Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-495rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-09-12T14:25:15.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Administration of Justice in a “People's Democracy”*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2013

Eduard Taborsky
Eduard Taborsky
Affiliation:
University of Texas
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Of all the countries that have so far fallen under the rule of communism, Czechoslovakia is undoubtedly the one whose prewar system of government and ways of life and traditions approximated most nearly those of a typical Western European nation. This is particularly true of the administration of justice. Thus Czechoslovakia furnishes an ideal setting for a case study of the impact of the Marxist-Leninist conception of the administration of justice on a previously Western-oriented community.

Type
Research Article
Information
American Political Science Review , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , June 1955 , pp. 402 - 415
Copyright
Copyright © American Political Science Association 1955

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 A good review of the Czechoslovak judicial system of prewar days may be found under Soudy a soudnictví in Slovník veřejného práva československého, Vol. 4 (Brno, 1938), pp. 429 ff.Google Scholar

2 The retirement age was 66 and was to have become 65 by 1940.

3 For details see Taborsky, Eduard, Czechoslovak Democracy at Work (London, 1945), pp. 131 ff.Google Scholar

4 According to the statistical data available for the period from 1931 to 1935, 28,947 cases had been handled by the Court, of which 7,803 were decided against the government. See Statistická Ročenka republiky Československé (Praha, 1937), p. 279Google Scholar.

5 On the preparation and training of lawyers and judges in Czechoslovakia, see Taborsky, Eduard, “The Legal Profession in a People's Democracy,” Tulane Law Review, Vol. 28, pp. 362–70 (April, 1954)Google Scholar.

6 This similarity of the prewar Czechoslovak and French judicial systems is hardly surprising if we keep in mind that Czechoslovakia, while retaining certain older rules of her own in some fields, came quite early under the influence of the Roman law and based her whole civil law system on the Code Napoléon.

7 Another court which failed to be reinstated was the Electoral Court, a special tribunal with the authority to rule on electoral disputes. For details see Taborsky, , Czechoslovak Democracy at Work, pp. 78 ff.Google Scholar

8 Concerning the Moscow negotiations in March, 1945 see Taborsky, Eduard, “Beneš and Stalin—Moscow, 1943 and 1945,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. 13, pp. 181–82 (July, 1953)Google Scholar. See also Josten, Josef, Oh, My Country (London, 1949)Google Scholar.

9 See Lidové Noviny, a daily paper published by the Communist-dominated Syndicate of Czechoslovak Authors, Oct. 15, 1950.

10 The English translation of the Constitution was published in pamphlet form by the Czechoslovak Ministry of Information (Praha, 1948). It may also be found in Peaslee, A. J., Constitutions of Nations (Concord, N. H., 1950)Google Scholar.

11 Section 65, Article II of the “Detailed Provisions.”

12 Section 3, Article I of the “Detailed Provisions.”

13 For details see Taborsky, , Czechoslovak Democracy at Work, pp. 74 ff.Google Scholar

14 This was the case in France, Italy, and Western Germany.

15 Section 143, Article VII of the “Detailed Provisions.”

16 Section 98, ibid.

17 Section 102, ibid.

18 Under Article 49 of the Soviet Constitution the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR has the power to annul decisions and orders of the Council of Ministers if they do not conform to law.

19 Article 112. Of course this difference is no more than a technicality, since a Soviet Court could hardly be expected to declare a government ordinance illegal.

20 Section 143, Article VII of the “Detailed Provisions.”

21 In pre-Communist Czechoslovakia the four levels of courts of ordinary jurisdiction were the district courts (okresní soudy), regional courts (krajské soudy), provincial courts of appeals (vrchní soudy), and the Supreme Court (nejvyšší soud).

22 The previously-mentioned Czechoslovak “people's courts” were only extraordinary criminal courts with a limited purpose of providing speedy retribution for wartime activities of the Nazis and their collaborators.

23 See Právo Lidu, the main daily of the Czechoslovak Social Democratic party, March 17, 1948.

24 A good discussion of the Plan as it affected the Czechoslovak legal system may be found in Beneš, Václav, “The New Legal System of Czechoslovakia,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. 12, pp. 215 ff (Oct., 1952)Google Scholar.

25 Zpráva o Československu [Report on Czechoslovakia], a monthly documentary digest published in New York by the Free Europe Committee, Vol. 1, No. 18, p. 5 (1950).

26 Explaining the intended reforms on December 17, 1948, Lidové Noviny stated: “The purpose of this new judiciary will not any longer be the preservation of certain meaningless formalities. The purpose will be above all to find material truth. The finality of a judicial decision will remain untouched, but it will no longer prevent the Court from admitting its mistakes and from remedying them.”

27 Other important powers granted the procurators by the new rules of criminal and civil procedure will be considered below.

28 Lidové Noviny, Sept. 24, 1949.

29 These cooperatives are the nuclei of future collective farms.

30 Rudé Právo, Dec. 6, 1950.

31 Rudé Právo, March 18, 1952.

32 Lidové Noviny, Jan. 30, 1951.

33 English translation taken from News from behind the Iron Curtain, Vol. 1, No. 8, p. 15 (1952)Google Scholar.

34 The changes effected in the field of public prosecution will be considered later.

35 As stated by the Minister of Justice in an address to a conference of attorneys in June, 1952. Rudé Právo, June 12, 1952.

36 Lidové Noviny, July 21, 1948.

37 The case was reported in Stráž Severu, a regional newspaper, on Feb. 15, 1953. See Zpráva o Československu, Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 27–28 (1952)Google Scholar.

38 Rudé Právo, Aug. 2, 9153.

39 Zpráva o Československu, Vol. 3, No. 10, p. 30 (1952)Google Scholar.

40 Rudé Právo, July 13, 1951.

41 Rudé Právo, April 30, 1952.

42 Lidové Noviny, Aug. 12, 1948.

43 See for example the statements by Čepička and Rais above.

44 Rudé Právo, June 12, 1952.

45 Východoslovenská Pravda, a regional Communist newspaper in eastern Slovakia, which reported on April 12, 1952 that a scheduled court hearing had to be cancelled because the court had forgotten to produce the records pertinent to the case. Zpráva o Československu, Vol. 3, No. 4, p. 28 (1952)Google Scholar.

46 Vyshinsky, Andrei, The Law of the Soviet State (New York, 1948), p. 537Google Scholar.

47 The terms procurator and prosecutor are used here as being identical.

48 Under the prewar Criminal Procedure Code (Articles 33, 292, and 79) the Procurator General could lodge with the Supreme Court a “complaint for the preservation of the law” against final judgments of criminal courts which he believed to be incompatible with the law. However, a person already acquitted under such a judgment could not be tried again for the same offense even though the judgment was pronounced illegal ….

Submit a response

Comments

No Comments have been published for this article.