Selecting Europe S Judges

"The past decade has witnessed changes in the ways judges for the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights are selected. The common aim has been securing greater professional quality of the judicial candidates. For this purpose, both European systems have put in place various advisory panels or selection committees that are called to evaluate the aptitude of the candidates put forward by the national governments. Were these institutional reforms successful in guaranteeing greater quality of the candidates? Might they have any positive impact on the legitimacy of the European courts? Has the creation of the expert advisory panels in any way shifted the institutional balance, either horizontally among the various institutions of the respective international organization, or vertically between the organization and its member state? Above all, however, is the spree of 'judicial comitology' as currently applied a good method of selecting Europe's judges? These and a number of other questions are addressed in this volume in a comparative and interdisciplinary perspective. First, the volume describes for the first time in depth the operation of the new selection mechanisms from different vantage points, including not just academic, but also practitioners' points of view. Second, having mapped the ground, it critically engages with selected common themes in a comparative way, analyzing the new mechanisms with respect to values and principles such as democracy, judicial independence, transparency, representativeness, and legitimacy"--Unedited summary from book jacket.

The past decade has witnessed change in the ways judges for the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights are selected. The leitmotif has been securing greater professional quality of the judicial candidates, and, for this purpose, both European systems have put in place various advisory panels or selection committees that are called to evaluate the aptitude of the candidates put forward by the national governments. Are these institutional reforms successful in guaranteeing greater quality of the judicial candidates? Do they increase the legitimacy of the European courts? Has the creation of these advisory panels in any way altered the institutional balance, either horizontally within the international organisations, or vertically, between the respective organisation and its Member States? Above all, has the spree of 'judicial comitology' as currently practised a good way for selecting Europe's judges? These and a number of other questions are addressed in this topical volume in a comparative and interdisciplinary prospective. The book is structured into two elements: first, how the operation of the new selection mechanisms is captured and analyzed from different vantage points, and secondly, having mapped the ground, the book critically and comparatively engages with selected common themes, examining the new mechanisms with respect to values and principles such as democracy, judicial independence, transparency, representativeness, and legitimacy.

In 2009 and 2010, the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights underwent reforms to their judicial appointments processes, with the result that many of the candidates proposed by Member State governments were rejected. This book examines the rationale behind these reforms from the point of view of the Member States.

For the identity and well-functioning of Europe, independent national judiciaries are key, and the selection processes of judges and Court Presidents essential. During the last decade, however, several European Governments have been undermining this by trying to establish political control over national judges, especially through political dominance over the selection and appointment processes for judges and Court Presidents. In his inaugural speech, Sterk addresses the topic of selection processes, both on substance as well as on procedure. He analyses the case law of the European Court of Justice as well as the European Court of Human Rights, and the enforcement policies of the European Commission. Sterk identifies problems and recommends five steps to protect independent justice in Europe including the systemic enforcement gap, an effective enforcement duty, the standards for selection bodies, a duty to reason selection decisions, and on limiting the power of the executive to refuse candidates selected by selection bodies.

This book explores fundamental topics concerning the functioning of the judiciary. The authors – class scholars, international judges and jurists from a diverse range of countries – address general theoretical issues in connection with judicial power, the role and functioning of international courts, international standards concerning the organization of national judiciaries, and the role of domestic courts in international relations, as well as alternative means of settling disputes. The book contributes a novel and valuable global perspective on burning issues, especially on judicial power and independence in a time in which illiberal and authoritarian regimes are constantly seeking to diminish the role of the judiciary.

This open access book is about the perception of the independence of the judiciary in Europe. Do citizens and judges see its independence in the same way? Do judges feel that their independence is respected by the users of the courts, by the leadership of the courts and by politicians? Does the population trust the judiciary more than other public institutions, or less? How does independence of the judiciary work at the national level and at the level of the European Union? These interrelated questions are particularly relevant in times when the independence of the judiciary is under political pressure in several countries in the European Union, giving way to illiberal democracy. Revealing surveys among judges, lay judges and lawyers - in addition to regular surveys of the European Commission - provide a wealth of information to answer these questions. While the answers will not please everyone, they are of interest to a wide audience, in particular court leaders, judges, lawyers, politicians and civil servants.

It is generally understood that EU law as interpreted by the ECJ has not merely reconstituted the national legal matrix at the supranational level, but has also transformed Europe and shaken the well-established, often formalist, ways of thinking about law in the Member States. This innovative new study seeks to examine such a narrative through the lens of the American critical legal studies (CLS) perspective. The introduction explains how the editors understand CLS and why its methodology is relevant in the European context. Part II examines whether and how judges embed policy choices or even ideologies in their decisions, and how to detect them. Part III assesses how the ECJ acts to ensure the legitimacy of its decisions, whether it resists implementing political ideologies, what the ideology of European integration is, and how the selection of judges influences these issues. Part IV uses the critical perspective to examine some substantive parts of EU law, rules on internal and external movement, and the European arrest warrant. It seeks to determine whether the role of the ECJ has really been transformative and whether that transformation is reversible. Part V considers the role of academics in shaping the narratives of EU integration.

HauptbeschreibungThe Consultative Council of European Judges at the Council of Europe (CCJE) rightly characterized judicial autonomy, that is, the independence of impartiality of the third state power, as a ""structured requirement of a state governed by the rule of law"" (cf. position no. 8 from no. 10/2007 in the appendix). To do justice to the principle of the separation of powers as an accomplishment of the European Enlightenment, the autonomy of the third power must be subject to the same basic principles throughout Europe as the European Union draws closer together. Until this.