Publication details
Kalibrovaná deference: proč, kdy a jak by měly správní soudy respektovat právní názor správního orgánu
| Title in English | Calibrated Deference: Why, How, and When Administrative Courts Should Respect Legal Opinion of Administrative Body |
|---|---|
| Authors | |
| Year of publication | 2025 |
| Type | Article in Periodical |
| Magazine / Source | Právník |
| MU Faculty or unit | |
| Citation | |
| web | https://www.ilaw.cas.cz/casopisy-a-knihy/casopisy/casopis-pravnik/archiv/2025/2025-9.html?a=3966 |
| Keywords | deference; administrative judiciary; intensity of review; professional self-governance; Czech Bar Association; constitutional principles |
| Attached files | |
| Description | Administrative courts in the Czech Republic generally reject any form of judicial deference in interpreting the law–that is, a degree of respect to the legal opinions of administrative authorities whose decisions they review. This article examines this judicial stance from the perspectives of constitutional theory, legal doctrine, and comparative law, offering a critical assessment. Using case law on the judicial review of disciplinary decisions of the Czech Bar Association as an example, it argues that courts when reviewing administrative interpretation of the law should apply calibrated deference. Calibrated deference is a concept that enables courts to take into account the constitutional, institutional, and political context of a given case and, depending on who decided the matter and what was the nature of the question, adjust the intensity of review accordingly. When determining the intensity of review, courts should consider factors such as the expertise of the administrative body, the value of self-governance, the severity of the interference with fundamental rights, the nature of the legal question at hand, the intent of the legislature, the clarity of the legal provision, and the democratic accountability of the given body. While none of these factors are individually decisive, they must all be taken into account. By categorically refusing to consider the views of administrative bodies when interpreting the law, courts negate their contribution to shared governance. Although the proposed approach may be at odds with the historically rooted understanding of administrative justice in the Czech Republic–one that has been primarily focused on the protection of individuals rather than on enabling policy implementation and good government–it aligns with a modern vision of courts as partners to other institutions in governance. Courts should neither subordinate themselves to these institutions nor seek to replace them. |
| Related projects: |