Ústavní soudci v kvantitativní perspektivě

Tereza Papoušková; Jan Papoušek

doi:10.5817/CPVP2017-1-5

Czech Constitutional Justices in the Quantitative Perspective

Vol.25,No.1(2017)

Tereza Papoušková Jan Papoušek

https://doi.org/10.5817/CPVP2017-1-5

PDF (Čeština)

Abstract

Legal scholars and practitioners alike have recently focused their attention not only on case-law of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, but also on individual personalities behind it, on constitutional justices, their lives, opinions and their values. However, no solid evidence that individual constitutional justices approach cases differently has been offered so far and thus debates about causes of the different approaches are necessarily unanchored. The aim of this article is to anchor these debates in the initial finding that individual constitutional justices significantly differ in relevant quantitative criteria. Based on data on all final decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic issued during the period from the beginning of the functioning of the Court to June 30, 2016 questions related to the productivity and speed of individual justices and their responsiveness to petitioners are answered. The heuristics used to evaluate justices according to these criteria is the assignment of the result of the case, time needed for its consideration and the final decision only to the justice rapporteur of the case. In addition to rankings of constitutional justices according to various criteria (productivity, speed and responsiveness) the article also offers questions raised by the position of individual justices in these rankings, and thus encourages further research.

Keywords:
Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic; Constitutional Justices; Individualized Statistics on Decisionmaking; Influence of Justice Rapporteur; Individuality of a Justice.

Pages:
73–92

Author biography

Tereza Papoušková

Judicial Studies Institute, Faculty of Law, Masaryk University, Brno

Department of Constitutional Law and Political Science

References

BOBEK, Michal. O odůvodňování soudních rozhodnutí. Právní rozhledy, 2010, roč. 18, č. 6.

EPSTEIN, Lee, LANDES, William, POSNER, Richard. The behavior of federal judges: a theoretical and empirical study of rational choice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2013.

HOŘENOVSKÝ, Jan, CHMEL, Jan. Proces vzniku rozhodnutí Ústavního soudu ČR. Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi, 2015, roč. 23, č. 3, s. 302–311.

CHMEL, Jan. Politika na Ústavním soudě: první část. Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi, 2013, roč. 21, č. 2, s. 178–185.

CHMEL, J. Politika na Ústavním soudě: druhá část. Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi, 2013, roč. 21, č. 4, s. 475–483.

KŘÍŽKA, Vít. Jak myslí soudce? Krátké zamyšlení nad myšlením soudců a možnostmi, jak toho využít. Bulletin advokacie, 2015, roč. 2015, č. 4, s. 69–75.

KYSELA, Jan, BLAŽKOVÁ, Kristýna, CHMEL, Jan. Právnický Olymp: portréty vybraných soudců Ústavního soudu ČR. Praha: Leges, 2015.

KYSELA, Jan, ONDŘEJKOVÁ, Jana. Jak se píše o soudech a soudcích: soudní moc v mezioborové perspektivě. Praha: Leges, 2012.

NĚMEČEK, Tomáš. Tajná data z Ústavního soudu. Lidové noviny, 28. 2. 2011.

POSNER, Richard. How judges think. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2008.

SEGAL, Jeffrey. Supreme Court Justices as Human Decision Makers: An Individual-Level Analysis of the Search and Seizure Cases. The Journal of Politics, 1986, roč. 48, č. 4, s. 938–955. https://doi.org/10.2307/2131006, APA formát: https://doi.org/10.2307/2131006

VYHNÁNEK, Ladislav. Judikatura v ústavním právu. In: BOBEK, Michal, KÜHN, Zdeněk a kol. Judikatura a právní argumentace. Praha: Auditorium, 2013.

Metrics

0 2354

Views

1063

PDF (Čeština) views