Is There a Right Judge for Each Case? A Comparative Study of Case Assignment in Six European Countries

Abstract

Case assignment is the core-business of court organisations, because it touches upon some of the essential aspects of rendering justice: judicial independence and impartiality, organisational flexibility and efficiency. Organising case assignment properly is a necessary, but in itself insufficient precondition for public trust in the absence of bias in the courts, and it is also essential for a timely delivery of justice. The actual organisation has to make certain that cases are not allocated to judges who have, or appear to have, an interest in a case, or who may appear prejudiced otherwise; if a wrongful allocation happens accidentally, the court organisation must have a way to reallocate a case to another judge. This illustrates that case assignment practices touch upon both essential principles of adjudication and the practicability of everyday work in the courts. Would courts not organize case allocation properly, the general public could maintain the vision that judges are not impartial, inclined to favour parties they have a personal interest with or even may be bribed. Media exposure on judicial impartiality in the courts may have far reaching consequences for public trust. If the general public is of opinion that judges are not integer, it will be likely to hold the judiciary in low regard, and may not accept the authority of judgments. It therefore is essential that case allocation processes are well organized and transparent. Furthermore, under the rule of law, parties should have the possibility to disqualify a judge, as an external check on the case allocation process. Nonetheless, there may be different ways of organizing case allocation processes within these normative margins.