This study examines how the Hungarian and Romanian legal orders have implemented EU rule of law standards for judicial organization and what we can learn from these experiences for balancing the values of judicial independence and efficiency. Constitutional theory and contextual-comparative legal research are combined to show how classic rule of law and new public management-inspired values for judicial organization and judging combine at a conceptual level and how standards reflecting these values developed incrementally in the evolving European context. The theoretical framework emerging from this analysis is critically tested and refined through a study of experiences with implementing European standards in two selected post-communist EU member states. This study encompasses three in-depth case studies on judicial selections, case assignment methods, and the participation of the judiciary in the public debate concerning court reforms. The research provides conclusions and guidelines for academics, legislators and judges.

rule of law, judicial independence, EU, European Convention on Human Rights, new public management, Hungary, Romania, courts, judges, judicial reforms, CJEU, European Court of Human Rights
E. Mak (Elaine) , F. Amtenbrink (Fabian)
Erasmus University Rotterdam
For copyright reasons there is a (partial) embargo for this dissertation
Erasmus School of Law

Gyöngyi, P.M. (2019, December 12). Judicial Reforms in Hungary and Romania: The Challenging Implementation of EU Rule of Law Standards. Erasmus University Rotterdam. Retrieved from