Quantity Or Quality? Reassessing the Role of Supreme Jurisdictions in Central Europe

Abstract

Over the last decades, the ever-growing caseload in supreme and constitutional jurisdictions all around Europe has forced some of them to reassess the role and functions they should be fulfilling. Using the example of the Czech Republic, this Article offers a case study of this phenomenon. It also provides an example of a legal transplant being implanted and partially rejected by the receiving system. The case study is placed in the broader context of the role of supreme courts in post-Communist Europe and of an on-going debate of European dimensions. The first part of this paper provides a general overview of the ideal models of supreme jurisdictions and the respective interests these models are predominantly designed to serve in the various systems. The second part places the Czech example and other Central European systems into this broader picture and then discusses the case selection mechanisms that have been put into place, using the example of civil and administrative justice. The third part deals with tensions between supreme courts and the constitutional court in the same jurisdiction with regard to selection of cases. The fourth, and final, part discusses broader policy issues and outlines some implications of introducing filtration devices in the access to supreme jurisdictions for the legal system as a whole.