CONFLICT OF THE AUTHORITY OF JUDICIAL POWER AND NON-JUDICIAL INSTITUTIONS

Abstract

The subject of the analysis of this paper is the mutual relation between the judicial authorities and non-judicial institutions, those whose decisions directly or indirectly influence the exercise of judicial power1. The author’s attention will not be directed towards relations with institutions of legislative and executive power, but on non-judicial institutions that do not belong to governmental ones, and have an impact on judicial decision making. This relationship will be presented through the prism of the conflict of authority, which is based on the institutional position of the analyzed institutions, the legal effect and the possibility of reconsidering their decisions, and the conflicting relationship in the decision making process. The complexity of the analyzed relationship also speaks of the dilemma of the author regarding the name of this paper, so the analysis can thus be described as “the interrelation of the judicial authorities and non-judicial institutions, as an attachment to the functionality or dysfunctionality of the legal system”,“encroaching on powers of judicial authorities by non-judicial institutions”,“allowed and disallowed operation frameworks for non-judicial institutions in relation to the exercise of judicial power”, or “conflict of jurisdiction between regular courts and non-judicial institutions”. It seems that, regardless of the different angle of observation, and the different marking of the disputed points, the essence of the disputed relationship is precisely the authority of the analyzed institutions, the conflict based on legitimate reconsidering of judicial decisions (a real conflict of authority), and a potential conflict in case of an illegitimate impact (not real conflict of authority). Non-judicial institutions whose relationship with the judicial ones is being considered are the Constitutional Court and the State Audit Institution, which, regardless of whether it is an allowed or disallowed influence, have the possibility, due to the nature of their position and the nature of the decisions, influence the exercise of judicial power.