are discussions on agreeing case management timetables; however, the conciliation procedure does not involve actual “negotiation” with the judge
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Yes, preparatory hearings serve to agree arrangements for proceedings and propose mediation or conciliation
Bulgaria: No
Cyprus: Yes, but not compulsory
Croatia: No
Denmark: In first instance cases, there is a preliminary meeting to resolve any procedural problems and agree a timetable. Negotiations about reaching a settlement can take place at any time during the proceedings
Finland: Yes, this is possible
France: In criminal cases, yes, with the “appearance after prior admission of guilt” procedure (Articles 495-7 et seq. of the Code of Criminal Procedure)
Georgia: No, there are no phases
Hungary: No
Italy: Yes, case management timetable
Lithuania: No
Luxembourg: No
Monaco: No
Montenegro: In criminal proceedings, plea agreements may be initiated by lawyers and submitted to the prosecutor
Norway: Yes (mediation)
Netherlands: No, strictly speaking; decisions are the responsibility of the judge, who is bound by the relevant legal provisions
Czech Republic: Yes, in minor cases
Romania: No
United Kingdom: Yes; in the context of case management hearings; if there are disputes, the judge rules on what is to happen
Slovakia: Yes, at the very beginning of the proceedings
Slovenia: No, but in pre-trial hearings, judges and parties determine facts and legal issues
Switzerland: Yes, in procedural agreements (time limits, exchanges, date of committal proceedings and trial proceedings) or successive agreements for each phase
Turkey: No

18. Are there any legal instruments (substantive or procedural) which potentially could be used by judges to ignore, to disregard or in any manner to avoid taking into consideration the claims, demands and arguments of lawyers?

Albania: No
Germany: All arguments have to be taken into consideration unless procedural law prescribes their inadmissibility or time limits have been disregarded
Belgium: No, judges cannot ignore claims: they must examine them and declare them inadmissible or ill-founded
Bosnia and Herzegovina: No
Bulgaria: No, the judge concerned must deliver a decision
Cyprus: No, but judges do not have to reply to minor points, questions which are not properly argued or which are not necessary for ruling on the case
Croatia: The judge is dominus litis; he may reject requests
Denmark: Judges may reject requests not made in due time, for instance
Finland: Parties must comply with the rules for claims to be admissible
France: The Code of Civil Procedure requires compliance with the adversarial principle and the time limits set: if the parties fail to comply, judges have several possibilities for excluding documents (Articles 135 and 446-2) or declaring arguments and claims inadmissible (Article 783 in Regional Courts; Article 909 on appeal)
Georgia: The court must take a decision; it may ignore a claim if it gives grounds
Hungary: Yes, to ensure that proceedings are completed within a reasonable time, there are procedural rules which the parties must abide by (deadlines, in particular regarding evidence)
Italy: No; judges are obliged to respond
Lithuania: Yes, judges may disregard the parties’ arguments
Luxembourg: No
Monaco: No, judges must respond to all claims and demands
Montenegro: No reply
Norway: No; in their judgments, judges must respond to the requests, give legal and factual grounds and describe the assessment of the evidence. There is a simplified small claims procedure for cases involving smaller sums (under NOK 125 000, EUR 15 000), in which the reasons for judgments are stated more briefly
Netherlands: Yes, judges may disregard requests which do not comply with the law; parties are supposed to “concentrate” their arguments at the beginning of proceedings; new arguments may not be put forward without sufficient justification
Czech Republic: Yes
Romania: No
United Kingdom: No; the judge decides what is to happen
Slovakia: Yes (but the judge has to give reasons)
Slovenia: If a party abuses its rights, fines may be imposed (maximum of EUR 1 300); arguments not submitted in time are inadmissible; judges may set deadlines. The reformed Code of Civil Procedure makes provision for concentration of arguments and better preparation of cases
Switzerland: Yes, there are various penalties for submissions by the parties which do not meet requirements
Turkey: Judges must give reasons for ignoring claims or demands
Ukraine: No, judges may not disregard claims; judges take decisions after hearing the parties

19. Are there any legal instruments (substantive or procedural) which potentially could be used by lawyers to delay the consideration of the case, or to affect in any way its fair and efficient resolution?

Albania: Yes, especially in criminal proceedings. To remedy the situation, the government has been reviewing the law on legal professions so as to prevent manoeuvring of this kind
Germany: Some lawyers use procedural laws to delay proceedings, but courts must ensure reasonable timeframes and apply the legislative provisions to prevent delays. In the case of criminal proceedings, there is discussion of limiting the time for submitting evidence
Belgium: Lawyers frequently request adjournments of hearings to later dates: judges grant them if they believe they serve the interests of the proper administration of justice. Lawyers may also request the reopening of proceedings, but judges dismiss the requests if they amount to delaying tactics
Bosnia and Herzegovina: The parties can employ delaying tactics: the Code of Civil Procedure enables judges to impose penalties (such as inadmissibility of new evidence and facts)
Bulgaria: Yes, adjournment of hearings to later dates, which lengthens proceedings (including in criminal cases)
Cyprus: Yes, but the judge decides on how the proceedings are to be conducted. Lawyers can delay cases, but not prevent their resolution. The solution lies in procedural laws.
Croatia: The parties can use delaying tactics; remedies are available to judges
Denmark: No
Finland: No problem in practice
France: Procedural rules may be used as delaying tactics; remedies are available to judges (there are no statistics)
Georgia: Yes, but courts can take measures to avoid unreasonable delays
Hungary: Yes
Italy: Yes, there are abuses, late production of evidence, change of lawyer, disqualification of judges, excessive lists of witnesses, delays in procedural exceptions, many delaying tactics
Lithuania: Lawyers can use procedures to delay proceedings; but judges can declare abuses of procedural rights
Luxembourg: Lawyers can always use delaying tactics
Monaco: Lawyers may request adjournment of hearings, but judges may reject the requests
Montenegro: No reply
Norway: Requests involving delaying tactics are rare and judges have instruments for reaching judgments within a reasonable time. In civil proceedings, the parties must raise any objections as soon as possible, failing which they are disallowed. Inadmissibility decisions are made as early as possible in the preparation of cases, normally on the basis of written procedure. Parties may only present evidence which is of significance to the judgment; courts may reject evidence on the ground of disproportionality if it is not relevant to resolution of the case
Netherlands: Procedural legislation has diminished the possibilities (with a view to satisfying the reasonable time requirement)
Czech Republic: Lawyers can delay proceedings
United Kingdom: Judges are able to stop delaying tactics
Slovakia: Yes (no details)
Slovenia: Legislation is the key factor
Switzerland: Lawyers can request the extension of time limits or lodge appeals, but they cannot be criticised for making use of procedural laws
Turkey: Lawyers may request the extension of time limits and the adjournment of hearings if they have valid reasons
Ukraine: The legislation does not include provisions which could be used as delaying tactics

20. To what extent does the successful interaction between judges and lawyers depend on objective factors such as legislation, structures and procedures? Are there any plans to improve them?

Albania: No information
Germany: Procedural law is the key factor; regional customs and good personal and professional relations between judges and lawyers also play a part
Belgium: The legal framework is vital (it determines the timetable, conciliation, etc)
Bosnia and Herzegovina: The law has to define the duties of judges and their interaction with lawyers
Bulgaria: No plans, it is the law which sets the framework within which judges conduct the proceedings
Cyprus: Good rules of procedure help with interaction
Croatia: Compliance with the principles of a fair hearing (Article 6 of the European Convention) is a safeguard; the public and the media are critical of too close relations between judges and lawyers
Denmark: Meetings between judges and lawyers help improve relations
Finland: What matters are personal attitudes and willingness to co-operate on both sides
France: It is basically parliament which takes measures to enable judgments to be delivered within a reasonable time and lays down penalties for parties who do not meet procedural obligations within the time limits set by law or the courts
Georgia: Legislation and procedure are vital; no plans to amend legislation
Hungary: Procedural law
Italy: Legislation and procedures are vital; “judges’ offices” should be established
Lithuania: Substantial and procedural law is vital. Subjective factors also play a part
Luxembourg: N/A
Monaco: N/A
Montenegro: No reply
Norway: Legislation, structures and procedures are important
Netherlands: In the first place, a clear and adequate legal framework. Subjective factors do play a part; judges and lawyers share the culture of arriving at judgments within a reasonable time
Czech Republic: Objective factors are not very important
Romania: No interaction, no joint prelitigation or preliminary judicial proceedings
United Kingdom: Procedural rules
Slovakia: N/A
Slovenia: Understanding of the two sides’ roles; each profession’s issues must be understood by the other
Switzerland: Legislation is the key factor; however, periodic meetings between governing bodies of courts and Bar presidents to discuss general and topical issues are also important
Turkey: Legislation can help
Ukraine: Interaction largely depends on legislation

21. To what extent does such interaction depend on subjective factors such as the patterns of behaviour of individual judges and lawyers, their understanding of their role and responsibility, and/or their wish to work together in order to improve the procedure, etc?

Albania: Interaction is not on a satisfactory level because of mentalities, culture, training and the level of corruption
Germany: Key factors: mutual understanding and acceptance of the different roles of judges and lawyers help to make the operation of justice productive, transparent and credible
Belgium: The personal commitment of judges and lawyers is necessary to make the interaction genuinely effective; this requires a common legal culture
Bosnia and Herzegovina: The attitude and behaviour of the judge has a key impact on relations with lawyers
Bulgaria: Subjective factors important (no details)
Cyprus: Fair conduct on both sides and mutual respect of their roles are vital
Croatia: Judges must respect the principle of a fair hearing
Denmark: To a very limited extent, but the human factor cannot be eliminated
Finland: Subjective factors are highly important
France: To improve practices, “procedural agreements” are signed by presidents of courts and local Bars in order to define obligations and rights and “good practice”
Georgia: Individual factors can play a part
Hungary: The conduct of judges is important
Italy: Very little; competition between lawyers obliges them to defend their clients and adopt obstructive behaviour
Lithuania: Yes, factors such as professionalism, responsibility, understanding the goals of the procedure
Luxembourg: Judges’ powers of persuasion and acumen have an impact on the conduct of proceedings
Monaco: N/A
Montenegro: No reply
Norway: Subjective factors are less important than legislation
Czech Republic: Experience, moral factors and tolerance
Romania: Understanding of the two professions’ roles and responsibilities, respect for the law and each profession’s functions
United Kingdom: Subjective factors very important
Slovakia: No reply
Slovenia: The conduct of individual judges and lawyers and mutual understanding between them are important factors
Switzerland: The human factor, judges’ ability to conduct proceedings efficiently and lawyers’ willingness to co-operate to that end are equally important
Turkey: Judges and lawyers must hold one another in high esteem
Ukraine: The professionalism and moral standards of judges and lawyers are essential

22. How would you assess the relationship between judges and lawyers in your country? Are there any plans to take steps to improve the legal culture and to foster co-operation between judges and lawyers?

Albania: Co-operation is delicate; everything depends on individual behaviour; yet judges and lawyers must serve the interests of justice and effective co-operation between them is vital for improving the quality of justice
Germany: Generally, good and professional; in spite of individual conflicts relating to personalities. Judges and lawyers must perform their roles in the general interest and in a spirit of mutual respect. Judges must understand the difficulties facing lawyers; lawyers must serve their clients’ interests without obstructing the operation of the system. In the event of misconduct on the part of lawyers, judges cannot impose penalties (no contempt of court; only the Bar association can impose penalties)
Belgium: Depends on the individuals concerned (it is mainly in criminal proceedings that tensions arise)
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Relationship is good, no plans to strengthen co-operation known
Bulgaria: Respectful
Cyprus: Quite good relationship and mutual understanding; there are seminars, exchanges of ideas and colloquies which build the relationship
Croatia: Co-operation with the Bar is generally good; even though it is difficult to comment on individual relationships between judges and lawyers
Denmark: Sound professional relationship
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: The relationship is generally correct; participation in joint training meetings helps improve it
Finland: Although there is no organised co-operation, working relations are good in both civil and criminal proceedings
France: Further efforts need to be made, in particular in terms of joint training
Georgia: The relationship is normal, lawyers criticise the courts when they lose cases. There are no plans for new rules, but a commission comprising different stakeholders is considering best practice
Hungary: The relationship is better than before; because everyone qualified can become an advocate, the standing and financial remuneration of judges have improved and the public and students are better informed about the judicial system
Italy: Good relationship; some tensions between judges and criminal lawyers
Liechtenstein: Generally good, with respect and mutual understanding; no specific plans
Lithuania: In general, no problems in the relationship; but mutual understanding and co-operation should be further developed
Luxembourg: Far from bad, probably because of the size of the Bar and the judiciary
Monaco: Good relationship between judges and lawyers, in particular because of the small size of the courts and the Bar
Montenegro: Co-operation is mainly reflected in drafting of legislation concerning the judiciary
Norway: Good in general
Netherlands: Constructive and satisfactory, especially in the areas of civil and commercial law. Judges and lawyers must understand their respective roles; these roles are distinct but related; the two professions act in the interests of the parties and of the rule of law. Joint training can play an important part
Czech Republic: No particular problems
Romania: Improved through joint further training, periodic meetings, joint involvement in the committees drafting key legislation
United Kingdom: Very good; no steps planned to alter this
Slovakia: Relationship is satisfactory
Slovenia: Satisfactory; some conflicts would be avoided if judges and lawyers had a better understanding of their roles in the proceedings; judges tend to forget that lawyers represent their clients
Switzerland: Good relationship; judges are often former lawyers and are therefore familiar with the profession
Turkey: Could be better; but no plans for changes
Ukraine: Ethical conduct of judges is essential (respect, restraint, tactfulness); the same applies to lawyers (respect, tact, independence)

D. Role of judges and lawyers in responding to the needs of parties

23. Please give some examples of co-operation between judges and lawyers in specific categories of cases (eg those ending in friendly settlement in civil claims)

Albania: Proceedings may be suspended if alternative dispute resolution methods are pursued; mediation is employed in family law, labour law and disputes between neighbours
Germany: Co-operation is based on public and transparent adversarial discussions between judges and lawyers. Sometimes the interests of lawyers are contrary to those of judges (eg time limits for pleading)
Belgium: Conciliation, court approved settlements, setting of case management timetables
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Friendly settlement of disputes
Bulgaria: Judges explain the various forms of friendly settlement; they can suspend proceedings for six months to give the parties time to negotiate. If a friendly settlement is reached, the judge can approve it if it is not contrary to the law or accepted standards
Cyprus: Judges and lawyers hold adversarial discussions on the facts and the law to seek a settlement to the dispute
Croatia: Judges must try to reach a friendly settlement
Denmark: Co-operation to bring about a friendly settlement takes place in court
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Court presidents encourage judges to direct parties towards alternative dispute resolution
Finland: The Code of Civil Procedure makes provision for friendly settlements; judges co-operate with lawyers; in cases concerning child custody, there has been a pilot project in some district courts in which social workers are also involved in seeking friendly settlements
France: For instance, in the preparation of civil cases, court presidents hold preliminary meetings with the lawyers to determine the difficulty of the cases and lay down a timetable for exchanges; judges may also propose mediation and appoint a mediator with the agreement of the parties
Georgia: The courts may ask parties to reach a friendly settlement, including during hearings; the allocation of fees is determined by the parties themselves or by the courts
Hungary: Yes, judges may suggest friendly settlements
Italy: Friendly settlement in civil claims
Lithuania: In civil procedure, conciliation is possible before the court hearing, in all cases
Luxembourg: A bill on agreements in criminal proceedings is under consideration
Monaco: No reply
Montenegro: In civil cases, disputes may be resolved through the mediation process
Norway: Friendly settlement is possible in all civil cases; in child custody cases, there is a special procedure involving experts and mediation by a judge
Netherlands: Judges and lawyers co-operate to arrive at friendly settlements. They discuss the further course of proceedings
Czech Republic: Friendly settlements exist
Romania: No friendly settlements
United Kingdom: Judges and lawyers may discuss the merits at a “case management conference”, with the agreement of the parties; a judge may give a view on the merits in an “Early Neutral Evaluation”
Slovakia: Judges seek to bring about friendly settlements with the parties; in criminal cases, agreements between prosecutors and the accused are possible
Slovenia: Code of Civil Procedure: determining contested and uncontested points, setting the date of court hearing; hearing of parties
Switzerland: Negotiation of case management timetable in some courts
Turkey: The parties can reach friendly settlements; judges have no powers in this respect
Ukraine: Friendly settlements are possible: judges explain to the parties what their agreements entail; they reject settlements contrary to the interests of either party

24. Do you have any possibility in your country for lawyers to become judges, and vice versa? If yes, is it frequent?

Albania: An act passed in 2008 lays down the procedure for appointing judges and the relevant criteria (degree, training at the School of Magistrates, good character, professional skills)
In the case of lawyers, act of 2003: degree, initial training (internship), good character, no criminal record, Bar examination. Exemptions from the initial training for persons who have worked at least two years as judges or prosecutors; exemption from examination also possible
Germany: Yes; in practice, however, few lawyers become judges
Belgium: Yes, many judges are former lawyers (10 years with the Bar)
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Yes, lawyers can become judges after three years; judges can become lawyers
Bulgaria: Yes, but not very frequent
Cyprus: Judges are former lawyers and can become lawyers again one year after retirement
Croatia: Yes, but it is not very frequent; however, it is much more frequent for judges to become lawyers
Denmark: Lawyers are encouraged to apply for positions as judges. The opposite is rare
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Yes, but not that frequent; a lawyer can become a judge in a first instance court after initial training of two years
Finland: Very few lawyers become judges; sometimes retired judges become lawyers
France: Yes, lawyers can become judges by applying for direct appointment subject to certain conditions; judges can join Bar associations
Georgia: Lawyers can become judges by taking the exam to enter the School for the Judiciary. Judges can become lawyers
Hungary: Lawyers can become judges and vice versa, but it is not very frequent
Italy: Many judges were lawyers beforehand and some return to the Bar upon retirement; experienced lawyers are admitted as judges to the Court of Cassation
Liechtenstein: Yes; but it is more frequent for judges to become lawyers
Lithuania: Yes; but judges do not often become lawyers
Luxembourg: Yes, all judges first practise as lawyers before becoming judges; it is very rare for judges to return to the Bar
Monaco: No
Montenegro: Yes, but not often (more judges become lawyers)
Norway: Yes; judges are recruited among experienced jurists (in 2011, 40% of judges appointed were advocates). It is very unusual for judges to become lawyers again
Netherlands: Yes, judges can become lawyers and vice versa
Czech Republic: Not very frequent at present
Romania: Frequent; lawyers can become judges by competitive examination; judges with five years’ service may become lawyers
United Kingdom: Yes, all judges have been lawyers for at least 10 years
Slovakia: Yes, there is a selection process open to all lawyers
Slovenia: Yes, some judges become lawyers (better pay)
Switzerland: Yes, frequent, because there is no official course for becoming a judge
Turkey: Judges with five years’ experience can become lawyers; lawyers aged no more than 45 years who have five years’ experience can take the exam to become judges
Ukraine: Yes

25. Can lawyers act, in your country, as deputy judges and if so, under what conditions?

Albania: No (no deputy judges)
Belgium: Lawyers may be appointed as judges (nomination by the Judicial Service Commission)
Bosnia and Herzegovina: No
Bulgaria: No
Croatia: No
Cyprus: N/A
Denmark: No
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: No
Finland: No
France: Yes, lawyers may sit as members of courts in the absence of a judge (Article L. 212-4 of the Code on Judicial Organisation); they may become local judges (for seven years)
Georgia: No
Hungary: No
Italy: Yes
Liechtenstein: In several courts, some judges are lawyers (eg, the President of the Constitutional Court)
Lithuania: No
Luxembourg: Under an act passed on 7 June 2012, lawyers can no longer act as deputy judges
Monaco: Yes, lawyers may sit as members of courts
Montenegro: No
Norway: Yes, for three years (but they are not allowed to work as lawyers at the same time)
Netherlands: Yes; but not in courts where they are registered as lawyers. They are subject to the same rules as professional judges. However, there is often criticism regarding their impartiality
Czech Republic: No
Romania: No
United Kingdom: Lawyers (10 years’ experience) enter special competitions to become judges
Slovakia: No
Slovenia: No
Switzerland: Yes, subject to the rules on disqualification (recusation)
Turkey: No
Ukraine: No, not allowed

E. Judges, lawyers and media

26. Have there been any reflections in the mass media as regards the relations between judges and lawyers and their co-operation?

Albania: No information
Germany: General discussion is rare; the media show an interest in certain trials, sometimes critically (using unflattering terms to describe the judges or lawyers in the cases)
Belgium: No
Bosnia and Herzegovina: The media have criticised the participation of lawyers in the High Judicial Council because it decides on the appointment and remuneration of judges
Bulgaria: Yes, about joint training
Croatia: Yes, but mostly in individual cases (problems regarding impartiality)
Cyprus: Sometimes
Denmark: No
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: The media cover criminal cases
Finland: No
France: No
Georgia: There are some articles about specific cases where lawyers make comments
Hungary: Not aware of any reflection on the subject
Italy: Yes
Liechtenstein: No
Lithuania: No, there have not been any such reflections
Luxembourg: No
Monaco: No
Montenegro: No reply
Norway: No
Netherlands: No; but there is some discussion about the impartiality of deputy judges
Czech Republic: Not aware of any
Romania: No
United Kingdom: No
Slovakia: Yes (no details)
Slovenia: The media discredit some judges (photographs of the birthday party of a judge where persons involved in insolvency proceedings were present); the issue of judges who become lawyers is problematical; as there are only 1 000 judges and 1 600 lawyers, there may be friendships between them, causing problems in terms of independence and impartiality
Switzerland: No
Turkey: Both positive and negative coverage
Ukraine: No

27. To what extent do lawyers and judges comment in the media on pending cases and on judgments?

Albania: No information
Germany: Lawyers often make comments in the media; judges refrain from doing so. However, some courts communicate with the media through a press spokesperson or the court president. Judges from the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court sometimes give explanations of their judgments at conferences and seminars
Belgium: Judges: no (duty of discretion), except for the press contact judge in each court, who gives objective and impartial explanations concerning cases or judgments. Lawyers are free to comment, in spite of their ethical obligations
Bosnia and Herzegovina: Lawyers sometimes criticise verdicts
Bulgaria: Judges may not comment on pending cases. They may comment on decisions of public interest. Lawyers avoid commenting on pending cases
Cyprus: Judges never comment; lawyers sometimes do
Croatia: No in the case of judges; lawyers have greater freedom
Denmark: Lawyers comment to a wide extent; judges to a limited extent (each court has a press contact judge who makes comments subject to ethical rules)
The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia: Lawyers comment on cases; they sometimes incur penalties; judges are not allowed to comment
Finland: Judges hardly ever comment; lawyers may do so if what they say is objective
France: Judges are bound by the rules of professional secrecy and do not comment on cases before them. Lawyers comment in the media about pending cases and judgments, subject to the rules which apply to them
Georgia: Judges do not comment, except through spokesperson judges if the case is of high public interest. Lawyers comment at any time
Hungary: Judges are not allowed to comment; there are spokespersons in courts for that purpose; lawyers are free to comment
Italy: Lawyers comment frequently; prosecutors may make statements to the press
Liechtenstein: Normally, neither judges nor lawyers comment on pending cases; there are exceptions (no details given)
Lithuania: Lawyers comment frequently; judges do not
Luxembourg: Judges never make comments; lawyers are free to do so; there is a judicial services spokesperson (official of the Principal State Prosecutor) responsible for relations with the media
Monaco: Judges have a duty of discretion, lawyers comment freely while respecting fundamental rights
Montenegro: Judges are not allowed to comment on pending cases or judgments; however, lawyers comment very frequently on proceedings in progress
Norway: Judges never comment on decisions other than giving objective and factual information on the process. Judges respect the media’s role in the courts. Lawyers comment more frequently on pending cases and judgments, while respecting certain rules set out in their codes of conduct.
Netherlands: Judges do not comment; every court has a media judge. Lawyers do comment in the media, but must comply with codes of conduct
Czech Republic: Judges are prevented from commenting by their codes of conduct; lawyers are not subject to any restriction
Romania: Judges are not allowed to comment in the media; lawyers do so
United Kingdom: Judges, never; lawyers, infrequently
Slovakia: Judges are forbidden from commenting, lawyers are free to do so
Slovenia: Courts have specific arrangements for communication (responsibility of presidents); comments by judges are limited; lawyers are free to comment
Switzerland: Judges do not comment (only courts may issue press releases); lawyers are free to comment
Turkey: Judges may make limited comments on judgments with the permission of the HCJP; lawyers are free to comment
Ukraine: Prohibited in the case of judges; courts have press secretaries who communicate with the media (in criminal cases); lawyers are free to comment