Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T15:23:32.736Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Constitutions, EU Law and Judicial Strategies in the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2010

MARCIN MATCZAK
Affiliation:
University of Warsaw, Faculty of Law, 00-927 Warsaw, email: marcinsmatczak@gmail.com
MATYAS BENCZE
Affiliation:
University of Debrecen, Faculty of Law, 4028, Debrecen, Hungary, email: bencze.matyas@dragon.unideb.hu
ZDENEK KÜHN
Affiliation:
Charles University116 36 Prague, email: zdenku@seznam.cz

Abstract

Given far-reaching changes in the legal systems of East Central Europe since the mid-1990s, one might expect administrative court judges to have modified the way in which they decide cases, in particular by embracing less formalistic adjudication strategies. Relying on an original dataset of over one thousand business-related cases from the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland, this article shows that – despite some variation across countries and time – judges have largely failed to respond to the incentives contained in the new constitutional frameworks. They continue to adopt the most-locally-applicable-rule approach and are reluctant to apply general principles of law or to rely on Dworkinian ‘policies’ in deciding hard cases. The analysis links these weak institutional effects to the role of constitutional courts, case overload and educational legacies.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bencze, M. (2007) Díszítőelem, álcázóháló vagy tartóoszlop? A magyar büntetőbírói gyakorlat viszonya az alkotmányhoz [Attitude of Hungarian judges towards the constitution in criminal cases], Fundamentum, 3/2007, pp. 521.Google Scholar
Bickel, A. M. (1962) The Least Dangerous Branch. The Supreme Court at the Bar of Politics, Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Bobek, M. (2008) The fortress of judicial independence and the mental transitions of the central European judiciaries. European Public Law Vol. 14, issue 1. 2008. pp. 99123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Borucka-Arctowa, M.Pałecki, K. (2003) Sądy w opinii społeczeństwa polskiego [Courts in Polish society’s opinion], Uniwersytet Jagielloński and Polpress.Google Scholar
Dworkin, R. (1977) Taking Rights Seriously, Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Emmert, F. (2003) Administrative and Court Reform in Central and Eastern Europe, European Law Journal, Vol. 9, No. 3, July 2003, pp. 288315.Google Scholar
Gadó, G. (2008) Eltérő és egyező álláspontok az új Ptk. előkészítése során [Different and identical viewpoints during the preparation of the new Civil Code], (Magyar jog, 6/2008) pp. 385386.Google Scholar
Galligan, D.Matczak, M. (2005) Strategies of Judicial Review. Exercising Judicial Discretion in Administrative Cases Involving Business Entities Ernst and Young Better Government Programme Report, Warsaw.Google Scholar
Galligan, D.Matczak, M. (2007) Formalism in Post-Communist Courts. Empirical Study on Judicial Discretion in Polish Administrative Courts Deciding Business Cases, [w:] Judicial Reforms in Central and Eastern European Countries, ed. Coman, Ramona and De Waele, Jean-Michel, Vanden Broele, pp. 227252.Google Scholar
Hack, P., Fundamental rights in adjudication, Fundamentum, 3/2007, pp. 3639.Google Scholar
Halmai, G. (2002) The Hungarian Approach to Constitutional Review: The End of Activism? The First Decade of the Hungarian Constitutional Court, in Sadurski, W. (ed.), Constitutional Justice, East and West. Democratic Legitimacy and Constitutional Courts in Post-Communist Europe in a Comparative Perspective, 189, p. 209 (2002).Google Scholar
Holländer, P. (2003) Ústavněprávní argumentace. Ohlédnutí po deseti letech Ústavního soudu [Constitutional Argumentation: A Look Back at the Constitutional Court’s First Ten Years], Prague 2003.Google Scholar
Horeczky, K., Ilonczai Zsolt Az igazságszolgáltatás helyzete Magyarországon. [Condition of Judicial Administration in Hungary] Bírák Lapja, 1996/3–4. p. 243.Google Scholar
Kühn, Z. (2006) Precedent in the Czech Republic in Hondius, E. (ed.), Precedent and the Law. Reports to the XVIIth Congress International Academy of Comparative Law Utrecht, 16–22 July 2006. Bruylant, Brussels 2007, pp. 371396.Google Scholar
North, D. C. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, p.3.Google Scholar
Pałecki, K. (2004) Stressing Legal Decisions. Basic Assumptions, in: IVR 21st World Congress, Lund Sweden, 12–18 August 2003, p.18.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. (1988) Formalism 97 Yale L.J.509.Google Scholar
Schauer, F. (1992) Playing by the Rules. A Philosophical Examination of Rule-Based Decision-Making in Law and in Live, Oxford, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Solt, P. speech at the Celebration of 10 years of Hungarian Judicial Reform, Budapest, Országyűlés alkotmányügyi, igazságügyi és ügyrendi bizottsága, 2008, pp. 5153.Google Scholar
Stawecki, T.Staśkiewicz, W.Winczorek, J. (2008) Between Polycentrism and Fragmentation. The Impact of Constitutional Tribunal Rulings on the Polish Legal Order, Ernst and Young Better Government Programme Report. Warsaw.Google Scholar
Szabó, M. (2007) Change of Legal Thought in Hungary 1990-2005, in Jakab, András, Takács, Péter and Tatham, Allan F. (eds.): The Transformation of the Hungarian Legal Order 1985–2005, Kluwer Law International BV, The Netherlands. pp. 590601.Google Scholar
Wieacker, F. (1995) A History of Private Law in Europe with particular reference to Germany. (Weir, Tony transl.) Oxford, 442 ff.Google Scholar
Wolfe, Ch., (1994) The Rise of Modern Judicial Review. From Constitutional Interpretation to Judge-Made Law, Littlefield Adams Quality Paperbacks, London.Google Scholar
Wróblewski, J. (1992) The Judicial Application of Law. Kluwer, 250 ff.Google Scholar
Zweigert, K.Kötz, H. (1998) An Introduction to Comparative Law (Weir, T. transl.), Oxford, p.15Google Scholar
Zubek, R. and Goetz, K. H. (2010) Performing to Type? How State Institutions Matter in East Central Europe, Journal of Public Policy, 30 (1)Google Scholar