APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2009/06/16: CIA-RDP01-00707R000200110016-6
freedom of expression in politics and is even permitted to hold elective office on the national or local level without sacrifice of his permanent job status.
6. Judiciary
Danish law initially owed little to Roman or common law antecedents but, rather, had a history of its own, stretching back at least eight centuries. In the year 1200 there were three separate geographic areas of jurisdiction, each with its own system of law: Jutland, Zealand, and Seanea in the present southern Sweden. The Jutland Code gradually came to supplant the others throughout the kingdom, but was then supplemented in different regions with different local enactments of significance. In 1633 a comprehensive amalgamation to impose uniformity was undertaken, and the Code of King Christian V was set down. In the succeeding two centuries, however, much additional legal legislation, reflecting both Roman and common law influences, was promulgated, without being incorporated into the code proper. Efforts at a renewed amalgamation, begun in the mid-19th century, culminated in the passage in 1916 of the Administration of Justice Act (retsplejeloven), which went into force in 1919. With more than a thousand sections, this comprehensive statute provides a basic Civil Code and sets forth legal procedure in both civil and criminal cases. A comprehensive Criminal Code (straffelov) was collated through a series of studies essentially terminated in 1923, and was finally approved and enacted in 1930.
The Danish Criminal Code is primarily concerned with offenses characterized by general Western usage as crimes against society. In the Danish mind the rehabilitation of the criminal takes precedence both morally and legally over retributive justice. Sentences generally are lenient, and prison environments reflect the enlightened penology for which Scandinavia has gained world renown. Deprivation of liberty remains the primary penalty for a criminal act, but special consideration is accorded in certain cases: the mentally disturbed, youthful offenders, and alcoholics. Capital punishment, abolished in 1933, was reinstated following World War II in the instance of treason during wartime. The intent was to provide adequate punishment for those who betrayed their country during the German occupation (1940-1945). Except under extraordinary circumstances, such as those involving national security, justice is pursued in open trial. Specific ad hoc exceptions, however, may be ruled by the judges in the overriding interests of the parties and witnesses concerned or of public morality.
The independent judiciary of Denmark enjoys popular esteem as an effective guardian of individual rights. The Danish judge is protected by the Constitution from outside pressure. He may not be dismissed from his post except by the judgement of a special court, which, like the judge himself, is independent of the government administration, and he may be transferred only in the event of a court reorganization.
The constitution vests all judicial power in the courts. The exercise of this power can be changed only by law. The courts have the right by law to review acts of the executive branch of government but not those of the legislative branch; nor has any tradition of legislative review grown up in Denmark.
The Constitution specifically establishes only the Court of the Realm, a little used tribunal charged with hearing impeachment cases against Cabinet ministers. By stating first that the membership of this court shall include all judges who sit on "the highest court of the land," the Constitution also provides for a Supreme Court and by implication a series of lesser courts. Additionally, the Constitution refers to administrative courts, to be created by statute and to have competence in questions bearing upon the scope of the authority of the executive power. The administrative court system, operative in other Western European countries, including France and West Germany, has yet to be established by the Danes, who seem satisfied with the overall competence of the regular courts.
It is possible in Denmark for a legal case to be decided before it it brought before an established court or before formal proceedings commence in an established court. Minor offenses, such as traffic violations, may be disposed of by police officials, the procedure being analogous to that in police courts in the United States. The Danish Code of Legal Procedure requires that courts prior to hearing a case first attempt conciliation between the parties, unless it is apparent that conciliation is impossible.
There are three echelons to the regular court system, the lowest rank of which is occupied by the district courts, the underretter. District courts may hear cases on appeal from police courts, but they are primarily trial courts of first instance in all criminal cases involving penalties of less than 8 years' imprisonment and not of such a minor nature as to be broad by police courts. In addition, they exercise first instance jurisdiction in minor civil cases. There are just over 100 underretter in Denmark, each served by one to three judges, depending on the size of the district. Exceptions are the cities of Copenhagen and
8
APPROVED FOR RELEASE: 2009/06/16: CIA-RDP01-00707R000200110016-6
