WHO IS RESPONSIBLE WHEN THE SYSTEM PRODUCES HARM? Institutional Responsibility, Procedural Formalism, Effective Judicial Protection and the Diffusion of Accountability

Abstract

This working paper examines institutional responsibility where formally recognisable procedural acts, taken by different public authorities, may cumulatively prevent effective adjudication or protection before harm becomes irreversible. The study focuses on procedural formalism, access to court, financial barriers, the adversarial principle, timeliness of remedies, diffusion of accountability, and institutional capacity for systemic self-correction. It distinguishes responsibility for individual acts from the broader question of whether the legal order, viewed as a whole, preserves a practical and effective route to judicial protection. The paper develops a system-level responsibility test and examines a methodological paradox in systemic review: broader empirical evidence may be required to establish a systemic problem, while the absence of such evidence may simultaneously be invoked as a reason not to initiate data collection or empirical examination. The publication includes documentary annexes and original primary-source documents underlying parts of the analysis. Their inclusion is intended to make the research record independently verifiable and does not treat contested allegations as established judicial findings. Keywords: access to justice; effective judicial protection; procedural formalism; institutional responsibility; diffusion of accountability; rule of law; judicial remedies; irreversibility; Latvia.