When courts for execution of sentences were introduced in West Germany in the late 60's, probation officers hoped that closer contact with judges would foster a balance between normative and individual justice. Indeed, the new courts have led to greater uniformity of court decisions. However, the cooperative efforts of probation officers and courts have been hindered by delays in notification of probation officers about impending release, incomplete information about releasees, and impractical or unclear instructions from judges to probation officers. The effectiveness of the court-probation officer relationship also suffers when the courts fail to assign individual probation officers to probationers or parolees, when probation officers' reports are ignored by judges and when judges' orders for special supervision of probationers or parolees are unspecific or excessive. Supervisory agencies appear to work well with probation officers, but have failed to coordinate their efforts with those of the courts. To remedy the various problems, the author proposes that release recommendations be sent by prisons to both courts and probation officers, that prisoners be given prerelease furloughs to confer with probation officers, and that probation officers be allowed to undertake official prison visits. Judges are to consult with probation officers about hearing results and probable orders. Further decisions about probationers are to be forwarded to the appropriate courts. Finally, individual probation officers are to be assigned to probationers and parolees, unless the remainder of the parolees' sentences are so short that no supervision is required. Specific recommendations of a work group on cooperation among courts for executing sentences, parole or probation officers, and supervision agencies are included.