HOW
TO IDENTIFY NEW JUDICIAL TRAINING NEEDS?
SUGGESTIONS
AND EXPERIENCES
DRAWN
FROM NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL
TRAINING
PROGRAMMES *
Table of Contents: 1.
Judicial Training in the International Legal Instruments. – 2.
Judicial Training in EU Law. – 3. The Experience of
“Preliminary Training” for Future Jurists. – 4. Judicial
Training Needs: Putting the Focus on the Efficiency of Justice.
1. Judicial Training in the International Legal
Instruments.
A first set of
ideas concerning the issue “how to identify new judicial training needs” can be
drawn by some international documents concerning or somehow affecting judicial
training [1]. Of course, quantity and
quality of information we can get depend on the kind of instrument we are
considering.
Just to give a couple
of examples, we can start from Articles 56 and 57 of the recent Recommendation
CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe to member
states on Judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities (adopted by the
Committee of Ministers on 17 November 2010). According to these provisions,
“56. Judges should be provided with theoretical and practical initial and
in-service training, entirely funded by the state. This should include
economic, social and cultural issues related to the exercise of judicial
functions. The intensity and duration of such training should be determined in
the light of previous professional experience. 57. An independent authority
should ensure, in full compliance with educational autonomy, that initial and
in-service training programmes meet the requirements of openness, competence
and impartiality inherent in judicial office.”
Paragraph 2.3. of
the European Charter on the Statute for judges of the Council of Europe (1998)
provides that “The statute ensures by means of appropriate training at the
expense of the State, the preparation of the chosen candidates for the
effective exercise of judicial duties. The authority referred to at paragraph
1.3 hereof, ensures the appropriateness of training programmes and of the
organization which implements them, in the light of the requirements of
open-mindedness, competence and impartiality which are bound up with the
exercise of judicial duties.”
Coming to Opinion
Nr. 4 of the Consultative Council of European Judges (CCJE) (2003), we can cite
points Nr. 27, 28, 29, 32 and 46, which provide for as follows:
“27. The initial
training syllabus and the intensiveness of the training will differ greatly
according to the chosen method of recruiting judges. Training should not
consist only of instruction in the techniques involved in the handling of cases
by judges, but should also take into consideration the need for social
awareness and an extensive understanding of different subjects reflecting the
complexity of life in society. In addition, the opening up of borders means
that future judges need to be aware that they are European judges and be more
aware of European issues.
28. In view of the
diversity of the systems for training judges in Europe, the CCJE recommends:
i. that all
appointees to judicial posts should have or acquire, before they take up their
duties, extensive knowledge of substantive national and international law and
procedure;
ii. that training
programmes more specific to the exercise of the profession of judge should be
decided on by the establishment responsible for training, and by the trainers
and judges themselves;
iii. that these
theoretical and practical programmes should not be limited to techniques in the
purely legal fields but should also include training in ethics and an
introduction to other fields relevant to judicial activity, such as management
of cases and administration of courts, information technology, foreign
languages, social sciences and alternative dispute resolution (ADR);
iv. that the
training should be pluralist in order to guarantee and strengthen the
open-mindedness of the judge;
v. that, depending
upon the existence and length of previous professional experience, training
should be of significant length in order to avoid its being purely a matter of
form.
29. The CCJE
recommends the practice of providing for a period of training common to the
various legal and judicial professions (for instance, lawyers and prosecutors
in countries where they perform duties separate from those of judges). This
practice is likely to foster better knowledge and reciprocal understanding
between judges and other professions.
(…)
32. Such training
is made indispensable not only by changes in the law, technology and the
knowledge required to perform judicial duties but also by the possibility in
many countries that judges will acquire new responsibilities when they take up
new posts. In-service programmes should therefore offer the possibility of
training in the event of career changes, such as a move between criminal and
civil courts; the assumption of specialist jurisdiction (e.g. in a family,
juvenile or social court) and the assumption of a post such as the presidency
of a chamber or court. Such a move or the assumption of such a responsibility
may be made conditional upon attendance on a relevant training programme.
(…)
46. Furthermore,
the CCJE considers that the co-operation within other initiatives aiming at
bringing together the judicial training institutions in Europe, in particular
within the European Judicial Training Network, can effectively contribute to
the greater coordination and harmonisation of the programmes and the methods of
training of judges on the whole continent.”
2. Judicial Training in EU Law.
It is evident that
international declarations and recommendations mainly focus on general
principles, such as training structures, relations between training institutes
and Ministry of Justice or Judicial Council, differences between initial and
continuous training, need to have some compulsory activities, the links between
training and assessment of judges, etc.
However, at a
closer look, also in the framework of such organisational principles we are
able to find an answer, or at least a part of the answer, to the above mentioned
question: “how to identify new judicial training needs.”
Let us start from
the matter of judicial training in the fields of EU law. We all know how
important this subject has become, up to the point that scholars do not
hesitate to use the expression “methodological europeanisation” [2],
in order to designate methods of legal interpretation which are able to bring
about results compatible with EU law and with the evolution of local
legislations in an European law environment.
We also know that
at European level we have, since the year 2000, a European Judicial Training
Network (EJTN). Generally speaking this organisation is working well, but, if
we look at concrete problems, something (at least as far as my country is
concerned) is not turning correctly. I am referring to the link between the
network and the final addressees of its activities, which is to say the judges.
In Italy any initiative concerning the judiciary has to involve the High
Council for the Judiciary, with its pantagruelian tendency to “swallow”
everything that concerns judicial life. Therefore, initiatives starting at
European level have to be filtrated through the cumbersome and very often
ineffective procedures and “rites” of the Council. Final result is that
programmes from the European Network reach their addressees very, very late,
sometimes even after that concerned training events have taken place.
These remarks of
mine are confirmed by a recent study [3]
compiled for the European Parliament by the Academy of European Law (ERA) in
consortium with the European Judicial Training Network (EJTN). According to
such report [4]:
“Only a small minority of judges and prosecutors, and a tiny fraction of court
staff, have attended a European judicial training programme.” The report further
states as follows: “Judges, prosecutors and court staff face a number of
obstacles to participating in continuous judicial training programmes which
must be overcome if the number receiving training in EU law is to be increased.
The most
significant obstacle to participation in continuous judicial training is the
organisation of the justice system itself, which inhibits participation in
training because the caseload of training participants is not reduced and they
are not replaced during their absence.
Other significant
obstacles to participation in judicial training programmes include:
·
Lack of information about the training programmes
available;
·
Short notice of when training programmes will take
place;
·
Lack of places, particularly for judicial exchanges;
·
Lack of funding by employers;
·
Institutional opposition;
·
Work/life balance;
·
Language barriers.”
We all know that,
in order to have a well performing system of training, training organisation has
to programme its activities well in advance. Furthermore, if we want to
correctly identify needs for a certain service, we need to have a direct
contact between the organisation providing services and “consumers” of such
services. This is why I do believe that, as far as training in international
and EU law is concerned, we should try to reach a sort of international
agreement, according to which training should be exclusively (or mainly)
provided by an European Law training institute (and not just an European
Network of national institutes), which should have direct contact with judges
belonging to EU countries.
This means that
judges should be able to directly apply to that body, without any kind of
intermediation by the High Councils of Judiciary (or by Justice departments) in
member States. In this way we could establish a direct link between
organisations providing training, on one side, and trainees, on the other side.
This should be a sound method for collecting directly by trainees information about
their training needs. Actually, nobody can deny that trainees’ opinion is one
of the best sources of information, as far as training needs are concerned.
I do not deny that
the set of recommendations in the above mentioned study commissioned by the European
Parliament are wise and reasonable. I do not have enough place here to cite
them all; I will only underline that they are placed under following titles [5]:
·
“Make training integral to work as a judge or
prosecutor;
·
Make training more efficient;
·
Make training more practical;
·
Widen access to training;
·
Improve EU support for judicial training.”
This means that
there is surely an awareness at European level about the need to improve
current standards. However the solutions which are pursued are not in the line
I have suggested above. Quite on the contrary, if we have a look to the works
of the European Judicial Training Conference held in Budapest in 2011 [6],
we can discover, quite disappointedly, that, among the conclusions of that
event, the Conference underlines “the fact that primary responsibility for
training in EU Law is, and always should be, with the M[ember] S[tates].” Let
me point out that Pontius Pilatus could not have done better!
Such clear form of
de-responsibilization seems to be at odds with other parts of the same
document, in which, much more correctly, following principles are laid down:
“Fostering a common
European judicial, and judicial training culture
General :
·
European Judicial Culture is based on
o the Rule of law
o independence of the
judiciary as an inseparable corollary
o empowering the
individual
o confidence between
legal systems
o shared law at the
EU level
o primacy of EU law
(Declaration 17 Lisbon Treaty)
o respect for Human
rights and ECHR
o legal heritage /
constitutional traditions
o institutions
protecting the rule of law
o the Acquis
communautaire
o the search for
common ways forward
o emphasis on quality
training
o the fact that
judicial training is organic. It is an ever-developing science and future training
will bear little resemblance to present or past training (cp training practices
of 2001 with 2011 to see the evolution).
o (…)
o some basic and
common assumptions about future judiciaries
§
they are likely to be:
·
accepting of EU law as part of their world-view
·
accepting of the concept of the EU as a geographical
reality within which to practice
·
accepting of the need to know what is going on around
Europe since they are immersed in European issues in their training
·
accepting of the introduction of technologies in
training (when blended with face-to-face elements)
·
accepting of the need to put effort in to getting to
know their neighbours
·
willing to consider a blend of legal and
constitutional heritage, the rule of law, human rights and national practices
with empowering at the European level
·
willing to engage in exchanging experiences of
practice with others from within the EU.”
In this framework,
it is high time that the European Training Network becomes aware of the need to
operate no longer as a simple longa manus
of national institutes, but to stand as a new institution, reclaiming the
exclusive competence to be only body entitled to provide legal training to
European judges in the field of EU law.
A key factor in
programmes which should be developed at European level is the linguistic
aspect: this means that European judges should be made aware of the need to
develop a common judicial culture, which passes through a better knowledge of
foreign cultures and languages. Courses of legal languages should be increased,
together with comparative sessions on matters of substantive and procedural
law. Under this respect, I do appreciate the recent initiative by the Italian
High Council about the setting up of a training activity in EU law, called
“European Gaius” [7].
But I repeat that this step should be seen just as a preliminary operational
move towards the setting up a truly European Judicial Training Institute.
3. The Experience of “Preliminary Training” for Future
Jurists.
Another
organisational issue which needs to be deepened concerns what we in Italy call
“preliminary training,” which is to say the training of young law-graduated
people who are preparing themselves to face the competitive examination to
become judges.
As far as Italy is
concerned, rules on the entry to the profession of judge and prosecutor have
been changed fifteen years ago, on the one hand to simplify and expedite the
examination procedure and, on the other, to promote the development of a
cultural basis common to all the members of the legal world connected to the
activities linked to the exercise of the judicial function: judges and
prosecutors, notaries and lawyers. The legislator has thus constituted Schools
of Specialisation for the Legal Professions, which are post-graduate schools,
set up within the universities for law-graduate students that want to enter the
legal professions (Legislative Decree No. 398/97).
This experiment has
been partially positive and partially negative. The good idea at the basis of
this initiative is represented by both the need to provide young jurists with
additional legal training (which is badly needed taking into account the huge
lacks, shortfalls and drawbacks of the Italian university system), and by the
idea to foster a new kind of jurist, whose skills are deeply rooted in a milieu which is common to judges,
lawyers and notaries.
The negative part
of the experience is that Italian legislation allows young law graduates to
become lawyers even without having attended that School. What is even worse,
law graduates can be admitted to the competitive examination to become judge
even if they have not attended the School, provided that they have passed the
bar exam (which in some regions of Italy is, unfortunately, something that
occurs all too often, even for thousands of candidates whose skills are far
from being satisfactory). Therefore, one of the aims for which this new system
had been created, which is to say the reduction of the total number of
candidates to the selection for the judicial career, could not be reached. As a
consequence, competitive examinations to become judges are huge events
concerning thousands of people; the organisation of such exams is getting more
and more time consuming and expensive.
One of the reasons
why the experiment of the Schools for Legal Professions should be enhanced and
become the one and only (or at least the regular) system for recruiting judges,
is the unique experience for having a cursus
of studies and preliminary training which is common (or at least partly common)
among judges, prosecutors, lawyers and notaries.
I underline this
particular aspect because the need for a common training experience is deeply
felt not only by judges. Recently the International Association of Judges was contacted
by the European Affairs Commission of the International Union of Notaries on
this topic. European notaries are very much interested in having a common
reflection on how judges and notaries are recruited and trained all over
Europe. They have prepared a questionnaire they are spreading among member
notaries and we, as International Association of Judges, are trying to organise
in the next future a joint event. It should be an international conference on
the subject: “Judges and Notaries in Europe: Common Challenges.” Among such
“common challenges” a relevant role should be played by the issues of
recruitment and training. Notaries being already ready since long ago, I really
do hope that also judges manage to overcome some difficulties and objections
which were raised by representatives of some judicial associations against
possible co-operation with notaries. Actually too many judges, being mainly
engaged in criminal law affairs, cannot fully appreciate the importance of this
issue.
This experience
leads us to another problem, particularly affecting legal training in Italy: I
am referring to the chasm existing in my country between law schools and “real
life.”
We have been
recently trying to find a solution to this problem by instituting a sort of
training for law students in our courts. This is a very positive experiment,
which was started by the way of agreements, concluded between universities and
courts, on the basis of general provisions allowing Universities to sign up
conventions with public bodies and private firms. In 2011 the decreto legge (“law decree”) Nr. 98,
Article 37, Para. 4 and 5 introduced an interesting novelty into the Italian
panorama. In taking inspiration from foreign experience, these provisions
present the opportunity to enter into special agreements between the Heads of
the Courts on one side and the schools of specialization for the legal
professions, the local Bar Association and the universities on the other.
These conventions
would allow some students (whom have attained certain levels of excellence) to
replace a year of a Ph.D. or graduate course or traineeship with a period of
professional education at the Court, attending and assisting the judges in the
research and preparation of drafts of judgment. There are no compensation or
retirement benefits and the relationship between the parties is not established
under any public contract of employment; that confirms the non-onerous
character of these conventions. So here is another tool that the lawmaker has
parsimoniously put in place to enhance existing resources while keeping a tight
grip on the purse strings.
The figure of the
assistant judge, already present in the Constitutional Court, is of
considerable potential value, both for the experience that gained by the young
graduate and for the utility of the research assigned to him can lead to a
prompt decision of the dispute.
However, please
note that paragraphs 4 and 5 only provide for the mere possibility that the
court enters into agreements with such bodies; they do not impose a legal
obligation to take steps in that direction. Therefore, the use of the
conditional is a must when it is said that these provisions, if fulfilled, will
allow the establishment of the ‘Office of the judgeʼ (ie, a working group
under the direction of each judge and deputy to give him assistance in his
work). That ‘officeʼ could result in a considerable increase in the
productivity of each individual judge, which means a decrease in the time
required to process the cases. However, keep in mind that this provisions, if
implemented, will fail to produce results in the short-term. The results can
only be appreciated in the medium to long-term [8].
Coming back to the
issue of legal studies at the university, main problem in Italy is that Italian
Law Schools at University level currently are a sort of big “containers” filled
with a lot of matters and curricula
(very often created ex nihilo simply
in order to satisfy the need to multiply teaching posts for new professors).
What we should do is trying to single out a University law degree, which has
more or less the same value in all of Europe, basically composed of both
substantial and procedural law matters (private law, administrative law,
criminal law, constitutional law, civil procedural law, etc.).
This should be the
only degree needed to become either judge, or lawyer or notary. Training and
“stages” in courts and law firms should become compulsory for law students,
since their earliest years at Law School.
Some “new” matters
and courses should be introduced at law school, such as judicial systems, court
management, judicial and lawyer ethics, inter-active sessions with law
professionals (judges, lawyers, notaries, clerks of court, bailiffs, in-house
lawyers of private companies and public bodies, etc.).
The number of hours
which professors and assistant professors dedicate to students should be
dramatically increased. Teaching activity should be taken much more into
consideration in the scores of candidates to professorship. All main courses
should be endowed of compulsory training and practical activities; written (and
not merely oral) exams should become the rule and not the exception, as it is
nowadays.
4. Judicial Training Needs: Putting the Focus on the
Efficiency of Justice.
Coming now to
judicial—initial and continuous—training, let us try to see what suggestions
and experiences can be drawn from national and international training
programmes.
Beside the European
Law perspective, which I have tried to underline above, taking into account the
need (in some places, like in Italy, the dramatic need) to have a much more
effective justice, court and case load management should become a compulsory
subject for the initial training, as well as a basic feature of continuous
training, for all judges, but in particular for Heads of Courts. In this
framework, the activity and the official documents of CEPEJ (Council of Europe)
on quality of justice and on judicial time management [9]
should become a common acquis for all
European judges.
Being myself a
member of one of those organisms, I would like to recommend judicial training
structures to contact the “SATURN Centre for judicial time management,” [10]
whose main task is to collect information necessary for the knowledge of
judicial timeframes in the member States and detailed enough to enable member
states to implement policies aiming to prevent violations of the right to a
fair trial within a reasonable time protected by Article 6 of the European
Convention on Human Rights.
Recently, in the
framework of the activity of such group, we decided to start up coaching
sessions with local courts applying for help: for instance we developed a Court
coaching programme (on a volunteer basis) for the effective use of the CEPEJ’s
tools and guidelines, on the basis of an implementation protocol; such
activities have already been done, just to give some examples, in Malta and we
are planning to expand them in other countries which do not even belong to
Europe, but which applied for help, like e.g. the Supreme Court of Palestine,
in Ramallah. Just to give another example, some Courts (e.g. Focsani, in
Romania and Clermont-Ferrand, in France) addressed us in order to get help
while preparing “Satisfaction Enquiry Questionnaires,” along the lines of the “Handbook
for conducting satisfaction surveys aimed at Court users in Council of Europe’s
member States,” prepared by CEPEJ in 2010.
This is also the
context in which we could take inspiration by some of the programmes of the Ecole Nationale de la Magistrature (E.N.M.) of France. The E.N.M. 2012 programme shows a certain
number of initiatives which are cast under the title “humanités judiciaires.”
The aim is to reach a better understanding of legal and ethical rules which can
lead to a renewed confidence of people in the justice system, at the same time
helping judges to reflect on principles governing their mission.
We find under this
title many courses dedicated to ethical and disciplinary issues, as well as to
problems linked to the civil liability of the State and of judges for wrongful
judgments. We can also find training activities on the essence of the “act of
judging,” such as a reflection on judging in literature, philosophy, sociology,
history, or on some thorny issues, like the problem of the “laity” of State and
possible conflicts with religious feelings of part of the people, etc.
I hope that these
few reflections of mine can contribute to debate on how to improve judicial
training in the third millennium, in order to help European judges to develop a
higher degree of awareness about their sharing a common heritage and hopefully
a common future.
(*) Presentation submitted to the “Menu for
Justice Project” Workshop, organised by IRSIG-CNR (Istituto per la ricerca sui sistemi giudiziari del Consiglio Nazionale
delle Ricerche), with financial support from the “Life Long Learning
Programme of the European Commission – Education and Culture DG”, held within
the Department of Political Science of the University of Bologna, in Bologna,
on 29-30 March 2012.
[1] On the issues of legal and judicial training see Cappelletti, Studio del diritto e tirocinio professionale
in Italia e Germania, Milano, 1957, passim;
Pisani Massamormile, La legge professionale forense e l’esigenza
di formazione dell’avvocato, in Giur. it., 1990, IV, c. 1; A. Padoa Schioppa, Per una riforma degli
studi universitari di giurisprudenza in Italia, in Foro it., 1991,
V, c. 517; Id., Il modello
dell’ insegnamento del diritto in Italia, in Foro it., 1995, V, c.
413; Consolo e Mazzarolli, La formazione dell’avvocato. L’Università, in Giur. it.,
1993, IV, c. 381; Franchini, La formazione professionale e scientifica
nell’Università, in Dir. e società, 1993, p. 363; Levine, Legal Education, New
York, 1993, passim; Bartole, Per una valutazione
comparativa dell’ordinamento del potere giudiziario nei Paesi dell’Europa
continentale, in Studium juris,
1996, p. 531; Borgna and Cassano,
Il giudice e il principe. Magistratura e
potere politico in Italia e in Europa, Roma, 1997, p. 107; Oberto, Verardi
and Viazzi, Il
reclutamento e la formazione professionale dei magistrati in Italia e in Europa,
in Aa. Vv., L’esame di uditore giudiziario, Milano, 1997, p. 41; Spantigati, La formazione del
giurista strumentale alla costruzione del «sistema», in Pol. dir.,
1997, p. 125; Caianiello, Formazione
e selezione dei giudici in un’ipotesi comparativa, in Giur. it., 1998, p. 387; Donati,
Storicismo e antistoricismo nella formazione del giurista, in Jus,
1998, p. 307; Mariani Marini, I
problemi irrisolti della formazione comune tra avvocati e magistrati, in Rass.
forense, 1998, p. 827; Id., Tradizione e innovazione nella formazione
dell’avvocato, in Rass. forense, 1999, p. 47; Id., Agli antipodi dell’azzeccagarbugli (un modello
formativo per l’avvocatura), in Rass.
forense, 2000, p. 501; Padoa Schioppa,
Una formazione professionale unitaria per superare le diffidenze tra le
categorie, in Guida al Diritto, Il Sole 24 ore, 1998, n. 42,
p.11; Alpa, L’accesso alla
professione forense: nuove prospettive per l’avvocatura, in Nuova giur.
civ. comm., 1999, II, p. 193; Dogliani
and Sicardi, La riforma
degli ordinamenti didattici e il diritto costituzionale, in Quaderni
costituz., 1999, p. 563; Mariani
Marini, Una formazione a servizio dell’avvocatura per governare le
trasformazioni in atto, in Guida al Diritto, Il Sole 24 ore,
1999, n. 9, p. 11; Moccia, La
formazione dell’«avvocato europeo»: questioni e risposte di prospettiva, in
Riv. trim. dir. proc. civ., 1999, p. 567; Various Authors, Traité
d’organisation judiciaire comparée, I, Zürich-Bruxelles, 1999, passim; Oberto, Recrutement, formation et carrière des magistrats dans le système
juridique et constitutionnel italien, in Aa.
Vv., Que formação para os
magistrados hoje?, Lisbona, 2000, p. 185-209, (https://www.giacomooberto.com/portugal/rapport.htm); Id., Recrutement et
formation des magistrats: le système italien dans le cadre des principes
internationaux sur le statut des magistrats et l’indépendence du pouvoir
judiciaire, in Riv. dir. priv., 2001, p. 717; Id.,
La formazione dei magistrati italiani nell’ottica della formazione del
giurista europeo, in La magistratura, 1/2 (gennaio-giugno), 2002, p.
40; Id., Recrutement et
formation des magistrats en Europe. Etude comparative, Strasbourg, 2003, passim; Id.,
Magistrati. Reclutamento e formazione. Studio comparato fra sistemi europei,
Collana «Inchieste e proposte», diretta da Giuseppe Salerno, n. 37, Roma, 2003,
passim; Id., La formazione dei
magistrati alla luce dei principi internazionali e dei profili di diritto
comparato, Collana «Le monografie di Contratto e impresa. Serie di Diritto comparato, diretta da Francesco
Galgano e Franco Ferrari», Padova, 2008, passim;
Fragola, Prime riflessioni
sulle nuove lauree universitarie, in Riv. giur. scuola, 2001, p. 3; Open Society Institute/Eu Accession, Monitoring
Programme, Monitoring the EU
Accession Process: Judicial Independence, Budapest, 2001, passim; Pascuzzi,
La formazione del giurista: il ruolo dell’informatica, in Dir. e
formazione, 2002, p. 287; Phare
Orizontal Program on Justice and Home Affairs, Reinforcement of the Rule of Law, Nimega, 2002; Danovi, Le iniziative del C.C.B.E.
per la formazione dell’avvocato in Europa: analisi e proposte, in Dir. e
formazione, 2002, p. 293; Ranieri,
Giuristi per l’Europa: come fare e come non fare una riforma degli studi di
diritto in Italia: http://www.jura.uni-sb.de/projekte/Bibliothek/text.php?id=296;
Carrick and Walters, A Bibliography of United States
Legal Education: From Litchfield to Lexis, Buffalo, 2003, passim; von Bogdandy, Prospettive della scienza giuridica nell’area giuridica europea. Una
riflessione sulla base del caso tedesco, in Foro it., 2012, V, c. 54; Grasso,
Per una cultura giuridica comune: la
nuova dimensione della formazione giudiziaria in Europa. L’impegno delle
istituzioni europee e il contributo della magistratura italiana, in Foro it., 2012, IV, c. 107.
[2] See von Bogdandy, loc. cit.
[3] See Directorate General for Internal
Policies – Policy Department C: Citizens’ Rights And Constitutional Affairs –
Legal Affairs Judicial Training in
the European Union Member States: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/committees/en/studiesdownload.html?languageDocument=EN&file=60091.
[4] See p. 140.
[5] See p. 142-148.
[8] On such issues see Bollettinari,
Court Management in Italy: from the
‘Strasbourg Programme’ to Current Law Reform under the Framework of European
Principles, to be published in Contratto
e impresa/Europa, 2012.