Is anyone familiar with procedures in countries other than the United States to remove judges for reasons other than criminal conduct?

On 1 July 2012, the preliminary reference procedure was introduced at the Supreme Court of the Netherlands. When lower civil courts face controversial points of law, they may refer a question of interpretation to the Supreme Court and request a preliminary ruling. This way, the Supreme Court should be able to provide legal practice with a faster and more specific response to pressing legal questions than through the ‘ordinary’ procedure.

This preliminary reference procedure is not a modern invention. It was already known in Rome, existed in a specific form in France (référé législatif, where a question of interpretation was referred to the legislator), was used at the Italian Corte Costitutionale and has been a powerful tool for the development of EU law by the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg (see the attached blog and article). Furthermore, Protocol 16 to the ECHR will allow highest courts of states that have ratified this Protocol to refer a question of principle to the European Court of Human Rights for an advisory opinion.

I wanted to use ResearchGate for a small comparative exercise. Perhaps you would like to answer the following questions. May lower courts in your country refer a question of interpretation to the highest court(s) in your country? Did such an instrument once exist, or is the introduction of such an instrument currently under consideration in your country?

I am also interested in literature on this subject and in other relevant international examples.

Your help is greatly appreciated,

Ruben

The latest appointment to the Supreme Court of the United States Judge Neil Gorsuch has robustly criticised the use of courtrooms as a forum for social change. He states that this is bad for both democracy and for civil justice.

In view of the role of courts as interpreters of our laws, elected representatives as makers of our laws and our executive as those who implement them, the state of affairs we call the separation of powers does he have a point?

The Case US v APPLE, INC. and others, Civil Action No. 12-CV-2826 (DLC), relevant law: 15 USC § 1- collective price setting and 15 USC § 16- procedure and penalties promises to be a very interesting legal affair. The relevant market: is retail commerce with e-books. Defendants: Apple Inc, Hachette, Penguin, MacMillan, HarperCollins and Simon & Schuster. Plaintiff: US government.

The CEO of the RoyaltyShare Inc and copyright attorney, Mr Bob Kohn has acted as amicus curiae in this case and in his quality, sent several comments, a motion to the Court to stay final judgment pending appeal and yesterday, the 7th of September, a memorandum supporting this motion.

While the defendants played a more passive role, three of them reaching a settlement with the US government, Mr Bob Kohn has extensively tried to prove that the matter should be treated in a different way. DOJ stated that the price fixing agreement is illegal per se and therefore it can not be excluded, exactly like the hardcore restrictions that cannot enjoy an exemption from the prohibition in 101(1) TFEU in European competition law. Mr Kohn invokes the argument of public interest in order to ask for an exclusion of the agreement from the prohibition in 15 USC § 1.