Ústavní soudci v kvantitativní perspektivě

• Published in: Časopis pro právní vědu a praxi Vol. 25; no. 1; pp. 73 - 92
• Main Authors: Papoušková, Tereza, Papoušek, Jan
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: Czech
• Published: Masarykova univerzita nakladatelství 01.04.2017; Masaryk University Press; Masaryk University, Brno
• Subjects: Constitutional Law; individualizované statistiky o rozhodovací činnosti; osobnost soudce; vliv soudce zpravodaje; Ústavní soud; ústavní soudci; Constitutional Justices; Individuality of a Justice; Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic; Influence of Justice Rapporteur; Individualized Statistics on Decisionmaking
• ISSN: 1210-9126; 1805-2789
• DOI: 10.5817/CPVP2017-1-5

Legal scholars and practitioners alike have recently focused their attention not only on case-law of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic, but also on individual personalities behind it, on constitutional justices, their lives, opinions and their values. However, no solid evidence that individual constitutional justices approach cases differently has been offered so far and thus debates about causes of the different approaches are necessarily unanchored. The aim of this article is to anchor these debates in the initial finding that individual constitutional justices significantly differ in relevant quantitative criteria. Based on data on all final decisions of the Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic issued during the period from the beginning of the functioning of the Court to June 30, 2016 questions related to the productivity and speed of individual justices and their responsiveness to petitioners are answered. The heuristics used to evaluate justices according to these criteria is the assignment of the result of the case, time needed for its consideration and the final decision only to the justice rapporteur of the case. In addition to rankings of constitutional justices according to various criteria (productivity, speed and responsiveness) the article also offers questions raised by the position of individual justices in these rankings, and thus encourages further research.