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

A JOGÉRT MINDHALÁLIG - SUMMARY

but also subject to criticism from another since, in some areas, it sometimes apparently resulted in inadequate solutions. All in all, although the decentralisation process caused a considerable stir throughout the country, its outcome proved generally satisfactory. As a result, those cities that managed to obtain a royal appeal court began celebrating on 5 May 1891, while the others sought to adapt to the new situation. The study also looked at critical opinions mostly coming from the publicists of the Ugyvedek Lapja [Solicitors' Review]. As if guided by a sense of duty, they mainly sought to pinpoint the disadvantages resulting from the reform. The articles of this weekly magazine, however, are important from another aspect as well. Since they were based on information leaking from the ministry, they reflect how the reform progressed week after week. The actual process of the allocation of high court judges was reconstructed on the basis of the official bulletins published then in the Budapesti Kozlony [Budapest Bulletin] and the semi-official ones in the Solicitors' Magazine. The differences between the two sources are largely due to the fact that the official journal reported the ministerial appointments, whereas the latter source only informed the public of the filled positions a few weeks later. By indicating the places where the judges originally served, we have tried to furnish a picture of the migration and movement resulting from the reform. Hopefully, the appeal courts of the 21

st century will also be able to gather useful historical information from this set of data. The efficiency of the reform of the appeal court system Is apparent from the decline in the backlog of unheard court cases. In the years subsequent to the reform this backlog significantly diminished, jurisdiction speeded up and the time people had to wait for their case to be heard decreased. Thus the courts became more efficient. 2. In the wake of the appeal court reform, the Minister of Justice [igazsdgugyminiszter] prepared Act XVII of 1891 on the modification of the judicial and public prosecution system. Or, to be more precise, their legal status. This was an inherent consequence of decentralisation, but at the same time it also streamlined the judicial profession. The aim was to raise the standard of adjudication and the professional qualities of judges to a level essential for restoring public confidence in court verdicts. The institutional reforms included in this legislative act had also been proposed years before the law was passed. This is proved by the constructive debates held in Parliament [Orszdggyules]. The bill did not face significant opposition in either chamber (the Hungarian House of Commons and the House of Lords). The most important innovation of the law was the regulation of the right of supervision. This institution was much more a possibility than a reality in the twoappeal court system. The executive board of the Budapest Appeal Court did not have a chance to administer and oversee the lower (the royal and the district) courts. Professional critics agreed with framers of the law that it was not particular courts that should have supervisory rights, but their executive boards. As regards expertise, it was the executive boards of the newly established appeal courts that could most efficiently supervise lower courts. This split supervisory right was reunited on a higher level: the Minister of Justice exercised the supreme right of supervision. The