Abstract
The idea of 'quality control of judicial reasoning' is in the Czech legal culture in conflict with the separation of powers and judicial independence if utilized by the Ministry of Justice in disciplinary proceedings (save in the most extreme cases). If performed by soft methods (academic criticism, appellate judicial review, for instance), it will improve the legal culture generally.
However, the major problem is different. At the beginning of the 21st century it can be said that the Czech judiciary does not even have a single ideal of judicial reasoning which would unite the constitutional, administrative and general judiciary.
Therefore, even within each one of the three high courts (Supreme Court, Supreme Administrative Court, Constitutional Court) one can find many styles and ideals of judicial reasoning, which relate to the personalities of different judges-rapporteurs. A plethora of the legalistic styles and the dialogical styles coexist in the same legal culture.
It is premature to say which one would prevail in the longer run. So it remains to be seen whether a longer decision with more reasons is more persuasive within a civilian legal culture, or whether the judiciary by doing this is not losing part of its (fictitious but publicly important) legitimacy as an institution endowed with the knowledge of the "objective" and "one right answer" in the interpretation of the law.