Antal Tamás: Törvénykezési reformok Magyarországon 1890-1900. Ítélőtáblák, bírói jogviszony, esküdtszék - Dél-Alföldi évszázadok 23. (Szeged, 2006)

A JOGÉRT MINDHALÁLIG - SUMMARY

precise nature of his supervisory rights is not apparent from the law itself — several members of the House of Commons [Kepviselohdz] made critical observations on this subject. Since there was no supreme organ for the administration of courts (one like the National Judicial Council today), this solution was necessary because, throughout Europe, the judicial branch was not as independent of the government as it is today. However, this did not threaten the rule of law. The personal and judicial independence of the judges was guaranteed by other regulations of the constitution of the time (for example, by Acts IV of 1869, VIII of 1871 and IX of 1871). It is true, however, that the separation of public administration and administration of justice was somewhat lame. This, however, was an acceptable approach, or at least one that was not criticised by the legal profession of that time. Although sanctioning judicial mishandlings with a fine was only a symbolic gesture in the law, the maximum fine was fifty forints, which was fairly high then. Since, however, there were regulations that protected those members of the judicial system that were subject to the fine, the institution of the mishandling fine was criticised by only a few people. It should also be mentioned that the chief goal of these two institutions was not to affect verdicts in concrete cases, but to streamline the administration and the conduct of affairs at the courts. Another significant innovation of the reform was a ministerial decree issued relying on the provisions of the new law. The decree, which was also reviewed in this study, was intended to raise the professional standard of judges. This decree bridged the gap between the expertise of judges on the one hand, and that of solicitors and barristers on the other. Although between 1869 and 1891 the requirements of the professional exams were not as high for judges as for solicitors and barristers, the reform tried to end differences between the standards without making the two exams uniform. The new decree (a temporary solution) provided a guarantee for raising standards, the uniform professional exam for law not actually being introduced until 1913. It should also be mentioned here that both the requirements under the law and the decree are very similar to those of today. The new promotion system and the recruitment of deputy judges offered guarantees for the reinforcement of royal tribunals and district courts. Prior to this, the promotion of a court judge was not possible without his leaving the place where he had served. Now that this became possible under the new reform, quality manpower stayed put, but still the possibilities of promotion and a salary rise were open to them. Also, deputy judges were put on a one-year probation period, which seems a good idea even today. Although deputy judges of the time had more professional experience than the justice clerks of today, after their appointment they did not act as judges at the district courts i.e. at the courts of first instance, but entered court councils and were able to acquire sufficient experience under the supervision of senior judges. 3. The second most important issue in the study is the establishment and operation of jury tribunals [eskiidtbirdsdgokj. Two aspects of this issue were examined in this study. One was their establishment in 1867, while the other was their reorganisation in 1896-1897.