Comment: Austro-Hungarian partnership? A brief comparison between an old democracy and a new democracy

Abstract

The rule of law crisis in Poland has spotlighted the underlying fundamentals of EU values. Previously, it had hardly ever been seriously questioned whether all the EU Member States - once they have fulfilled the formal criteria to become members of the EU - continue to meet these requirements. The Polish case and the erosion of the rule of law in Poland not only bring to light deficiencies in the Polish judicial system but should be a warning call for other national judicial systems. They also provide politicians or actors who would like to see the judiciary as a part of government policy or the policies of other influential interest groups with a simple example. Like viruses, such negative examples can easily spread. Immunisation is necessary to avoid being infected by a virus which can easily destroy a functioning justice system. Once a justice system is not strong and robust it can easily get affected. The question remains whether old democratic systems - i.e. those of old EU Member States with consolidated democracies - are more immunised against such a virus than young democratic systems and transitional democracies. Legal cultures and historical legal developments differ from country to country. Because of this diversity it is not possible to use one template for all and on all systems. Nevertheless, certain factors exist in all our judiciaries which are similar and function as custodians of independence - be it individual or structural independence. In order to verify such assumptions, the chapter will compare the administrative judicial system of Austria, an old EU Member State, with the Hungarian recently reformed administrative system.