Judicial independence: protection or creeping influence?

Judicial independence: protection or creeping influence?

On May 15, 2025, an important event took place at the FernUniversität Leipzig that dealt with the topic of judicial independence. This event was the start of the new series “Campus Talks: Understanding Law, Shaping Society” and was organized by the Polish Institute, the FORUM RECHT e.V. support association and Campus Leipzig. In addition to informative content, the event aimed to emphasize the importance of judicial independence as a cornerstone of a functioning constitutional state, as [fernuni-hagen.de] reports.

That evening, among others, Birgit Munz, the former President of the Saxon Constitutional Court, gave an introductory keynote speech. At her side was Dr. Ryszarda Formuszewicz, a lawyer and head of the Berlin office of the Polish Institute for International Affairs (PISM). As part of the panel discussion, which was moderated by Stephanie Beyrich, press spokeswoman for the Federal Bar Association, experts such as Thomas Guddat, the judge at the labor court and chairman of the German-Polish Association of Judges, discussed.

Role of judicial independence

Judicial independence protects judges from outside influence and is both factual and personal in nature. According to Article 97 of the Basic Law, judges are independent and subject only to the law. They act without instructions and are authorized to interpret the laws themselves in the event of a specific dispute. Personal independence, on the other hand, guarantees that judges can only be dismissed for certain legal reasons and through judicial decisions before the end of their term of office, explains [bmj.de].

These legal frameworks are crucial to protect judges from political or public pressure in their judgments. The importance of judicial independence was not only highlighted in the discussion, but is also evident in various current cases that are of great interest to the public.

Media attention for a water meter case

One such case is that of a defective water meter, which caused considerable excitement in Germany. The water meter of an office building showed an extreme consumption of over 15,300,000 liters of water in less than a year. This lasted over 301 days and corresponded to a daily consumption that corresponded to more than 339 full bathtubs per day, as [juraforum.de] reported. Despite the obviously incorrect report, the Wuppertal regional court ruled against the citizen, who then had to pay more than 140,000 euros in costs.

The Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court rejected the citizen's appeal without a court hearing. In the report issued by the Chamber of Commerce and Industry it was found that the indicated consumption was “both practically and theoretically not possible”. Despite this evidence, the judges ignored the real facts and limited themselves to a purely formal consideration of the case. These events raise questions about maintaining judicial independence and are part of the public debate about the judiciary in Germany.

Outlook and networking

The event ended with an informal conclusion that offered participants the opportunity to network with each other and deepen the thematic content of the discussion. Prof. Dr. Osman Isfen, Vice Rector of the FernUniversität, emphasized the importance of knowledge transfer in this context. The Campus Talks will also continue in the fall, with the focus on socially relevant legal topics.

Mutual networking between citizens, judicial professionals and students was considered essential in order to advance the discussion about judicial independence and its importance in the German legal system.