Publication at Faculty of Law |
2016
Abstract
The paper analyses two aspects of the grand chambers of the Czech supreme courts procedure, that have not been discussed so far - extent of the review of a submitted case and selection of a reporting judge. Both Czech supreme courts approach the aspects differently.
Even though the differences might seem as purely technical, the paper argues that they influence effectiveness and quality of the decision making of the grand chambers. It suggests that both procedural aspects should be governed by the quality over quantity principle: the grand chambers should not give legal opinion very often, but when they do, it has to be well-reasoned.