robe
The term Robe referred festive and solemn garments of very different form and purpose, including in particular the vast, jacket-like garments that in many countries of the world as official dress of lawyers , academics and clerics are worn. Floor-length, one-piece women's dresses are also called this. Today these are mainly ball and evening dresses, in the historical context all one-piece dresses ( robe à l'anglaise , robe à la française ).
International dishes
The robes used at the international courts of justice are usually designed with an emphasis on simple and without any details that could be assigned to the typical legal costume of a certain state or cultural area.
- The judges of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague wear simple pleated robes in black with velvet trimmings and jabots made of white lace. Representatives of the parties wear the traditional costume of their respective country, provided they are lawyers.
- The judges of the permanent International Criminal Court (ICC) wear black robes with pleated white jabots.
- The judges at the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia wear robes made of black and red silk and white jabots.
- At the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) , which has its seat in Hamburg, the judges wear robes of dark blue color and with black velvet lapels, with jabots instead of ties.
- The judges of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) wear red robes with dark velvet trimmings and pleated jabots made of white fabric.
- The judges of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) of the Council of Europe in Strasbourg wear deep blue robes with white jabots.
Germany
History of the German legal robe
In the Middle Ages and in the early modern period , the official costume of judges and other lawyers acting in court was very different from region to region. Urban judicial bodies, in particular, demonstrated their status with particularly sumptuous official robes and insignia, while in rural regions the judicial officials were often completely uniformed.
The Prussian "Soldier King" Friedrich Wilhelm I first issued uniform legal attire in a personal letter to his Justice Minister Christian Friedrich Freiherr von Bartholdi on April 2, 1713, whose orders by decree of April 5, 1713 were assigned to the Higher Appeal Court, the Privy Council of Justice, the Court of Justice and the Consistory Berlin were informed:
- "The atvocattos should go black with a little bit of their knees / the procuratores [should] wear a black Rogck without a coat with a rahbaht [discount: French" flap "] that goes on the chest / the general fischall [general -Fiscal] should act against those who will not go against it and should [these] carts [do charitable work]. "
In the course of the 18th and 19th centuries, this “coat”, commonly known as a robe, was adopted by other German territories in an identical or modified form. After the founding of the Empire in 1871, the Prussian robe finally established itself as the uniform German legal costume. In 1970 the Federal Constitutional Court ruled that it was national customary law that lawyers were obliged to appear in robe before the regional courts and higher courts, including in civil matters. To this day, the wearing of the robe during oral court hearings is compulsory for judges , lawyers and certain court employees (clerks at the office) in some federal states ; For example, a judge can exclude a lawyer from taking part in the hearing if he has appeared without a robe. In 2006 the Munich Higher Regional Court ruled that as a defense lawyer in Bavaria, a lawyer was obliged to wear a white shirt and a white necktie under the black robe. However, there are some exceptions; In practice, the requirement to wear a robe is also handled with very different degrees of severity. According to the professional code of conduct for lawyers (BORA), civil cases may be appeared at local courts without a robe, in Bremen and in some other places this is even common at the regional court. Section 20 of the BORA stipulates that the lawyer in court wears the robe as a professional costume, insofar as this is customary. However, there is no professional obligation to appear in robe at the district court in civil matters.
Wearing a tie with a lawyer’s robe still corresponds to the reality of everyday life in criminal courts. However, following a ruling by the Mannheim Regional Court, the so-called mandatory tie has become doubtful because Section 20 of the BORA no longer stipulates the obligation to wear a tie.
The robe serves different purposes in the process. On the one hand, in Germany and in large parts of the world, it is the traditional dress of the legal functionaries, a symbol of judicial dignity and a visual distinguishing feature. On the other hand, it obscures the clothing and appearance of the person wearing it. The robed people in court do not act as private individuals, but exclusively as functional elements of the legal system in the positions assigned to them by the legislature. Due to its uniformity, the attorney's robe also expresses that all its wearers in the process are treated equally within the framework of the legal requirements and are to be treated equally by the court, regardless of whether someone can afford an expensive suit or wears normal street clothes, for example. The spoken word counts - the defense or the lecture. With the exception of commercial judges, the wearing of robes is neither required nor exempted in most federal states for honorary judges . In Berlin, the obligation to wear a black robe as an official costume also applies to honorary judges.
Types of legal robe
In Germany, attorneys and defense attorneys ( Section 20 BORA), patent attorneys (execution like judges at the Federal Patent Court , see below), judges, public prosecutor's office and clerks wear robes, but not the office manager, assessor or the trainee attending the negotiation for training purposes. At the chambers for commercial matters, the commercial judges (previously: honorary judges) also wear black judges' robes. Honorary judges at labor courts , social courts , at the agricultural chambers of the regional courts and lay judges in criminal proceedings do not wear a robe. Exceptions are possible, for example in Hamburg: “As an outward sign of equality in their rulings, in Hamburg - like the professional judges - they wear a robe as an official costume. This is made available to them by the court ”. In administrative court proceedings, the robe is sometimes worn by representatives of the public interest or the state attorneys / senior state attorneys (job title varies in the federal states). Trainees wear different robes depending on their activity. As defense counsel you wear the robe of a lawyer, in public defender matters in Saxony-Anhalt that of the clerk and as an official of the public prosecutor's office you wear a public prosecutor's robe. In the district of the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe , the robe of the clerk is intended for all trials.
In addition, the representatives of the secondary prosecution in criminal proceedings and the representatives of the interests of children and young people in child protection and family matters ( child and youth attorney , guard advisor , procedural counsel ) may wear a robe. Practice shows, however, that very little use is made of this, even though these cases are also independent party representatives. If a robe is worn, the attorney's robe or the robe of the registrar (black undergarment / black velvet trim with golden piping) is worn.
District or district notaries in Baden-Württemberg who work as probate or guardianship judges do not wear a robe.
The design and way of wearing the robe are regulated in various ordinances and decrees, depending on the state up to the standardization of patterns (e.g. Saxony-Anhalt: Order on the official costume in the division of the Ministry of Justice, MBl. LSA No. 8/1992 ). The official costume of the highest federal courts is regulated by order of the Federal President. The jurist's robe, which is common in all German countries today, is a coat without a collar, with wide sleeves and a fold in the back, which reaches about the middle of the calf and which can be closed on the front by a concealed button placket. For this, of men a white tie or a white bow tie , women a white scarf worn - in principle this applies to all robed, but is often not respected by lawyers today. The robe itself consists of cotton, new wool or a mixed fabric (e.g. Trevira / new wool) , depending on the design and quality . The hems are provided with trimmings , the material of which provides information about the function of the respective wearer:
| Trim | function |
|---|---|
| Velvet (wide) | Judge or prosecutor |
| Velvet (narrow) | District attorney or judicial officer |
| Atlas silk | Attorney or patent attorney |
| Woolen fabric | Registrar of the office |
Only in the courts of the district of the Stuttgart Higher Regional Court in the Württemberg jurisdiction do lawyers wear robes with velvet trimmings. The officials of the Federal Prosecutor General at the Federal Court of Justice wear a crimson robe with trimmings of the same color before all courts, as did the Federal Disciplinary Prosecutor before . The officials of the federal disciplinary attorney wore a red or a black robe depending on the court.
The color of the robe allows judges to assign the wearer to a specific branch of the court:
The scarlet robes of the judges of the Federal Constitutional Court do not correspond to the type of robe that is otherwise common in Germany. Rather, they were specially designed in the 1950s by a Munich costume designer who chose a 15th century judge's costume from the city of Florence as a model . Constitutional Court judges wear special berets and instead of Ties Jabots , long white neck binding, which the Protestant pastors to Amtstracht belonging Geneva bands are similar.
In the past, in addition to the robe, a characteristically shaped beret was part of the official costume of judges, state attorneys and lawyers. According to the official specifications, the beret consisted of a round cut and slightly folded headboard made of wool, which was provided with a wide brim that was attached to the lower edge of the beret, stiffly protruding upwards and triangular incised on the sides. The colors and materials of the berets corresponded to those of the respective robes, with the outside of the brim being made of the same material as the robe trim.
As an additional feature, judges and prosecutors' berets had one or more strands (cords) running around the edge of the brim, the color and design of which indicated the rank of the wearer:
| Art | Position of the carrier (partly historical) |
|---|---|
| a crimson braid | officials acting for the representative of the federal interest |
| two crimson strands | Judge at the Federal Administrative Court; Federal judges in disciplinary matters; Federal disciplinary attorney; Bundeswehr disciplinary attorney ; Judge at the Federal Labor Court; Judge at the Federal Social Court |
| a silver braid | District Court Director; Chairman of a Federal Disciplinary Chamber; judicial members of the service chambers; First public prosecutor at a regional court |
| two silver strands | District Court President |
| a golden strand | Senate President at a higher regional court; Vice President and Senate President of the Federal Patent Court; Presiding judge at the Federal Administrative Court; Chief Public Prosecutor |
| two golden strands | President of the Higher Regional Court, President of the Federal Patent Court; Senate President of the Federal Disciplinary Court; Presiding judge at the Federal Labor Court; Presiding judge at the Federal Social Court |
| three golden strands | President of the Federal Administrative Court; President of the Federal Disciplinary Court; President of the Federal Labor Court; President of the Federal Social Court; Representative of the federal interest at the Federal Administrative Court |
| a gold clasp | officials appearing for the federal disciplinary attorney before the federal disciplinary court; Defense disciplinary attorneys and the officials appearing for the armed forces disciplinary attorney before the Federal Disciplinary Court |
| a silver clasp | officials appearing for the federal disciplinary attorney before the federal disciplinary chambers; Defense disciplinary attorneys and the officers appearing for the armed forces disciplinary attorney in front of the troop service chambers |
The lawyers' beret was abolished in 1936 as part of an amendment to the official costume regulations by the Nazi regime. The badges of rank on judges' berets ceased to exist in 1966 with the abolition of the former judicial titles; the judges 'and prosecutors' berets then went out of use. The Federal Patent Court has waived the wearing of berets since around 1980. Berets are only still in use at the Federal Court of Justice. The beret is still regulated by federal law for judges and federal prosecutors. The judges of the Federal Constitutional Court wear special berets, which differ from the traditional shape, made of red silk fabric with a surrounding edge without triangular incisions.
Legal questions about the robe
Individual state rights, e.g. B. in Baden-Württemberg, § 21 of the law for the implementation of the Courts Constitution Act and procedural laws of the ordinary jurisdiction of December 16, 1975 (AGGVG), provide that judges, representatives of the public prosecutor, lawyers and clerks of the office in the to negotiate and For the announcement of a decision, certain meetings must wear an official costume, unless in the individual case, in the opinion of the court, the interest in finding a law requires a different regulation. Nationwide in § 20 BORA it is regulated that the lawyer wears the robe as a professional costume in court, as far as this is customary (with the exception of appearing before the district courts in civil matters) and taking into account the fact that customary aspects may speak in favor of a robe will be carried. Wearing the robe should protect the documentation of the lawyer's position as an organ of the administration of justice as well as the dignity of the course of a court hearing. An application to the 6th constitutional assembly of the Federal Bar Association to abolish the robe requirement for lawyers was rejected in May 2019 in the Bar Parliament with 70 to 2 votes. In the debate, as a justification for wearing the robe at the hearing, in addition to the historical tradition of the official costume, in particular natural parties are "made clear ... that it is a court hearing and not any everyday life situation." becomes clear through the robe "the special role of the lawyer in the judicial structure".
For the Federal Constitutional Court there is a considerable public interest in “that court hearings can be conducted in a good order and in an appropriate form. It serves this purpose if the lawyers involved in the negotiation also wear official attire. This lifts you out of the group of other participants in the negotiation; its position as an independent body responsible for administering justice is made visible. This also has an at least indirect benefit for establishing the law and truth in the process; because the clarity of the situation in the negotiation room is promoted and at the same time a contribution is made to the creation of an atmosphere of balance and objectivity in which only case law can present itself in an appropriate form. If one takes into account that this is a minor impairment of the free exercise of the profession, which as a burden is hardly more than trivial, it also follows from this that the principle of proportionality is not violated ”. Based on these considerations, the BVerfG came to the conclusion that there is a customary law obligation for lawyers to wear robes before the regional courts.
On the other hand, it can be inferred from a ruling by the Lower Saxony State Labor Court in 2008 that it weighed up legal interests to the detriment of Robe. The LAG Niedersachsen had decided that a lawyer must not be excluded from a labor court hearing if he appears without a robe. In this decision, however, the Lower Saxony LAG was not so much concerned with the lack of official costume, but with the consequences of excluding the lawyer concerned from the negotiation. As a result, the proper representation of the party is no longer guaranteed and a poor performance from the lawyer's contract is associated with it, which could have a direct impact on the attorney's claim to fees. Furthermore, it is at the same time an interference with the rights of the represented party, which is now without legal representative. This could result in considerable disadvantages, for example due to the fact that a default judgment can be issued, further necessary factual submissions are not made or applications to be submitted are not made. In § 176 GVG, the judge is only granted the right to reprimand not wearing a robe and to work towards having one put on, provided that an obligation to wear a robe can be assumed. However, the provision does not justify any further regulatory measures.
The Munich Higher Regional Court ruled differently in 2006 and considered the order to appoint a public defender in addition to the “T-shirt defense attorney” to be lawful.
Austria
In Austria, the term “robe” is not used, but the “ gown ”, which together with the judge's headgear, the beret, forms the “official dress”. This was introduced in its current form at the end of the 19th century.
The appearance of the judicial official gown is regulated in the ordinance of the Federal Ministry of Justice of May 9, 1962 on the composition, wearing and duration of the official gown of judges . Then it consists of a black, wrinkled gown reaching to the ankle, the collar lapel and wide sleeves of which are trimmed with velvet, which are edged in purple. The beret is also black and has velvet on the lower side, the transition to the black fabric of the upper half is also formed by a purple border. In addition, according to the rules of procedure, white shirts and black ties are worn, which, however, is handled differently by the various courts.
Wearing the official dress is mandatory in all negotiations, but is increasingly out of practice in civil proceedings - especially in the more informal "proceedings outside of disputes" (amicable divorce, determination of paternity, various tenancy law matters, etc.). In contrast, the gown is still used in criminal proceedings. The beret is rarely used here either, but is still worn mainly in jury criminal cases and higher instances.
The status of the judge within the judicial hierarchy is indicated by different trimmings on the collar ends and sleeves of the gowns on the appearance of the berets:
| rank | Collar trim | beret |
|---|---|---|
| all judges of the district courts, regional courts and higher regional courts (if not listed individually below) | black gown with a purple bordered black velvet stripe | black gown with a purple bordered black velvet stripe |
| Presidents of the Courts of First Instance | black velvet edged in purple | black velvet trimmed with purple velvet |
| Senate presidents of the higher regional courts | black velvet edged in purple | black velvet trimmed with purple velvet |
| Vice-President of the Higher Regional Courts | black velvet edged in purple | black velvet trimmed with purple velvet |
| Presidents of the higher regional courts | black velvet with 6 cm wide trimmings made of rabbit fur | black velvet trimmed with purple velvet |
| Councilors of the Supreme Court | purple velvet | purple velvet |
| President of the Senate of the Supreme Court | violet velvet with 6 cm wide trimmings made of rabbit fur | purple velvet |
| Vice President of the Supreme Court | violet velvet with 6 cm wide trimmings made of rabbit fur | purple velvet |
| President of the Supreme Court | violet velvet with 12 cm wide trimmings made of rabbit fur | purple velvet |
The official clothes of the public prosecutors correspond to those of the judges on the same level with the difference that the purple parts of these are bright red. The judges of the Federal Administrative Court wear the same official clothes as the judges of the district courts. The members of the Administrative Court wear the corresponding gowns of purple color, the members of the Constitutional Court wear the gowns like the judges of the Supreme Court. In criminal negotiations before the district courts, the public prosecutors are represented by district attorneys who are bound by their instructions and who are not permitted to wear an official dress.
For lawyers, the wearing of the gown is regulated by the regulation of the Ministry of Justice of June 17, 1904, which is still valid today , which allows lawyers, candidates for lawyers and defense lawyers to wear an official dress .
The attorneys' official dress is black with no colored trimmings; otherwise it corresponds in cut and execution to the simple official dress of the judges and public prosecutors. The beret - which must be worn during the pronouncement of a judgment or the taking of an oath - also corresponds to that of the judge without colored trimmings. It has become almost entirely uncommon for lawyers to wear gowns and essentially only takes place in criminal jury cases and before the Supreme Court.
Switzerland
In Switzerland, it is not customary to wear robes in the German-speaking cantons or at federal courts. In some cantons of French-speaking Switzerland is - on the French model - the wearing of robes by court people and lawyers, however custom or regulation.
United States
In the United States, in the first decades after the Declaration of Independence, complex regulations arose with regard to the legal attire of lawyers, which on the one hand emphasized the democratic character of the new state by dispensing with British aristocratic elements such as wigs and ermines , and on the other hand adequately emphasized the dignity of the courts should express. The individual states came to quite different results. In the 19th and 20th centuries there was a gradual standardization and simplification of the originally very splendid official costumes.
Today judges of the lower and middle jurisdiction usually wear simple black robes, the cut and execution roughly correspond to the type common in Germany. There are no special requirements for judges with regard to the color of shirt collars and ties; Judges prefer long, scarf-like collars, mostly white in color.
The individual states have made individual regulations for the judges' attire for their supreme courts. Sometimes very splendid robes are used, e.g. B. in Maryland based on the British model, but without wigs.
At the United States Supreme Court , justices wear plain black robes with no special features. Constitutional Justice Neil Gorsuch referred to this tradition in his inaugural address on March 20, 2017:
“Putting on a robe reminds us that it's time to lose our egos and open our minds. It serves, too, as a reminder of the modest station we judges are meant to occupy in a democracy. In other countries, judges wear scarlet, silk, and ermine. Here, we judges buy our own plain black robes. And I can report that the standard choir outfit at the local uniform supply store is a pretty good deal. Ours is a judiciary of honest black polyester. "
In 1994 the then Chairman of the Supreme Court, William Rehnquist , introduced a special robe for himself as a sign of his rank, which, based on the official costume of the British Lord Chancellor, had four gold stripes on the sleeve ends, but otherwise of the usual type of the US - American judge's robe. Rehnquist's successor John G. Roberts, Jr. did not take over the new official costume, but wears the usual black robe again.
Prosecutors, attorneys, and court officials in the United States do not wear robes but appear in court in everyday clothing. The only exception to this is the official attire of the United States Solicitor General , who wears a special cutaway in the style of the late 19th century when the Supreme Court is negotiating .
Jurisprudence
- Federal Constitutional Court , NJW 1970, 851
- Higher Regional Court , NJW 1970, 482
- Higher Regional Court Braunschweig , NJW 1995, 2113 = DRiZ 1995, 482 = AnwBl 1995, 371
- Higher Regional Court Munich , NJW 2006, 3079
- Administrative Court Berlin , NJW 2007, 793
- Lower Saxony State Labor Court , AnwBl 2008, 883
literature
- Dieter Riemer : The robe, the judge's favorite thing. In: Deutsche Richterzeitung . Vol. 73, No. 12, 1995, p. 481.
- Henning Wassermann : Comment on OLG Braunschweig v. April 27, 1995 - 1 W 12/95. In: Lawyer Gazette . Vol. 45, 1995, p. 556.
- Anton Braun: Official costume or robe? In: BRAK-Mitteilungen . Vol. 27, 1996, p. 181.
- Horst Eylmann : The Articles of Association should end the robe dispute. In: Lawyer Gazette. Vol. 46, 1996, p. 190, anwaltverein.de (PDF; 1.04 MB)
- Rüdiger Zuck: Dress codes. In: New legal weekly . Vol. 50, 1997, 2092
- Walther Pielke: Lawyers are required to wear robes. In: New legal weekly. Vol. 60, 2007, p. 3251.
Web links
Individual evidence
- ↑ Acta Borussica I p. 382 ; more on this at q: Friedrich Wilhelm I. (Prussia)
- ^ LG Mannheim, decision of January 27, 2009, Az. 4 Qs 52/08, full text .
- ↑ "General Disposal on the Official Costume of the Berlin Administration of Justice". Info page of the Administrative Court Berlin
- ↑ Guide (PDF) justiz.hamburg.de; accessed on December 6, 2016.
- ↑ To wear the robe at the appointment replacement for lawyers: Thorsten Vehslage: Appointment replacement for lawyers by trainee lawyers . In: Journal for the Legal Practice . 1999, p. 647-650 (650) .
- ↑ Federal Law Gazette I p. 122
- ↑ no. II no. 1 letter a) of the order on the official costume at the courts AV d. JM of August 8, 2006 (3152- Z.5) - JMBl. NRW p. 193 -
- ^ Pia Lorenz: Motion in the Lawyers' Parliament: Soon to go to court without a robe? In: Legal Tribune Online. May 3, 2019, accessed May 6, 2019 .
- ↑ Lawyers' parliament rejects the motion: Robe remains mandatory. In: Legal Tribune Online. May 6, 2019, accessed May 6, 2019 .
- ↑ BVerfG, judgment of February 18, 1970, Az. 1 BvR 226/69, NJW 1970, 851 ff.
- ^ LAG Lower Saxony, decision of September 29, 2008, Az. 16 Ta 333/08, full text .
- ↑ OLG Munich, decision of July 14, 2006, Az. 2 Ws 679/06 and 2 Ws 684/06, NJW 2006, 3079 = reasoning for the decision. ( Page no longer available , search in web archives ) Info: The link was automatically marked as defective. Please check the link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. (PDF) In: BRAK-Mitteilungen , 06/2006, p. 289
- ↑ StF: RGBl. No. 59/1904
- ↑ [1]
