Volume 12 : 2
Editorial
Is the Statement of Reasons for Civil Judicial Decisions an Effective Guarantee?
Access Filters and the Institutional Performance of the Supreme Courts
The Domestic Legislative Implementation of the EAPO Regulation: Integration and Frictions With National Civil Procedural Systems
‘Undressing” the Procedure: Three Limits of Civil Procedure and the Role of Proportionality
Justice in Ukraine Under Martial Law
The Public Policy Defence in the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Greece
The Greek Cadastral Law as a Cluster of Rules of Substantive and Procedural Law and Its Incorporation Into the European Framework
La Représentation Des Mineurs à L’action en Justice en Matière Civile: Faculté ou Obligation D’agir ?
Grandes Décisions / Leading Cases
Débat / Debate: No, Your Honour! Do Judicial Reasoning Styles Influence the Degree of Acceptance of Court Rulings by the General Public?
Book Review
Editorial
Is the Statement of Reasons for Civil Judicial Decisions an Effective Guarantee?
Access Filters and the Institutional Performance of the Supreme Courts
The Domestic Legislative Implementation of the EAPO Regulation: Integration and Frictions With National Civil Procedural Systems
‘Undressing” the Procedure: Three Limits of Civil Procedure and the Role of Proportionality
Justice in Ukraine Under Martial Law
The Public Policy Defence in the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Greece
The Greek Cadastral Law as a Cluster of Rules of Substantive and Procedural Law and Its Incorporation Into the European Framework
La Représentation Des Mineurs à L’action en Justice en Matière Civile: Faculté ou Obligation D’agir ?
Grandes Décisions / Leading Cases
Débat / Debate: No, Your Honour! Do Judicial Reasoning Styles Influence the Degree of Acceptance of Court Rulings by the General Public?
Book Review
Year
2022
Volume
12
Number
2
Page
190
Language
English
Court
Reference
L.J. GIANNINI, “Access Filters and the Institutional Performance of the Supreme Courts”, IJPL 2022, nr. 2, 190-229
Recapitulation
This article comparatively analyses the so-called “access filters”: admission devices that allow supreme courts to decide which cases to decide according to highly flexible or even explicitly discretional criteria related to the quality or relevance of the legal issues brought in the appeal (their “public importance”, “transcendence”, “general repercussion”, “cassational interest”, “constitutional meaning”, etc.). These qualitative case selection mechanisms are considered fundamental (although not sufficient) vehicles to improve the performance of the supreme courts of different legal traditions, with diverse backgrounds, dissimilar structure and not necessarily consistent institutional goals. After examining the four most significant dimensions of these devices, the author concludes that the general assertion that selection filters are only conceivable in “precedent oriented” supreme courts should be revised. It is more accurate to say that access criteria established for selection purposes vary according to the institutional mission assigned to a supreme court (or, more broadly, to any court of appeal) at a given time and jurisdiction.
Dear visitor
This page is reserved for Jurisquare members.
If you already are a member, please click the 'Log in' button below. If you would like to become a member, please click the 'Subscribe' button below. You can have access to the largest legal library in Belgium from € 422,57(VAT excl.) onwards!