Special Courts ( Sondergerichte ) in the General Government (1939–1945)


This article presents the legal bases of operation and organisation of the special judiciary in the General Government for the occupied Polish territories. Special courts were subject to the policy pursued by the German authorities in the General Government. The German legislation in the gg delegated to the jurisdiction of special courts chiefly such criminal matters that involved safeguarding German interests in the occupied country. Adjudication in such cases boiled down to applying normative acts related to combatting serious (severe) crime or expressly pursued the German policy in the gg, including the exterminatory anti-Jewish legislation. The special courts created by the German occupier in the General Government were not judicial authorities in the traditional sense. The literature on the topic is not particularly extensive. The article would be the first comprehensive study of this subject written in English.


Introduction
From the very beginning of the war between the Third German Reich and Poland, in the occupied territories of the Polish state, a German structure of power was established.In the initial period, starting from 1 September 1939, the German administration, forming along with the advances of the German army, could be characterised as military administration1.On 17 September 1939, the Soviet Union invaded the eastern areas of the Polish state.As a result of Poland's defeat in the defensive war of 1939, the territory of the Polish state was partitioned2.A part of the western regions was directly incorporated into the Third German Reich, and eastern areas were in control of the Soviet Union.On top of that, out of the central Polish territories a quasi-state entity was created, entirely dependent on the Third German Reich -the General Government for the occupied Polish territories3.This was a state organism with an unspecified status4.Its constitutional foundations were laid down in the Decree of Adolf Hitler of 12 October 19395.At the beginning, the General Government (gg) was supposed to give appearances of compatibility of the German occupation with the norms of international law.The adopted name of the newly created state organism was a reference to the solutions from the period of German and Austrian occupation during the First World War6.The actual status of the General Government was close to that of a colony, which manifested itself in the lack of independent authorities and full subordination to the Third Reich, where also all plans of the occupational authorities were put into practice7.According to the political aspirations of the German authorities, the area of central Poland was to become a peculiar reservation for the Polish, Jewish and, at a later time, Ukrainian population; those territories were also supposed to be subject to unlimited economic exploitation.This was an area where the main part of the plan to exterminate European Jews (Aktion Reinhardt) was put into practice8.The General Government was also a venue where endless terror was used by the German occupier against the inhabitant population, including the most extreme manifestations of Nazi social engineering (Aktion Zamosc, Ukraineraktion)9.
Already in the period of military administration, first judicial bodies started to operate in the occupied Polish territories, which dealt exclusively with criminal matters10.During the military administration of the Wehrmacht (1 September 1939 -26 October 1939), the following courts were established: -martial courts (Militärgerichte) -operating from the beginning to the end of the occupation; -military drumhead courts-martial (militärische Standgerichte) -operating from 12 September 1939 to 26 January 1940; -drumhead courts-martial (Standgerichte) -operating until 31 October 1939; -special courts (Sondergerichte)11.
After the formal establishment of the General Government, the first courts to become legally regulated were special courts.Kurt Wille, Head of the Main Department of Justice in the Cabinet of the General Government pointed, as one 7 Colonial nature, in relation to the Third German Reich, was also afforded to the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, despite ensuring a much higher autonomy level to its inhabitant population.For more on that subject, see: P. of the main reasons behind the creation of special courts, to: 'the expectation to ensure that the combating of serious crime, eradication of which was strongly intended by the German administration in the interest of security in the country, was entrusted to well-tried German judges who, driven by the German sense of order, would step in to vigorously deal with crime'12.Special courts in the gg were established to quickly and efficiently judge crimes introduced to the legal system by occupation legislation.The area of their operation was the General Government.They were formally and organisationally separated from the judiciary operating in the Third Reich, although the role of these courts was similar to the special courts in the Reich.All persons residing on the territory of the General Government, regardless of their nationality, were subject to the special courts of the General Government, in the scope of matters relevant to them.At the same time, the German judiciary was active in the General Government, consisting of two instances -German Courts, and Higher German Courts -which was also organisationally separated from the judiciary of the Third Reich.The tasks of the German judiciary were to adjudicate ordinary criminal cases of persons of German nationality and citizenship, as well as cases in which persons of a nationality other than German were accused and which concerned legally defined German interests.At the same time, the Polish judiciary competent in ordinary criminal cases of the Jewish, Polish, and Ukrainian population operated in the General Government.In turn, Dr Bernhard Kaehlig, who presided over the German prosecutor's offices in Lublin and Radom, in his lecture delivered at the request of the Lublin governor Ernst Zörner at the beginning of 1942, said that the first task of the German courts and special courts was to punish 'savage murders of Volksdeutsche committed by Poles' , which corresponded to the claims of Goebbels's propaganda, and the next task was to combat banditry13.In the structure of the judiciary of the Third Reich, special courts were treated as 'drumhead courts-martial of the home front'14.The purpose of this article is to present the legal bases of operation and organisation of the special judiciary in the General Government.We will indicate and discuss the main pieces of legislation governing the subject matter of the special courts' operation and their position in the judiciary system of the General Government.It will also be necessary to assess those courts from the perspective of international law.The authors will also discuss the question what substantive and procedural law was applied by the special courts in the General Government.As an example of the judicial practice of these courts, the analysis of the functioning of the Special Court in Częstochowa (Sondergericht Tschenstochau) will be discussed.
The research hypothesis of this article assumes that special courts were subject to the policy pursued by the German authorities in the General Government.The German legislation in the gg delegated to the jurisdiction of special courts chiefly such criminal matters that involved the safeguarding of German interests in the occupied country.At the same time, the idea itself and the normative solutions adopted referred to and, to a major degree, were based on the model of the special judiciary operating in the Third German Reich, however, that model was adjusted to the colonial system of law of the General Government.This study is expected to provide grounds for extensive research based on archival resources on the application of law by the special courts in the gg.
The literature on the special courts in the General Government is not particularly extensive.Basic investigation into this topic in the Polish language, relating mainly to the legal grounds for the organisation and operation of the discussed courts, was offered in the book by Andrzej Wrzyszcz Okupacyjne sądownictwo niemieckie w Generalnym Gubernatorstwie 1939-1945, Organizacja i funkcjonowanie15.The same author wrote also several shorter texts, discussing the analysed subject matter16.Fragmentary information, principally presenting facts, can be found in region-specific studies17.The matters much more ment.In English, threads relating to the special judiciary were presented in the book by Diemut Majer 'Non-Germans' under the Third Reich: the Nazi judicial and administrative system in Germany and occupied Eastern Europe, with special regard to occupied Poland, 1939-194521.When assessing the status quo of the research on the special judiciary in the General Government, it must be pointed out that the problems of organisation of such courts were relatively well addressed in the Polish language, however, the results of the research have not been disseminated in the languages of the conference.However, there are no comprehensive studies on matters relating to the application of law by the special courts in the gg.
It could be expected that special interest in the discussed subject matter would be shown by German researchers, especially that on the German publishing market, for several decades, one can observe a growing interest in the special courts of the Third German Reich.Many studies were published, both fragmentary and monographic, devoted to specific special courts22.It seems, however, that a barrier for the historical investigations made so far was the border of the General Government.Although German historians of law were interested in the special courts created in the Polish territories incorporated into the Reich (e.g., Bydgoszcz, Łódź of Poznań)23, there are no corresponding studies in relation to the area of the General Government (one exception was the work by Majer, as cited above, which also appeared in the German language)24.Similarly, research into the special courts in the gg was not conducted by historians -it would be difficult to recognise as such research mentions about the work of specific judges or individual decisions in works generally devoted to other questions.25 Therefore, it can be concluded that the special courts in the gg are a lesser-known topic in German literature and that German literature is scanter in that respect from the output of Polish authors.
The lack of studies on the decisions of special courts in the gg or fragmentary studies on particular Sondergerichte can, to a certain degree, be explained by a diversified state of preservation of sources and their dispersal.Such sources are situated in Germany, Poland and Ukraine.Out of the German Federal Archives in Berlin, special attention is drawn by the personal records of lawyers (fonds R 3001 Reichsjustizministerium) and files left from particular courts and prosecutor's offices in the area of the gg, gathered in the fonds R 137 I (Gerichte im Osten).In the research on judicial practice, especially the latter fonds is useful since even files of individual cases were preserved in that cataloguealthough it must be noted that those cases were at a different stage in the final phase of the war -in some of them the bill of indictment was not prepared or judgment was not delivered.Those files ended up in Berlin as a result of the evacuation, ordered in several phases, from the area of the gg.In wartime conditions, such evacuation could have a different course -a part of the files was transported, a part was destroyed, and a part was left in the cities being the seats of the special courts.Such files are kept in Polish and Ukrainian state archives.In the State Archive of the Lviv Province, a fonds was preserved in good condition illustrating the activities of the Special Court in Lviv (1941)(1942)(1943)(1944), and its scientific usefulness is all the greater that those archival materials must be considered representative for the entire Galizien District since documents regarding the Special Courts in Stanisławów and ).It must be noted that the preservation state of the above files is different -while, e.g., with regard to the Warsaw Court 1860 archival items were preserved (files of particular criminal cases), in case of Radom there are 213 of such items, and in case of Cracow 130, out of which only a part relates to criminal matters.Unfortunately, the fonds relating to the special courts in Lublin, Zamość (moved to Chełm), Częstochowa and Kielce were not preserved -even in a rudimentary state.In consequence, research on those courts should be conducted using alternative sources, such as prison files, in which copies of the judgments delivered could be found, or the occupational press.

Methodology
The main purpose of this article, as already noted above, is to present the normative foundations of the organisation and operation of the special judiciary in the General Government.Such purpose of the study determines the basic method applied in the article, that is analysis and interpretation of legal provisions in their specific historical context.In the General Government, the law previously applicable in the captured areas was maintained in force27.Such law applied conditionally, as long as it did not oppose the assumption of power by the German administration.
At the same time, Adolf Hitler, under the Decree of 12 October 1939, authorised specific bodies of the German administration to issue legislation applicable in the territory of the General Government.Such competence was vested 27 Provisions on further application of the Polish law were included in two pieces of legislation governing the constitutional foundations of the General Government.The Decree of the Führer and the Chancellor of the German Reich on the administration of the occupied Polish territories on 12 October 1939 included the following provision: 'the previously applicable law shall remain in force as long as it does not oppose the assumption of administration by the German Reich' .The second piece of legislation was the Regulation on the reconstruction of administration in the occupied Polish territories of 26 October 1939, providing that 'the previous Polish law shall retain its binding force as far as it does not oppose the assumption of administration by the German Reich and compliance with German military laws' . in the Council of Ministers for the Defence of the Reich, the Plenipotentiary for the four-year plan and, in the first place, in the General Governor28.Out of the foregoing, the most active role in adopting new legislation was played by the General Governor.
The official journal publishing legislation in the gg in the years 1939-1940 was the Journal of Regulations of the General Governor for the occupied Polish territories (Verordnungsblatt des Generalgouverneurs für die besetzen polnischen Gebiete), which, initially, was a uniform whole and, starting from the first edition of 1940, was divided into two parts -in the former, proclamations, regulations, and decrees of the General Governor were published, and in the latter acts of lower rank, most often implementing ones (police regulations, implementing regulations, implementing decisions, tariff ordinances, orders, announcements)29.The division into parts reflected a sui generis hierarchy of the sources of law.From 1 September 1940 on, the name of the journal changed to: the Journal of Regulations for the General Government (Verordnungsblatt für das Generalgouvernement).The division into parts was abandoned in the first edition of 1941 and, until the end of issuing the journal, neither its name or internal structure changed30.As a rule, the first items in the journal contained proclamations and regulations of the General Governor and further items contained implementing regulations, implementing decisions, announcements and orders.Undoubtedly, this was an element of a specific ordering of legisla-tion31.Altogether, in gg, almost 1700 normative acts were adopted.
At the same time, in the system of law of the General Government, much importance attached to so called 'quasi-legislation' .Those were different legislative acts, circulars, orders, instructions of administrative authorities, which were not officially published but had a character of generally applicable legislation and directly affected the practice of applying the law.To find such type of legislative acts, it was necessary to carry out a preliminary archival research.In the General Government, certain courts, including the discussed special courts, in appropriate situations had also to apply the legislation applicable in the Reich.Another type of legislation in force were certain normative acts 28 At a later time, also other entities were given the powers to adopt legislation.For more on that, see: A. issued by the German military authorities in the period of military administration in the first months of occupation in 1939.
In this context, it becomes apparent how, from a holistic perspective, complicated, unclear and chaotic the system of law applicable in the gg was.To achieve the intended purposes of the study, we have analysed the legislative acts adopted and published by the authorities of the gg relating, either directly or indirectly, to the problems of the special judiciary.We have also made use of certain archival materials.

International law assessment of the special courts in the General Government
According to the legislative framework applicable at the time of the outbreak of the Second World War, a situation in which a part or the entire territory of one state was held by another state as a consequence of hostilities was, in principle, treated as wartime occupation (occupatio bellica).Wartime occupation was characterised by the temporary nature of the adopted solutions, as it was only a transition period, initiated by a purely military victory and capture of the entirety or a part of the territory of another state, and finished by the signing of an international agreement concluding the war or armed conflict.The temporary nature of wartime occupation was related to its legal status, which obliged the occupier to comply with international law, and only the provisions of international law could specify the organisation of occupation.Wartime occupation in the period of the Second World War was legally governed by the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, which formed an Annex to the Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (iv Hague Convention adopted on 18 October 1907)32.Both the Republic of Poland and the German Reich were parties to that Conven-tion33.In consequence, the provisions of that legislative act constitute a basic criterion for assessing the organisation of the special judiciary in the international law context.At the same time, among German lawyers, predominantly those who worked for the Cabinet of the General Government, ideas arose that Poland had been conquered (debellatio)34.In a legal situation of a conquest, the German Reich would not be bound by the norms of the above legislation and would be free to introduce its own solutions in the conquered territory.However, conquest, as such, was contrary to international law.The conception mentioned above found its fullest manifestation in the official change of the name from the 'General Government for the occupied Polish territories' to the 'General Government'35.After the end of the Second World War, discussion was held about the legal qualification of the war, of the German occupation and about the ensuing legal consequences.The International Military Tribunal in Nuremberg rejected in full the thesis about debellatio, concluding that '(…) that institution has never been considered applicable as long as there was an army in the field attempting to return the occupied lands to their rightful owners, for which reason the doctrine of conquest could not apply to any of the territories occupied after 1 September 1939'36.
Another problematic question is the international law assessment of the war started by the German Reich in 1939.Without going into much detail, it must be emphasised that, in the light of the post-war discussions, there is currently a general consensus that even if a war is illegal, such illegality does not preclude recognition of a state of occupation and does not exempt the occupier from the obligation to apply the provisions of the iv Hague Convention37.
Under Art.43 of the Regulations annexed to the iv Hague Convention, the occupier was obliged to undertake 'any measures available to the occupier to restore and ensure, as far as possible, the order and social life, respecting, except for absolute obstacles, the laws applicable in that country' .This meant that the occupational authorities were supposed, in the light of the provisions of international law, to exercise jurisdiction over the occupied area.This related, in the first place, to the indictment and punishing of perpetrators of com- mon crimes.However, the occupational authorities were obliged to follow the law applicable in a given country, except for 'absolute obstacles' , which could be understood as the need to deliver legislative acts containing provisions on the security of the occupational authorities, to erase from the legal system of the occupied state norms contrary to international law and to introduce legislation serving the civilian population38.
Considering the sequence of war events in 1939 and the above-cited provision of the Convention, it can be concluded that the establishment of criminal courts by the Third German Reich in the occupied territory fell within the rights of the occupier, whose task was to restore and ensure order and social life.However, an unquestionable violation of that provision was the decision that the courts would apply German criminal law, as followed from the Regulation introducing German criminal law of 5 September 1939, issued by Walther von Brauchitsch, supreme commander of the German land forces39.It must be underlined that this involved imposition of penalties for acts non-penalised under Polish law and an increase of the level of penalty in relation to other punishable acts.The Convention provided, as a rule, for the application of the law in force in the occupied country, which rule could be modified only in case of 'absolute obstacles' .The initial decision of the German military authorities, ordering absolute application by the special courts of the German criminal law, demonstrates that there was not even partial intention to respect the laws previously applicable in the occupied country.Such judgment seems justified if we assume that Germans held the rights of an occupier in the understanding of the Hague Convention.Opinions in that regard have been divided among academic authors.Alfons Klafkowski proposed a periodisation of the German occupation in relation to the regime applicable under the Hague Convention.That author was of the opinion that from 1 September 1939 to 15 August 1940 the prevalent elements were those of occupatio bellica, that is occupation under Art.43 of the Convention, whereas from 15 August 1940 until the fifth anniversary of the General Government, the predominant thesis was that of Poland's debellatio.Finally, from 26 October 1944 to the end of the occupation, an obvious desire was observed for a return to occupatio bellica40.Such distinction was rejected in the argumentation deployed by Władysław Wolter, who concluded that the attack of Germany on Poland in 1939 was illegal.This led him to the conclusion about illegality of the German occupation and, in turn, to a conclusion about illegality of any activities of the German occupational authorities (including the judicial authorities)41.
The Polish legislator considered the judgments of German courts in criminal matters from the occupation period to be invalid, however, the same legislator did not recognise the German judiciary as a criminal organisation although this was done in relation to nsdap, ss, Gestapo and sd.Also post-war Polish courts did not recognise the German occupational courts as a criminal organisation although this was done in relation to the Cabinet of the General Government.However, in one of its decisions, the Supreme Court in Warsaw concluded that the German Reich and its officials did not have, in connection with the actual capture of Poland in 1939, the right to exercise in the territory of Poland any acts of state authority in relation to Polish citizens, which right was granted to an occupier by the Regulations Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land which formed an Annex to the iv Hague Convention, since the so called occupation of the Polish state territories by the German Reich was not an occupation in the understanding of international law but an illegal appropriation of a territory by means of an international crime.There were no grounds to conclude that the rights vested, under international treaties, in a state occupying the territory of another country during a permissible war, could also be vested in a state which took control of the territory of another country by means of an illegal war, through an international crime committed by the aggressor state's bodies42.
This position was mitigated in the judgment delivered in the case against a judge of Sondergericht Krakau, Albert Michel, in which, by reference to equity reasons, the Supreme Court concluded that logical conclusions cannot be drawn from the above argumentation that every activity of an official of the German state in occupied Poland was illegal and for every such activity each and every official should be held liable -such an interpretation would in fact cover also such activities to which Germans would have been obliged under the provisions of the Hague Convention if the invasion had not violated the norms of international law43.As illustrated by the above citation, the answer to the question about the compatibility of the special courts in the gg with the Hague Convention is not an easy one.Undoubtedly, it can be concluded that the Hague Convention allowed the occupier to establish criminal courts in the controlled territory since criminal courts were a basic and natural instrument to ensure safety and order, and this was the occupier's task.In consequence, this element does not disqualify special courts in the gg.Incompatibility with international law can be established only based on the obligation to respect the laws of the occupied country, which the Third German Reich did not comply with since the decision was made that the special courts would apply German criminal law.Attention must also be drawn to the fact that wartime criminal law of the Third Reich included norms serving not only to discriminate against but also to exterminate entire groups of population of the occupied territory.Such character can definitely be assigned, among others, to the Regulation on criminal law for Poles and Jews in the eastern incorporated territories of 4 December 194144, applicable in the areas incorporated into the Reich and the so called Old Reich, and to the Third regulation on the restrictions of residence in the General Government of 15 October 194145, applicable in the area of the gg.Adjudication under those regulations by the special courts did not fit the task of restoring and ensuring order or social life but was a part of the occupier's criminal policy.

4
Legislative acts governing the subject matter of special courts in the General Government In the period of military administration of the Wehrmacht, the legal basis for the operation of extraordinary courts, including special courts, was the Regulation of 5 September 1939 issued by Walther von Brauchitsch, supreme commander of Journal of Regulations of the General Government (Dz.rgg), no.99, p. 595.Under the provision of § 4 b item 1, Jews who, without authorisation, abandon their designated quarter, shall be subject to death penalty; the same penalty shall be imposed on persons who knowingly provide shelter to such Jews.In addition, under item 2, instigators and accessories were subject to the same penalty as the perpetrator, an attempted act was to be punished in the same way as a committed act; in less severe cases, penalties of severe prison or prison could be imposed.the German land forces46.The Regulation was formally signed on 5 September, it was officially published on 11 September, however, the provisions of that normative act expressly stated that it came into force already at the outbreak of the war -on 1 September 193947.Special courts were to be granted the status of courts of general jurisdiction in the understanding of § 3 (2) and (3) of the Wartime Code of Criminal Procedure of 17 August 1938 (Kriegsstrafverfahrensordnung)48.
After the formal establishment of the General Government, one of the first pieces of legislation adopted by the General Governor related to the basic principles of the judiciary which was to operate in the gg.This was the Regulation on the reconstruction of the system of justice in the General Government of 26 October 193949.Two types of courts were to operate in the General Government: German courts and Polish courts ( § 1)50.The task of the German judiciary was to 'prosecute attacks on the security and authority of the Reich and the German Nation, as well as life, health and properties of the citizens of German nationality' (translation following the original spelling; § 2 (1)).Attention must be drawn to a very broad substantive scope of those tasks, covering not only the protection of security but also 'authority' of the German nation and the state.This can be seen as programmatic racism, underpinning the entire judiciary system of the gg.The jurisdiction of the German judiciary was to cover citizens of German nationality in any legal relationships pertaining to such citizens ( § 2 (2)).However, according to the legislation adopted at a later time, in criminal matters at the stage of preparatory proceedings pending before Polish authorities, the court's jurisdiction was decided by a German prosecutor.Practically speaking, any person residing in the territory of the gg, irrespective of their nationality, could be subject to the German judiciary.Judgments of all German courts, including special courts, were to be delivered 'In the name of the German Nation (Im Namen des Deutschen Volkes)' ( § 2 (3)).
Tijdschrift voor rechtgeschiedenis 91 (2023) 271-308 The Regulation on the reconstruction of the system of justice provided a basis for adopting further legislative acts, establishing particular types of courts.It also introduced the basic principles of the judiciary in the gg: 1. Division of the judiciary into two sections; 2. Specification of the tasks of the German judiciary; 3. Subordination of the Polish judiciary to the German judiciary51.
Special courts in the General Government were the first type of courts whose organisation was legally defined by the German legislation in the gg.Kurt Wille argued that in the gg 'the most urgent task in the area of the German judiciary was to incorporate, at the very beginning, into the framework of the administration of the General Government special courts seated in the territory of the gg'52.The Regulation of the General Governor on special courts was adopted on 15 November 193953.This was a rather laconic piece of legislation with only eleven paragraphs.The regulation was not internally subdivided, however, it contained provisions whose nature was: structural -governing the organisation of the special courts in the gg; procedural -specifying what acts fell under the jurisdiction of the special courts and how the proceedings would look like before such courts.Specific solutions adopted in that legislative act will be characterised in a further part of this article.Upon entry into force of the Regulation of 15 November 1939, the Regulation of the supreme commander of land forces on extraordinary courts in the occupied Polish territories of 5 September 1939 was officially derogated.
The following pieces of legislation relating to the special judiciary in the General Government were adopted by the authorities of the gg after the establishment in 1941 of the fifth district -Galizien.For the purpose of adjusting the newly created administrative unit to the structural and administrative solutions adopted in the gg, special pieces of legislation were delivered, which extended the legislation applicable in the gg to the area of the Galizien Dis-trict54.This referred also to special courts.Under the Regulation on the recon-

Graczyk and Mielnik
Tijdschrift voor rechtgeschiedenis 91 (2023) 271-308 struction of the system of justice in the Galizien District of 1 August 194155, the application of § § 2 to 9 of the Regulation on special courts of 15 November 1939 was extended to the Galizien District.The competence to create new special courts was vested in the Head of the Main Department of Justice in the Cabinet of the General Government56.
The last and the most important piece of legislation reforming the special judiciary in the gg was adopted in 194357.The process of simplifying and exacerbating the criminal procedure in the General Government was started in 1942.Multiple legislative acts were adopted that changed, through their acceleration and simplification, the course of criminal proceedings.The main reason for the introduced amendments was intensification of the occupier's terror in the gg, which was referred to as 'wartime needs'58.The introduced amendments were also structural, relating to the organisation of the judiciary.Organisational changes, involving simplification of its structure were a consequence of shortages in adequately trained legal personnel.

Organisation of special courts in the General Government
The special courts established in the period of military administration were a direct reference to the judiciary system existing in the German Reich already from 193359.The special courts were a part of the Wehrmacht's occupational system.Alongside commanders of particular armies there were heads of civilian administration, responsible for the creation of administration and the judiciary in the areas captured by the German army.As from 25 September 1939, the military administration was consolidated, by creating four occupational military districts60.The matters of judicial administration were handled by plenipotentiaries of the Ministry of Justice for the judiciary.They supervised the newly es- tablished special courts and submitted requests for the creation of new courts.As far as official supervision was concerned, special courts were subordinate to the Minister of Justice of the Third German Reich.The Minister of Justice had a prerogative of pardon in all matters, also with regard to death penalty61.
Preparations to create the special courts in the Polish territories were made before 1 September 1939.The preparation of personnel involved judges from such cities as Gliwice, Opole or Wrocław.Compositions of the newly established courts were not numerous.In general, they consisted of three judges, a prosecutor and auxiliary personnel62.As determined by Andrzej Wrzyszcz, in the first half of September 1939, within the area of the later General Government, there were already special courts in Częstochowa, Wieluń and Cracow.In the following weeks, courts were created in Piotrków (moved from Wieluń), Kielce and Radom63.In the opinion of Kurt Wille, the German authorities in the period of military administration were, pre-eminently, interested in the criminal branch of the judiciary64.The special courts, in the opinion of the German Ministry of Justice, were to examine in the Polish occupied territories, predominantly, common criminal matters, which was not a typical area of jurisdiction of the special courts situated in the Reich.This was a consequence of the missing system of ordinary courts, which were yet to be established.Judges in the special courts took an active part in the preparation of the judiciary system to be launched in the gg.Among others, their task was to superintend Polish courts, notaries and advocates and to secure court and notary files65.
The special courts created under the Regulation of September 1939 were to continue operation as special courts in the General Government, however, if the specific courts were not situated in the capital city of a district (Cracow, Lublin, Radom, Warsaw), they were transformed into special court branches (Abteilungen des Sondergerichts)66.This way, they became 'special courts of the General Government'67.In the gg, activities were continued of the Special Tijdschrift voor rechtgeschiedenis 91 (2023) 271-308 Courts in Cracow and Radom.Under the Regulation on special courts of 15 November 1939, special courts were to be established for every region (district) of the General Government.This was in line with the principle applied initially in the Reich of creating one special court within the district of a higher regional court.The seat of the special court was to be in the district's capital.
As a part of internal structure of the special courts, it was possible to establish branches with a seat in another locality.Decision on the establishment of a special court's branch was to be made by the district's governor (head of the district)68.In accordance with the new regulations, two new courts were created in Lublin and in Warsaw.The special courts existing in the period of military administration in Częstochowa, Kielce and Piotrków became branches of the Special Court in Radom.Sometime later, a branch of the Special Court in Cracow was created with a seat in Rzeszów, whose jurisdiction covered a part of the Cracow District.A special court branch was also put in place in the Lublin District, in Zamość.This took place only in 1940, because of an unclear state membership status of a part of the Lublin District69.Presidents of special courts and presidents of the branches were vested with the powers to issue orders, which were to ensure proper operation of the courts.Branches were independent of the special courts operating in district capitals, they were not subject to any official supervision from such courts established for district capitals70.Delimitation of territorial jurisdiction within a district was made by allocating particular counties to the districts of the special courts and of their branches71.
In April 1941 the seat of the special court branch in the Lublin District was moved from Zamość to Chełm.Works on that modification were underway already since late 194072.After the establishment of the Galizien District, the Regulation was adopted of 13 October 1941 under which special courts were created in Lviv (the District's capital), in Stanisławów and in Tarnopol73.In the Tijdschrift voor rechtgeschiedenis 91 (2023) 271-308 Galizien District, all special courts were given such name, and the term 'special court branch' was abandoned.Special courts in the Galizien District, first to be put into place within the judiciary system, were to take over, at an initial period, a part of the responsibilities of German courts and higher German courts74.Altogether, in the General Government, there were thirteen special courts.Every court had a separate internal structure, presidents of the courts decided about the distribution of responsibilities.Most probably, only in the Cracow Court a division was introduced into chambers75.In most courts, three to four judges worked along with additional clerical personnel including approximately 10-12 persons.Warsaw.Throughout the entire period of the General Government, deficiencies were experienced both regarding the judicial and clerical staff76.
In 1943, under a regulation adopted with a view to simplifying the system of justice in the General Government to match wartime needs, special courts were merged with German courts.The official name of the courts, after 1943, was changed into 'Special Court at the German Court in …' .It was also permitted, at the consent of the appropriate German authorities (Main Department of Justice in the Cabinet of the gg or another competent authority), for judges of higher German courts to be permanently engaged also in matters belonging to special courts at the German courts77.
From the very beginning of operation of the special courts in the General Government, as a part of their organisational structure, the German prosecuting authority was put in place (Anklagebehörde), which played the role of public prosecutors in the proceedings before special courts, German courts and higher German courts.In addition, the German prosecuting authority played an important role in the proceedings before Polish courts, since the prosecuting authority decided which section of the judiciary was to examine a given case.This was the only section of the German prosecutor's office in the General Government; the competences held in the Reich by the General Prosecutor and the Minister of Justice were exercised by the bodies within the Department of Justice (Main Department of Justice in the Cabinet of the gg; Departments of Justice in the Offices of District Governors)78.As compared to the system of prosecution operating in the Reich, prosecutors in the gg were not obliged to appear at the hearings of German courts.It was also permissible for the prosecutor's office to be represented at the hearing by an 'Amtsanwalt' or another official79.
Along with the reform of the special judiciary introduced in 1943, also the name of the prosecuting authority was changed.As from 1 August 1943, the applicable name was to be 'German prosecutor's office' (Deutsche Staatsanwaltschaft).The German prosecutor's offices were to be attached to German courts.In the absence of higher prosecution authorities in the General Government, the German prosecutor's office operating at the German courts was also supposed to perform prosecution functions in the procedures before higher German courts80.As in the case of special courts, there was no uniform internal organisational structure of the prosecuting authority.For the purposes of internal division of prosecutors' work, substantive criteria were used (according to the types of cases) or substantive and territorial ones81.
The special judiciary in the General Government was classified as an element of the German judiciary (subject to the Department of Justice in the gg), and from 1943 on as a part of German courts (of particular courts).Beside the German judiciary, subject to the Department of Justice, in the General Government there were also peculiar forms of judicial authorities, police and martial courts, subject to supervision by other types of authorities.Kurt Wille, responsible for the central Department of Justice in the Cabinet of the gg, clearly emphasised that the jurisdiction of Wehrmacht (martial) courts and (police) drumhead courts-martial was superior to the jurisdiction of special courts.The question of jurisdiction of special courts will be discussed in much detail in a further part of this article.At this point, a matter of relevance is the situation of the special judiciary within the constitutional system of the General Government.As courts subject to civilian administration, their position in the hierarchy of 'importance' was lower than of the judicial bodies of the police apparatus and military force.They formed a part of 'sovereignty' , an area administrated by the General Governor, Hans Frank82.In a study devoted to the problems of the judiciary in the gg, prepared by the Polish Underground State, the position of courts, including that of special courts, in the state machinery of the General Government was characterised in the following way: '(…) In this situation, in the light of the administrative omnipotence, especially of different police authorities, the operations of genuine judiciary must be limited to a very narrow scope.(…) In the system of governance, the police was brought to the fore, and the courts were assigned a subordinate role, or even "courts" were created which, in fact, are an arm of police authorities'83.
Special courts were subject to administrative supervision by the civilian authorities of the General Government.The department of justice in the gg operated both at the central level (Department of Justice in the General Gover- nor's Office and, since 1 April 1941, the Main Department of Justice in the Cabinet of the General Government) and at the local level of particular districts (Department of Justice in the District Head's Office and, then, in the District Governor's Office)84.At the early period of forming the German administration and structure of power in the gg, German courts, including the special courts, were subject to official supervision of district governors, who exercised their competences through their subordinate departments of justice.As from 16 March 1941, they were directly subordinate to the Main Department of Justice in the Cabinet of the General Government.The organisation of German courts and personnel matters were personally supervised by Kurt Wille85.The German prosecutor's office, throughout the entire period of the General Government was subordinated to district authorities.In the internal provisions governing matters of official supervision, for example, as far as budgeting was concerned, appropriate provisions applicable in the Reich were followed86.

Law applied by special courts in the General Government
As pointed out above, at the beginning of the military operations, the German military authorities decided that special courts in the occupied territory of Poland would apply German criminal law -this related both to the law of the Third Reich and to the German legislation in the General Government.Undoubtedly, this solution was easy to implement in practice since German judges and prosecutors were well familiar with their domestic law but did not know Polish law.However, as has been mentioned above, the decision violated the provisions of the Hague Convention.The Regulation introducing German criminal law of 5 September 1939 was published in the Journal of Regulations for the occupied territories in Poland, that is the publication preceding the Journal of Regulations of the General Governor for the occupied Polish territories.In the same edition of the Journal of Regulations for the occupied territories in Poland an excerpt was published, both in German and in Polish, from the selected provisions of the criminal law of the Third Reich, especially from Tijdschrift voor rechtgeschiedenis 91 (2023) 271-308 the Regulation on wartime special criminal law87 and from the Military Criminal Code88.It can be wondered if an attempt to correct that solution was the principle laid down in Hitler's Decree establishing the gg of 12 October 1939, under which, in the territory of the General Government, the existing law was to apply as long as this did not oppose the assumption of administration by the German Reich89.It would be difficult to say to what extent the term 'existing law' could refer to the Polish law, and to what extent to the German law already applied by the special courts.This is irrelevant since no change took place in the previous practice of the special courts, i.e. they kept on applying German criminal law.The normative act officially founding special courts in the ggthe above-mentioned Regulation of the General Governor on special courts of 15 November 1939 -also provided, in § 3, that the courts would examine matters according to German criminal law.This provision was clear and excluded any application of Polish criminal law.As a result, in the area of special judiciary in the gg, the occupier adopted a solution differing from what was decided for the entire gg, where, as a rule, it was accepted that Polish law would still apply, however, with primacy of German law over the Polish legislation90.Hitler's Decree establishing the General Government provided that new legislation applicable in the gg could be adopted, in the form of regulations, by the Council of Ministers for the Defence of the Reich, Plenipotentiary for the four-year plan and the General Governor.In practice, the legislative activities of the Council and of the Plenipotentiary was scarce, limited to several normative acts of temporary nature, which could not be approached as elements of a wider conception and which reflected the need of the moment.Those legislative acts included also criminal provisions91.
Much more active in the area of introducing new legislation was the General Governor Hans Frank, who, most frequently, issued regulations, and less often proclamations and decrees.Decrees related to constitutional matters, proclamations were political and propaganda, whereas regulations were equivalents Graczyk and Mielnik Tijdschrift voor rechtgeschiedenis 91 (2023) 271-308 of statutes92.During the occupation period, in the official journal of the gg, nearly 1700 pieces of legislation were published, most of which -437 -were adopted in 194093.It must be noted that criminal provisions were contained in different normative acts, however, the legislative acts entirely devoted to criminal legislation were regulations.It is not our goal to enumerate all regulations in the area of criminal law adopted in the gg.This would not be advisable, bearing in mind not only the size of this article but also the fact that not all of them provided for the jurisdiction of special courts, and, consequently, not all of them could be applied by special courts.As we move on to discussing the jurisdiction of special courts in the gg, it must be noted that there were two types of such jurisdiction: permanent and transferrable.
The question of jurisdiction was defined in § 2 (1) of the Regulation on special courts in the gg of 15 November 1939.According to that provision, special courts were competent to examine punishable acts for which, under the regulations of the General Governor, the jurisdiction of special courts was expressly envisaged.During the occupation, the General Governor exercised his rights and adopted regulations in criminal matters, in which the General Governor provided for the permanent jurisdiction of special courts.A. Wrzyszcz compiled a list of such regulations -the list includes 41 items.Chronologically speaking, the first of such legislative acts was the Regulation establishing the Trust Authority for the gg of 15 November 1939, and the last -the Regulation on the wearing and abuse of uniforms in the gg of 11 May 1943.Their highest percentage was adopted in the first months of the occupation.Most of the regulations involved penalisation of acts in the economic sphere or restrictions imposed on the Jewish population94.However, one can also find, for instance, the Regulation imposing an obligation to register on Polish officers of 16 March 1941 or the Regulation on combatting sexually transmitted diseases in the gg of 4 October 1940.
However, transferable jurisdiction was laid down in § 2 (2) of the Regulation on special courts in the gg of 15 November 1939.According to this provision, the prosecuting authority could file a bill of indictment with a special court for any punishable act if, bearing in mind the severe or blameworthy nature of the act or indignation aroused among the population, conviction by a special court was advisable.This rule corresponded to the solution applicable in the German Reich as from November 193895, which provided for a possibility to Tijdschrift voor rechtgeschiedenis 91 (2023) 271-308 file a bill of indictment, open to the prosecutor's office, with a special court in respect of a crime subject to the jurisdiction of a court of assizes or a lower court if the prosecutor's office concluded that, bearing in mind the weight or reprehensible nature of the act or indignation aroused in the public opinion, it was advisable to hand down an immediate decision by a special court.In the guidelines issued by the authorities, an attempt was made to specify that this related to particularly severe or reprehensible crimes, or such that aroused indignation among the population -the bill of indictment was to be filed with the special court if the unavoidable delay resulting from the choice of ordinary proceedings was undesired96.
The above provision enabled the prosecuting authority (prosecutor's office) to bring a matter before a special court based on very vague, discretionary prerequisites.At this point, attention must be additionally drawn to the expansion of competences of the German prosecutor's office under the Regulation on the Polish judiciary in the gg of 19 February 1940 -decisions of the prosecutor's office and decisions of German courts in respect of transferring matters to either the Polish or German judiciary were binding on the bodies within the Polish section of the ordinary system of justice in the gg97.
Transferrable jurisdiction of special courts was laid down in several other normative acts, under which these courts were to adjudicate instead of police drumhead courts-martial.Under the Regulation for the combatting of violent acts in the gg of 31 October 1939, and under the Regulation on the protection of harvested agricultural produce of 11 July 1942, a police drumhead court-martial could refer a case to the prosecutor's office attached to a special court on account of the size or complexity of the case.Under the Regulation for the protection of harvested produce and for the protection of nutrition in the economic year 1943/1944 of 14 July 1943, and under the Regulation for the protection of harvested produce and nutrition of the population in the economic year 1944/1945 of 13 July 1944, a case could be referred from a police drumhead court-martial also in situations when imposition of death penalty was not considered necessary -on such occasions, a special court, instead of the capital penalty, could impose severe imprisonment or imprisonment.According to the Regulation for the combatting of attacks on the German work of reconstruction in the gg of 2 October 1943, such reference could be made 'for particularly important reasons' , and, under the Regulation on explosives in the gg of 31 May 1944, when a police drumhead court-martial established attenuating circumstances.A matter could be examined by a special court, instead of a police drumhead court-martial, also under the Regulation on the possession of weapons of 26 November 1941 -if a weapon was handed in voluntarily and the perpetrator turned in to the police before being denounced or before a procedure against the perpetrator was initiated, or if the authorities took over the weapon before any damage was caused.Similar jurisdiction was permitted under the Regulation on poisons unless the preconditions were fulfilled of an attack on the German work of reconstruction98.
The above considerations are grounded in normative acts which constituted the law of the General Government and in recognised academic literature.The initial solution, referring to the model of special judiciary as introduced in Germany under the Regulation of the Government of the Reich establishing special courts of 21 March 1933, subject to the evolution of that model in further years, necessitates as well a reference to the provisions of German criminal law, which in a number of situations provided for the jurisdiction of a special court.In the context of the legal provisions discussed above, it must be concluded that, based on the decision to apply German criminal law, the legal norms providing for jurisdiction of special courts in the Reich referred also to the special courts in the gg.In consequence, it can be noted that, over the years 1933-1939, the jurisdiction of special courts in the Reich was clearly expanded.At the beginning, the jurisdiction covered, predominantly acts of political nature (e.g., under the Regulation of the President of the Reich on the protection of the nation and the state of 21 March 1933, the Regulation of the President of the Reich on combatting underground activities against the government of national revival of 21 March 1933, the Act on the protection against political acts of violence of 4 April 1933, the Act on treason of the German national economy of 12 June 1933, the Act on safeguarding legal order of 13 October 1933, § 134a of the German Criminal Code, relating to public insult or slander of the Reich, its lands, their constitutions, their colours or flags or of the Wehrmacht, § 134b of the German Criminal code, penalising public insult or slander of the nsdap, its structures, emblems, banners, badges or distinctions).In November 1938 a decision was made to extend the jurisdiction of special courts also to common crime -this was the time when the authorisation was made, as discussed above, for the prosecutor's office to file a bill of indictment with a special court based on the premises of the act's weight or reprehensibility or indignation aroused in the public opinion.Normative acts forming a part of the so called wartime criminal law of the Third Reich also provided for the jurisdiction of special courts.Bearing in mind the judicial practice established in the German Reich, one must point at this place, first of all, to the Regulation on extraordinary radio measures of 1 September 1939, the Regulation against national parasites of 5 September 1939, the Regulation against violent of fenders of 5 December 1939, or the Regulation on criminal law for Poles and Jews in the eastern incorporated territories of 4 December 194199.
In the context of the above considerations, several questions arise that should be answered by analysing court decisions: what type of matters (criminal, economic, political) was dominant in the special courts of the gg, if there were any differences in that regard between the special courts in different districts of the gg, defendants of what nationality were the most frequent to appear before particular courts, what was the judicial level of penalty and how often the courts imposed death penalty.

7
Legal basis of the proceedings before special courts in the General Government The general decision to apply German criminal law did not refer only to substantive law but also to procedural law.In addition, it must be emphasised that § 4 of the Regulation of the General Governor on special courts of 15 November 1939 provided for appropriate application of the norms of the Regulation establishing special courts of 21 March 1933 to the special courts in the gg, as amended by the Regulation of the General Governor.Those modifications will be discussed in another fragment of the article.At this point, we would like to discuss the course of criminal process before special courts in the Reich, which was a point of reference for the gg.The main principle governing the proceedings before special courts was that of their expeditiousness -they lasted shorter than in case of an ordinary criminal procedure, out of which specific phases were eliminated.The first stage of the criminal process were preliminary (preparatory) proceedings.As a part of such preliminary proceedings, facts were examined to make a decision about possible submission of a bill of indictment, or in respect of pre-trial detention.Since preliminary judicial investigation was eliminated from the procedure before special courts, for the initiation of the next phase -court proceedings -a request was sufficient from the prosecutor's office, contained in the bill of indictment, to set the date of the main trial.No separate decision was issued opening the main proceedings except for an order setting a date of the trial.The deadline concerning sum- mons to the trial was principally shortened to three days, and it could be further reduced to 24 hours.The trial started with the calling of the defendant, witnesses and expert witnesses.Then, the defendant was heard, the bill of indictment was read and evidentiary proceedings were held, based on the principle of immediacy.The special court, as far as evidentiary proceedings were concerned, had full discretion -the court could reject a request for evidence if the court was convinced that the piece of evidence was not necessary to resolve the case.After completion of the evidentiary stage, the floor was given to the prosecutor, the defence attorney and the defendant, who presented their final arguments.After the parties were heard, the court held a conference to discuss the judgment, which could be convicting, acquitting or discontinuing the proceedings.The court's decision could also impose preventive measures.The judgment was adopted by a majority of votes and immediately announced by the judge presiding over the trial.The procedure involved only one instance, which meant that the judgment was legally valid upon its announcement and could not be challenged by an ordinary appeal.However, it was possible to file an application for reopening the proceedings.Additionally, attention should be drawn to the fact that, in 1940, two institutions were introduced in the Reich -extraordinary objection and action for the annulment of a procedure.Extraordinary objection was regulated in the gg in February 1940, which will be discussed in a further part of this article, and the action for annulment was, most probably, not used at all in the General Government for constitutional and practical reasons -the legislation applicable in the Reich provided that it could be brought by the head prosecutor at the Court of the Reich within one year of a judgment's validation in a situation of the judgment's injustice caused by a mistake in the application of law to the established facts of the case100.
The modifications introduced in the Regulation of the General Governor on special courts of 15 November 1939 provided for a departure from the specific solutions applicable in the Reich, which meant that, actually, they were adjustments of the existing model to the conditions of the gg.They excluded the possibility to refer a case to ordinary proceedings, enabled withdrawal of the bill of indictment until the closing of evidentiary proceedings, provided for appointment of a defence attorney when this was considered advisable, adjudication, in non-complicated matters and at the request of the prosecuting authority, in a panel of one judge, and the special court's power to impose by a penal order, at the request of the prosecuting authority, a penalty of up to one year of imprisonment.Referral of a case from a special court to ordinary proceedings, which was admissible in the Reich, was expressly excluded in the gg.It can be assumed that, at least in part, this was motivated by an initial shortage of the German ordinary judiciary in the occupied territory.However, the possibility to withdraw the bill of indictment even up to the closing of evidentiary proceedings, allowed, in Wille's opinion, to avoid delivery of an expected acquitting judg-ment101.
As compared to the process before special courts in the German Reich, mandatory legal representation was restricted.In the Reich, such obligation initially referred to any procedure before the special court.After the outbreak of the war, it was restricted to three situations: when the special court adjudicated instead of a court of assizes, if an order of castration was expected or placement in a nursing home or protective custody, and if the defendant was deaf or dumb.In 1940 and 1944, mandatory legal representation was further restricted, however, its prerequisites were still broader than it was the case before the special courts of the gg -the final solution provided for mandatory participation of a defence attorney on account of the factual or legal weight of the case or when the defendant was unable to defend themselves102, whereas in the gg this was made dependent on the goodwill of the court - § 6 of the Regulation on Special Courts in the General Government of 15 November 1939 provided that a defence attorney should be appointed if this was considered advisable103.Lawyers allowed to act as defence attorneys before German courts in the gg were advocates from the Reich and advocates of German origin who obtained an authorisation from the Head of the Main Department of Justice104.Such authorisation initially related to the appearance before courts situated in a particular district and was limited to that district's borders.In October 1942, this restriction was lifted in criminal matters105.
The principle of examining cases in panels of three followed the standard applicable for the German Reich, and the exception permitting adjudication in a panel of one, although clearly inspired by the legislative framework applicable in the Reich (the same prerequisites: of the prosecutor's request and non-complicated nature of the case), was broader in the gg -where it allowed for adjudication by any judge, whereas the legislation in the Reich permitted examining cases in panels of one only by the special court's president or vice-president, that is by more experienced persons106.As a part of simplifying the administration of justice in criminal matters in the gg, in October 1942, it was permitted for a prosecutor in the proceedings before a special court held in a panel of one to resign from participation in the main trial107.
As opposed to special courts in the Reich, a competence was envisaged for the proceedings before special courts in the gg to deliver, by one member of the special court, upon request of the prosecutor's office, a written penal order, imposing a penalty of up to one year of imprisonment.Such penal order could be challenged within a two-week deadline by an objection, which was examined by the special court.In his study on the system of justice in the gg, Kurt Wille, Head of the Main Department of Justice, wrote that allowing the possibility to adjudicate in a panel of one by a special court and to deliver penal orders was a consequence of the fact that, in November 1939, in the territory of the gg there were no other German courts except for special courts108.
Appropriate application of the provisions of the Regulation establishing special courts of 21 March 1933 to the special courts in the gg meant that the criminal proceedings before such courts involved only one instance, and the delivered judgment was legally valid.Proceedings could be reopened and, in case of such reopening of a case concluded before a special court, the forum competent to re-examine the case was the special court (in the Reich, initially this was the criminal chamber of a regional court, and from 1943 on -the special court)109.In pursuance of the Regulation on the German judiciary of 19 February 1940, an institution was introduced in the gg of extraordinary Tijdschrift voor rechtgeschiedenis 91 (2023) 271-308 objection, through which the Head of the Main Department of Justice could challenge a judgment within six months of its validation if the Head had any doubts in respect of the judgment's equity.This gave rise to the need to hold a new trial.The prerequisites for the submission of an extraordinary objection in the gg were identical with the prerequisites of an extraordinary objection in the Reich110.
As mentioned above, the procedural law applied by special courts in the gg was supplemented by 'quasi-legislation' .The circulars issued by the authorities explained the doubts that have arisen or introduced new provisions.For example, it was specified that the service of summons to the main trial and provision of evidence were the responsibilities of chancelleries (secretariats) of the special courts, that penal orders should be served by the special courts (and not prosecutor's offices), and that the presence of a representative of the prosecutor's office was not necessary during the judgment's announcement111.The President of a special court (or chief justice of a special court's division) issued orders as necessary in connection with the incoming matters.Execution of a death sentence was possible only after receipt of a decision refusing to exercise the right of pardon, which prerogative was vested in the General Governor112.
Modifications in the analysed area were introduced by the Regulation for the simplification of the criminal judiciary in the General Government of 24 October 1942113.Under that legislative act, the German prosecutor's office could refer criminal matters of lesser importance to the German authorities.The German prosecutor obtained a right to order pre-trial detention during the preliminary proceedings, which so far had been reserved to courts.At the consent of the prosecutor's office, German courts could refrain from taking oath from a witness even if the defendant or the defence attorney opposed.The procedure of delivering penal orders was modified -from now on they could be delivered by the head of the German prosecutor's office, and a possible objection against the penal order was to be examined by the special court in a panel of one.In addition, the scope of application was expanded of the extraordinary objection in relation to valid court decisions concluding the proceedings, and the Head of the Main Department of Justice was authorised to decide that, upon submission of such extraordinary objection, the case would be re-examined by the higher German court instead of the special court.
The theoretical analysis carried out enables to pose a number of research questions in respect of the practice of adjudication by the special courts in the gg.The research on judicial practice, as far as permitted by the state of the preserved sources, should enable both characterisation of particular special courts and an attempt to present a general picture of the special courts in the gg.Such characterisation should account for the profile of the examined matters, nationality and other material data of the defendants, the applied normative acts, resolutions and the types of penalties imposed.In a further perspective, a multi-faceted comparison should be postulated between special courts in the Reich and in the gg.

Tarnopol were preserved only fragmentarily in the Federal Archives in Berlin. Out of the resources of Polish archives, attention should be drawn to the files of Sondergericht Radom kept in the State Archive in Radom (analysed by Andrzej Wrzyszcz)26, files of Son-
Reichshof kept in the State Archive in Rzeszów (fonds no.26), files of Sondergericht Warschau kept in the State Archive of Personnel and Payroll Documentation in Milanówek near Warsaw (fonds no.643), files of Sondergericht Krakau kept in the Archive of the Institute of National Remembrance in Warsaw (fonds gk 108) and files of Sondergericht Petrikau kept in the State Archive in Łódź (fonds no.2200 Wrzyszcz, Hierarchia aktów (supra, n. 18), p. 695-708.29 Announcement on the introduction of Part ii of the Journal of Regulations of the General Governor for the occupied Polish territories of 31 December 1939 (Dz.rggop, no.15, p. 251).30 Announcement on the reintegration of Parts I and ii of the Journal of Regulations for the General Government of 31 December 1940 (Dz.rgg, part ii, no.80, p. 586).31 Wrzyszcz, Hierarchia aktów (supra, n. 17), p. 699-700.Downloaded from Brill.com 08/02/2024 12:45:40PM via Open Access.This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC BY 4.0 license.https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ The largest courts were the Courts in Cracow, Lviv and Złoczów country from the district of the Special Court in Tarnopol and transferring the same county to the jurisdiction of the Special Court in Lviv.The Second order on the establishment of Special Courts in the Galizien District of 23 January 1942, Journal of Regulations for the General Government of 1942, no.101, p. 79.