Suchergebnisse

The right of access to a court is subject to certain limitations. While a number of these limitations may be created deliberately, in line with the function of the administrative justice system (e.g. restrictions on review by the higher courts, others may be more or less unintended consequences of the design of the administrative justice system (or application of relevant rules or case law). The article attempts to present possible forms of these limitations and tries to outline some of the main "bottlenecks" in the access to judicial protection in the context of Czech administrative justice. These limitations can be regarded mainly as formal and informal, and their recognition can result in increasing the efficiency of the functioning of judicial protection, in particular by simplifying procedural regulation in relation to the ongoing societal and technical changes.

ARTICLE TESTS THE WIDELY ASSUMED PROPOSITION THAT THE GREATER THE ORIGINAL SUPPORT FOR A DECISION AT THE SUPREME COURT LEVEL, THE GREATER THE SUBSEQUENT COMPLIANCE BY THE LOWER COURTS. USING INDICES OF COMPLIANCE, EVASION, AND DISCORD BASED ON SHEPARD'S CITATIONS, THE ANALYSIS FAILED TO SUPPORT ANY OF THE HYPOTHESIZED RELATIONSHIPS.

This comment discusses three recent judgments of the European Court of Human Rights in the cases ofMcElhinney v Ireland, Al-Adsani v UK,andFogarty v UK. All three applications concerned the dismissal by the courts of the respondent States of claims against a third State on the ground of that State's immunity from suit. They thus raised important questions about the relation the European Convention on Human Rights (the Convention)—especially the right to a fair trial and access to court enshrined in Arcticle 6(1)—and the law of State immunity.

Our country has a long history of striving for openness and transparency in government processes. In 1978, the United States Supreme Court held, "It is clear that the courts of this country recognize a general right to insect and copy public records and documents, including judicial records and documents." Long before America's high court recognized this common law principle, court records were historically accessible for inspection by lawyers, journalists, land title companies, credit agencies, academics, and members of the general public. These individuals were also permitted to take notes as a part of their right to inspect court documents. Having free access to copies (i.e. reproductions), however, was a completely different matter. Unlike the right of free inspection, the right of free copies did not exist, and copies of court records could be extremely expensive to citizens seeking the information. For example, in 1853, a copy of a court document was ten cents a page, a steep price for the mid-nineteenth century. One could even make an argument that the right to simply inspect court documents was not actually "free" for many, due to the associated travel costs of physically going to the courthouse in an era before mass transportation and the internet.