Search citation statements
Paper Sections
Citation Types
Year Published
Publication Types
Relationship
Authors
Journals
In recent decades, many judicial systems have witnessed the "managerialisation" of justice—a phenomenon involving the application of private sector techniques to enhance court functioning. These techniques encompass engaging professional managers, reorganizing services, implementing performance measures, and adopting performance-based budgeting. Balancing these approaches with judges' professional standards, as independence and quality, raises critical questions. How does managerialisation affect judges' organization, autonomy, work quality, efficiency, and work-related stress? A survey conducted from June to December 2020 among first-instance judges in Finland, Italy, and the Netherlands, with distinct budgeting models, aimed to understand the impact. The questionnaire explored pressure sources, perceived stress levels, and mechanisms mitigating pressure and stress. Results showed significant differences in work organization, performance targets, and judge autonomy. However, similarities emerged in perceived pressure, work-related stress, and motivation. The study suggests that while not a panacea, managerialisation doesn't inherently increase pressure and stress. It may improve court organization, clarifying the interplay between professional standards and financial considerations. En las últimas décadas, muchos sistemas judiciales han sido testigos de la “gerencialización” de la justicia, un fenómeno que implica la aplicación de técnicas del sector privado para mejorar el funcionamiento de los tribunales. Estas técnicas abarcan la contratación de gestores profesionales, la reorganización de los servicios, la aplicación de medidas de rendimiento y la adopción de presupuestos basados en el rendimiento. Equilibrar estos enfoques con las normas profesionales de los jueces, como la independencia y la calidad, plantea cuestiones críticas. ¿Cómo afecta la gerencialización a la organización, la autonomía, la calidad del trabajo, la eficiencia y el estrés laboral de los jueces? Una encuesta realizada entre junio y diciembre de 2020 entre jueces de primera instancia de Finlandia, Italia y los Países Bajos, con distintos modelos presupuestarios, tenía como objetivo comprender el impacto. El cuestionario exploraba las fuentes de presión, los niveles de estrés percibidos y los mecanismos para mitigar la presión y el estrés. Los resultados mostraron diferencias significativas en la organización del trabajo, los objetivos de rendimiento y la autonomía de los jueces. Sin embargo, surgieron similitudes en la presión percibida, el estrés laboral y la motivación. El estudio insinúa que, aunque no es una panacea, la gerencialización no aumenta intrínsecamente la presión y el estrés. Puede mejorar la organización de los tribunales, aclarando la interacción entre las normas profesionales y las consideraciones financieras.
In recent decades, many judicial systems have witnessed the "managerialisation" of justice—a phenomenon involving the application of private sector techniques to enhance court functioning. These techniques encompass engaging professional managers, reorganizing services, implementing performance measures, and adopting performance-based budgeting. Balancing these approaches with judges' professional standards, as independence and quality, raises critical questions. How does managerialisation affect judges' organization, autonomy, work quality, efficiency, and work-related stress? A survey conducted from June to December 2020 among first-instance judges in Finland, Italy, and the Netherlands, with distinct budgeting models, aimed to understand the impact. The questionnaire explored pressure sources, perceived stress levels, and mechanisms mitigating pressure and stress. Results showed significant differences in work organization, performance targets, and judge autonomy. However, similarities emerged in perceived pressure, work-related stress, and motivation. The study suggests that while not a panacea, managerialisation doesn't inherently increase pressure and stress. It may improve court organization, clarifying the interplay between professional standards and financial considerations. En las últimas décadas, muchos sistemas judiciales han sido testigos de la “gerencialización” de la justicia, un fenómeno que implica la aplicación de técnicas del sector privado para mejorar el funcionamiento de los tribunales. Estas técnicas abarcan la contratación de gestores profesionales, la reorganización de los servicios, la aplicación de medidas de rendimiento y la adopción de presupuestos basados en el rendimiento. Equilibrar estos enfoques con las normas profesionales de los jueces, como la independencia y la calidad, plantea cuestiones críticas. ¿Cómo afecta la gerencialización a la organización, la autonomía, la calidad del trabajo, la eficiencia y el estrés laboral de los jueces? Una encuesta realizada entre junio y diciembre de 2020 entre jueces de primera instancia de Finlandia, Italia y los Países Bajos, con distintos modelos presupuestarios, tenía como objetivo comprender el impacto. El cuestionario exploraba las fuentes de presión, los niveles de estrés percibidos y los mecanismos para mitigar la presión y el estrés. Los resultados mostraron diferencias significativas en la organización del trabajo, los objetivos de rendimiento y la autonomía de los jueces. Sin embargo, surgieron similitudes en la presión percibida, el estrés laboral y la motivación. El estudio insinúa que, aunque no es una panacea, la gerencialización no aumenta intrínsecamente la presión y el estrés. Puede mejorar la organización de los tribunales, aclarando la interacción entre las normas profesionales y las consideraciones financieras.
One of the most significant current discussions in Polish legal doctrine is how actions of executive powers, especially supervisory measures can affect judicial independence. It is related to basic constitutional and administrative law issues, including the separation of powers, the independence and the impartiality of the judiciary, the independence of the courts, the supervision and control, the efficiency and effectiveness of judicial protection. The analysis focuses on the dependence between the model of administrative supervision adopted in administrative justice and the efficiency of the courts, as well as their perception by the public. The study will examine supervisory measures aimed at ensuring the efficient functioning of the courts. The effectiveness of judicial review of administrative justice is essential for the protection of individuals' rights and the functioning of the state authorities in both the social and the economic sphere. From an extrajudicial point of view its significance is reflected in the influence on the judiciary, which will not only be effective in its procedural activity, but also in the level of trust and social prestige. It holds that the three arms of the state – the executive, the judiciary and the legislature – should, to a greater or lesser extent, be kept separate. That way, they are able to hold one another to account. This theory about the separation of state power went on to have a formative effect on the development of modern-day democracies. And it’s this vision of the tripartite separation of state power that is essential to the EU’s argument against the Polish reforms of the judiciary. The problem of supervision over administrative courts is also connected with external and internal independence of the judiciary. External independence refers to freedom from undue outside pressure, while internal independence protects individual judges from undue pressure from within the system. “Undue internal pressure” sometimes comes from court presidents and may take different forms: even where individual judges are not formally subordinate to court presidents or other authorities and may be result of attribution of workload, allocation of resources and benefits, disciplinary powers, powers of transfer and secondment, distribution of cases, etc. The aim of this paper is to examine the problem of supervision over administrative courts in legal system of Poland. The article focuses on the dependence between the model of administrative supervision and the efficiency of the courts.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.