Conference Agenda

Purpose:

The Czech Republic's initiative to enhance judicial transparency by publishing lower court decisions online represents a significant project with multifaceted economic challenges. This project, driven by a commitment to improve access to justice and increase public trust, requires substantial investment in digital infrastructure, personnel training, and ongoing maintenance. While the long-term benefits of increased transparency and efficiency are anticipated, the immediate economic burdens bring considerable hurdles. This paper examines these economic challenges in detail, analyzing the direct and indirect costs, potential funding models, and the broader economic implications for the Czech judicial system.

Design/Methodology/Approach:

This contribution utilizes a mixed-method approach combining quantitative analysis of budgetary data and qualitative insights from interviews with court administrators officials. The research examines the economic implications of implementing anonymization software, upgrading technical infrastructure, and training judicial personnel across 86 district courts. Additionally, it explores the administrative hurdles faced by courts during this transition, including resistance due to increased bureaucracy and technical limitations.

Findings:

Preliminary findings indicate that the publication of lower court decisions online has not only improved public access to justice but also fostered greater transparency in judicial decision-making. Despite initial resistance from courts, the project has demonstrated significant potential to streamline case management processes and enhance public trust in the judiciary. However, economic costs—estimated at 150 000 EUR in the first stage for the period: over five years—highlight the need for better resource allocation and robust support mechanisms from the Ministry of Justice. Furthermore, a future challenge lies in leveraging artificial intelligence (AI) for text analysis of judgments. While AI offers opportunities to automate anonymization and extract valuable insights from court decisions, its implementation raises concerns about accuracy, bias in algorithms, and compliance with evolving data protection regulations.

Practical Implications:

The study describes the importance of innovative leadership and targeted investments in digital infrastructure and training within the judicial system. Lessons learned from this initiative can inform similar efforts in other jurisdictions, contributing to a broader discourse on judicial modernization and transparency.

Originality/Value:

This paper offers a unique perspective on the intersection of judicial administration, technology, and economics in the Czech Republic. By addressing both practical challenges and theoretical implications, it provides valuable insights for academics, policymakers, and practitioners seeking to advance transparency and efficiency in justice systems worldwide.

Reference:https://www.opengovpartnership.org/members/czech-republic/commitments/CZ0024/

Introduction: The quality of life (QOL) of civil servants working in the judicial sector can be impacted by challenging working conditions, such as the accumulation of tasks, intense workload, information overload and exposure to occupational stress. In this sense, studies on QoL in judicial professions are still scarce, neglecting the diversity and heterogeneity of this professional context. This protocol proposes a systematic review, with possible meta-analysis, to identify the perceptions of civil servants in the judiciary about quality of life, considering environmental, socioeconomic and workload factors.

Method: This systematic review will follow the PRISMA-P 2015 guidelines. With the PECO search strategy, quantitative, qualitative or mixed studies will be included, with no time limit. The search to identify and collect bibliographic data will be carried out in the following databases: Web of Science™, Scopus™, MEDLINE/PubMed®, Embase™, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL®), Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), American Psychological Association (APA PsycArticles®), Ovid and Eric. Two independent reviewers will select the studies, resolving disagreements with a third senior reviewer. Data extraction will be carried out via EndNote X9 and Rayyan software. The articles included will be assessed for the quality of evidence and risk of bias using the recommendations of the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP), the GRADE scale and the Downs and Black scale, respectively. The aim is to conduct a meta-analysis to determine the associations between quality of life and social, psychological, environmental, socioeconomic and workload factors.

Discussion: The judicial environment faces challenges such as occupational stress, work overload, and an imbalance between professional and personal life, which is aggravated by technological demands and traumatic cases. This study seeks to fill gaps in quality of life in the sector despite possible limitations in definitions and analysis.

Conclusion: This study could identify gaps, guide managers and researchers, and deepen the understanding of the factors that influence quality of life in the judiciary, contributing to public policies and future research in the context of the administration of justice.

Registration number PROSPERO: CRD420250650380

Traditionally, courts have been perceived as bastions of rationality, insulated from the disruptive force of emotions -long mistakenly viewed as the antithesis of reason (Flower, 2020). Yet, beyond procedural formalism, courts are profoundly human spaces where emotions play a crucial role (Dumoulin & Vigour, 2020). This is particularly evident in proximity courts, such as police and justice of peace courts in Belgium, where judges engage daily in face-to-face encounters with citizens and must make numerous decisions about them within a limited timeframe. These repeated interactions position them as street-level bureaucrats (Lipsky, 1980/2010), constantly navigating litigants’ personal histories, life trajectories, and emotions.

While research has extensively examined frontline judges (e.g., Barral, 2014) - yet, more rarely, with a street-level perspective (e.g., Biland & Steinmetz, 2017) - the role of litigants in these emotional exchanges remains largely overlooked. Yet, citizens’ emotional expressions-and their participation in courtroom interactions- are central to understanding the dynamics of these relationships. Emotions can be disruptive in administrative contexts (Dechezelles, 2018), especially when engaging with frontline bureaucrats (e.g., Eshuis et al., 2023). At the same time, judges-traditionally seen as emotionless arbiters- are increasingly recognized as emotional actors whose empathy -or lack thereof- shapes courtroom interactions and decisions.

How do litigants’ and judges’ emotions interact at the frontline? Drawing from research on street-level bureaucracy and emotions in political science, psychology, sociology, and law, we examine the role of litigants’ emotional competencies (Mikolajczak et al., 2014) and judges’ empathy (Skowronska, 2021) in the outcome of courtroom interactions. We analyze how these emotional factors impact judicial interactions building on Tummers et al.’s (2015) conceptual framework.

Empirically, our study is based on direct observation of 30 hearings across six courts in two Belgian judicial districts - police and justice of peace courts. This comparative approach captures the nuances of emotional dynamics across different institutional settings. Using thematic analysis (Paillé & Mucchielli, 2016), our findings highlight the central role of emotional intelligence (Salovey & Mayer, 1990) in judicial interactions: litigants’ ability to recognize and regulate emotions significantly shapes their engagement with judges, while judicial empathy modulates how these emotional competencies impact interactions outcomes.

By shedding light on the emotional dimensions of courtroom interactions, this study challenges the long-standing perception of courts as purely rational spaces. It also underscores the broader implications of emotional dynamics for court management, judicial decision-making, and the accessibility of justice.