Ensuring neutrality: the doctrinal imperative of impartiality in amicus curiae advisory opinions

The paper offers an in-depth examination of the necessity for impartiality in amicus curiae contributions during constitutional adjudication and explores its importance for maintaining the objectivity, transparency, and legitimacy of judicial rulings. The paper asserts that the neutrality of amicus curiae must be seen not only as an ethical obligation or a stated concept but as an essential functional prerequisite for the effective administration of constitutional justice. This criterion aims to avert the conversion of the amicus curiae institution into a clandestine tool of procedural advocacy that could sway judicial discretion outside the confines of adversarial procedures. The research methodology integrates doctrinal, comparative legal, historical legal, and functional-analytical techniques, alongside an examination of the practices of constitutional jurisdiction authorities. The paper delineates the progression of the amicus curiae institution from its classical conception as a “friend of the court”, focused on delivering impartial legal information, to modern iterations of expert involvement in constitutional proceedings that increasingly amalgamate legal argumentation, human rights advocacy, and public interest representation. The comparative analysis uses the experiences of Ukraine, Poland, France, and Germany, along with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. The paper establishes that the criteria of legal relevance, impartiality, institutional independence, and the lack of conflicts of interest are crucial for the admissibility and practical significance of amicus curiae contributions. A taxonomy of amicus curiae types is suggested based on S. Kryslov's framework, and their influence on the equilibrium between adversarial processes and the safeguarding of public interest in constitutional adjudication is examined. The article asserts that enhancing the national legal framework governing the amicus curiae institution is essential, considering the requirements set by the European Commission for Democracy through Law (the Venice Commission) and exemplary European practices. It is contended that, if the concept of neutrality is upheld, amicus curiae can contribute positively to the enhancement of constitutional review quality, the promotion of legal culture, and the fortification of human rights protection mechanisms.

amicus curiae; lobbying tool; legal advocacy; constitutional justice; legal relevance; legal culture.