a kaleidoscope of people CEJUjudges generally expressed excitement about learning from their colleagues, and they and other members of theCJEUhave high hopes for the quality of their colleagues’ work. SomeCJEUjudges see deliberations as exciting discussions where good legal arguments are exchanged, votes are traded, and the aim is to convince others, while others saw only stressful contests: ‘Of course, when I was of a different opinion in the deliberation [and] we took a vote and I lost, I was very disappointed, it is like you lost a battle.’52 In the absence of formal dissenting opinions, judges are ‘condemned to solidarity’. Most refer to the pressure to reach a consensus (to avoid controversial decisions), though some are happy about it, and some less so.53 Similar career backgrounds help colleagues to bond and form alliances in voting situations, as the ‘work code’ one is accustomed to as former academic or former judge is easily understood by another former academic or former judge of a different nationality.54 As the ECtHRjudgements disclose voting behaviour, it is easier to test for that court whether the opinions expressed in interviews can be traced in judgements. The empirical study analysed cases concerned withECHR Art. 8 (private and family life), ECHR Art. 9 (freedom of religion), and ECHR Art. 10 (freedom of expression).55 The findings from combining all judgements delivered under ECHR Art. 8, 9 & 10 with the three parameters – legal family, historical-political experience, and vocational 51 Ibid. 107, 108. 52 Ibid. 120. 53 Ibid. 120. 54 Ibid. 109. 55 These areas of protection were chosen over those with potentially greater variation in cultural approach such as sexual orientation compared to right to life (ECHR Art. 2) or prohibition of torture (ECHR Art. 3). 311 those that have a lot of experience working with cases either a judge or someone that has worked with public administration. But that is obvious, and enriches the debate. Having different inputs is not a disadvantage, but a huge advantage.’51 An empirical look at the case law
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=