{"title":"Delegation, Compliance, and Judicial Decision Making in the Court of Justice of the European Union","authors":"Sivaram Cheruvu, Jay N. Krehbiel","doi":"10.1086/718496","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Courts regularly delegate tasks to individual or small subsets of judges. While a substantial literature addresses delegation in the context of American courts, less is known about why and how courts delegate from a comparative perspective. With many of the world’s high courts using panel systems (also known as “chambers”) by which the court delegates cases to subsets of judges, this limitation of the extant literature leaves a number of empirical and theoretical questions unanswered. We argue that the threat of noncompliance presents one factor influencing a court’s delegation of cases to panels. From our expectation that a court will not delegate cases with a greater risk for noncompliance to panels, we then derive empirical implications for case disposition and a court’s willingness to rule contrary to the legal merits in a case. We analyze panel usage at the Court of Justice of the European Union to support our account.","PeriodicalId":44478,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and Courts","volume":"10 1","pages":"113 - 138"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and Courts","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1086/718496","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Abstract
Courts regularly delegate tasks to individual or small subsets of judges. While a substantial literature addresses delegation in the context of American courts, less is known about why and how courts delegate from a comparative perspective. With many of the world’s high courts using panel systems (also known as “chambers”) by which the court delegates cases to subsets of judges, this limitation of the extant literature leaves a number of empirical and theoretical questions unanswered. We argue that the threat of noncompliance presents one factor influencing a court’s delegation of cases to panels. From our expectation that a court will not delegate cases with a greater risk for noncompliance to panels, we then derive empirical implications for case disposition and a court’s willingness to rule contrary to the legal merits in a case. We analyze panel usage at the Court of Justice of the European Union to support our account.
法院经常将任务委托给个别或少数法官。虽然有大量的文献在美国法院的背景下讨论授权,但从比较的角度来看,法院为什么以及如何授权却鲜为人知。由于世界上许多高等法院使用小组制度(也称为“分庭”),法院将案件委托给法官的子集,现有文献的这种限制使许多经验和理论问题没有得到解答。我们认为,不遵守的威胁是影响法院将案件委托给专家组的一个因素。根据我们的预期,法院不会将有更大不合规风险的案件委托给专家组,然后我们得出了案件处理和法院愿意在案件中做出与法律是非曲性相反的裁决的经验意义。我们分析了欧盟法院(Court of Justice of European Union)的陪审团使用情况,以支持我们的说法。