Pact for the rule of law?

Is this about Russia, Ukraine or flagging EU members?

No, the federal and state governments in Germany have agreed under this flag to put more money into the judiciary.

The states are very much in favor of this – so much so that one almost forgets that justice is usually a matter for the states.

The states obviously need the federal government to maintain or restore the rule of law.

This is also known from other areas: the countries that like to insist on their statehood actually let themselves buy competencies.

The pact for the rule of law is about an agreement between the federal and state governments to better equip the judiciary.

Beyond the conference of justice ministers, this is not an issue for the general public, unlike new, supposedly tougher laws or "raids".

The households are small, the justice ministers are not in the front row.

It's all about the nitty-gritty here.

Not because the judiciary is one of the classic departments, but because the rule of law is part of the self-image of the Federal Republic of Germany like few other things.

The state authorities are bound by law and order, the judiciary is independent.

Nothing can be taken for granted, not even in the EU, as the proceedings against Poland and Hungary bear witness to.

And in other neighboring countries, too, the law does not have the same importance (in our case, of course, it is sometimes exaggerated), it is more of one factor among many.

The rule of law is a rather invisible but important location advantage.

You only feel what you really have in him when you want to enforce claims or the state intervenes in basic rights.

But what about the German rule of law?

The complaints about the state of the judiciary and the overburdening of the judiciary are very old.

Germany does not actually have too few judges in relation to its population.

Of course, other countries also get by with significantly fewer members of the judiciary because there are far fewer procedures there.

Complaints are expensive elsewhere.

The quality of the rule of law is also evident here.

In Germany, legal protection is not a privilege for the wealthy.

Of course, politicians do their part to keep the judiciary busy by creating more and more law, not always with good reasons.

Of course, the new law must also be applied.

A remedy is not to be expected here.

This is another reason why the states consider it only right and proper that the federal government, as a job creator for the judiciary, helps the states to increase their judicial staff.

But it's the countries that have to answer the question first, each one for itself, which gives them a good – and independent!

– justice is worth.

It starts with the equipment, especially the digital ones, and doesn't end with the salary.

The differences between the countries show that things can always be done differently.

In any case, more jobs does not mean better justice.

It depends on who is hired and what they make of it.

There is no doubt that the judiciary is in a different competition than it used to be.

When it is complained that the judiciary no longer gets the best applicants and is left behind by law firms and companies, the fact that the activities and the motivation differ significantly is ignored.

There are lawyer types and there are judge types.

For some, earnings are the priority, for others service or work-life balance.

And quite a few are looking for both in the legal profession and in the judiciary: good money and little work.

There is nothing wrong with this wish.

However, if you are too demanding in the civil service (and basically also in the legal profession), you are out of place.

The judiciary must not sink into a part-time trap (with simultaneous entitlement to full resources in each individual case).

Independence and decision-making authority, but above all an ethos of service, should be worth more to applicants in the judiciary than the prospect of fleeting six-figure salaries for a few young professionals in large law firms.

Nevertheless, practical experience, legal experience, which other countries even require, is also very useful for the judiciary.

Judges and prosecutors must not be unworldly spirits, but must be experienced lawyers who can settle or decide cases quickly and who have a feeling that fate is at stake.

Politicians have to take that into account.

A pact for the rule of law must start at the roots, i.e. with the norms and the selection of those who should apply them.