This introductory Article provides a conceptual umbrella for the Special Issue on Informal Institutions and Democratic Decay. It offers conceptual clarity to studying informal institutions and explains their relationship to other concepts such as constitutional conventions or judicial culture. The article summarizes findings of the Special issue in four key observations. First, it shows that it is impossible to understand the functioning of courts without understanding the informal rules that shape courts’ governance and decision-making. These informal rules (institutions) appear within courts (internal), between courts and other actors (mixed) and among non-judicial actors with effects on courts (external judicial institutions). Second, it identifies a strong trend of formalization of rules, sponsored mostly on the supranational European level .Third, it explains why reforms of formal rules are often not sufficient to trigger behavioral changes and highlights the role of informal institutions in created commitment of actors to key democratic principles. Fourth, it argues that informal judicial institutions significantly impact the quality of democracy.

This article discusses the existence and development of informal judicial practices in the Belgian legal order. It starts with the observation that the Belgian legal system is already highly formalized and suggests two reasons for that. Further, it shows that despite this rather high degree of existing formalization, important informal practices have nevertheless taken shape. However, over time the legislature intervenes, often as a reaction to some kind of external catalyst, and formalizes those previously informal aspects of the Belgian judicial system. This article therefore describes the Belgian legal order as a process of incremental and reactive formalization, taking place between the judiciary and the legislature.

Examining the practices of i) the selection of judges, ii) panel composition and case assignment, and iii) judicial off-bench activities, the article argues that some Czech judges, most often court presidents and apex court judges, use informal judicial institutions as tools to increase their influence on judicial administration and the decision-making of courts. As a result, these judges have far greater influence than the formal account of their roles might suggest. The article explores the context which facilitated the informal rise of these “Superjudges”, asserting that the key factors were institutionally independent judiciaries with individually dependent judges, the absence of a shared understanding of fundamental constitutional concepts, and the underperformance of Czech legal academia. The article then contends that while Superjudges may contribute to an informed, effective, and politically independent functioning of the judiciary, they also risk eroding important divisions of power which, in turn, might compromise the integrity of the judicial process, undermine the authority of courts, and disconnect the content of the law from the general interest.

The German Federal Constitutional Court (BVerfG) has for decades used informality to establish, build, and protect its authority. Yet, as the political landscape has shifted in recent years, in particular since the end of the Merkel-era Grand Coalition and the rise of the right-wing populist AfD, several longstanding informal practices and institutions have become politicized. Those concern extra-judicial activities of judges, regular informal meetings between the Court and the government, and privileged early access to the Court’s press releases for certain journalists. This Article first introduces various forms of informality that the BVerfG employs in its internal self-administration and the judicial-legal culture in general, before tracing how, why, and by whom the three aforementioned practices of informality are challenged. Ultimately, this Article analyzes how the Court and its judges respond to the politicization of informality, and in particular how it triggered processes of formalization of judicial behavior and changes in institutional communication.

In the past twenty-five years, Ireland has moved from a traditional common law model of judicial administration, in which key aspects of judicial careers and administration were handled informally and politically, to a much more formal system designed along European lines. This transition is driven by Irish judges and politicians and influenced heavily by EU and Council of Europe soft law on judicial independence and the rule of law. In this article I sketch an outline of judicial institutions in Ireland before focusing on two topics that exemplify the transition: Judicial conduct and judicial appointments. I argue that the move to formalize judicial administration in Ireland is rooted in a desire to follow best practice but also to avoid politically difficult reforms in other areas.

One of the most prominent informal institutions that affect access to the judicial career is the system of coaching to prepare for the state exams to access the judiciary. This Article focuses on the relevance and impact of that informal institution, together with other informal aspects that affect the process of judicial selection. It is claimed that the system of preparation for judicial state exams has a crucial impact on the composition of the judiciary. Its informality and peculiar features however raise important democratic concerns due to its lack of transparency, the important economic barriers it imposes, and its longstanding impact on judicial culture.

Informality has long been valued in England, and this is true of the political process as well as the institution of the judiciary. In both cases, it is assumed that the senior figures will have absorbed unwritten conventions and will by osmosis naturally understand their respective role in the UK constitution. Much is now starting to change, at least as far as the English judiciary is concerned. It is, first, argued that informal judicial institutions did not become redundant when the separation of powers was formally introduced with a program of modernization of the judiciary in the Constitutional Reform Act 2005. Selected illustrations of persisting informal judicial institutions are then discussed in relation to the deliberative processes in senior courts; to judicial selection and appointments; and to the disciplinary process. Second, informal judicial institutions are deeply connected with the UK constitutional tradition. The Brexit litigation laid bare the challenges of containing political behavior within certain boundaries, and the unwritten conventions which have bound the judiciary and the executive might now be instinctively understood and shared by only one of these two parties.

There is general agreement that in Italy the establishment of a judicial council ensured an overall higher degree of independence. Nevertheless, this self-governance template was criticized for propping up an accountability imbalance and a certain degree of inefficiency. In order to understand this assessment, this article delves into the relevance of informal rules and practices in the operation of the Italian judicial council. More specifically, it focuses on the activities relating to appointments of court presidents and professional assessment. Based on this analysis, it makes some observations on the factors shaping informal practices and questions their impact on judicial values and the quality of Italian democracy. I argue that informal institutions have amplified the corporatist character of the Italian judiciary, but it would be wrong to portray them in negative terms only, because the operation of the Italian judicial council and judicial system also benefits from a healthy dose of informality, which allows for enduring legitimacy in a polarized society.

This Article explores the manner in which, faced with the rule of law crisis generated by the 2017–2019 national legislative reforms, the Romanian judicial associations, organized as NGOs, have fulfilled their declared purpose of safeguarding judicial independence. By relying on effective communication tactics—including international networking and lobbying or informal discussions with high-level EU representatives—coupled with a strategic use of preliminary references, they have shed light on some of the most sensitive elements of the Romanian context, garnering both internal and international support in the process. In particular, by taking advantage of the CJEU’s increased willingness to engage with questions concerning the rule of law and the organization of the national judicial systems, the Romanian judicial associations have managed to design strategies capable of triggering preliminary rulings on the most heated and politically charged questions concerning the judiciary. This Article seeks to highlight the specific features and informal elements of such strategies.

This article uses the case study of Slovakia and its lackluster experience with a judge-dominated judicial council to demonstrate that formal institutions have only limited impact on the ideational level. We show that the transformation of the Slovak post-communist judiciary relied on the presumption that judges‘ interests are automatically complementary to principles of the rule of law. Therefore, the majority of implemented reforms insulated the judiciary from the political branches of power, but allowed strong hierarchical relationships inside the courts to exist. In contrast to international expectations, judicial authorities used judicial empowerment to create or strengthen competing informal practices, which helped them to maximize their power. We argue that the lack of internalization of judicial independence might explain why institutional self-governance reforms failed to trigger changes in the professional role conception of judges in regimes riddled with deeply embedded informal institutions. In order to tackle this problem, we propose that future research on the relationship between institutional safeguards and decisional judicial independence should focus on the process through which actors internalize new institutional incentives.

There are two contrasting claims regarding the Hungarian judiciary. The Government asserts that it is in the best shape, while many other voices label it as captured or dependent. This article shows how both of these claims can be true, depending on the interplay between formality and informality and shows how a few small loopholes allow some actors to rig the judicial system. Therefore, the Hungarian judiciary is similar to Schrödinger’s cat, which is claimed to be dead and alive at the same time.

The synergy between formality and informality requires a network of a handful of trusted people in managerial positions to administer case allocation, promotion, and disciplinary systems, which seem to be very effective tools. Few small technical loopholes and some special remedies suffice to micromanage important cases precisely because key positions are captured which work as gatekeepers or emergency brakes. Most of these tools are legal in a very formal technical sense of the word because they rely on acts of Parliament. A formal legalism, a very thin understanding of the Rule of law, and a majoritarian mindset serve as a legitimizing ideology for the whole legal system.

The Israeli democracy regulates the operation of the judiciary through the constraints of formal rules that check the political actors, the individual judges, and the judiciary. Basic laws, laws and regulations prescribe the operation of every subject. Yet beyond these formal rules, informal institutions and practices are sometimes equally important in the operation of the judiciary, as they are in any constitutional system. In Israel, some of these informal institutions are crucial for the flourishing of democracy and the rule of law, through their protection of judicial independence from external political interference. The imminent possibility that political actors may set some of them aside is nothing less than a potential transformation in the constitutional order. Over the past few decades, judges and court administrators have introduced other internal informal institutions in the administration of the Israeli Judiciary, which qualify formal judicial accountability mechanisms in ways that may prove to be detrimental to democratic principles. This article discusses informal institutions that are important in the operation of the Israeli judiciary, separating the former external kind that are conducive to the rule of law—such as the illegitimacy of political and partisan considerations in judicial appointments—and whose disregard may signal democratic decay from the latter internal kind that may prove detrimental to the courts—such as opaquely changing who is responsible for court administration. Lastly, the political attempt to change informal institutions, detailed herein, can be seen as a harbinger of the current attempt to change formal institutions in the constitutional status of the judiciary in Israel.

This Article gives a cautionary account of the rise of judicial oligarchs in Georgia, highlighting how their rule distorts judicial governance and undermines judicial independence. The Georgian judiciary is portrayed as a pyramid-like structure where judges’ positions are determined by their influence on judicial governance and decision-making. Judicial oligarchs are a select few judges at the top that have acquired system-wide influence over the judiciary through their trusted affiliates, leaving other judges with minimal influence at the bottom of the pyramid. Research indicates that judicial self-governance bodies, such as judicial councils, can easily be manipulated by a handful of judges independently or through collusion with politicians. This can occur especially when most judges have little interest and the ability to participate meaningfully in governance. The Article explains how judicial oligarchs get judges to elect them and their affiliates as judicial council members. Informal networks and institutions contribute to their electoral success. There appears to be a shared expectation that judges will not challenge the oligarchs’ authority by publicly disagreeing with them or competing with them in elections, or else face sanctions. Research also cautions that de-politicization in the sense of excluding politicians from the bodies of judicial governance will not necessarily prevent politicians’ informal meddling with judicial decision-making. Collusion between judicial oligarchs and ruling party politicians forms part of the broader strategy of weakening the checks and balances and allowing the ruling party to operate without constraints. Thus, judicial oligarchs help to perpetuate oligarchization in the political sphere.

Since the Revolution of Dignity, civil society has become a major stakeholder in Ukraine's multiple reform processes. Judicial reform has been particularly salient as it aims to transform the country’s judiciary, long plagued by interrelated problems of political dependence, oligarchic capture, and internal corruption, into an autonomous guarantor of the rule of law. This Article examines how Ukrainian civil society has developed into an informal institution in Ukraine’s judicial reform. Building upon an overview of judicial reform efforts in Ukraine and a general theoretical framework of informality, this contribution studies how Ukrainian civil society influences the reform process, using the example of the country’s Constitutional Court. We argue that civil society has become an influential informal institution which plays an increasingly important role in judicial reform in Ukraine.

Constitutional conventions are traditionally understood as socially binding, usually unwritten, rules of constitutional importance based on precedent which cannot be enforced before courts. This traditional approach has several limitations, because it debates the normative quality of conventions rather than how to find them and where the real power lies. By doing so it is disconnected from scholarship on informal institutions in social sciences. Moreover, scholarship on constitutional conventions focuses predominantly on common law countries and conventions concerning political branches. This article pushes the boundaries in both directions. It shows how constitutional conventions can be conceptualized in civil law jurisdictions, and also identifies informal practices and constitutional conventions governing the judiciaries. On a broader level, it argues that constitutional conventions as a normative concept can help to filter the informal practices and differentiate between simple repetitive behavior on the one hand and conventions as a subset of informal institutions on the other.

While informal institutions significantly affect the functioning of courts, they also change the powers, position, and influence of individual actors in judicial systems. This Article analyzes how the presence of informal judicial institutions and practices reshapes the influence and importance of roles individual actors play in the functioning of the judiciary. The aim of this Article is three-fold. First, it maps the actors of informal judicial institutions and practices. Second, it stresses the importance of looking at actors who are not formally involved in particular judicial processes and recognized as decision-makers but have the ability to influence the judiciary informally. Third, it shows why it is necessary to keep in mind that also collective bodies can take part in informal judicial institutions and practices.

This Article describes and analyzes the role that various supranational actors from the European level play in the rise of formalization in the European states of the legal framework surrounding their judiciary. It starts from the observation that those supranational actors act as a driving force towards increased formalization via a variety of recommendations, reports, or decisions. It first provides several concrete examples of where the supranational actors act as such a driving force towards more formalization. In a second step, the Article looks more generally at how the various supranational actors think about informality surrounding the judiciary and tries to discern the rationales that underlie their position. In a third step, it assesses the various advantages and disadvantages of the rise in formalization that is propagated by the supranational actors. In doing so, the Article shows how the topic of informal judicial rules and practices cannot be understood fully without having due regard to the supranational level and contributes to the literature on the relationship between formal and informal institutions.

Most scholarly writings focus on the harmful effects of informal institutions. This article explores the positive influence of informal judicial institutions on the fundamental values of judicial systems. It develops a framework for assessing such institutions. The paper argues that the normative evaluation of informal judicial institutions is highly context-specific. Depending on their historical trajectories, different jurisdictions may emphasize different interests. Because of this, when evaluating informal judicial institutions, balancing the same values may yield different results in different jurisdictions. The recent trend towards formalization, supported by supranational institutions, goes hand-in-hand with the spreading narrative of good governance, emphasizing principles such as transparency or inclusion, principles that generally stand in tension with informality. This article cautions against emerging supranational templates insensitive to local practice.

De-democratization may take the form of executive-led attacks as well as incremental decrepitude, gradual emptying of underlying constitutional values, and state inertia. Contrary to general wisdom, both exogenous erosion and endogenous decay are heavily affected by informality. As courts are often the first institutions affected by de-democratization, this Article analyzes informality in erosion and decay of judicial institutions. It argues that such institutions interact with democracy in two core directions. The first one is endogenous and describes the decay of democratic judiciaries as a result of a long-term incongruence between formal and informal judicial institutions. The second direction captures the gradual erosion of informal institutions that have positive effects on judicial democratic resilience. These two processes, decay and erosion of informal judicial institutions, should not be overlooked. While they are less visible, slower, and often unintentional, they are as dangerous as frontal executive-led attacks on courts, because they significantly increase the window of opportunity for politicians who wish to downgrade the substance of democracy or even implement a regime change.