Articles for author: Anne Sanders

Independent Selection of Judges via Competence Evaluation and Lot

Last Sunday, 28th November 2021, voters in Switzerland rejected the proposals of the „Justiz-Initiative“ (“Judge initiative”) with the overall majority of 68,07% (temporary official results of the Federal Council, in German). Nevertheless, the proposal contains interesting aspects concerning questions around the election processes and independence of judges. Despite the rejection in Switzerland – it could serve as an impulse for further discussions not only in Switzerland, but within Europe, where the independence of the judiciary has been partly endangered.

Unabhängige Richterauswahl durch Kompetenzprüfung und Los

Am kommenden Sonntag, den 28.11.2021, stimmen die Wahlberechtigten in der Schweiz unter anderem über die Vorschläge der „Justiz-Initiative“ ab. Kern der Vorschläge der Initiative ist die Reform der Wahl der Richter:innen nach Art. 168 Abs. 1 der Bundesverfassung der Schweizerischen Eidgenossenschaft für das höchste Gericht in der Schweiz: Das Bundesgericht. Die Diskussion ist nicht nur für die Schweiz relevant, sondern für ganz Europa, wo die Auswahl unabhängiger Richter:innen heute vielerorts in Gefahr ist.

Muzzling Associations of Judges

Art 88 a of Poland's so-called "muzzle law" law prescribes that judges must disclose their membership in associations, their functions performed in non-profit foundations and membership in parties before they became judges. The provision applies to memberships in all kinds of associations, including associations of judges. In this form, the provision violates the European Convention of Human Rights as well as the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Mehr als Förmelei

Eine politisch unbeeinflusste Auswahl von Richter_innen unter Einhaltung des dafür vorgesehenen Verfahrens ist notwendig, um eine unabhängige Justiz und die Glaubwürdigkeit des Rechtsstaats zu erhalten. Die Entwicklungen der letzten Jahre, insbesondere in Polen und Ungarn aber auch die Kammerentscheidung des EGMR in Bezug auf die nach nationalem Recht gesetzeswidrige Besetzung des isländischen Berufungsgerichts Landsréttur, führen die Bedeutung der Auswahlverfahren deutlich vor Augen. Ein Fall aus Schleswig-Holstein gibt nun Anlass, auch vor der eigenen Haustür zu kehren.

Defamation of Justice – Propositions on how to evaluate public attacks against the Judiciary

Public debate is an essential element of a democratic society. While this debate should not spare the judiciary, public attacks against the judiciary of a critical intensity can be observed in several European countries. The most recent example originates from Poland, where, in September 2017, a campaign on bill boards and on the internet was launched in support of the controversial draft acts on judicial reform. The campaign portrays judges as a "privileged cast" and as being corrupt, criminal and incompetent. Having regard to these events, it should be borne in mind that attacks against the judiciary from members of the legislative and executive can pose real threats to judicial independence and the separation of powers. This post takes these considerations as the starting point for a general discussion on how to properly evaluate public criticism of the judiciary. We suggest a frame of reference which seeks to balance the right of free speech and the legitimate interest of the judiciary to not have its legitimacy and independence abridged by political actors. In this regard, we argue that the level of scrutiny must depend on where such criticism comes from.