BE_2011_GE_en - European Judicial Training Network

European Judicial Training Network 

Exchange Programme for Judicial Authorities 

REPORT ON THE EXCHANGE AND SUMMARY 

Réseau Européen de Formation Judiciaire/European Judicial Training Network (aisbl) 

Rue du Luxembourg 16B, B-1000 Bruxelles; Tel: +32 2 280 22 42; Fax: + 32 2 280 22 36; 

E-mail: exchanges@ejtn.eu 

With the support of the European Union 

Instructions: 

1. The report must be sent to the EJTN (exchanges@ejtn.eu) within one month after the exchange. 

2. Please use the template below to write your report (recommended length: 4 pages). 

3. Please write in English or French. Should this not be possible, the report can be written in another language 

but the summary must be in English or French. 

4. Please read the guidelines for drafting the report (in Annex). Feel free to add any other relevant information 

in your report. 

5. The summary shall contain a synthesis of the most important information of the report. 

6. Please note that NO NAMES, neither yours nor the ones of the persons you met during your exchange, 

should appear in the report in order to ensure anonymity 1 . Initials can be used when necessary. 

Identification of the participant 

Name: 

First name: 

Nationality: Belgian 

Country of exchange: Danmark 

Publication 

For dissemination purposes and as information for future participants in the Programme please 

take note that, unless you indicate otherwise, EJTN may publish your report in its website. In this 

case the report will remain anonymous and your name and surname will not appear. To this aim, 

please do not mention any names in the reports. Initials can be used instead. 

Please tick this box if you do not wish for your report to be published 

For completion by EJTN staff only 

Publication reference: 

1 To that purpose, the first page of this report will be taken out before any possible publication 

For completion by EJTN staff only

Identification of the participant 

Nationality: Belgian 

Functions: Judge at the District Court of Antwerp 

Length of service: 17 years 

Identification of the exchange 

Hosting jurisdiction/institution: Fredriksberg District Court 

City: Copenhagen 

Country: Denmark 

Dates of the exchange: 2011.10.31 – 2011.11.10 

Type of exchange: 

one to one exchange x group exchange 


Publication reference: 

general exchange specialized exchange (please specify : ) 

I. Programme of the exchange. 

REPORT 

At the first day of the exchange the participants were briefly introduced in the general organization of the 

judicial system of Denmark, as well as in the structure and functions of the hosting organization, the 

District Court of Fredriksberg in Copenhagen. 

During the exchange we had very instructive contacts with the president of the Court, with two of the 

deputy judges and several executive judges. All of these colleagues were very open-minded and willing to 

discuss their experiences with the participants. Simultaneously there was a lively exchange of experiences 

amongst the participants who came from various countries: the Czech Republic, Spain, Italy, Austria and 

Belgium. 

Each time before attending to a hearing, a brief introduction was offered by one of the deputy judges. 

We were given the opportunity to observe a civil law hearing in the small claims court, some criminal 

cases with lay judges, a criminal law hearing dealing with custody before trial demands, and at the 

hosting locality of Glostrup District Court, a criminal jury trial. Last but not least is to be mentioned that 

we witnessed how at the bailiff’s court of Fredriksberg the public auction of a seized is dealt with. It was 


Exchange Programme for Judicial Authorities

eally unexpected that this auction takes place in the courtroom itself, as well as it was surprising that the 

bailiff-judge himself is charged with the practical handling of seizing a debtors belongings in his home 

place at 5 o’clock a.m. A more close relationship between the judge and the public can hardly be 

imagined. 

Apart from these activities at the hosting court itself, our Danish colleagues accompanied us to several 

organizations and persons, such as: 

- the houses of Parliament; 

- two law firms. The first one occupied mainly with labor law, the second mainly with civil and 

administrative law; 

- the Supreme court, where there was no activity at the time of our visit, but nevertheless we where 

shown around in the building and we got quite an interesting introduction in the way this court is 

organized; 

- one prison, called Vestre Faengsel, where the prisoners mainly are staying in custody awaiting 

trial. These prisoners might not realize that, however they are incarcerated, their situation 

compared to practices in other European countries, is quite privileged because the prison is not 

overcrowded at all, and therefore substantial efforts to supply their social situation can be made; 

- the Danish Court Administration, where we received a lot of background information about the 

careers of judges and about the huge reorganization witch has taken place in the judicial system in 

the last five years; 

- the Danish Institute for Human Rights, which appeared to be a very active observatory on Human 

Rights issues, both on the national and the international plan. 

II. The hosting institution. 

The Fredriksberg District court is one of the 24 Danish District Courts. It is a first instance Court dealing 

with both civil and criminal law cases. The verdicts of this District Court can be appealed to one of the 

two divisions of the High Court (Eastern Division), and than again to the Supreme Court. When in civil 

law matters very principal questions have to be decided, the District Court can refer the case directly to 

the High Court without itself deciding the case. 

The civil law division of the District court is composed of two entities: the small-claims court, and the 

ordinary civil law court for more serious cases. Apart from these entities there is the bailiff’s court, 

exclusively competent for seizing matters and public auctions. 

For criminal cases three entities again. First of all, the criminal division with only one judge, for small 

cases (fines & cases where the defendant is pleading guilty). Second: the criminal law court composed of 

one judge and 2 laymen, for more severe cases (up to 4 years in prison). And last: for the most severe 

cases (max. lifetime imprisonment), composed of 3 judges and 6 jurors. The counterpart of the bailiff’s 

court in civil law matters is to be found in the criminal law division, in a court called ‘Dommervagten’, 

which is a court exclusively competent for custody affairs and coercive measures that can be ordered in 

the completion of criminal investigations. This court can be applied to 24 hours a day. To enable its 

permanent availability, ‘Dommervagten’ is driven, in cooperation and on turn, by judges of Fredriksberg 

District court and judges of Copenhagen’s First District Court. 

To manage its different responsibilities, the District Court of Fredriksberg is composed - apart from the 

administrative staff - of 1president, 12 other judges, 15 deputy judges, and approximately 80 civil 

servants who can be called to duty as layman. 

III. The law of the host country. 




Our special attention was drawn to the Administration of Justice act of 2006, june 8 th .(lov nr. 538 om 

politi- og domstolsreformen). Together with another huge law on the reorganization of the administration 

of municipalities, this law has thoroughly changed the fundamental structures of the judiciary 

organization. This law comprises on the one hand an enlargement of the operational scale of police forces 

and on the other hand an enlargement of the area of territorial competence of the District Courts. 

Formerly Denmark counted 82 juridical districts with a District Court in each of them. This situation 

created a wide variety of different practices in handling both criminal as civil law cases. Furthermore a 

series of District Courts appeared to be too small to ensure the in-service training of younger judges. 

Moreover, some of these District Courts where situated at a far-off countryside, which was experienced to 

be disadvantageous for attracting younger judges, and thus trued the continuity of judicial services. To 

this situation was put an end by the Administration of Justice act, whose main feature is to reduce the 

number of District Courts to 24 by enlarging the scale of the districts. 

After a few years of practicing in these new structures, we were ensured by the Danish Court 

Administration that the over-all evaluation is very positive. A fabulous work has been done to make this 

come through, but, as we were told by our colleagues at the Fredriksberg District Court as well, it was 

worth the engagement of everyone cooperating for a more efficient structure and finally, a better service 

for the public in general. 

IV. The comparative law aspect in the exchange. 

Most apparent differences from the system in our country: 

- generally: 

A very informal way of communication between judges, lawyers and clients. No robes are used, no pomp 

and circumstances. 

- civil law: 

1. Before cases are brought to a hearing in the small claims court, there is a preparatory procedure during 

which the judge is contacting parties in order to try to settle the case by alternative dispute resolution. 

This might either be by just convincing them or realistically confronting them with 

all relevant aspects of their situation, or by referring them to mediation. Only if this preparatory procedure 

does not lead to a settlement, the case will be pleaded in the courtroom. In such cases, the judge who has 

conducted the preparatory procedure can decide either to withdraw - and than be replaced by a colleague - 

or to treat the case in court. 

2. In the small claims court, individuals can merely address themselves to the court administration with 

any judicial problem, without assistance of a lawyer, and just by even orally explaining what bothers 

them. In such cases the adverse party will be invited by the judge, who will start a preparatory procedure, 

such as described above sub nr. 1. 

3. When new and very principle questions have to be dealt with, the District Court can decide to refer the 

case directly to the High Court. This is inspired of course by the concern of unification, but on the other 

hand it seems to cause the loss of an instance for the parties involved. 

- criminal law: 




1. At the level of the District Court, the attorney is a member of the police forces. Moreover, in the 

practical arrangement of the courtroom, the Public Prosecutor enters the courtroom just as any other civil 

person, and he takes place opposite to the defendant, at the same level as the defendant. This creates a 

general perception of equality of arms, and independence of the judicial authority. 

2. It is a very democratic way of thinking to use laymen as assistants of the judges in most criminal cases. 

V. European aspect. 

The Council of Europe Recommendation no. R (99) 12 on Mediation in Penal Matters has only recently 

led to law nr. 467 of 2009.06.12, called ‘Lov om Konfliktraad’. This law organises the conflict-council 

that administers mediation units at the level of local police forces, for mediation in criminal cases. The 

general feeling is, that in Danish society there is a long tradition of solving social problems by discussion 

rather than by force and confrontation. Mediation and alternative conflict resolution is an important task 

of deputy judges in the civil small claims court. 

Very much attention is paid to transparency, contradiction, fair and expedient trial. This all is in high 

degree a way of living up to human rights such as they are consecrated in the European Declaration of 

Human Rights. 

In our eyes, the quality of the penitentiary regime in Vestre Faengsel could certainly pass for a model for 

many prisons throughout the European countries. 

VI. The benefits of the exchange. 

The experiences of the exchange encourage me to develop a more informal way of communicating on 

judicial affairs, than I was used to before. But of course, traditional structures put limits to sharply 

altering all practices, and a certain distance will always be mandatory. 

All for the rest, and even though I tell my colleagues about my experiences, I am not 

convinced of any transfer of my personal benefits to their own way of functioning. 

VII. Suggestions. 

The Exchange Programme is a beautiful instrument to stimulate the understanding between colleagues 

from all nationalities. The administration and organization of the programme is very efficient and userfriendly. 

I was very pleased to be able to participate. I don’t have any suggestions for improvement. It’s 

perfect like it is. 

My only concern: if this report would be published in any way, please would you previously be so kind to 

clean up my secondary school English. 





SUMMARY 

The hosting organisation of the exchange in Copenhagen, from 2011.10.31 until 2011.11.10, was the 

Fredriksberg District Court. This is a typical first instance court, dealing with both civil and criminal law 

cases. We were briefly introduced into the judicial systems that are relevant for this court. Furthermore 

we had the opportunity to be present at a series of public hearings. Each time we were informed about the 

headlines of the cases to be treated, so as a result of the exchange we acquired quite an idea of the general 

way things do run in the administration of this Court. 

Other institutions and persons were visited as well, such as a prison, two law firms, the locations of the 

High Court and the Parliament, the Danish Institute for Human Rights and the Danish Court 

Administration. 

The over-all impression is that the communication in the judicial system is very informal. Emphasize lays 

on basic principles like contradiction, fair trial and equality of arms between defendant and Public 

Prosecutor. There is a culture of trying to settle conflicts in ways of alternative dispute resolution. This is 

even an important part of the core business of the deputy judges in the small claims civil court. 

The Administration of Justice act of 2006, June 8 th introduced a fundamental reorganization of the 

judicial system. The main feature of this act is the enlargement of the territorial competence area of the 

District Courts, of which the number has been reduced from 82 to only 24 nowadays. The greatest 

benefits of this new structure are unification of judicial practices, offering more training opportunities for 

younger judges and making the career more attractive for them, thus ensuring the continuity of public 

service in judicial affairs. 

The Danish system complies very well with international standards consecrated in the European 

Declaration of Human Rights. Mediation is a part of the culture, predominantly in civil matters. For what 

we have seen, prison conditions seem to correspond to a high standard.

BE_2011_GE_en - European Judicial Training Network

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?