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




Proposals of amendments to the draft Opinion No.15 of the CCJE by the CCJE members

Propositions d’amendements au projet d’Avis n°15 du CCJE par les membres du CCJE

Comments recieved from:/ commentaires reçus de :



In relation to the draft opinion No 15 of CCJE, first of all congratulations are in order for the excellent work done by the drafters. The text is quite readable and is it well thought out. It follows that my comments are very few.

(i) The word “judges” in par 6 should be avoided in relation to jurors. They fall under a completely different category of their own and do not ever act as judges at least in the common law systems. The sentence might read: “Jurors do not sit in all criminal cases and their role is quite different from that of the presiding judge or judges.”

(ii) I am not sure that the idea expressed in par 16 is entirely correct. Although specialist judges do have expertise in some area of the law and have their own specialist tools and concepts (I would hesitate to call them “peculiar”), they always work within a clearly defined basic legal framework, which is common to all judges. By this I mean that whatever the specialist field if the case has to do with contractual matters, the same contract law concepts, common to all, will apply.

(iii) The idea expressed in par 20 is a bit awkward. On the one hand joint training saves money and resources and on the other, we should credit judges with more impartiality and more self-resistance to undue influence.

(iv) In par 23, there should be a clear distinction between specialist and special courts. Special courts sometimes set up to deal with individual cases or terrorist activities that fall outside the general system of justice should be prohibited at all costs.

(v) In par 26, it would be better to delete the introductory words “In principle”.

(vi) I discern a possible conflict between the last sentence of par 30 where it is stated that it is difficult for judges to master all legal areas with par 26 where it is said that judges “..should be capable of deciding cases in all fields.”

(vii) I wonder whether the second sentence of par 36 would be easy or even desirable to put into practice. Once you are a specialist judge in trademarks, for example, it is not easy to move into criminal law.

(viii) Is “non jurist judges” in the heading of par 43, an apt term? In addition, perhaps we should use the words “lay judges” instead of “non lawyers” in the first sentence of par 43.

(ix) In par 60, maybe we could insert the words “or known” right after “transparent” at the last line. Also the first “that” in the last sentence should read “than”.

(x) In par 66, the word “however” should be deleted so that the second sentence starts with “In the interests….”.



Madame le Vice-président POPA est d'accord avec le contenu.


Comments on the draft Opinion No. 15 “Specialisation of judges” (Document CCJE(2012)4)
By Eva Wendel Rosberg (Sweden)
Art. 18. Strike the second sentence “It can give judges …” The sentence implies a type of behavior from judges that I would find unlikely.
Art. 28. Strike the last example regarding persons accused of participating in criminal organisations. There are no ’membership cards’ for members of criminal organisations - sometimes the most important for a prosecutor is to prove that the accused is involved in a criminal organisation. If a special court or judge is appointed for these cases, it implies that the justice system has already decided that the accused is involved in a criminal organisation and therefore cannot get a fair trial.
Art.55. Strike the first sentence. Sweden is one of the countries in Europe that has a dual system with both ordinary and administrative courts. This is a system that works very well in Sweden and is a good kind of specialisation. The system is not an ‘impediment’ to access to justice. The administrative courts mainly handle cases where an authority has made a decision. The authority gives information about how and where to appeal against the decision. E.g. the administrative courts handle tax cases.