Series of working conferences Access to Justice – Barriers and Solutions
VIA IURIS organizes expert conferences since the year 1999. In an open and creative discussion participants disclose barriers in the current legal system and we search for solution. Participants of the conferences are mainly lawyers of various legal professions from Slovakia, Czech Republic and other countries: judges of general courts, Constitutional Court of the Slovak republic and European judicial institutions; attorneys; members of the Slovak National Council, academics, representatives of public administration and non-governmental sector.
Important parts of discussion and outputs from each conference form a content of the conference publication, distributed to stakeholders relevant for the conference topic. Conferences Access to Justice often stimulates other projects of VIA IURIS, for example they are a good base for improving the system by legislative proposals.
Speaking language of conferences Access to Justice is Slovak; however several conferences had simultaneous translation provided, since we have invited important guests, often speakers, from abroad.
Some of the more recent conferences covered:
- Judicial Accountability – Judicial Ethics and Disciplinary Proceedings (February 2011)
- Cogency and Transparency of Court Decision-making (2009)
- Public Control of Public Power (2007)
- European Judicial Institutions (2006)
Detailed overview of conference topics:
2009, Senec: Cogency and Transparency in Court Decision-making
The main topic of the conference was the relationship between the public (as the source of power) and the courts (as the defenders of basic rights claims by citizens). Even though citizens are the source of power, they can neither directly influence the exercise of the judiciary nor can they hold courts and judges accountable. This means the courts are defined by a certain democratic deficit. Authority and legitimacy of the courts therefore depend on the courts being able to support their decisions with convincing and principled arguments, which are rationally acceptable. An inseparable part of the independence of courts and the justice system is in fact their responsibility towards citizens.
Related information: conference outcomes.
2007, Pezinok: Public Control of Public Power
Society resonates with cases of illegal use of public power or its abuse. The aim of the conference was to evaluate whether the position of the citizen is sufficient and appropriate when it comes to the control of power, as well as what legal institutions strengthen this control. The conference also dealt with the problem of public control of disposal of property belonging to local authorities. A follow-up of this conference was a successful legal effort culminating in an amendment to the law on municipal property disposals and the law on the property disposals of self-governing regions, which we managed to push through in 2009.
Download the conference proceedings in Slovak.
2006, Omšenie: European Judicial Institutions
The aim was to initiate a debate about the advantages of decision-making by European judicial institutions (European Court of Human Rights, European Community courts), trends in their decision-making which can affect us, as well as the challenges facing these bodies for the protection of rights.
Download the conference proceedings in Slovak.
2004, Omšenie: The Principle of Subsidiarity in Court Decision-Making
The relationship between general courts and the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, especially the principle of subsidiarity in decision-making by the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic, had previously never been the subject of a wider expert debate. That’s why the conference dealt with questions such as: is there a clear division of jurisdiction between general courts and the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic when it comes to the protection of basic rights and freedoms? To what extent do general courts provide effective protection and when is there space for intervention by the Constitutional Court? We also dealt with the question of reviewing decisions by public administration authorities, publishing court verdicts on the Internet and visions about the future role of the Constitutional Court.
Download the conference proceedings in Slovak.
2002, Omšenie: Delays in Court Proceedings
Delays in court cases are one of the most serious problems in the judiciary. They prevent from exercising the right to a just process, they reduce the trustworthiness of courts in the eyes of citizens and cause other problems for judges themselves. One of the outcomes of the conference is a publication which not only analyses the causes behind delays in court proceedings as well as possible solutions, but also contains an evaluation of verdicts by the Constitutional Court of the Slovak Republic in this area and defines criteria for evaluating delays in specific cases.
Download the conference proceedings in Slovak.
2001, Tatranská Lomnica: Freedom of Expression and its Limits
The conference dealt with the extent to which criminal proceedings in cases of verbal racist attacks are constitutional or unconstitutional in relation to freedom of expression. It also looked at potential conflicts between the Slovak administrative judiciary and the European Convention on Human Rights.
Download the proceedings from the previous two conferences in Slovak.
2000, Levoča: Access to Justice
In 2000, the conference focused on overcoming gaps in legislation with the help of legal principles. Debated problematic areas included: the extent to which the judge is bound by the letter of the law when making verdicts, the personality of the judge as a barrier to accessing justice and court access in matters of public interest.
1999, Senec: Barriers to Citizens Accessing Justice
During the initial conference we defined several important barriers to citizens accessing justice, for example the impossibility of judicial review of urban planning decisions concerning large construction projects, weak options for the complainant and damaged parties in criminal proceedings, the impossibility to review certain local government acts, the ineffectiveness of filing a claim with the Constitutional Court, and so on. It was the beginning of an expert debate concerning these topics. We re-visited some of them, as well as possible solutions, after some time in subsequent conferences.
