The aim of the reform was to achieve greater transparency in court decisions and to strengthen the position of the individual judge.
The Hessian State Court Law provides for an independent regulation on the possibility of a special vote in section 16 (3).
In Constitutional Court a minority vote can be just guessed in case of "showy, not negligible distinction between the reporteur and the editor".
[4] According to Sabino Cassese, the absence of the dissenting opinion penalizes the potential that the process of constitutional review of the laws would have arouse debates and awareness in the country.
[6] Dissenting opinions do not have a long history in the Czech Republic due to its tradition of continental and socialist law.
Whereas, the dissenting opinions of judges of the Constitutional Court have been published ever since its creation in 1993 and some of them have had a significant effect on the subsequent case law and legal theory, judges of the Supreme Administrative Court can publish their dissenting opinions only since a 2012 amendment to the Code of Administrative Justice Procedure and this practice has not yet become significantly prevalent or influential.
[8] Susan Kiefel, Chief Justice of Australia, has expressed concern at the frequency of judicial dissents and the attention given to them by law students and legal commentators.
She further observed that "humorous dissent may provide the author with fleeting popularity, but it may harm the image the public has of the court and its judges".