Smiselnost uvedbe ločenih mnenj pred Sodiščem Evropskih skupnosti

Résumé Sl En

Namen tega prispevka je predlog reforme načina sodnega preudarjanja Sodišča Evropskih skupnosti (SES) v smislu uvedbe ločenih mnenj z ozirom na transformacijo EU v enotno ustavno entiteto in poudarjeno vlogo človekovih pravic v zadevah, ki jih presoja sodišče. Prikazal bi rad, da obstoječi monolitni sistem odločanja več ne ustreza in da ohranitev legitimnosti sistema naravnost terja bistveno kakovostno spremembo načina dela v smislu večje preglednosti. V ta namen bodo najprej prikazani teoretični modeli sodnega preudarjanja, sledila bo njihova primerjava v luči analize praktičnih primerov pred SES, na koncu pa bo predstavljena še izkušnja Evropskega sodišča za človekove pravice (ESČP) kot večnacionalnega sistema z institutom ločenih mnenj.

As analysed by Mitchel Lasser, three different types of judicial deliberations can be distinguished: 1. the absolute (strict) bifurcative type, which strictly separates between the decision and the internal deliberation process; 2. the argumentative-integrative approach where the deliberation process is being adequately reflected by the decision itself ; and 3. the mixed system with certain features from the other two systems. In my opinion the bifurcative system and its variations have several democratic deficits: the deliberation is not reflected in the decision and therefore denying the individual parties full understanding of the reasoning of the court (hindering the right to an effective legal remedy and to a fair trial); the authority of the judge in such a system is primarily based on his hierarchical position (‘argument of power’ instead of ‘power of argument’); it becomes a victim of mediocracy, etc. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) will in future have to deal with an increasing amount of issues regarding human rights and the constitutional nature of the EU (especially due to the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the concept of EU citizenship). A system of separate opinions (as in the argumentative model) could profoundly contribute to the success of the ECJ regarding the mentioned topics. An approach, whereby the ECJ limits itself to the economic field, as shown for example in Grogan (case C-159/90), is not good enough anymore. The ECJ will have to answer in new way questions, which could be very difficult for certain EU Members - for example, legality of abortion, same-sex relationships and criminal procedural rights (as shown by the ECJ case-law). Separate opinions could operate as an early warning system showing that the majority did not take into account an important aspect of a certain case. They could also take the role of a moral voice against an unacceptable view of the majority. Of course, the question arises how a system of separate opinion would function in a multinational environment. I conducted an analysis of ECtHR case-law (2005-2007) regarding the percentage and content of dissenting opinions with special regard to dissenting opinions of 'national' judges in a case against their home country. The results showed that dissenting opinions constitute a minor part of all the judgments and that arguments used by 'national' judges - when delivering dissenting opinions - never amounted to illegal arguments. Therefore, dissenting opinions could effectively function in a multinational environment provided that judges are aware of their profound role in society and use restraints when issuing their dissents. Considering all mentioned arguments I concluded my analysis with a proposal to introduce a system of dissenting opinions to the ECJ.