Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T01:21:32.790Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Failed Expectations: Does the Establishment of Judicial Councils Enhance Confidence in Courts?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 March 2019

Marína Urbániková  and
Katarína Šipulová

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Judicial councils are often presented as a panacea for many disorders of judicial systems, including low public confidence in the judiciary. Nevertheless, the assessment of their impact has so far been neglected. The article offers a unique view on the relationship between judicial councils and the level of public confidence in courts. It draws a novel conceptual map of factors influencing public confidence in the judiciary, stressing its complex and multifaceted character. Situating the judicial councils on the map, it explores how they can help to potentially increase the level of public confidence in the judiciary, and assesses to what extent this has been true in the countries that have adopted them. The results reveal a considerable gap between the promises, expectations, and practice, and raise doubts about the ability of judicial councils to enhance confidence in courts. Judicial councils rarely manage to substantially improve institutional performance: they can enhance the quality of judicial systems which have already functioned quite well, but they do not tend to bring about change in the judicial systems that have been previously significantly flawed. The analysis of the longitudinal Eurobarometer data showed that, on average, the EU countries without judicial councils are better off in terms of public confidence. Although the existence of judicial councils does not make a difference regarding public confidence in the judiciary in the new EU member states, in the old EU member states, judicial systems with judicial councils enjoy lower levels of public confidence than the ones without them.

Type
Articles
Information
German Law Journal , Volume 19 , Issue 7: Special issue — Judicial Self-Government in Europe , 01 December 2018 , pp. 2105 - 2136
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 by German Law Journal GbR 

References

1 See also Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct of 2002, value 4 identifying the judges as a subject of constant public scrutiny; references to public confidence and the role of judges appear also in several national codes of conduct, e.g. General Council of the Judiciary (Spain). Principles of Judicial Ethics, 16 December 2016; United States Courts. Code of Conduct for United States Judges, http://www.uscourts.gov/judges-judgeships/code-conduct-united-states-judges.Google Scholar

2 E.g. Report of CEPEJ on European Judicial Systems (2016). https://www.uihj.com/en/publication-of-the-2016-report-of-cepej-on-european-judicial-systems_2165915.html.Google Scholar

3 European Commission. Effective justice. https://ec.europa.eu/info/policies/justice-and-fundamental-rights/effective-justice_en.Google Scholar

4 E.g. Committee for the Evaluation of the Modernisation of the Dutch Judiciary (2006). Judiciary is Quality. https://www.rechtspraak.nl/SiteCollectionDocuments/Judiciary-is-quality.pdf.Google Scholar

5 E.g. United States Courts. Enhancing Public Understanding, Trust, and Confidence. http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/issue-7-enhancing-public-understanding-trust-and-confidence. Or Public Service and Trust Commission (2008). Strategic Plan for the Judicial Branch. https://www.jud.ct.gov/Committees/pst/StrategicPlan.pdf.Google Scholar

6 Kosař, David, Beyond Judicial Councils: Forms, Rationales and Impact of Judicial Self-Government in Europe in this issue.Google Scholar

7 For a definition of a judicial council, see Kosař, id. Google Scholar

8 Resolution of the General Assembly of the European Network of Councils for the judiciary (2008), Budapest, 21-23 May, 2008; The European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ): Council for the Judiciary Report 2010/2011. ENJC Project Team; Recommendation No. R (94) 12, Committee of Ministers.Google Scholar

9 Larkins, Christopher M., Judicial Independence and Democratization: A Theoretical and Conceptual Analysis, 44 ASCL 605 (1996); Peter H. Russell and David M. O'Brien, Judicial Independence in the Age of Democracy (2001).Google Scholar

10 Recommendation CM/Rec (2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities, Committee of Ministers, 17 November 2010, para. 46.Google Scholar

11 Argument raised e.g. by Nuno Garoupa & Tom Ginsburg, Guarding the Guardians: Judicial Councils and Judicial Independence, 57 Am. J. of Comp. Law 103 (2009).Google Scholar

12 For some exemption see e.g. US or common law scholarship: Sara C. Benesh, Understanding Public Confidence in American Courts, The Journal of Politics 697 (2006). Sarah M. R. Cravens, Promoting Public Confidence in the Regulation of Judicial Conduct: A Survey of Recent Developments and Practices in Four Common Law Countries, 42 McGeorge Law Review 177-212 (2011).Google Scholar

13 Cravens, supra note 12; Gregory A. Caldeira, Neither the Purse Nor the Sword: Dynamics of Public Confidence in the Supreme Court, 80 The American Political Science Review 1209–1226 (1986), http://www.jstor.org/stable/1960864; Benesh Sara C., supra note 12.Google Scholar

14 France, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey.Google Scholar

15 Schwartz, Herman, The Struggle for Constitutional Justice in Post-Communist Europe (2004).Google Scholar

16 Shortly after the WW2, constitutional courts were introduced in Austria, Germany, Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Belgium, and France. Similar development followed after 1989 in post-communist countries.Google Scholar

17 ODIHR. Judicial Independence in Eastern Europe, South Caucasus and Central Asia. Challenges, Reforms, and Way Forward. Meeting Report, 23-25 June 2010, https://www.osce.org/odihr/71178?download=true.Google Scholar

18 Some authors however pointed out the risk of establishing judicial councils in countries which did not purify and screen the post-communist judiciaries. David Kosař, Perils of Judicial Self-Government in Transitional Societies (2016).Google Scholar

19 THE BANGALORE PRINCIPLES, 2002, supra note 1, at 11.Google Scholar

20 Commentary on Bangalore Principles https://rm.coe.int/168066d6b9.Google Scholar

21 Id. Google Scholar

22 OSCE and Max Planck Minerva Research Group on Judicial Independence. Kyiv Recommendations on Judicial Independence in Eastern Europe, South Caucasus and Central Asia, https://www.osce.org/odihr/KyivRec?download=true.Google Scholar

23 Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Recommendation No. R (94) 12 (1994) http://www.barobirlik.org.tr/dosyalar/duyurular/hsykkanunteklifi/recR(94)12e.pdf.Google Scholar

24 Council of Europe Portal, https://www.coe.int/en/web/human-rights-rule-of-law/-/council-of-europe-launches-action-plan-on-strengthening-judicial-independence-and-impartiality and Council of Europe, Plan of Action on Strengthening Judicial Independence and Impartiality CM(2016)36 https://rm.coe.int/1680700125.Google Scholar

25 Venice Commission. Judicial Appointments. Discussion paper, 14 March 2007, http://www.venice.coe.int/webforms/documents/default.aspx?pdffile=CDL-JD(2007)001-e.Google Scholar

26 European Commission. https://ec.europa.eu/info/strategy/justice-and-fundamental-rights/effective-justice/improving-effectiveness-national-justice-systems_en.Google Scholar

27 European Network of Councils for the Judiciary. Public Confidence and the Image of Justice. Report 2017-2018. https://pgwrk-websitemedia.s3.eu-west-l.amazonaws.com/production/pwk-web-encj2017-p/Reports/ENCJ_Report_Public_Confidence_2017_2018%20adopted_%20GA_1_June_2018.pdf.Google Scholar

28 Philip M. Langbroek, Reform of the Judiciary in the Netherlands. Some Lessons after the First 8 Years. World Bank Group, http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTECA/Resources/ReformJudiciaryNetherlands.pdf.Google Scholar

29 Id. Google Scholar

30 Philip M. Langbroek, Organization Development of the Dutch Judiciary, between Accountability and Judicial Independence. IJCA:2 (April 2010).Google Scholar

31 Le Conseil de la Justice, http://www.hrj.be/fr/content/historique.Google Scholar

32 Conseil Superieur de la Magistrature, http://www.conseil-superieur-magistrature.fr/le-csm/histoire-etpatrimoine.Google Scholar

33 La tutela dell'onore professionale e della dignità personale dei magistrati. L'esigenza di garantire il rispetto della funzione giudiziaria. Resolution of the CSM,15 December 1999; Renato Balduzzi, Inauguration of the Judicial Year 2015. 24 January 2015, https://www.csm.it/web/rbalduzzi/bacheca-del-consigliere/-/blogs/inaugurazione-dell-anno-giudiziario-2015; Consiglio Superiore della Magistratura, https://www.csm.it/web/csm-internet/assistenza-al-cittadino.Google Scholar

34 It is worth noting that focus on public confidence appears only in the new 2017 proposal. Department of Justice and Equality, Judicial Council Bill 2017 http://www.justice.ie/en/JELR/Judicial_Council_Bill_2017_Explanatory_and_Financial_Memorandum.pdf/Files/Judicial_Council_Bill_2017_Explanatory_and_Financial_Memorandum.pdf Google Scholar

35 Id. Google Scholar

36 IBAHRI. Still under threat: The independence of the judiciary and the rule of law in Hungary, 2015. https://www.premier.gov.pl/files/files/white_paper_en_full.pdf.Google Scholar

38 Id. Google Scholar

39 Le Conseil de la Justice, http://www.hrj.be/fr/content/communique-de-presse-le-conseil-superieur-de-la-justice-10-ans-apres-la-marche-blanche. The Belgian High Council of Justice. Presentation, http://www.hrj.be/sites/default/files/press_publications/o0026b.pdf.Google Scholar

40 See supra note 4.Google Scholar

41 Sztompka, Plotr, Trust: A Sociological Theory 11–15 (2000).Google Scholar

42 Luhmann, Niklas, Familiarity, Confidence, Trust: Problems and Alternatives, in Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations 94-107 (Diego Gambetta ed., 1988).Google Scholar

43 E.g., normally, we are confident that when we leave our homes in the morning and go to work, there will not be a commando of snipers trying to shoot us down. Although it is possible, we bracket this option because it is highly improbable, and also because otherwise we would have to live in a state of permanent uncertainty.Google Scholar

44 Sztompka, supra note 41, at 25.Google Scholar

45 Id. at 25.Google Scholar

46 E.g., Jeffery J Mondak & Shannon Smithey Smithey, The Dynamics of Public Support for the Supreme Court, 59 The Journal of Politics 1114–1142 (1997).Google Scholar

47 E.g., Caldeira, supra note 13.Google Scholar

48 E.g., Bühlmann, Marc & Kunz, Ruth, Confidence in the Judiciary: Comparing the Independence and Legitimacy of Judicial Systems, 34 West European Politics 318 (2011).Google Scholar

49 Lewicki, Roy J., McAllister, Daniel J. & Bies, Robert J., Trust and Distrust: New Relationships and Realities, 23 Academy of Management Review 439 (1998).Google Scholar

50 Citrin, Jack & Muste, Christopher, Trust in Government, in Measures of Political Attitudes 465-532 (Robinson, John, Shaver, Phillip R. & Wrightsman, Lawrence S. eds, 1999).Google Scholar

51 Dougherty, George W., Lindquist, Stefanie A. & Bradbury, Mark D., Evaluating Performance in State Judicial Institutions: Trust and Confidence in the Georgia Judiciary, 38 State and Local Government Review 176 (2006).Google Scholar

52 Cook, Timothy E. & Gronke, Paul, The Skeptical American: Revisiting the Meanings of Trust in Government and Confidence in Institutions, 67 The Journal of Politics 785 (2005).Google Scholar

53 Gibson, James L., Caldeira, Gregory A. & Spence, Lester Kenyatta, Measuring Attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court, 47 American Journal Of Political Science 364 (2003).Google Scholar

54 Sztompka, supra note 41, at 41-46.Google Scholar

55 Uslaner, Eric M., The Moral Foundations of Trust (2002).Google Scholar

55 Oskarsson, Sven, Torsten Svensson & PerOla Oberg, Power, Trust, and Institutional Constraints: Individual Level Evidence, 21 Rationality And Society 173 (2009).Google Scholar

57 Sztompka, supra note 41, at 69-101.Google Scholar

58 Newton, Kenneth & Norris, Pippa, Confidence in Public Institutions: Faith, Culture or Performance?, in Disaffected Democracies: What's Troubling the Trilateral Countries? 56 (Pharr, Susan J. & Putnam, Robert D. eds., 2000).Google Scholar

59 Mishler, William & Rose, Richard, What Are the Origins of Political Trust? Testing Institutional and Cultural Theories in Post-communist Societies, 34 Comparative Political Studies 30–62 (2001).Google Scholar

60 Newton & Norris, supra note 58, at 58.Google Scholar

61 E.g., Bühlmann & Kunz supra note 48, at 332. Newton & Norris, supra note 58, at 9. William Mishler & Richard Rose, Trust, Distrust and Skepticism: Popular Evaluations of Civil and Political Institutions in Post-Communist Societies, 59 The Journal of Politics 444 (1997). Ola Listhaug, Confidence in Institutions: Findings from the Norwegian Values, 27 Acta Sociologica 121 (1984). James W. Stoutenborough & Donald P. Haider-Markel, Public Confidence in the U.S. Supreme Court: A New Look at the Impact of Court Decisions, 45 The Social Science Journal 38 (2008). Ryan Salzman & Adam Ramsey, Judging the Judiciary: Understanding Public Confidence in Latin American Courts, 55 Latin American Politics 88 (2013).Google Scholar

62 E.g., Stoutenborough & Haider-Markel, , supra note 61. Benesh, supra note 12. James P. Wenzel, Shaun Bowler & David J. Lanoue, The Sources Of Public Confidence In State Courts: Experience and Institutions, 31 American Politics Research 200 (2003).Google Scholar

63 E.g., Lühiste, Kadri, Explaining Trust in Political Institutions: Some Illustrations from the Baltic States, 39 Communist and Post-Communist Studies 493 (2006).Google Scholar

64 E.g., Bühlmann & Kunz supra note 48, at 332. Mishler & Rose, supra note 61, at 445.Google Scholar

65 E.g., Lühiste, , supra note 63. Bühlmann & Kunz, supra note 48, at 332. Newton & Norris, supra note 58, at 9. Mishler & Rose, supra note 61, at 445. Christine A. Kelleher & Jennifer Wolak, Explaining Public Confidence in the Branches of State Government, 60 Political Research Quarterly 717 (2007).Google Scholar

66 E.g., Stoutenborough & Haider-Markel, , supra note 61.Google Scholar

67 E.g., Mishler & Rose, supra note 61, at 445. Newton & Norris, supra note 58, at 9. Kelleher & Wolak, supra note 65, at 717. Listhaug, supra note 61.Google Scholar

68 E.g., Stoutenborough & Haider-Markel, , supra note 61. Lühiste, supra note 63, at 486.Google Scholar

69 Bühlmann & Kunz supra note 48, at 332.Google Scholar

70 E.g., Lühiste, , supra note 63, at 491. Kelleher & Wolak, supra note 65. Dougherty, Lindquist & Bradbury, supra note 50. David B. Rottman & Alan Tomkins, Public Trust and Confidence in the Courts: What Public Opinion Surveys Mean to Judges, 36 Court Review: The Journal of the American Judges Association 24–31 (1999).Google Scholar

71 Wenzel, Bowler & Lanoue, supra note 62, at 202.Google Scholar

72 E.g., Benesh, supra note 12, at 704. Wenzel, Bowler & Lanoue, supra note 62, at 204. Thomas E. Fossati & James W. Meeker, Evaluations of Institutional Legitimacy and Court System Fairness: A study of gender differences, 25 Journal of Criminal Justice 152 (1997).Google Scholar

73 E.g., Wenzel, Bowler & Lanoue, supra note 62, at 206.Google Scholar

74 Salzman & Ramsey, supra note 61, at 89.Google Scholar

75 E.g., Wenzel, Bowler & Lanoue, supra note 62, at 202. Benesh, supra note 12, at 704. James L. Gibson, Gregory A. Caldeira & Vanessa A. Baird, On the Legitimacy of National High Courts, 92 American Political Science Review 350 (1998).Google Scholar

76 Salzman & Ramsey, supra note 61, at 88-89.Google Scholar

77 E.g., Kelleher & Wolak, supra note 65. Yingyos Leechaianan, Seksan Khruakham & Larry T. Hoover, Public Confidence in Thailand's Legal Authorities, 14 International Journal of Police Science & Management 246–263 (2012).Google Scholar

78 E.g., Listhaug, supra note 61.Google Scholar

79 E.g., Stoutenborough & Haider-Markel, , supra note 61. Gregory A. Caldeira & James L. Gibson, The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court, 36 American Journal of Political Science 658 (1992).Google Scholar

80 E.g., Caldeira & Gibson, supra note 79.Google Scholar

81 E.g., Salzman & Ramsey, supra note 61, at 87.Google Scholar

82 E.g., Salzman & Ramsey, supra note 61.Google Scholar

83 E.g., Bühlmann & Kunz supra note 48, at 332. Lühiste, supra note 63, at 491.Google Scholar

84 E.g., Lühiste, , supra note 63. Mishler & Rose, supra note 61, at 442.Google Scholar

85 Mishler & Rose, supra note 61, at 441.Google Scholar

86 E.g., Salzman & Ramsey, supra note 61, at 87. Kelleher & Wolak, supra note 67, at 718. Lühiste, supra note 63. Mishler & Rose, supra note 61, at 48. Bianca Clausen, Aart Kraay & Zsolt Nyiri, Corruption and Confidence in Public Institutions: Evidence from a Global Survey, 25 World Bank Economic Review 232 (2011).Google Scholar

87 E.g., Fossati & Meeker, supra note 72. Tom R. Tyler, Public Trust and Confidence in Legal Authorities: What Do Majority and Minority Group Members Want from the Law and Legal Institutions?, 19 Behavioral Sciences and the LAW 233 (2001).Google Scholar

88 E.g., Stoutenborough & Haider-Markel, supra note 61, at 41. Grosskopf, Anke & Mondak, Jeffery J., Do Attitudes Toward Specific Supreme Court Decisions Matter? The Impact of Webster and Texas v. Johnson on Public Confidence in the Supreme Court, 51 Political Research Quarterly 651–652 (2016).Google Scholar

89 E.g., Lühiste, , supra note 63. Newton & Norris, supra note 60, at 63. Kenneth Newton, Trust, Social Capital, Civil Society, and Democracy, 22 International Political Science Review 211 (2001).Google Scholar

90 Mishler & Rose, supra note 59, at 46.Google Scholar

91 E.g., Wenzel, Bowler & Lanoue, supra note 62, at 202. Salzman & Ramsey, supra note 61, at 87. Bühlmann & Kunz, supra note 48, at 332. Benesh, supra note 12, at 704. Stoutenborough & Haider-Markel, supra note 61, at 41. Magali Rheault & Bob Tortora, Confidence in Institutions: Africans Speak on the Meaning of Being Well Governed, 32 Harvard International Review 74 (2011).Google Scholar

92 Markova, Ivana, Trust and Democratic Transition in Post-Communist Europe 1–23 (2004).Google Scholar

93 Sztompka, supra note 41, at 152-153.Google Scholar

94 Sapsford, Roger & Abbott, Pamela, Trust, Confidence and Social Environment in Post-Communist Societies, 39 Communist and Post-Communist Studies 59–71 (2006).Google Scholar

95 Id. at 160.Google Scholar

96 Kühn, Zdenek, The Judiciary in Central and Eastern Europe: Mechanical Jurisprudence in Transformation? 53 (2011).Google Scholar

97 http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/index.cfm/Chart/index.Google Scholar

98 E.g., Bühlmann & Kunz supra note 48, at 332. Salzman & Ramsey, supra note 61.Google Scholar

99 E.g., Stoutenborough & Haider-Markel, , supra note 61, at 41.Google Scholar

100 E.g., Kelleher & Wolak, supra note 65, at 715.Google Scholar

101 E.g., Grimmelikhuijsen, Stephan & Klijn, Albert, The Effects of Judicial Transparency on Public Trust: Evidence From a Field Experiment, 93 Public Administration 1006–1007 (2015).Google Scholar

102 E.g., Kelleher & Wolak, supra note 65, at 715.Google Scholar

103 E.g., Wenzel, Bowler & Lanoue, supra note 62, at 205. Anthony J. Nownes & Colin Glennon, An Experimental Investigation of How Judicial Elections Affect Public Faith in the Judicial System, 41 Law & Social Inquiry 56 (2016).Google Scholar

104 E.g., Benesh, supra note 12, at 704.Google Scholar

105 E.g., Bühlmann & Kunz supra note 48, at 328.Google Scholar

106 E.g., Caldeira, supra note 13, at 1223.Google Scholar

107 E.g., Twenge, Jean M., Campbell, W. Keith & Carter, Nathan T., Declines in Trust in Others and Confidence in Institutions Among American Adults and Late Adolescents, 1972-2012, 25 Psychological Science 1921 (2014).Google Scholar

108 E.g., Kelleher & Wolak, supra note 65. Caldeira, supra note 13, at 1219.Google Scholar

109 E.g., Benesh, supra note 12, at 704.Google Scholar

110 E.g., Caldeira, supra note 13, at 1219. Kelleher & Wolak, supra note 67.Google Scholar

111 E.g., Caldeira, supra note 13, at 1219.Google Scholar

112 France, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey.Google Scholar

113 In the 2013 Eurobarometer survey, a majority of respondents - 57% - claimed to have no personal experience of any type of courtroom within the last ten years, and no close relative who has had this kind of experience. Source: European Commission, Justice in the EU. Flash Eurobarometer 385 (2013), http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/flash/fl_385_en.pdf2013 (last visited Oct. 12, 2018).Google Scholar

114 Steven Van de Walle & Geert Bouckaert, Public Service Performance and Trust in Government: The Problem of Causality, 26 InternationalJournal of Public Administration 908–909 (2003).Google Scholar

115 Commission, European, supra note 113, at 6.Google Scholar

116 Commission, European, supra note 113, at 16.Google Scholar

117 Matthew 13:12.Google Scholar

118 O'Brien, Patrick, Never let a Crisis go to Waste: Politics, Personality and Judicial Self-Government in Ireland, in this issue.Google Scholar

119 Kosař, , supra note 18.Google Scholar

120 Guţan, Bianca Seiejan, Romania: Perils of a “Perfect Euro-Model” of Judicial Council, in this issue.Google Scholar

121 Avbelj, Matej, Contextual Analysis of Judicial Governance in Slovenia, in this issue.Google Scholar

122 Avbelj, supra note 121.Google Scholar

123 Spáč, Samuel, Katarína Śipulová & Marína Urbániková’ Capturing the Judiciary from Inside: The Story of Judicial Self-Governance in Slovakia, in this issue.Google Scholar

124 Commission, European, supra note 113, at 13.Google Scholar

125 Spáč, , Śipulová & Urbániková, supra note 123.Google Scholar

126 Avbelj, supra note 121.Google Scholar

127 Pérez, Aida Torres, Judicial Self-government and Judicial Independence: The Political Capture of the Judicial Council in Spain, in this issue.Google Scholar

128 Çalı, Başak & Durmuş, Betül, Judicial Self-Government as Experimental Constitutional Politics: The Case of Turkey, in this issue.Google Scholar

129 Vauchez, Antoine, The Strange Non-Death of Statism: Tracing The Ever Protracted Rise of Self-Government in France, in this issue.Google Scholar

130 Benvenuti, Simone & Paris, Davide, Judicial Self-Government in Italy: Merits, Limits and the Reality of an Export Model, in this issue.Google Scholar

131 Śledzińska-Simon, Anna, The Rise and Fall of Judicial Self-Government in Poland: On Judicial Reform Reversing Democratic Transition in this issueGoogle Scholar

132 O'Brien, supra note 118.Google Scholar

133 Mak, Elaine, Judicial Self-Government in the Netherlands: Demarcating Autonomy, in this issue.Google Scholar

134 Mak, supra note 133.Google Scholar

135 Source: Eurobarometer, own calculation. Legend: The shares of trusting citizens are computed as averages of respondents claiming to tend to trust in the respective institutions between October 2004 (the first Eurobarometer round when the data were collected in both the old and new EU member states), and November 2017. In all the countries under examination, judicial councils were established before 2004, with the only exception being Latvia which established its judicial council in 2010 (nevertheless, Latvia was included into the group of countries with a judicial council). Countries without a judicial council: Austria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Finland, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, United Kingdom.Google Scholar

136 Source: Eurobarometer. For Legend, see supra note 135. New EU member states: Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Bulgaria, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia. The same timeframe (2004-2017) was applied to Bulgaria, Romania and Croatia, even though they became members of the EU in 2007 and 2013, respectively (however, the data is available since 2004). Old EU member states: Austria, Finland, Germany, Greece, Luxembourg, United Kingdom, Belgium, Denmark, France, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden.Google Scholar

137 After all, as the Thomas theorem says, “If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences”. Thus, citizens act according to their level of confidence in the judiciary, even though their perception does not necessarily need to be objective. William Issac Thomas & Dorothy Swaine Thomas, The Child in America: Behavior Problems and Programs 571–572 (1928).Google Scholar