CELS Lunchtime Webinar: 'More Heads, More Reason? A comparative reflection on the role of enlarged judicial formations in apex jurisdictions'

Speaker: Michal Bobek, Advocate General, Court of Justice

Biography: Michal has a master's degree in law and master's degree in international relations (Charles University in Prague); a diploma in English law and the law of the European Union (University of Cambridge); a Magister Juris (University of Oxford, St. Edmund Hall); a Doctor of Laws (European University Institute, Florence); He has studied at the Université libre de Bruxelles and the University of Queensland (Australia); has been Legal Secretary to the President of the Supreme Administrative Court of the Czech Republic (2005-09) and Head of the Research and Documentation Department of that court (2008-09). He is Co-founder and President of the Czech Society for European and Comparative Law; lecturer and visiting professor at numerous universities in Europe and elsewhere; author of numerous publications in the field of EU law, European human rights, comparative (public) law and legal theory; and has been Advocate General at the Court of Justice since 7 October 2015.

Abstract: In multi-panelled higher jurisdictions, a larger, extended formation of judges tends to be established within the court. It bears various names: the grand chamber, the extended chamber, the expanded composition, the reunion of several chambers, a court sitting en banc, a section or a division of a court. In larger but not too large jurisdictions, the same role is assumed by the plenary. But what is the role, function, and the ensuing justification for a grand chamber within a supreme jurisdiction?What are such formations exactly for? Should one content oneself with an explanation that, it is always better for a case to be decided by more judges, since more heads means more reason? With tongue-in-cheek, anybody who has ever participated in collective deliberation within a larger – judicial – body might reasonably harbour doubts about the validity of such a proposition, certainly as far as it concerns the argumentative quality of the outcome. Let´s explore this by first outlining the traditional sources of judicial legitimacy, noting that although they are able to explain the bigger picture, they do not really account for the grand chambers nor their functional justification. Turning next to a comparative overview of some of the grand chambers at European – national – courts, overseas in the common law world, as well as at the ECtHR, helps teasing out the functional rationale for various types of extended judicial compositions in those systems. Finally, having indeed identified two types of such functional justifications for grand chambers, how does the legislative design and the current practice of the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice fit that picture?

Zoom Link: Register online