Abstract
Based on three case studies (Finland, France and The Netherlands), this article describes the performance-based budgeting models in place in the judiciaries of the three countries, and their effects (positive and negative) on the courts’ functioning. This article represent a first attempt to analyse the impact of funding mechanisms on judicial independence, accountability, efficiency and quality.
Highlights
Setting the budget is one of the most delicate issues a government has to cope with.Resources are limited by definition, and the prioritization of their allocation creates competition among the different public departments: allocating more funds to one department means allocating less funds to the others.The question is even more delicate when it comes to the judiciary, which is one of the three powers of the State, it must be independent, but its funding is in the hands of the other State powers, the executive or the legislative.The separation of powers’ principle is crucial to avoid the concentration of power in one single branch, but the one who holds the “power of the purse” has some “extra weapons,” which could be used against the other branches
According to the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) guidelines, a funding mechanism based upon transparent criteria is necessary to maintain the independence of the judiciary, as long as the judiciary is closely involved in setting these criteria
This paper addresses the topic of court budgeting, focusing on three cases studies: Finland, France, and the Netherlands, which have experienced different ways of “performance-based” budget for the judiciary3
Summary
Setting the budget is one of the most delicate issues a government has to cope with. The question is even more delicate when it comes to the judiciary, which is one of the three powers of the State, it must be independent, but its funding is in the hands of the other State powers, the executive or the legislative. According to the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) guidelines, a funding mechanism based upon transparent criteria is necessary to maintain the independence of the judiciary, as long as the judiciary is closely involved in setting these criteria.. Resources (personnel, salaries, buildings, operational costs, information technology, etc.) given to the judiciary must be consistent with the caseload and the citizens’ legitimate expectation for an accessible, fair, and in reasonable time resolution of their conflicts, as well as prompt and effective decisions in criminal matters by the courts According to the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) guidelines, a funding mechanism based upon transparent criteria is necessary to maintain the independence of the judiciary, as long as the judiciary is closely involved in setting these criteria. Resources (personnel, salaries, buildings, operational costs, information technology, etc.) given to the judiciary must be consistent with the caseload and the citizens’ legitimate expectation for an accessible, fair, and in reasonable time resolution of their conflicts, as well as prompt and effective decisions in criminal matters by the courts
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call