Search

Limited research has focused on the influence of judge independence on firms' corporate social responsibility (CSR), despite extensive literature examining the impact of the legal environment on CSR. To address this gap, we analyze the staggered adoption of judicial delocalization reform in China. This reform aimed to enhance local judges' independence and our analysis shows that firms have exhibited higher CSR scores since its implementation. Our channel analysis reveals an increase in lawsuits and monetary claims against firms due to the reform, indicating that firms engage in CSR activities to mitigate the negative effects of legal proceedings. The impact of the reform on CSR is stronger for high-litigation-risk firms and weaker for politically connected firms. Moreover, the positive relationship between the reform and CSR is more pronounced in regions with higher levels of government interference with judges before the reform. In summary, our findings highlight the important role of a supportive legal environment in fostering CSR, emphasizing the influence of judge independence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research examines the relationship between democracy, authoritarianism, and political corruption through a comparative case study of Elite Cartel corruption in Hungary and Italy. While perceptions of corruption have significantly worsened in Hungary over the last 10 years, they have significantly improved in Italy. We utilize the theory of deep democratization as a way of explaining these trends. Deep democratization is a long-term process resulting in social and political changes leading to rules and mechanisms of accountability that provide wider inclusion in the governance process and autonomy from corrupt networks of elites. The five key characteristics of a country that has achieved deep democratization include competitive multi-party elections, professionalism in the civil service, a strong and independent judiciary, a free and independent press, and a strong and vibrant civil society. In the case of Hungary, each of these five characteristics have been significantly weakened as a result of its backsliding towards authoritarianism. In the case of Italy, however, the relative strengthening of these characteristics has led to substantive progress in its fight against corruption. Our findings support previous research that indicates authoritarianism breeds corruption. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Can governments make courts politically compliant without undermining public confidence in the judicial system? Many studies show a positive relationship between judicial independence and citizens' trust in courts. However, most of them have shown static cross-sectional correlations rather than actual effects of court curbing on trust. Factors such as citizens' level of education and political preferences may also play a role in moderating reactions to court curbing. We analyse how assaults on judicial independence by populist governments in Turkey, Hungary, and Poland affected judicial trust, using a difference-in-differences approach to Eurobarometer data. While we find evidence that court curbing has an adverse effect on judicial trust, this effect is much clearer among citizens who are ideologically distant from their governments. These findings coincide with experimental evidence indicating how citizens tolerate democratic backsliding, suggesting that, for many, trust in the judicial system can subsist even when courts are made politically subservient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article compares and analyzes the common structural features of apex courts in legal systems that exemplify judicial supremacy. Topics discussed include foundations of apex courts, scheme of government authority, independence and representation in apex courts, subcategories of apex courts, and correlation between the structural features of an apex court and its social, historical, constituent, constitutional, legal, model of democracy and political environment.

The executive arm of the government in Nigeria has been underfunding the judiciary due to its lack of fiscal (financial) autonomy. However, despite the Nigerian judiciary being granted fiscal self-autonomy by the court in 2014, it continues to fall short of one of the main criteria for judicial independence due to inadequate budgetary support. Thus, the article examines the judiciary’s independence and its challenges from poor funding. It employs a qualitative methodology and desk research sources to examine several provisions of the Nigerian constitution, analyze the practicalities of fiscal autonomy from a comparative perspective between Nigeria and other countries, and determine the inadequate funding of the Nigerian judiciary by placing its percentage of budgetary allocation against the nation’s total annual budget over the years. The article suggests the need for implementation structures of fiscal autonomy involving a time frame of budgetary allocation directly to the judiciary to assure its independence and efficient funding for the provision of court services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Conflicts over the independence of judiciary as one of the European Union's core democratic values is one indicator of democratic backsliding among its member states. Based on the Europeanization framework, we compare this conflict in German, Polish and Spanish print media and Twitter from 2019 to 2021. In the countries that are strongly affected by the value conflict, Poland and Spain, Europeanization is less evident. In contrast, the German discourse shows a high degree of Europeanization. We demonstrate that the print media is strongly elite-centric, while Twitter shows a higher actor visibility and inclusivity. However, we also identify important country differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the role of judicial conduct commissions (JCCs) in maintaining public trust in the judiciary. Topics include the historical development of judicial ethics standards, the dual mission of JCCs to investigate misconduct while respecting judicial independence, and the need for proper resources and training to enhance the effectiveness of these commissions.

The article focuses on the evolution of judicial conduct codes in the United States, aimed at ensuring judicial independence and integrity. Topics include the historical origins of the judicial ethics codes in response to public scandals, the major revisions of these codes over time, and the recent adoption of a new ethics code by the Supreme Court of the United States to address modern concerns.

With ever-increasing gridlock and polarization at the national level, many new policy changes in the United States have come at the state level. This includes legislation that restricts the right to vote, limits free speech and expression, and gerrymanders state legislative and congressional districts. A growing body of literature describes these changes, when taken together, as evidence of subnational democratic backsliding. Yet this literature largely ignores the effects of federalism on the structure of institutions within the states, particularly on judicial independence. In this article, I examine the relationship between measures of democracy and introduction of court-curbing legislation in the states. Focusing on instances of court packing, changing the methods of selection and retention, and impeachment, I show that heightened attacks on judicial independence are associated with other types of democratic backsliding. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Faculty of Law at the University of Montevideo has been recognized as a teaching center of the University of London for the Commercial Law Diploma. The first generation of students has successfully passed the first subject of the diploma, and several students from the second cohort have been accepted to start their studies next year. Additionally, the experience of two students who participated in an exchange program at Delaware Law School is highlighted, where they expanded their knowledge from various perspectives. The publication of a book by Professor Santiago Pereira Campos on judicial independence worldwide is also mentioned. The Faculty of Law at the University of Montevideo organized an international colloquium on Procedural Law, Innovation, and Justice, which was attended by national experts and experts from Brazil. Conferences on the challenges of the Uruguayan criminal justice system and the third Administrative Law conference were also held. [Extracted from the article]

Copyright of Ankara Hacı Bayram Veli Üniversitesi Hukuk Fakültesi Dergisi is the property of Ankara Haci Bayram Veli Universitesi Hukuk Fakultesi and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Majalat Monazaat Al-Aamal is the property of Majalat Monazaat Al-Aamal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista Digital de Derecho Administrativo is the property of Universidad Externado de Colombia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In this article, we investigate the influence of local official turnover on litigation efficiency using manually collected data from listed companies in China from 1995 to 2013. Our findings indicate that official turnover leads to a decrease in litigation efficiency, with a 16.3% increase in the duration of litigation cases. This effect is more pronounced when newly appointed officials are working in different locations. It is more significant when the involved enterprise is a private entity, suggesting that political cycles contribute to the selective enforcement of private enterprises. Further analysis reveals that the adverse impact of official turnover on litigation efficiency is short‐lived. The conclusions contribute to the existing literature on official turnover and litigation efficiency and hold potential implications for judicial independence reforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of this study was to identify the main international standards for the application of the principle of independence in the judicial process and the specifics of its implementation in Ukraine. The main methods used for scientific cognition included analysis and synthesis, formal-logical, historical-formal, induction and deduction, specification and generalisation, comparison. The study identified the principal international standards for the implementation of the principle of independence of participants in criminal proceedings, including judges and prosecutors, which include proper legal regulation of the status of judges and prosecutors, direct prohibition of influence from other branches of power. The study found certain differences between the independence of judges and prosecutors, which include the following features: the independence of a judge means being subject to the law and impartiality in relation to any party to the trial, while a prosecutor cannot be independent in this sense, since they represent the prosecution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article underscores the significance of the University of Miami Law Review's dedication to analyze the jurisprudence and administration of the Eleventh Circuit. It aligns this tradition with the principles outlined by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 78, emphasizing the importance of an independent judiciary bound by precedent to ensure impartiality in law enforcement.

The author deals with constitutional changes in the judiciary in the Republic of Serbia. The Constitution of the Republic of Serbia was adopted in 2006, and for years there have been attempts of change towards democratisation. A special problem is the composition, and functioning of the High Judicial Council, as a body that should have exclusive competence in the election of judges. In the first part of the paper, the author explains the 2006 constitutional solutions, while in the second, he explains the first attempts to change the constitutional provisions to form new solutions aimed at depoliticising the judiciary, which never came into force. In the third part of the paper, the author points out the most important proposed constitutional changes from 2021, which the Venice Commission criticised, but which came into force. The author also points out the views of the Venice Commission and gives his suggestions.

The principle of judicial independence is a fundamental tenet of the rule of law and fair trial standards. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) identifies four criteria for evaluating judicial independence: (a) the manner of a judge’s appointment; (b) the duration of such an appointment; (c) safeguards against external influence; and (d) the appearance of independence. The ECtHR also distinguishes several dimensions of judicial independence, including independence vis-à-vis the executive, parliament, other courts, and parties, as well as independence from judicial councils. Nevertheless, despite the existence of shared European principles on judicial independence, certain countries, particularly those undergoing transitions, encounter challenges such as political interference, corruption, and insufficient safeguards against dismissal. This results in a discernible disjunction between de jure and de facto judicial independence. This article poses the following research questions: What are the main approaches and common challenges for judicial independence in European countries based on the latest case law of the ECtHR? What lessons can be learned by Ukraine, as an EU candidate, from this case law in order to mitigate the gap between de jure and de facto judicial independence?

The study represents a first effort to explore societal sources of support for judicial independence under authoritarianism. Contemporary Russia, which is characterized by legal dualism, under which judges pay close attention to the governing law when resolving mundane cases but routinely twist this law beyond recognition in politicized cases, presents an ideal case study. Drawing primarily on two national representative surveys, fielded in 2008 and 2018, the author finds that a majority of Russians believe their judges to be under the control of political officials. Higher education and prior court experience are key predictors of skepticism. The study complicates the relationship among these factors by singling out Russians with legal education. Despite their high levels of knowledge and experience, law graduates are more likely to believe in judicial independence than other university graduates. This suggests the importance of drawing a contrast between those with profound knowledge, such as lawyers, and those with superficial knowledge. Thanks to their educational socialization and deeper understanding of the messy reality of courts, Russian lawyers are more forgiving of the courts' shortcomings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In 2021, the UN Human Rights Committee (HRC) held Spain responsible for violations of Articles 14(1), 14(5) and 15 (1) of the ICCPR in the Garzón v Spain case. The purposes of this article are three-fold. Firstly, it provides an analysis of the 'Francoism' case and the 'Gürtel' case, the two trials held by the Spanish Supreme Court (SSC) against Judge Garzón, which the HRC declared were 'arbitrary and did not comply with the principles of judicial independence and impartiality', and an assessment of their political and legal aftermaths. Secondly, it assesses the dim prospects for Spain complying with the HRC's views on the Garzón case by providing an updated and comprehensive statistical account of Spain's extremely low record of compliance with previous HRC's decisions. Thirdly, it provides an analysis of the new opportunities for judicial enforceability in cases of non-compliance by Spain with the views of the HRC in the wake of the SSC's landmark judgement on the González Carreño v. Spain case and subsequent case law. The conclusion considers the enhanced potential role of domestic courts in fostering the enforceability of decisions by quasi-adjudicatory human rights bodies both in Spain and in the light of the Spanish experience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

An analysis of legality in an authoritarian zone requires a nuanced understanding of its dynamics and how they differ from those conventionally envisioned in a democratic society. This article critically examines the varieties of authoritarian legality in three differentiated paradigms, namely, 'law and politics', 'law with politics', and 'law in politics', each engaging in a distinctive entanglement of law with politics depending on the varying degrees of the law's autonomy. Furthermore, it points out that the engagement of authoritarian legality is favourably facilitated through politically controllable legal institutions and state-shaped public sphere. Moreover, it argues that the standalone statist reason cannot stand out alone as a legitimate ground for legality unless some other alternative reasons can be dialogically engaged in the public discourse. Otherwise, the force and violence may be clothed in the form of a law that serves as a political instrument for the ruling of the authoritarian government, which can be fuelled by nationalistic ideologies or demagogues. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article compares secular judicial law and canon judicial law on the basis of the distinction (present in both) between an ordinary situation and an emergency situation. This perspective enables an understanding of a "two-speed system" in canon law. Ordinary canonical justice has consistently and effectively asserted and continues to assert the independence of the judiciary, the quality of justice, as well as the efficiency of their processes. There is also canonical justice that is exercised largely by the executive authority; this is a consequence of a weakening of the sense of Church as society, in general, and because of the recent abuse scandals, in particular. Entrusting justice to the executive authority may be understood as a "state of emergency". However, the "justification" for this shift to executive authority requires three conditions, which are also encompassed by secular law: temporariness, proportionality, and suitability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Human rights abuses have been one of the challenges facing Nigeria since the First Republic in 1960 up untill date. On these premises, this study elucidates the interconnectedness and intricate relationships among human rights, democratic governance, and the rule of law in Nigeria. Specifically, the study examines factors undermining Nigeria's democratic governance, rule of law, and human rights. The study adopted mixed methods design with 600 respondents chosen across the study area. The descriptive analysis technique was employed in the analysis of the collected data. The research is theoretically grounded in elite theory. The findings of the study revealed Nigeria's ability to sustain long-term national peace, security, development, and prosperity is jeopardised by numerous instances of fundamental human rights abuses and violations of the rule of law. Equally, the socio-religious dimensions of these challenges are integral to understanding the complexities of human rights and governance issues in Nigeria. The study concludes that allowing the instantaneous development of Nigeria's three levels of government holds the potential to instil typical democratic norms, foster political stability, and pave the way for long-term peace, security, and development in the country. The study recommends that the independence of the judiciary must be strengthened, press freedom preserved, democratic norms and principles upheld, and public awareness increased in order to decrease human rights violations and promote good governance in Nigeria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The legal sector is no exception when it comes to exploring the potential for technological solutions in terms of artificial intelligence (AI). However, there are significant risks associated with the use of AI systems such as inter alia potential bias in the output, the lack of transparency about its use and functionality, as well as the reliability of results created. In view of these risks, the EU AI Act which is about to enter into force and become applicable in steps in the next 6-36 months, considers AI-enabled technologies to assist and support judicial authorities during the decision-rendering process as high-risk AI systems. Against this background and the fact that guaranteeing the independence of the judiciary is the duty of all democracies, this article seeks to determine which (future) uses of technology in the judicial sector will be considered as high-risk AI under the AI Act. Further, the duties and obligations that arise from the classification of a technology as high-risk AI are briefly outlined, before addressing challenges and issues that arise in relation to judicial independence and impartiality when AI systems are used in the process of adjudication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A rise in anti-immigrant pressure can reduce asylum recognition rates, irrespective of individuals' protection needs. Independent courts, which often act as a safeguard of migrant rights vis-à-vis such pressures, have been subject to increasing political interference. Yet, we know very little about how variation in the level of judicial independence – especially among lower courts – affects policy outcomes. In this paper, we assess the impact of anti-immigrant pressure and judicial independence on first and final instance refugee status determination decisions across 28 European Union member states over a ten-year period (2008–2018). We find that the relative independence of courts makes the biggest difference in asylum recognition rates at first and final instance when levels of anti-immigrant pressure are particularly high. This effect can be demonstrated not just regarding asylum appeals, but also for first instance decisions, suggesting that independent courts can have a liberal 'foreshadowing effect' on national asylum agencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the rise of populism, we frequently witness how elected governments try to limit judicial power by using different means. Comparing the court-curbing policies used by the Fidesz government in Hungary and the PiS government in Poland, this study has two objectives. First, it aims to explain whether different court-curbing policies effect judicial independence differently. Using synthetic control method, I find that the predominant use of informal court-curbing policies erodes judicial independence much more extensively compared to the predominant use of formal court-curbing policies. The second objective is to provide and empirically test the causal explanation for this effect. I argue that when the incumbent tries to weaken the judiciary mostly through informal court-curbing, this might instigate public discontent and jeopardize the judiciary's legitimacy in the short run. However, when the government tries to restructure the judiciary via constitutional reforms, the legitimacy of the 'new' judicial system might not be questioned by the public. Supporting these hypotheses, the empirical results show that while the court-curbing attempts of the PiS government reduced public confidence in the judiciary by almost 15 percent, we do not see a significant decline in the Hungarian case where mostly formal court-curbing was used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Derecho Politico is the property of Editorial UNED and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: New legislation in Ukraine has introduced a significant change in the function of the prosecutor’s office by establishing bodies of prosecutorial self-governance. Their implementation stems from the change in the constitutional status of the prosecutor's office and the need to strengthen the independence of prosecutors while minimising external political and internal systemic influence on their work. Such reforms align with a pan-European tendency, which was formed as a result of the modernisation of approaches to the perception of the prosecutor's office. The independence of the judiciary and the effectiveness of the administration of justice depends on the independent activity of such body as the prosecutor's office. This necessitates the formation and development of the principle of political neutrality, which should form the basis of the organisation and activity of the prosecutor's office in a state governed by the rule of law. Orientation to international standards and best practices allows us to hypothesise about the progressiveness of the Ukrainian model of prosecutorial self-governance. This hypothesis can be tested through a comparative analysis with other countries. We have chosen the Baltic countries for comparison as they are connected with Ukraine by a common Soviet past; however, they decided on the European course of their development much faster. The article offers an overview of models of prosecutorial self-governance in Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia and Ukraine, outlining the structure and competence of their bodies. Based on a comparative analysis of Ukraine’s example, the researchers have identified the main directions for strengthening the institutional capacity of prosecutorial self-governance bodies. Methods: In conducting the scientific work, the authors employed several special legal methods, which allowed them to realise both the collection and generalisation of factual data, as well as to carry out a multi-level comparison of selected research objects at the proper level. The study relied on, in particular, formal-legal, logical-legal, historical-legal and comparative-legal methods of scientific learning. Results and Conclusions: It has been concluded that the introduction of prosecutorial self-governance in the states is a necessary step in the direction of strengthening the independence of prosecutors as a component of effective justice. This makes it possible to minimise external political and internal systemic influence on personnel processes in the prosecutor's office system, contributes to ensuring its political neutrality, as well as solves issues of financial, material, technical, and other provisions for prosecutors. In this sense, the Ukrainian model of prosecutorial self-governance is quite progressive, although it is not without disadvantages. In particular, the dispersion of personnel powers among different subjects makes prosecutors vulnerable in career advancement, specifically regarding clarity in the demarcation of their competence. This focuses on further developing prosecutorial self-governance, strengthening its institutional capacity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Europarecht (05312485) is the property of Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This research focuses on the legality of international sanctions. It examines international sanctions as a deterrent punitive mechanism within the framework of Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. These sanctions are applied in cases of breaches or threats to international peace and security. The central question of this thesis is: What is the legal basis for international sanctions? The study aims to shed light on the legality of international sanctions under the principles of public international law. It delves into the activation of international sanctions, the consequences of their legality, the forms of international sanctions, the characteristics of international penalties, and the objectives of their application. The study concludes with several key findings, including: Determining the extent to which the application of these sanctions is legal against States that violate the international order, as stipulated in Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. The necessity for an independent judiciary to oversee the legality of Security Council resolutions and consider appeals from States affected by these resolutions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Millions of times every year, American prosecutors make the all-important decision whether to decline or file formal criminal charges after police have made an arrest. This declination decision determines whether an arrest will become a full-fledged criminal case and thus whether an individual arrestee will become a defendant. It establishes the classic dividing line between investigation and adjudication, triggering numerous constitutional consequences. Through declination, prosecutors also check and regulate police decision-making within the executive branch. In an era of racialized mass incarceration, prosecutorial declination can .function as a mode of equitable gatekeeping, regulating the impact of sloppy or biased policing practices on communities, courts, and the rest of the criminal pipeline. It is therefore a unique structural moment of institutional and constitutional significance. Declination is especially influential because police and prosecutors are the two main decision-makers within the carceral executive branch. This Article conceptualizes the relationship between them as an overlooked example of internal separation of powers, with the declination decision as its most impactful regulatory moment. Administrative law teaches that intrabranch checks are vital, especially when interbranch separation of powers has proven ineffective as it .famously has with respect to the penal executive. The prosecutorial declination decision, in turn, is an especially promising intrabranch checking tool. It offers decisional friction, oversight, and accountability within the executive at precisely the moment when good law enforcement decision-making makes a big difference for millions of people. In our massive misdemeanor system, this regulatory promise usually fails. Misdemeanor prosecutors routinely rubber-stamp police arrest decisions and convert arrests automatically into formal charges: namely, they abdicate their screening and checking Junctions by deferring to police. Misdemeanor declination rates are typically very low--often less than five percent--which means that police effectively get to decide not only who will be arrested but who will be formally charged with a crime. This is not how the criminal system is supposed to work. In administrative law terms, such prosecutorial abdication is a violation of basic branch design and a worrisome species of intrabranch collusion. It is, however, neither universal nor foreordained. Around the country, many newly elected prosecutors have embraced strong misdemeanor declination policies, not only as a way of checking police but increasing equity, efficiency, and accountability. Such policies exemplify, how misdemeanor declination is an underappreciated opportunity to regulate the penal executive from within and to mitigate the excesses and injustices of the low-level carceral state. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With reference to the 19th amendment to the Constitution, the document sought to emphasize judicial independence. The objective of the research is to create awareness and high light the importance of 19th amendment and this study will also examine judicial system of 18th and 19th amendment in this descriptive research along with its impact on judicial independence. In state where democracy is guaranteed, the legislative, executive, and judicial branches of government to carry out their constitutional duties. All individuals have direct access to these vital establishments, particularly the legal system. In the case of a duty or citizen's right being violated, the parties register their concerns with the state's administrative authority. The protection of the rights of the state's residents depends on judicial independence. The government implemented revolutionary changes through the 19th Amendment to the Constitution. The focus of study was descriptive and qualitative. At the end, it has been concluded. It will be helpful for students, teachers and legal fraternity for reference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Critique of Law: Independent Legal Studies / Krytyka Prawa: Niezalezne Studia nad Prawem is the property of Akademia Leona Kozminskiego and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

This article addresses a gap in existing research by focusing on the often-neglected realm of judicial interactions and internal dynamics within specific courts concerning the phenomenon of votum separatum. We examine the forms and practices of collegiality within Polish administrative courts and their influence on judges' decisions to file dissenting opinions. Additionally, we investigate the reactions of fellow judges when a dissent is announced. Our qualitative research methodology relies on in-depth interviews to prevent the imposition of predefined categories. Participants were encouraged to recount their experiences related to composing or participating in decisions involving dissenting opinions. This approach led to the emergence of categories related to collegiality, its functions, and inherent tensions. Our findings reveal that collegiality manifests in various forms beyond panel deliberations. Notably, our research uncovers the existence of departmental meetings in provincial administrative courts where issues addressed in dissenting opinions are discussed. Furthermore, judges' perspectives indicate that the most common scenario leading to dissenting opinions arises when judges from different panels reach opposing decisions. This dilemma prompts judges to choose between adhering to the initial panel's decision or voting for a divergent position proposed by the second panel. Finally, our observations within courtrooms highlight that the ideal of the dispassionate judge does not exclude subtle expressions of surprise or disappointment. These findings enrich our understanding of judicial interactions, shedding light on the complexities of collegiality and dissent within the context of Polish administrative courts.

The past decade has seen the rise of the semi-authoritarian regimes within the European Union. EU law scholars are rightfully concerned that, in the absence of a meaningful response, this leads to an existential crisis for the Union, as these regimes threaten respect for the Union’s foundational values. The Union did respond to what it has framed as a rule of law crisis by means of a constitutional transformation, asserting Union power to protect judicial independence within the Member States even in areas previously thought beyond the reach of Union law. This paper contends that the Union’s response to the authoritarian threat is flawed for its legalist faith in law and courts. In institutional terms, it was the Court of Justice of the European Union, rather than the Union’s political branches, that took the lead in this transformation. In substantive terms, the Union has transformed its constitutional framework to protect the organisational infrastructure of the judiciary, but it failed to do the same in response to various other strategies in the authoritarian playbook. By framing the authoritarian threat as, above all else, a threat to the judiciary, the Union’s response contributes to the reification of political debate at Union level and risks the alienation of the European polity.

Judges communicate outside of the courtroom on a regular basis. They give speeches at universities and to societies; appear before select committees; write for a range of publications; and engage in both media and outreach activities. Existing literature has charted the value and perils of such extrajudicial communication. This paper contributes an explanation of what motivates judges towards such communication, and what shapes their discourse. The work draws on 13 semi-structured interviews with senior serving and recently retired judges, along with an extensive range of examples of judicial speech beyond the bench. It argues that extrajudicial communication is shaped by a shared conception amongst the judicial community of what is appropriate. This conception of propriety is principally motivated by a communal pursuit of sustaining public confidence in the judicial office. The conception also informs the limits of appropriate discourse and establishes the ramifications for breach. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The past decade has seen the rise of the semi-authoritarian regimes within the European Union. EU law scholars are rightfully concerned that, in the absence of a meaningful response, this leads to an existential crisis for the Union, as these regimes threaten respect for the Union's foundational values. The Union did respond to what it has framed as a rule of law crisis by means of a constitutional transformation, asserting Union power to protect judicial independence within the Member States even in areas previously thought beyond the reach of Union law. This paper contends that the Union's response to the authoritarian threat is flawed for its legalist faith in law and courts. In institutional terms, it was the Court of Justice of the European Union, rather than the Union's political branches, that took the lead in this transformation. In substantive terms, the Union has transformed its constitutional framework to protect the organisational infrastructure of the judiciary, but it failed to do the same in response to various other strategies in the authoritarian playbook. By framing the authoritarian threat as, above all else, a threat to the judiciary, the Union's response contributes to the reification of political debate at Union level and risks the alienation of the European polity. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article examines the principle of the immutability of judges as a key element in ensuring the independence of the judicial system, which is an important tool for the administration of fair justice and the establishment of a democratic society. Analyzing the historical development, evolutionary changes, and contemporary application of the principle, the author explores how the principle of the immutability of judges contributes to protection against unjustified dismissal and political interference, while ensuring stability and predictability in justice. The article also discusses contemporary challenges, including corruption and political pressure, which can undermine the effectiveness of this principle, and proposes possible solutions and recommendations for overcoming them. Particular attention is paid to the need for a balance between protecting judges and ensuring their accountability, which is crucial for maintaining public trust in the judicial system. This scientific article can be of significant practical benefit for various categories of readers and sectors of society, including judges and lawyers, legislators, researchers, law students for further research in the field of justice, as well as material for academic study and debates. Overall, the scientific article helps to raise awareness of the importance of the principle of the immutability of judges, highlights its role in protecting the rule of law and democracy, and can serve as a basis for practical measures in the field of justice and legislation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]