The Quality of Justice and of Judicial Reasoning in the Czech Republic

  • Zdenek KühnEmail author
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 69)


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.


  1. Boguszak J, Čapek J, Gerloch A (2004) Teorie práva. 2nd ed. ASPI, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  2. Gerloch A, Tryzna J (2007) Nad vázaností soudce zákonem z pohledu některých soudních rozhodnutí. Právní rozhledy 15:23–28Google Scholar
  3. Holländer P (2003) Ústavněprávní argumentace: ohlédnutí po deseti letech Ústavního soudu. Linde, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  4. Holländer P (2008) Příběh nezávislosti soudců [The story of judicial independence]. In: Hospodářské Nov. Accessed 6 Jan 2017
  5. Holländer P (2012) Filosofie práva. Vydavatelství a nakladatelství Aleš ČeněkGoogle Scholar
  6. Jean J-P (2010) Study on 16 comparable countries : Council of Europe CEPEJ 2010 report (2008 data). Accessed 13 Jan 2016
  7. Kosař D (2016) Perils of judicial self-government in transitional societies. Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  8. Kühn Z (2002) Aplikace práva ve složitých případech. K úloze právních principů v judikatuře, Karolinum, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  9. Kühn Z (2011) The judiciary in Central and Eastern Europe: mechanical jurisprudence in transformation? Brill, BostonGoogle Scholar
  10. Maršálek P (2008) Právo a společnost. Auditorium, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  11. Melzer F (2011) Metodologie nalézání práva: úvod do právní argumentace, 2. vyd. CH Beck, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  12. Slovak Ministry of Justice (2017) Slovak ministry of justice.
  13. Sobek T (2008) Argumenty teorie práva. Ústav státu a práva AV ČR, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  14. Sobek T (2010) Nemorální právo. Ústav státu a práva AV ČR, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  15. Sobek T (2011) Právní myšlení: kritika moralismuÚstav státu a práva AV ČR, PlzeňGoogle Scholar
  16. Tichý L, Holländer P, Bruns A (2011) Odůvodnění soudního rozhodnutí. Univerzita Karlova, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  17. Tryzna J (2010) Právní principy a právní argumentace: k vlivu právních principů na právní argumentaci při aplikaci práva. Auditorium, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  18. Wintr J (2013) Metody a zásady interpretace práva. Auditorium, PrahaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Charles University Law SchoolPragueCzech Republic

Personalised recommendations