From L. to R. : Eugen Huruba, Adrian Stoica, Abel-Didier Pansard, Jacques Isnard, Ducu Mihai, Adela Deruela Vintila, Mourad Skander, Bernard Menut
An autonomous training centre in Sinaia
The second promotion resulting from the training centre completed its cycle at the time of the seminar of Sinaia on February the 15, and 16 2007.
President Mihai Ducu, always at the head of the evolution, and the members of his board, with the assistance of the secretariat of the Training centre, had decided to mark the event by organising a large international forum with the participation of the two national schools of procedure of France and Tunisia, all members of the International Council of the training of judicial officers.
The topic of these days, “the need for centres of vocational training and the European Order for Payment”, marked perfectly the hot line of this demonstration which consisted in confronting the training modes at the international level and the opening of our Rumanian fellow-members towards a European area.
In the opening of the seminar president Ducu Mihai was to recall the will of the Rumanian Union to promote an occupation of highly qualified and trained judicial officer. He was to indicate that the next stage aimed at the making and the adjustment of an autonomous centre in Sinaia.
To the speech of the president succeeded the short speeches of Mrs Adela Deruela Vintila, director of the professions (notaries, judicial officers, translators, experts) at the ministry for justice and Jacques Isnard, president of the UIHJ.
Mrs. Vintila was to say all her attachment to the occupation of judicial officer and the liberal profession for which she remained enthusiastic a partisan. Furthermore, she specified that she attached a great importance to the vocational training and complimented president Mihai for his initiative in this field while being pleased to be able to take part in this international seminar.
An important school
Then, it was the turn of the representatives of the training centres to speak, with, initially, Mr Abel Pansard, president of the National School of procedure (Paris) who was to draw a very precise picture of the organisation of training in France.
Thus the ENP counts 200 collaborators, that is to say 120 lecturers and 80 correctors for a thousand of students.
The ENP pursues 3 goals:
- Training of the judicial officers
- Training of the trainees
- Training of the collaborators
The ENP, it is also nearly 10.000 corrections of essays per year, 1.600 written documents. The School is directed by an equal board of management of 9 members, i.e. composed for half of judicial officers and another half of employees of judicial officers.
The ENP still includes:
- a scientific council composed by judges, professors at Law, former presidents of the French national chamber of judicial officers, former presidents of the ENP. This council has the aim of ensuring the relay between the ENP and the universities.
- a teaching commission which is charged to deal with the courses, of the subjects and to form a legal watch.
The ENP functions primarily by means of course by correspondence and conferences. It delivers three kinds of diplomas according to the level of knowledge of the candidate.
“The profession in France has been able to evolve quickly, particularly for these 25 last years, thanks to the National School of procedure”, was to conclude president Pansard.
A windfall for the judicial officers
After president Pansard, it was with the turn of Mr. Eugen Huruba, director of the Training centre of the judicial officers of Romania to present the training of the judicial officers of his country.
This centre was created here approximately two years ago. Its objective is turned towards the preparation of the training of the judicial officers. The first steps are encouraging today with the presentation of the 2nd promotion which comprises 60 judicial officers.
According to Mr. Huruba, there remain many points to be improved in particular with the media to develop the image as - was he to say - “we are disputed”. The training is a means of rectifying this situation was to specify the director.
The academic centre organises advanced courses, including with an international opening, in order to support the co-operation with foreign experts.
The teaching concept aims at improving professional qualities of the judicial officers by ensuring a good preparation to the activities while particularly taking care to refine competences as regards enforcement.
- To bring up to date general knowledge,
- To support the publication of a code of ethics,
- To develop seminars and conferences,
- To promote information by improving the communication between the Medias and the citizens,
- To ensure a high level formation as regards distraint,
- To take care to bring knowledge appropriate to the training judicial officers.
In short, this is the program of the training centre which is a windfall for the judicial officers because, according to the comments brought by Mrs Vintila, director of the professions at the ministry for justice, “the judicial officers constitute the only liberal profession which has a training centre”.
Uncertainties of the postal handing-over
The 3rd speaker, Bernard Menut (France), secretary of the UIHJ was to treat topic of “the service per judicial officer and the postal notification”.
In his introduction, Bernard Menut was to recall the ECHR case (Pini/Romania) which devotes the role of the judicial officer. Indeed, according to the Court, “the judicial officer is an essential element of the State of law”.
Overall, this decision is a major direction in that it invites the States to take measures to insure the enforcement of the court decisions.
The heart of the intervention of Mr Menut was articulated around the concept of (legal) information by developing two possibilities: the notification by letter and the personal service by judicial officer.
The speaker showed, with his usual brio, the superiority of the service on the notification while insisting on the legal safety which the physical handing-over of a document by a legal officer conferred. He underlined the double informative nature of the personal service on the one hand with regard to the defendant and on the other hand for the benefit of the judge who can in a formal way know the conditions of the handing-over of the document.
Point by point he dismounted the mechanism of the notification by post by denouncing all its uncertainties. It is time, he concluded, to definitively draw aside the postal notification of the legal system.
Being the high expenses that the personal service would generate, Bernard Menut challenged its “fallacious” assertion. According to him, the cost of a personal service is cheaper, in many regards, to the one of a letter when considering the postal expenses and the costs of the various persons intervening in each stage.
In conclusion, the secretary of the UIHJ was to criticize the attitude of the detractors of the personal service: “one tends to show that the letter is the easy solution. This is neither good, neither equitable, nor economically relevant without considering the legal uncertainty. It is consequently advisable to replace it without restriction by the personal service made by a professional”.
