engleski

The reaction to negative criticism of court judgements

The activities of constitutional courts are potentially, and also in actual fact, very often exposed to public opinion. This can be expressed as pressure before and during constitutional court proceedings and as assessments (positive or negative) made after the court has reached its decision. When a decision of the constitutional court is criticised, it is first necessary to decide whether to react to the criticism, and this depends on its content and how serious it is. The constitutional court must certainly react in a fitting way to criticism that is seriously inaccurate and unjustified, taking care not to infringe on the freedom of expression or prevent the expression of criticism as such. It is appropriate to respond to criticism: a) if it results from not understanding how the system works, or the role of the constitutional court, or if it is partly based on that kind of misconception, b) when the criticism is serious and will probably have a significant negative social influence, and c) when it contains inaccuracies or is deceptive. In making a final decision about whether to react to criticism and how to do so, it is necessary to assess: 1. can the answer additionally clarify the procedure or the reasons for making the decision, 2. will the answer rectify the wrong, inaccurate or deceptive informing of the public, 3. will the answer have the adequate meaning and serve to inform the public, 4. could the answer be misunderstood as having been given in the court’s own interest (justification, apology…), and 5. can the answer contribute to the public’s better information about an important issue that was the subject of the proceedings or is connected to them in some way.

Constitutional Law; Constitutional Court; Public Opinion

nije evidentirano