Michal Bobek , Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the EU
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. This article offers, on the example of the Czech Republic, a case study of this phenomenon and also an example of a legal transplant being implanted and partially rejected by the receiving system. This case study is, however, placed in the broader context of the role of supreme courts in the post-Communist Europe and the on-going Europe-wide debate.
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 called upon to realise in the various systems. The second part places the Czech example and other Central European systems into this broader picture and then discusses, using the example of civil and administrative justice, the selection mechanisms that have been put in place. The third part deals with tensions between supreme jurisdictions and the constitutional court in the same jurisdiction as far as the selection of cases is concerned. The final, fourth part, discusses broader policy issues and outlines some of the implications that the introduction of filtration devices in the access to supreme jurisdictions might have on the legal system as a whole.
Link to the article in Bulgarian language:КАЧЕСТВО ИЛИ КОЛИЧЕСТВО? ПРЕОСМИСЛЯНЕ НА РОЛЯТА НА ВЪРХОВНИТЕ ЮРИСДИКЦИИ В ЦЕНТРАЛНА ЕВРОПА