Advertisement

Roots of the Resistance to the Change in the Supreme Court’s Role

  • Marko BratkovićEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 70)

Abstract

In recent years, a paradigm shift in the supreme court’s role from a private to a public purpose has been recognised in many jurisdictions. Due to growing backlogs at supreme courts in many countries, the private purpose of the just and correct resolution of every individual case has given place to a public purpose consisting in safeguarding and promoting the public interest of ensuring uniformity of case law, the development of the law, and offering guidance to lower courts. However, this paradigm shift has met with considerable criticism from a large part of the legal community. It has been argued that litigants will become exposed to judicial arbitrariness and that more restrictive access to the supreme court means less protection of equality before the law. In order to explore the possible roots of the resistance to the change in the supreme court’s role, Faulkner’s polyperspective technique of narration used in the novel The Sound and the Fury might be of some help. The retelling of more or less the same story from the perspective of the individual party, the attorney-at-law, the supreme court and the constitutional court reveals that in favouring the public interest of uniform application of the law some particular interests of all involved have to be suppressed, and the broader picture taken into account.

References

  1. Andrews N (2003) Judicial discretion in common law jurisdictions: USA, England, Canada, Australia. In: Storme M, Hess B (eds) The discretionary power of the judge: limits and control. Kluwer, Mechelen, pp 119–242Google Scholar
  2. Andrews N (2011) The United Kingdom’s Supreme Court. Three sceptical reflections concerning the new court. Utah L Rev 9(1):9–24Google Scholar
  3. Andrews N (2017) The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom: a selective tribunal with the final say on most matters. In: Van Rhee CH, Fu Y (eds) Supreme courts in transition in China and the West. Adjudication at the service of public goals. Springer, Cham, pp 37–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bobek M (2008) The fortress of judicial independence and the mental transitions of the Central European Judiciaries. Eur Public Law 14(1):99–123Google Scholar
  5. Bobek M (2009) Quantity or quality? Reassessing the role of supreme jurisdictions in Central Europe. Am J Comp L 57:33–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bravo-Hurtado P (2014) Two ways to uniformity. Recourse to the supreme court in the civil law and the common law world. In: Uzelac A, Van Rhee (eds) Nobody’s perfect. Comparative essays on appeals and other means of recourse against judicial decisions in civil matters. Intersentia, Cambridge, Antwerp, Portland, pp 319–335Google Scholar
  7. Chiarloni S (2008) Fundamental tasks of the Corte di Cassazione, heterogeneous objectives arosen from the constitutional right to appeal and recent reforms. In: Ortells Ramos M (ed) Los recursos ante los Tribunales Supremos en Europa (Appeals to supreme courts in Europe). Difusión juridical, Madrid, pp 77–86Google Scholar
  8. Damaška MR (1986) The faces of justice and state authority. A comparative approach to the legal process. Yale, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  9. de Benito M (2017) Civil cassation in Spain: past, present, and the future. In: Van Rhee CH, Fu Y (eds) Supreme courts in transition in China and the West. Adjudication at the service of public goals. Springer, Cham, pp 97–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. de Visser M (2014) Constitutional review in Europe. A comparative analysis. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, OregonGoogle Scholar
  11. Domej T (2014) What is an important case? Admissibility of appeals to the supreme courts in the German-speaking jurisdictions. In: Uzelac A A, Van Rhee (eds) Nobody’s perfect. Comparative essays on appeals and other means of recourse against judicial decisions in civil matters. Intersentia, Cambridge, Antwerp, Portland, pp 277–285Google Scholar
  12. Drewry G, Blom-Cooper L, Blake Ch (2007) The court of appeal. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, OregonGoogle Scholar
  13. Galič A (2014a) A civil law perspective on the supreme court and its functions. Paper presented at the conference the functions of the supreme court—issues of process and administration of justice. Warsaw, 11–14 June 2014Google Scholar
  14. Galič A (2014b) Does a decision of the supreme court denying leave to appeal need to contain reasons? In: Adolphsen J et al (eds) Festschrift für Peter Gottwald zum 70. Geburtstag. CH Beck, München, pp 159–173Google Scholar
  15. Galič A (2014c) Reshaping the role of supreme courts in the countries of the former Yugoslavia. In: Uzelac A, Van Rhee (eds) Nobody’s perfect. Comparative essays on appeals and other means of recourse against judicial decisions in civil matters. Intersentia, Cambridge, Antwerp, Portland, pp 291–317Google Scholar
  16. Galič A (2015) The aversion to judicial discretion in civil procedure in post-communist countries: Can the influence of EU law change it? In: Bobek M (ed) Central European judges under the European influence. The transformative power of the EU revisited. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon, pp 99–124Google Scholar
  17. Galič A (2017) The inconsistency of case law and the right to a fair trial. In: Uzelac A, Van Rhee CH (eds) Revisiting procedural human rights. Fundamentals of civil procedure and the changing face of civil justice. Intersentia, Cambridge, pp 17–51Google Scholar
  18. Garlicki L (2007) Constitutional courts versus supreme courts. Int J Const Law 5(1):44–68Google Scholar
  19. Gottwald P (2008) Review appeal to the German Federal Supreme Court after the reform of 2001. In: Ortells Ramos M (ed) Los recursos ante los Tribunales Supremos en Europa (Appeals to supreme courts in Europe). Difusión juridical, Madrid, pp 87–106Google Scholar
  20. Herbert AP (1966) Wigs at work. Penguin, HarmondsworthGoogle Scholar
  21. Jolowicz JA (1977) Appellate proceedings. In: Storme M, Casman H (eds) Towards a justice with a human face. The first international congress of the law of civil procedure (Faculty of Law, State University of Ghent, 27 August 1977–4 September 1977). Kluwer, Antwerpen, pp 128–165Google Scholar
  22. Jolowicz JA (1980) Da mihi factum dabo tibi jus. A problem of demarcation in English and French law. In: Feuersten P, Parry C (eds) Multum non multa. Festschrift für Kurt Lipstein aus Anlass seines 70. Geburtstages. CF Müller Jurtisticher Verlag, Heidelberg, Karlsruhe, pp 79–99Google Scholar
  23. Jolowicz JA (1988) Appeal, cassation, amparo and all that, what and why. Estudios en Homenaje al Doctor Héctor Fix-Zamudio III. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México, Instituto de Investigaciones Juridicas, México, pp 2045–2074Google Scholar
  24. Jolowicz JA (1998) The role of the supreme court at the national and international level. In: Yessiou-Faltsi P (ed) Reports for the Thessaloniki international colloquium (21–25 May 1997). Sakkoulas Publications, Thessaloniki, Athens, pp 37–63Google Scholar
  25. Jolowicz JA (2000) On civil procedure. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Komárek J (2007) In the court(s) we trust? On the need for hierarchy and differentiation in the preliminary ruling. Available at SSRN, https://ssrn.com/abstract=982529. Accessed 7 June 2018
  27. Kühn Z (2006) The authoritarian legal culture at work. The passivity of parties and the interpretational statements of supreme courts. Croatian Yearb Eur Law Policy 2:19–26Google Scholar
  28. Kühn Z (2011) The judiciary in Central and Eastern Europe. Mechanical jurisprudence in transformation? Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden, BostonGoogle Scholar
  29. Lindblom PH (2000) Progressiv process – Spridda uppsatser om domstolsprocessen och samhällsutvecklingen. Iustus förlag, UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  30. Mańko R (2013a) Survival of the socialist legal tradition? A Polish perspective. Comp Law Rev 4(2). Available at SSRN, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2332219. Accessed 7 June 2018
  31. Mańko R (2013b) Weeds in the garden of justice? The survival of hyperpositivism in Polish legal culture as a symptom/sinthome. Pólemos – J Law Lit Cult 7(2). Available at https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2277857. Accessed 7 June 2018
  32. Mattei UA, Ruskola T, Gidi A (2009) Schlesinger’s comparative law. Thomson Reuters, Foundation Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  33. Rodin S (2005) Discourse, authority in European and post-communist legal culture. Croatian Yearb Eur Law Policy 1(1):1–22Google Scholar
  34. Silvestri E (2017) The Italian supreme court of cassation: of misnomers and unaccomplished missions. In: Van Rhee CH, Fu Y (eds) Supreme courts in transition in China and the West. Adjudication at the service of public goals. Springer, Cham, pp 229–245CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Taruffo M (1998) The role of the supreme courts at the national and international level. Civil law countries. In: Yessiou-Faltsi P (ed) Reports for the Thessaloniki international colloquium (21–25 May 1997). Sakkoulas Publications, Thessaloniki, Athens, pp 101–126Google Scholar
  36. Uzelac A (2008) Reforming Mediterranean civil procedure. Is there a need for shock therapy? In: Van Rhee CH, Uzelac A (eds) Civil justice between efficiency and quality. From ius commune to the CEPEJ. Intersentia, Antwerpen, Oxford, Portland, pp 71–99Google Scholar
  37. Uzelac A (2010) Survival of the third legal tradition? Supreme Court Law Rev 49(2d):377–396Google Scholar
  38. Uzelac A (2011) The need to provide reasons in court judgements, some developments in east and west. In: Gudowski J, Weitz K (eds) Aurea Praxis Aurea Theoria – Ksiega Pamiatkova ku czci Profesora Tadeusza Erecinskegiego. Tom I., LexisNexis, Warsaw, pp 1547–1566Google Scholar
  39. Uzelac A, Galič A (2017) Changing faces of post-socialist supreme courts: Croatia and Slovenia compared. In: Van Rhee CH, Fu Y (eds) Supreme courts in transition in China and the West. Adjudication at the service of public goals. Springer, Cham, pp 207–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zobec J, Letnar Černič J (2015) The remains of the authoritarian mentality within the Slovene judiciary. In: Bobek M (ed) Central European judges under the European influence. The transformative power of the EU revisited. Hart Publishing, Oxford and Portland, Oregon, pp 125–148Google Scholar
  41. Zuckerman AAS (1995) Reform in the shadow of lawyers’ interests. In: Zuckerman AAS, Cranston R (eds) Reform of civil procedure. Essays on “access to justice”. Clarendon, Oxford, pp 61–77Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of LawUniversity of ZagrebZagrebCroatia

Personalised recommendations