Do Constitutional Court's rulings bind lower courts? Doctrinal and empirical perspectives Abstract Czech doctrinal researchers conclude that decisions of the Czech Constitutional Court are - at least in some respect - bind lower courts pro futuro. Although continental legal systems do not officially subscribe to a doctrine of precedent, a quasi-precedential role of the jurisprudence of higher courts is often defended by theorists. However, this theory of quasi-precedent has never been empirically tested in the Czech Republic. This dissertation constitutes a first such attempt as it examines whether courts actually decide in practice according to the jurisprudence of the Czech Constitutional Court. Specifically, it focuses on a guideline decision by the Czech Constitutional Court on parole decisions made in 2018. The guideline decision emphasized that parole decisions - made by courts in the Czech legal system and not by parole boards or committees - constitute a systemic problem since they are poorly reasoned and as a result they are ambiguous and not persuasive. The guideline decision in detail stated what reasons can be used to justify parole decision and how various factors, such as previous convictions, should be interpreted when deciding on parole. This dissertation studies two groups of first-level...
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:nusl.cz/oai:invenio.nusl.cz:448610 |
| Date | January 2021 |
| Creators | Drápalová, Jana |
| Contributors | Kühn, Zdeněk, Wintr, Jan |
| Source Sets | Czech ETDs |
| Language | Czech |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | info:eu-repo/semantics/masterThesis |
| Rights | info:eu-repo/semantics/restrictedAccess |
Page generated in 0.0016 seconds