147 relsen (regeringen) nodvendigvis er en og udelelig og derfor må vasre samlet i en överste statsstyrelsesmyndigheds hånd .«Deovrige myndigheder har kun som formål at begramse eller kontrollere den överste myndighed. Den dommende myndighed har en kontrolfunktion til vsern for individet. På dette grundlag kunne Goos anerkende, at domstolene havde »befojelse til at tilsideS£Ette en almindelig lov, der krasnker grundlovsbestemmelser, som er trufne i personernes interesse, som vasrn for deres rettigheder«. Såvidt og ikke lasngere burde provelsesretten gå, skrev Goos i 1892. Det var på et tidspunkt, hvor domstolene ikke selv klart havde taget stilling til sporgsmålet. Samtidig understregede Goos, at den dommende myndighed ikke var ligestillet med de andre statsmagter. Det stod altid i lovgivningsmagtens eller i regeringsmagtens hånd at overvinde modstand fra domstolens side. Det var ord som måtte mane til forsigtighed med hensyn til at underkende love som grundlovsstridige. Om dommerne i Hojesteret var enige med Goos, når han i övrigt argumenterede for regeringens ret til at styre uden om lovgivningsmagten, var imod kvinders politiske rettigheder eller imod parlamentarismen må stå hen. Men de var enige ham i, at retten burde undgå konflikt »med den överste statsstyrelsesmyndighed«, og det standpunkt har retten stået fast på siden. Summary The Danish Supreme Court 1850—1920 The Danish Supreme Court was founded in 1661 as a consequence of the introduction of the absolute monarchy in 1660. In 1849, a new constitution introduced a constitutional monarchy and the role of the Supreme Court was thereby also changed. According to the doctrine of the separation of powers, expressly incorporated in the Constitution of 1849, the judicial power forms a separate organ of the State, distinct from the legislative and executive powers. Nonetheless, the new Constitution resulted in only a few outward changes being introduced to the procedure and working methods of the Court as, despite its formal dependence on the Executive during the first part of the nineteenth century, it had already succeeded in establishing a measure of independence in practice. In the 1850’s a number of older judges in the Court were replaced, partly because of the annoyance felt by the new government with the Court’s role in the acquittal of the former government after it had been impeached in 1855-56. The Supreme Court was henceforth also required to produce the grounds on which its decisions were founded. As a result of this, these decisions gained greater value as precedents, and so their importance in the domestic legal systemincreased. Danish politics in the latter part of the nineteenth century were characterised by a fierce struggle between conservatives and liberals. Both parties maintained the constitutionality of their respective positions. The Government could not get a majority vote in the first chamber for finance or other bills. As a means of maintaining its position against a majority in the first chamber of Parliament, the Government therefore issued so called “provisional statutes”. Some of these statutes were penal statutes, contraventions of which were brought before the Court who then indirectly ruled on the con- ’■* Retsla;ren, Bd. 2, s. 457.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=