CYIL vol. 10 (2019)

DALIBOR JÍLEK CYIL 10 ȍ2019Ȏ each member of the orphanage. No child was allowed to suffer. The child’s needs and interests were to be satisfied. Likewise, the court aimed at the welfare of the whole. The fourth task of the court was to protect personal and dormitory property. The court enforced respect for common things, the dormitory’s furnishings, and the private property of each child. This led the children to attitudes and behaviors that would value the worth of material and spiritual things. As soon as someone caused damage to any kind of property, this child was summoned to the court ex officio . The court was supposed to remedy the breach through reparation. The court could impose on the child to compensate for the damage from his own means. At the same time, the court could be quite lenient toward the wrongdoer and not impose a reparation duty on them. In this case, the damage would be paid for from the court fund. The court’s task was to teach children to show respect for a sick or injured friend. Such a child deserves special attention and care from others. Korczak reminds us that every injury is repairable or removable. A window can be glazed, a missing ball bought. Illness, injury, and death are a misfortune, the last one being the greatest. 46 These were not a matters for the court, yet the Court Council was competent to address them. The council decided on the publication of an accident or injury for the general awareness of children. The sad cases were often announced on the court board. 4.3 The Court Council Originally, the Court of Peers was the only judiciary body of the dormitory. Daily practice showed that the court itself was not enough. Oftentimes the court ruled on a hundred cases a week. It frequently neglected complex cases for the lack of time. That is why after half a year a council was set up to complement the Court. The Court Council, unlike the Court of Peers, was an elected body for a three-month period. Although the composition of the court rotated at regular intervals, it showed relative stability. This feature of the council could be found in the predictability of its decision-making. An educator was always represented on the Court Council. The council made decisions in a three-member senate (an educator plus two children), even though there were five judges, because a judge could also be a party to the dispute. The council was an appeal instance against the Court of Peers whose judgment could be reversed by the child after one month. Primarily, the council took on grave cases of a child’s failure. Then the wrongdoer faced severe consequences. The council exclusively applied the provisions of section 500 and above. Furthermore, causes that required a thorough procedure in order to determine material truth were added to these types of cases. The council was also competent to decide on causes of compensation for material damage to property. Seemingly banal cases were the ones dealing with the late return of children to the dormitory. The council was authorized to make decisions on such failure if the child came late from visiting the family or relatives. Another matter was the accumulation of cases of one offender. In those cases, the Court Council was required to adjudicate en bloc . The council focused on issuing a single judgment that covered all the wrongdoings. The council employed the following algorithm: several cases, but only one consequence.

180

46 Ibidem : “Choroba, kalectwo i śmierć – są to wielkie nieszczęścia.”