Summary

In the preparation of the court reform, doubt has often been expressed as to whether the court system actually has a problem that requires solving. Every proposed solution may carry risks; consequently, even those who are otherwise dissatisfied may voice the opinion that there is actually nothing wrong with the current situation. The author identifies the harmonisation of the application of law as a primary substantive objective of the court reform. Justice that yields unpredictable outcomes is costly to society. If the outcome of a civil dispute can vary significantly, it provokes at least one party to the legal relationship to litigate, as they may have much to gain and relatively little to lose. Thus, solutions for the structural setup of court organisation should be sought specifically based on the objective of harmonising the law. The keyword here is specialisation. There is no reason why the general principle, ie., that individuals specialised in a task perform that work at the expected quality and relatively faster, should not also apply to the courts. The concept of specialisation inevitably leads to the question of how large judicial institutions should be. Generally speaking, the management systems of large organisations are more professional, and their management costs as a proportion of total expenses are relatively lower. In the courts, management has often been regarded as a minor function and left to the responsibility of support services. This gives rise to development ideas based solely on simple calculations or savings on information technology resources. Routine methods of data collection have evolved that may not clearly highlight the needs of the core activity. To prevent this, court management should be professional, and lawyers should set the tone within the executive management.