Systems of selection and appointment of judges and the problem of judicial independence. American, English and German experiences

The article aims to investigate the influence of different systems of selection and appointment of judges adopted in the legal systems of the United States, England and Wales, and Germany on judicial independence. In these countries, the following methods are used for the selection of judges: appointment by the executive, appointment by the career or civil service judiciary, shared or parity appointments and appointment by judicial committees. Comparative law analysis shows that the adoption of a particular method for the selection of judges, especially in connection with the term of office, may have an impact on their independence and impartiality. Especially risky seems to be the American justice system, which rooted in the idea of “popular constitutionalism” methods of election and re-election of judges could jeopardize fair trial guarantees. In England and Wales, of great importance in strengthening the independence of the judiciary was the introduction of the Constitutional Reform Act of 2005 and the institution of the Supreme Court. In Germany, independence of the judiciary is guaranteed by the Constitution and the Constitutional Court. Further observations indicate that both in common and continental law, the universal guarantee of independence of the judiciary is for judges to follow ethical and professional dignity principles.Uniwersytet w BiałymstokuBrody D.C., The Use of Judicial Performance Evaluation Enhance Judicial Accountability, Judicial Independence, and Public Trust, Denver University Law Review, vol.86, 2008-2009Bruhl P., Leib E.J., Elected Judges and Statutory Interpretation,University of Chicago Law Review, vol. 79, 2012Fornauf M., Die Marginalisierung der Unabhängigkeit der Dritten Gewalt im System des Strafrechts, Frankfurt am Main 2010Geyh C.G., The Endless Judicial Selection Debate and Why it Matters for Judicial Independence, The Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics vol. 21, 2008Gontarski W., Porównanie niekontradyktoryjnego (kontynentalnego) procesu karnego z procesem kontradyktoryjnym (anglosaskim), (w:) Proces karny. Rozwiązania modelowe w ujęciu prawnoporównawczym. System prawa karnego procesowego. T II (red. P. Kruszyński), Warszawa 2014Judges, University of Chicago Law Review, vol. 89, 2013Kraśnicka I, Ludwichowska A., Wprowadzenie do systemu prawa Stanów Zjednoczonych, Toruń 2012Kraśnicka I., Systemy wyborów sędziów stanowych w USA, Białostockie Studia Prawnicze 2015Malinowski Ł, Postępowanie po wniesieniu aktu oskarżenia do sądu, (w:) Proces karny. Rozwiązania modelowe w ujęciu prawnoporównawczym. System prawa karnego procesowego. T II (red. P. Kruszyński), Warszawa 2014Przewodnik etyki sędziowskiej. Zasady etyki dla sędziów Anglii i Walii. Guide to Judicial Conduct (z wprowadzeniem R. Sarkowicza), Warszawa 2007Redish M.H., Aronoff J., The Real Constitutional Problem with State Judicial Selection: Due Process, Judicial Retention, and The Dangers of Popular Constitutionalism, William & Mary Law Review, vol. 56, 2014Rosinek J., Some Thoughts on the Problems of Judicial Selections, Court Review, Summer 2004Ross II B.L., Reconsidering Statutory InterpretiveDivergence between Elected and AppointedSprack J., A Practical Approach to Criminal Procedure, Oxford 2008Volcansek M.L., Judicial Elections and American Exceptionalism, Deapaul Law Review, vol. 60, 2010-2011Wiliński P., H. Kuczyńska H., Rzetelny proces karny w orzecznictwie międzynarodowych trybunałów karnych (w:) Rzetelny proces karny (red. P. Wiliński), Warszawa 2009Wittereck F., Die Verwaltung der Dritten Gewalt, Tübingen 2006Woodhouse D., United Kingdom. The Constitutional Reform Act 2005 – defending judicial independence the English way, The International Journal of Constitutional Law, vol. 5, 2007129-14