Karel Schelle – Ilona Schelleová

The Faculty of Law of the Masaryk University, Brno, Czech Republic

The current organization of the judicial system of selected countries

1. England

Organization of the judicial system in England is based on historical facts, although it has undergone some fundamental changes in this century, even during the last twenty-five years.

Courts in England are traditionally divided into ordinary courts and special courts.

General courts are inferior courts and superior courts.

The inferior courts are petty sessions and county courts.

The Petty sessions, sometimes also referred to as magistrate‘s courts or police courts (in London urban magistrate courts), are established for a certain part of the county or for a city and its district. They try in particular criminal cases, yet they adjudicate only on less serious offences. They also to a smaller extent try civil cases, in particular domestic affairs, except for divorces, paternity suits and some minor labour and property disputes. They decide in the so called summary proceedings, i.e. simpler proceedings without the presence of judges.

The County Courts try only as courts of first instance civil cases, where the real value does not exceed a certain sum of money. They may also try less complicated divorces.

The superior courts operating in England are the Crown Court and the Supreme Court.

The Crown Court was established by the Courts Act 1971 on 1^st January 1972. The same act also abolished the Crown Courts in Liverpool and Manchester, assize courts, the Central Criminal Court of London and quarter sessions[1].

The Crown Court does not have a permanent seat, but it can try and adjudicate on entrusted cases at any location in England and Wales.

Most of the agenda of the Crown Courts are criminal cases, and it also took over the civil case agenda from the quarterly sessions.

Parts of the Supreme Court are the High Court and the Court of Appeal.

The High Court is internally divided, in the same manner as in the past, into three divisions: Queen’s Bench Division, Chancery Division, and Family Division.

The Queen’s Bench Division is a division with the broadest scope of agenda. It adjudicates on both civil and criminal cases, both as first and second instance.

The Chancery Division adjudicates on most civil cases of first instance, and in some cases also as second instance.

The Family Division tries as the court of both first and second instance. It adjudicates on matrimonial cases and cases related to children as a court of first instance. It adjudicates on appeals against the judgement of the Petty sessions and County Courts as a court of second instance.

The Court of Appeal also has two divisions – civil and criminal divisions.

Its civil division adjudicates on appeals filed against decisions of the High Court and County Court.

Its criminal division adjudicates on appeals against the judgement of the Crown Court.

A historically important role in the English judicial system plays the House of Lords (Appellate Committee), because it is competent to review decisions of the High Court and the Court of Appeal, yet only with their permission. The House of Lords however tries also as court of first instance, namely cases of breach of parliamentary benefits, such as demonstrations of disrespect towards the House of Lords, and crimes committed within the building of the House of Lords.

For the execution of judicature of the House of Lords are according to the legal regulation of 1868 (Administration of Justice Act 1968) responsible the Lord Chancellor and other eleven Law Lords, or Lords of Appeal in Ordinary. Other members of the House of Lords may nevertheless participate in the decision-making process, if they held or hold important judicial functions. In order for a decision to be valid, there need to be at least three for it authorized members of the House of Lords present at the proceedings. The House of Parliament was originally bound by its own decisions, yet it may since 1966 depart from its own judicial precedents, if it considers it as necessary for the development of law.

2. The United States of America

If we want to describe the current organization of the American judicial system, we more or less have to repeat, what has already been said in the chapter devoted to the history of judicature.

In the USA operate federal courts on the one hand, and courts of individual states on the other hand.

Federal courts are further divided into general and special courts.

General federal courts are the District Courts, Circuit Courts of Appeal and Supreme Court.

The District Courts are only courts of first instance with the broadest subject-matter venue. They adjudicate as first instance on all cases that fall within the jurisdiction of federal courts, unless they fall according to special regulations within the jurisdiction of other federal courts.

The Circuit Courts of Appeals review as courts of second instance decisions of district courts, some special federal courts and some bodies of administration. They do not act as courts of first instance.

The Supreme Court acts as a court of the first instance and as a supervisory body for inferior federal courts or individual state courts.

The Supreme Court acts in the function of court of first and at the same time last instance exclusively as a body that settles disputes between individual states, disputes, in which the defendants are ambassadors or other official representatives of foreign countries, or their families. It may also adjudicate as first instance on disputes between the USA and individual countries, disputes of individual countries against citizens of another state or against aliens.

Within its supervisory activities, the Supreme Court reviews decisions of inferior general federal courts, some special federal courts and supreme courts of individual states.

The seat of the Supreme Court is in Washington and it consists of a Chief Justice and eight members (Associate Justices).

Out of the special federal courts, we can highlight on the one hand the Court of Claims, the judicature of which comprises in particular decisions about proprietary claims that are exercised against the Congress or the government of the USA and arise from the provisions of the U.S. Constitution and other federal laws, from resolutions of the ministries or from contracts that were entered into with the government of the USA, and about claims against the state for compensation, etc. Another court that belongs to special courts is the customs court, which adjudicates in particular on cases of custom fees. The last one belonging to special courts is the tax court.

Organization of the judicial system of individual states is not uniform; nevertheless it is possible to find some common features.

The minor components of the legal system of individual states are the Justices of the Peace, founded in particular in the country. These courts are called Magistrate’s Courts, police courts or Municipal Courts in the cities. Outside cities, they are also referred to as Minor Courts. They adjudicate only on less serious criminal cases, matrimonial cases and proprietary cases of lower value.

The basic courts of first instance have different names in different states – County Courts, District Courts or Superior Courts. In New York, courts of this instance are referred to as Supreme Courts. They adjudicate on most criminal and civil cases, usually in participation of the members of the jury.

In some states, we can see also other components, the courts of appeal, which are in the hierarchy situated between the courts of first instance and the Supreme Court.

The supreme degree of jurisdiction within each state is the Supreme Court, which as a court of first instance adjudicates on some especially serious criminal and civil cases. Its decision is not appealable, yet there is one exception: if its decision resolved a question of federal importance, it may be reviewed by the Supreme Federal Court.

Besides these general courts exists in many countries a wide range of further courts with a special focus. These are for example the Family Courts, Juvenile Courts, Probate Courts etc.

Both federal and state courts have juries, and a distinction is made between grand and petty jury.

The Grand Jury deals only with criminal proceedings and its function is to decide about prosecution. The number of members of the Grand Jury varies from 6 to 24.

The Petty Jury adjudicates on criminal and civil cases. There are usually twelve members of the jury sitting in the Petty Jury, yet this number is smaller in some states and so it sometimes has only three members.

Important places in the operation of both federal courts and courts of individual states have office workers, who perform some important acts. They are called US commissioners at the federal district courts and work in the area of criminal proceedings. It is furthermore the marshal, who is in charge of execution of judgements, court orders, warrants, etc. The same function at the courts of individual states has the sheriff. This office worker is called constable at the justices of the peace or courts that are equal to them. Last but not least, it is the clerk, who can be found at both federal and state courts and who performs some procedural acts as well.

3. France

Decisive changes in the organization of French administration of justice were made at the end of the fifties, when some relics, the origins of which dated back to the period of the French revolution, were abolished. This was related to the adoption of Constitution of the fifth French Republic.

French courts are divided into general and special courts.

Among general courts belong courts of first instance, courts of first instance presided over by a body of judges, assize courts, courts of appeal and the Supreme Court.

The courts of first instance (les tribunaux d’instance) decide within criminal jurisdiction about offences, i.e. unlawful conducts, on which the law imposes imprisonment of up to 2 months or a financial fine of up to a certain amount. If these courts try criminal cases, they are referred to as police courts (les tribunaux de police). In Paris, Lyon and Marseille were established specialised courts of first instance that adjudicate only on criminal cases.

Their scope of activity includes also some property cases, if the value of the matter in dispute does not exceed a certain amount determined by law. However, they act also in some administrative cases.

In courts of the first instance always decides a single judge.

The courts of first instance presided over by a body of judges (les tribunaux de grande instance) adjudicate on criminal cases of greater importance than the courts of first instance. They have the broadest scope of activity in civil cases, because they adjudicate on all cases that are not by a legal regulation entrusted to another court.

The courts of first instance presided over by a body of judges always decide in three-member bodies consisting only of professional judges. At courts that have more than five judges were formed chambers, which are further divided into sections at especially large courts.

Each court of first instance presided over by a body of judges has at least one investigating judge, which is appointed out of the judges of first instance for a period of three years.

France has already since the time of French revolution had assize courts (for further information see chapter on history of the French judicial system). As was already mentioned earlier, French assize courts operate only as criminal courts and adjudicate on all crimes, with the exception of those that can be adjudicated on exclusively by the military courts or national security court. The accusation is prepared by the accusation chamber of the relevant court of appeal. The head of the accusation chamber is its chairman. Individual cases are adjudicated on by the chamber in a three-member body composed of professional judges. Some cases are adjudicated on by a five-member body. The chairman and members of the accusation chamber are appointed for a year on a plenary meeting of all judges of the court of appeal.

The French assize courts operate in each department, either at the seat of the court of appeal, if one court of appeal has its seat in the district of the department, or at the seat of the department. There may however be exceptions to this rule.

The assize courts are composed of three professional judges (la cour) and nine members of the jury (le jury). They are always presided over by a professional judge, who is appointed by the first chairman of the court of appeal out of the judges of the court of appeal. The remaining judges are appointed also by the first chairman of the court of appeal, either out of the judges of the court of appeal or out of the judges of the courts of first instance presided over by a body of judges. Decisions of the assize courts are definitive and may be challenged in court only by a nullity complaint.

The Courts of appeal (les cours d’appel) act only as courts of second instance. They hear appeals against decisions of courts of first instance, courts of first instance presided over by a body of judges and special courts. They are thus the only court of second instance in the system of French courts.

The courts of appeal are internally divided into chambers (criminal, civil, commercial, etc.).

The Supreme Court (le cour de cassation) always acts only as a court of appeal. It adjudicates only on exceptional appeals filed against the decisions of general and some special courts.

It is possible to file two exceptional appeals at the Supreme Court: a nullity complaint and a nullity complaint in the interests of law.

The Supreme Court has six chambers, one for criminal cases and five for civil cases. Other deciding bodies are joint commissions and plenary meetings.

There is a whole range of special courts within the French judicial system. Some of them hear exclusively criminal cases, others on the other hand exclusively civil cases.

Courts that deal exclusively with criminal cases as first instance are juvenile judges, juvenile courts and juvenile assize court.

The juvenile judge is in charge of investigating crimes of juveniles and is in authority of deciding about some more serious offences.

The juvenile court is authorized to adjudicate on the same cases as the juvenile judge, yet it may impose not only educational measures, but also sentences. It adjudicates in a three-member board composed of the juvenile judge and two associate judges.

The juvenile assize court adjudicates on crimes committed by juveniles aged 16 – 18 years, unless they fall within the authority of the national security court.

The court of second instance for criminal cases of juvenile persons is the court of appeal.

We will mention out of the other courts that deal exclusively with criminal cases the courts of the merchant navy, which were established by the decree of 29^th July 1939. They adjudicate on some offences concerning merchant shipping. They decide in five-member senates composed of four professionals in sea navigation, one of which is the chairman, and of one professional judge.

Another one is the national security court, the jurisdiction of which relates to the whole territory of the state. In peacetime, it adjudicates on crimes and offences against national security and on related crimes and offences, etc. This court has two permanent chambers, one for decision-making and one for supervision over investigation of crimes that fall within the authority of the national security court. Besides that may be established also temporary chambers. The decision chamber has five members. It is presided over by the first presiding judge and the other members are four counsellors. The chamber that performs supervision over investigation has three members and is composed of professional judges.

Military courts have a special position within the French system of courts. They include:

The permanent courts of armed forces (les tribunaux permanents des forces armées) adjudicate on military criminal cases according to the relevant code in peacetime. When there is a war, they have the same authority as the army military courts.

The permanent high court of armed forces (l’haut tribunal permanent des forces armées) adjudicates on criminal cases of marshals, admirals, general staff officers, officers who are equal to them, and members of the military inspection corps.

The army military courts (les tribunaux militaires aux armées) may be established in peace time only at those military corps that are located or operate outside the territory of the Republic of France. They may be established within the territory of France when there is a war, and also in a situation, where relations with the government are broken due to internal or external aggression and last but not least in case of absolute necessity based on authorization from the Minister of National Defence.

Besides that may the local police force establish courts called prévotal courts (les tribunaux prévotaux).

A completely specific position within the French judicial system has the High Court of Justice, whose authorities are anchored in the constitution. It is authorised to judge the president of the republic, if he committed treason, and adjudicate the members of the government on crimes and offences committed during the performance of their functions. It has 24 members, one half of which is elected by the National Assembly out of the members of parliament, and the second half by the senate out of its members. The investigation is performed by a special investigatory board, which consists of five judges of the Supreme Court.

Among special civil courts belong industrial courts, commercial courts, agricultural rent tribunals, and social security courts.

The industrial courts (les conseils de prud’homes) perform arbitration and, when the attempts at settlement fail, resolve disputes arising from the labour contracts and contracts of apprenticeship between the employers or their representatives and the workers, or apprentices. They have exclusive jurisdiction over these cases. Out of that follows also their structure. They consist of an arbitration department and a judicial department. The arbitration proceedings are held in front of a two-member board (one representative of the employees and one representative of the employers). The judicial proceedings are held in front of a four-member board consisting of representatives of the employees and employers equally represented.

The commercial courts (les tribunaux de commerce) resolve disputes arising from commercial agreements. They were established at seats of some courts of first instance presided over by a body of judges. They sit in three-member senates composed of people who have the position of businessmen who exercise the judicature as an honorary function.

The agricultural rent tribunals (les tribunaux paritaires des baux ruraux) are established at each seat of the court of first instance and they resolve disputes between the landlords and tenants. They sit in five-member senates with a chairman, who is a professional judge, and four associate judges, two of which are representatives of the landlord and two representatives of the tenant.

The social security courts (les contentieux générale de la sécurité sociale) resolve disputes that arise during application of social security regulations.

Administrative courts act in the sphere of administrative law. They are authorised to review lawfulness of administrative acts. The local administrative courts (les tribunaux administratif réginaux) adjudicate on complaints filed against the decisions of bodies of the departments, inferior administrative authorities, and public institutions. It is possible to file an appeal against their judgement at the Council of State (le conseil d’État).

4. Germany

The German judicial system is considerably complex. Besides ordinary courts act courts specialised in industrial, administrative, social and financial cases.

The system of ordinary courts consists of local courts, regional courts, high regional courts and the Federal Court of Justice.

The local courts adjudicate as the first instances on both criminal and civil cases. All civil cases are adjudicated on by a single professional judge (the local court judge). Criminal cases are adjudicated on either by a single professional judge or by the local court as lay court in a body composed of the local court judge and two lay judges.

The regional courts act as courts of both first and second instance. They work on principle in boards called chambers. Usually are established civil, commercial, criminal and juvenile chambers. They are composed of professional and lay judges.

The high regional courts act as courts of first, second and sometimes even last instance. They adjudicate as courts of first instance only on criminal offences that otherwise fall within the authority of the Federal Court of Justice, the prosecution of which was passed by the Attorney General on the regional public prosecutor, or which the Federal Court of Justice submitted to the high regional court. They adjudicate as courts of second instance on legal appeals filed in civil cases against the decisions of the regional courts as courts of first instance. They act in criminal cases as courts of second instance in adjudicating on some complaints filed against the decisions of criminal chambers of the regional courts. They however act also as last instance courts, when they adjudicate on revision filed against the appellate decisions of the small and grand criminal chamber. The high regional courts adjudicate in panels, which have five members for decisions as first instance and three members in other cases. They consist only of professional judges.

The supreme regional courts adjudicate on revision submissions in civil cases that otherwise fall within the authority of the Federal Court of Justice. They adjudicate in panels consisting only of professional judges.

At the top of the pyramid of ordinary courts stands the Federal Court of Justice. It acts as court of first (and at the same time last) instance in some especially serious political crimes on the one hand, and on the other hand performs supervision over decisions of inferior courts.

Resolution of disputes concerning labour law belongs within the scope of labour jurisdiction. Its basic parts are the labour courts, which adjudicate as first instance on disputes concerning labour law. Appeals against decisions of the labour courts are heard by the regional labour courts, which act only as courts of second instance. As last instance court that revises decisions of regional labour courts acts the Federal Labour Court. On all levels applies the principle of joint decision-making. Labour and regional labour courts adjudicate in chambers that are composed of a professional judge and two associate judges called labour judges, or regional labour judges. One of them comes from the workers; the other one is a representative of the employer. The Federal Labour Court adjudicates in five-member panels, consisting of three federal judges and two associate judges.

Administrative jurisdiction also has three levels. The system comprises administrative courts and higher administrative courts, which act on the territory of individual states. Jurisdiction over the whole territory of the FRG has the Federal Administrative Court. This will be treated in more detail in the chapter on administrative jurisdiction.

Finance courts are specialized administrative courts. Within their authority falls resolution of disputes concerning benefits and other disputes given explicitly into the jurisdiction of finance courts. Jurisdiction in financial cases is performed by the finance courts and the Federal Finance Court.

As specialized administrative courts may be considered also the social courts, which resolve disputes concerning social security, unemployment insurance, and provision for victims of war. They also resolve disputes between doctors and health insurance companies. The system of social courts consists of social courts, regional social courts, and the Federal Social Court.

It was due to considerable complexity of the German judicial system necessary to provide for consolidation of jurisdiction. For this purpose was established the Joint Panel of the highest Federal courts, which is composed of presiding judges of all five federal courts, of chairmen of the panels of judges involved, and of other professional judges. The legal opinion held by the Federal panel is legally binding for the panel that adjudicates on the case.

---

[1] The courts in Liverpool and Manchester were established in 1956 as a result of a rise in crime rate in larger cities.

The courts of quarter sessions were traditional courts established in each county, or in larger cities. They adjudicated as courts of first instance on criminal and civil cases. They adjudicated as courts of second instance on appeals against the decisions of the Petty sessions.

The Central Criminal Court of London was organizationally a part of the High Court of Justice.