A few years ago, judicial councils composed primarily of judges were viewed as a panacea for virtually all problems of court administration in Europe. The burgeoning literature on judicial councils has shown that this is not necessarily thecase. This article builds on this literature, but it argues that judicial self governance is much broader phenomenon than judicial councils and may also take different forms. Therefore, it is high time to look beyond judicial councils and to view judicial self–governance as a much more complex network of actors and bodies with different levels of participation of judges. To that end this article conceptualizes judicial self governance and identifies crucial actors within the judiciary who may engage in judicial governance (such as judicial councils, judicial appointment commissions, promotion committees, court presidents and disciplinary panels). Subsequently,it shows that both the forms, rationales, and effects of judicial self governance have varied across Europe. Finally, this article argues that it is necessary to take into account the liquid nature of judicial self governance and its responsiveness to political, social, and cultural changes. Moreover, the rise of judicial self governance is not necessarily a panacea, as it may lead to political contestation and the creation of new channels of politicization of the judiciary.
When the communist regimes in Central Eastern Europe collapsed in the late 1980s, each state in this region was faced with the tasks of restoring judicial independence and reforming the system of the administration of justice. Most countries in the CEE initially returned to the pre-communist model of court administration, in which the executive plays the central role. So did the Czech Republic too. However, this model was subject to the increasing criticism from judges as well as from various international and supranational bodies. The European Commission teamed up with the Council of Europe and eventually came up with the new template, the "EU/CoE Judicial Council Model". The central feature of this model was a new institution – a judicial council that should be granted most "personal competences" regarding a career in the judiciary. The EU/CoE Judicial Council Model was then endorsed as the only "right" solution that should eradicate the vices of the post-communist judiciaries. As a result of this joint pressure, most countries in CEE adopted the EU/CoE Judicial Council Model. Not the Czech Republic. It became the "outlier case" in the CEE region, the only post-communist country in the process of transition to democracy without a judicial council. Hence, it is particularly interesting to discern how judicial independence and judicial accountability are ensured there. This paper shows that the Czech Ministry of Justice model has underwent significant development and, in doing so, it focuses on the most important phenomenon since the Velvet Revolution – the rise of court presidents to power. It argues that the court presidents step by step eroded the Minister's sphere of influence and managed to enlarge their own powers. As a result they became the most powerful players in the Czech judiciary with broad powers vis-a-vis individual judges. This development in turn calls for new safeguards of internal independence against the abuse of power by court president. ; When the communist regimes in Central Eastern Europe collapsed in the late 1980s, each state in this region was faced with the tasks of restoring judicial independence and reforming the system of the administration of justice. Most countries in the CEE initially returned to the pre-communist model of court administration, in which the executive plays the central role. So did the Czech Republic too. However, this model was subject to the increasing criticism from judges as well as from various international and supranational bodies. The European Commission teamed up with the Council of Europe and eventually came up with the new template, the "EU/CoE Judicial Council Model". The central feature of this model was a new institution – a judicial council that should be granted most "personal competences" regarding a career in the judiciary. The EU/CoE Judicial Council Model was then endorsed as the only "right" solution that should eradicate the vices of the post-communist judiciaries. As a result of this joint pressure, most countries in CEE adopted the EU/CoE Judicial Council Model. Not the Czech Republic. It became the "outlier case" in the CEE region, the only post-communist country in the process of transition to democracy without a judicial council. Hence, it is particularly interesting to discern how judicial independence and judicial accountability are ensured there. This paper shows that the Czech Ministry of Justice model has underwent significant development and, in doing so, it focuses on the most important phenomenon since the Velvet Revolution – the rise of court presidents to power. It argues that the court presidents step by step eroded the Minister's sphere of influence and managed to enlarge their own powers. As a result they became the most powerful players in the Czech judiciary with broad powers vis-a-vis individual judges. This development in turn calls for new safeguards of internal independence against the abuse of power by court president.
This article discusses to what extent and how the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has initiated and engaged in domestic judicial reforms. It shows that the judgments of the Strasbourg Court, rather than having effects only with respect to the individual whose rights have been violated, have much deeper structural effects in the design and operation of domestic judicial systems. This article argues that this phenomenon goes rather unnoticed, but it has deep implications for both the developing and developed European democracies. To demonstrate this phenomenon, this article assesses the impact of the ECtHR on three judicial design issues. First, it illustrates how the ECtHR has challenged the role of the advocates general. Second, it explains how the ECtHR has gradually curbed the jurisdiction of military courts both over civilians and over military officers, which has brought these courts to the brink of their abolition. Finally, it outlines how the ECtHR in its judgments regarding the disciplining of judges empowers the judiciary at the expense of other political institutions within the State. Based on the analysis of these three judicial design issues, we conclude that the Strasbourg Court is affecting the internal architecture of domestic judiciaries as it gradually endorses the unification of court administration and changes the power structures within the judiciary. ; This article discusses to what extent and how the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has initiated and engaged in domestic judicial reforms. It shows that the judgments of the Strasbourg Court, rather than having effects only with respect to the individual whose rights have been violated, have much deeper structural effects in the design and operation of domestic judicial systems. This article argues that this phenomenon goes rather unnoticed, but it has deep implications for both the developing and developed European democracies. To demonstrate this phenomenon, this article assesses the impact of the ECtHR on three judicial design issues. First, it illustrates how the ECtHR has challenged the role of the advocates general. Second, it explains how the ECtHR has gradually curbed the jurisdiction of military courts both over civilians and over military officers, which has brought these courts to the brink of their abolition. Finally, it outlines how the ECtHR in its judgments regarding the disciplining of judges empowers the judiciary at the expense of other political institutions within the State. Based on the analysis of these three judicial design issues, we conclude that the Strasbourg Court is affecting the internal architecture of domestic judiciaries as it gradually endorses the unification of court administration and changes the power structures within the judiciary.
Judicial councils and other judicial self-government bodies have become a worldwide phenomenon. Democracies are increasingly turning to them to insulate the judiciary from the daily politics, to enhance independence and ensure judicial accountability. This book investigates the different forms of accountability and the taxonomy of mechanisms of control to determine a best practice methodology. The author expertly provides a meticulous analysis, using over 800 case studies from the Czech and Slovak disciplinary courts from 1993 to 2010 and creates a systematic framework the can be applied to future cases. ; Judicial councils and other judicial self-government bodies have become a worldwide phenomenon. Democracies are increasingly turning to them to insulate the judiciary from the daily politics, to enhance independence and ensure judicial accountability. This book investigates the different forms of accountability and the taxonomy of mechanisms of control to determine a best practice methodology. The author expertly provides a meticulous analysis, using over 800 case studies from the Czech and Slovak disciplinary courts from 1993 to 2010 and creates a systematic framework the can be applied to future cases.
The aim of this paper is to provide a new comprehensive understanding of roles of court presidents in judicial governance in Europe. It argues that in order to better understand the role of court presidents in comparative perspective it is necessary to unpack their power into smaller components that can be analyzed separately. We define seven such components: judicial career, jurisprudential, administrative, financial, ambassadorial, and media power, and ancillary powers as a residual category. Subsequently, we zero in on 13 European jurisdictions and rate them according to the strength of their court presidents' powers. By doing so we are developing a Court President Power Index. Based on this Index we question the claim that Western court presidents are always weaker than their Eastern European counterparts and argue that powers of court presidents diverge both within Western Europe and within Eastern Europe, and hence it is difficult to draw the easy line along the West/East axis on this ground. Finally, we problematize our Court President Power Index and show that powers in the meaning of faculty do not necessarily translate into influence since various contingent circumstances (such as the length of court presidents' terms of office, information asymmetry, the structure of the judiciary, the existence of competing judicial self governance bodies, the role of individuals, the proximity of court presidents to political leaders, the legal profession, legal culture, and the political environment) affect to what extent court presidents may exploit their powers in practice.
The European and Inter-American human rights courts are increasingly moving beyond their original mandates and making determinations about the design of national courts. They have judicialized new areas of the law, empowered national courts over other branches of government, and encouraged changes in judicial administration. By empowering domestic judiciaries, these regional human rights courts have also (intentionally or not) empowered themselves. ; The European and Inter-American human rights courts are increasingly moving beyond their original mandates and making determinations about the design of national courts. They have judicialized new areas of the law, empowered national courts over other branches of government, and encouraged changes in judicial administration. By empowering domestic judiciaries, these regional human rights courts have also (intentionally or not) empowered themselves.
This article discusses to what extent and how the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has initiated and engaged in domestic judicial reforms. It shows that the judgments of the Strasbourg Court, rather than having effects only with respect to the individual whose rights have been violated, have much deeper structural effects in the design and operation of domestic judicial systems. This article argues that this phenomenon goes rather unnoticed, but it has deep implications for both the developing and developed European democracies. To demonstrate this phenomenon, this article assesses the impact of the ECtHR on three judicial design issues. First, it illustrates how the ECtHR has challenged the role of the advocates general. Second, it explains how the ECtHR has gradually curbed the jurisdiction of military courts both over civilians and over military officers, which has brought these courts to the brink of their abolition. Finally, it outlines how the ECtHR in its judgments regarding the disciplining of judges empowers the judiciary at the expense of other political institutions within the State. Based on the analysis of these three judicial design issues, we conclude that the Strasbourg Court is affecting the internal architecture of domestic judiciaries as it gradually endorses the unification of court administration and changes the power structures within the judiciary.
"This important new addition to the Constitutional Systems of the World series focuses on the Constitution of the Czech Republic. Providing a contextual look at Czech constitutionalism and its underlying social development, it shows how the system is built on liberal democratic values. The book introduces the reader to the key institutions and their constitutional design. It also shows the challenges that somewhat fragile constitution faces, not least from creeping capture of existing institutions and the entrenchment of private interests in the state and in party politics"--
AbstractWhile a slew of recent scholarship has examined the phenomenon of executive overstay, there is little talk about the more complex and equally vexing phenomena of judicial overstay. This article begins to examine the many layers and complexities of judicial overstay by exploring whether the political branches ever seek to prolong abusively the time in office of loyal judges, and if so, by what mechanisms. Illustrating this is not merely a theoretical practice, we label such a phenomenon court‐hoarding, and consider it a subset of the broader category of judicial overstay. Our contribution is two‐fold. First, we argue that while court‐hoarding is a somewhat risky and less‐known governance tactic that is likely to occur only when certain conditions are fulfilled, the potential benefits of court‐hoarding for power consolidation and institutional monopoly power are profound. Second, we contribute to the emerging literature on judicial tenure. More specifically, we add conceptual utility to thinking about judicial tenure—and its abuse—by describing a three‐layer model of court‐hoarding, consisting of a core, a mid‐layer, and a periphery, which correspond to three broad categories of influencing judicial tenure across time and space.
