Understanding the Distinctions: A Comparison of the

Greek and German Judiciary Systems

Most of us will have very similar pictures associated with the word 'courtroom': a place where
lawyers argue passionately, maybe with a judge or possibly a jury. But around the world,
justice administered can vary differently. Germany and Greece, despite their proximity to
Europe, show how different legal systems can be. In the light of above this article
demonstrates the difference between structural foundations, judicial independence, key
areas of jurisdiction, approaches to legal interpretation, and public accessibility of the Greek
and German judiciary systems.

1. Structural Foundations
Civil Law vs. Inquisitorial Systems

There is a difference at the core of the legal structure. Greece follows the Civil Law system,
codifying Roman Law and the Napoleonic Code, where the judge applies the codified laws.
On the other hand, in Germany, the judges work within an inquisitorial system and can be
active in investigations, for example, through obtaining evidence or questioning witnesses.

Hierarchical Organization of Courts

Greece has three levels in the judiciary: the Courts of First Instance, the Courts of Appeal,
and the Administration Courts. High Courts bear the responsibility of issuing final appellate
jurisdiction, where they will review the decision of lower courts. It ensures consistency and
fairness in judicial administration.

Germany follows a more complex structure with distinct branches for civil, criminal, and
administrative matters. The system includes Local Courts (Amtsgerichte), Regional Courts
(Landgerichte), Higher Regional Courts (Oberlandesgerichte), and the Federal Court of
Justice (Bundesgerichtshof). Each court has its own jurisdiction and specialization,
contributing to a comprehensive legal framework.

2. Judicial Independence and Selection

Appointment and Tenure of Judges

In Greece, judges are selected through a rigorous examination process examined by the
Supreme Council of Civil and Criminal Justice. The appointment of judges are for lifetime,
ensure the independence of political interference

While Germany follows a mixed system where judges are appointed for lifetime and given
security of tenure. However, the appointment and selection of these judges are examined
thoroughly by various institutions such as judicial nominating commissions and political
representatives. Thus, the system aims to balance judicial independence with democratic
accountability.

Safeguards for Judicial Impartiality

Both countries provide mechanisms that safeguards the judiciary. Banning Greek judges
from political activities creates a protectionist environment for neutral judges. Germany
emphasizes the principle of an “unremovable judge,” thus safeguarding judges from external
pressure.

3. Key Areas of Jurisdiction

Ordinary Courts (Civil and Criminal)

In Greece, ordinary courts handle civil and criminal cases. From small arguments between
neighbors, to severe offenses. Their task is to interpret and apply the law, following the legal
codes.

Ordinary German courts are subordinated to civil and criminal branches. The Local and
Regional Courts hear civil cases. Criminal cases fall under Local and Regional Criminal
Courts. These courts guarantee fair trial and performance of the legal procedure.

Specialized Courts (Administrative, Labor, etc.)

Specialized courts exist in both Greece and Germany addressing specific legal issues.
Greece has Administrative Courts for disputes involving public administration and
Administrative Appeals Courts for appeals. Labor Courts in Germany handle employment
disputes, ensuring specialized expertise in labor law.

Constitutional Courts

The role of constitutional courts is pivotal in both countries. Greece has a Council of State
that deals with issues on constitutional and administrative laws for compliance with the
Greek Constitution, and for Germany, the Federal Constitutional Court ensures the
constitutionality of the law and protection from basic law human rights.

4. Role of Precedent and Legal Interpretation

Binding Nature of Prior Decisions

Greece does not have the concept of binding precedent. This means the court's decision
does not create a binding rule for all future courts to follow. Instead, it follows a decision to
be persuasive, for guidance. This gives Greek courts more flexibility and adaptability.

Whereas, in Germany, the principle of state decisis or binding precedent holds utmost
importance. When a higher court makes a decision, the lower courts are required to follow
the decision. This provides a clear and stable framework for legal decisions.
Approaches to Statutory Interpretation

Greek judges focus on the literal interpretation of statutes, adhering closely to the wording of
the law. This ensures clarity and precision in legal application, reducing ambiguity.

Conversely, German courts expanded their approach to interpret the statuses. The factors
included for this approach are Legislative intent and Social context for a nuanced
understanding and equitable outcomes

5. Public Perception and Accessibility

Levels of Trust in the Judiciary

In Greece, the judiciary has faced criticism regarding public trust. These criticisms include
concerns about corruption and perceptions of inefficiency. Efforts like transparency and
accountability have been introduced to restore confidence in the legal system.

The German judiciary enjoys a high level of trust. Several factors, including, reputation for
fairness, professionalism, adherence to rule of law has given the positive perception to its
people.

Mechanisms for Dispute Resolution

Both Greece and Germany offer Arbitrary Dispute Resolution (ADR) mechanisms such as
mediation and arbitration. This aims to ease the burden on traditional court systems by
providing parties with flexibility, efficiency and cost-effectiveness to resolve conflict outside
the court proceedings.

In conclusion, Greece operates under a civil law system which is based on codified laws. It
does not recognize binding precedent. Also, judges focus on literal translations, sticking to
the word of law. Whereas, ongoing effort for transparency and effectiveness is going on to
ensure public trust. Germany follows both the Inquisitorial System and Binding Precedent.
Decisions made by higher courts are bound to be followed by lower courts. Germany enjoys
a higher level of trust due to its professionalism, fairness and adherence to the rule. Both
prioritize judicial independence, fairness and accessibility to uphold the rule of law.

These differences, in fact, throws light over the dissimilar fashion of justice administration in
the European background and points with the rich diversity of legal traditions shaping the
modern constellation of legal systems.

Sources:

1. “Judicial Systems and Human Rights - Greece” European Commission for the Efficiency
of Justice (CEPEJ), Council of Europe.

2. “The German Legal System and Legal Language” German Law Archive, University of
Oxford.
3. “The Greek Legal System” G. Papadimitriou, A. Michalopoulos, European e-Justice
Portal.

4. “Comparative Legal Systems” V. Palmer, Stanford Law School.

5. “Judicial Independence in Germany” German Embassy Washington D.C.