If you do fast research into the difference between civil law and common law, you will primarily get results about how civil law follows the laws and common law follows court precedents. But after doing further research, I believe the more important difference is that in civil law, judges partake in questioning witnesses to aid in finding out truth. Here are some descriptions of civil law:
Civil
Civil law systems, prevalent in continental Europe and derived from Roman law traditions, are not adversarial because they follow an inquisitorial process where judges actively investigate facts and gather evidence rather than acting as neutral referees in a contest between parties.​
Inquisitorial Process
Judges in civil law jurisdictions lead the inquiry, questioning witnesses, ordering evidence collection, and directing the proceedings to ascertain truth, unlike adversarial systems where parties (via lawyers) control evidence presentation. This reduces reliance on partisan advocacy and promotes efficiency in fact-finding.​
Contrast with Adversarial Systems
Adversarial systems, typical in common law countries like the US and UK, pit opposing lawyers against each other before a passive judge or jury who decides based solely on presented arguments. Civil law avoids this “combat-like” structure to prioritize judicial oversight and comprehensive truth-seeking over competition.
The Criticisms Of Judges Being Able To Question Witnesses At Trials
In civil law systems, judges questioning witnesses face criticisms mainly centered on concerns about impartiality, fairness, and the potential for influencing witness credibility. Unlike in common law systems where lawyers—who represent adversarial parties—question witnesses, judge questioning can be seen as problematic because it may appear biased or partial, especially if the judge’s questions suggest disbelief or hostility toward a witness. This can undermine the jury’s role in assessing credibility and potentially skew the trial’s fairness. Moreover, excessive or leading questioning by judges can be viewed as coercive or intrusive, blurring the lines between judge and advocate roles.
In contrast, common law procedures emphasize that lawyers conduct examinations and cross-examinations, which is seen as a way to protect the adversarial balance. Lawyers are trained to challenge witnesses within established rules, providing a structured framework for testing testimony. The judge in common law trials plays a more neutral role, intervening only to clarify factual points or control the process, limiting direct questioning to prevent prejudicing the parties. This reduces the risk of judicial partiality or undue influence on witness creditworthiness.
Specifically, examples of criticism of judge questioning in civil law include the risk of judges appearing partisan if they question a witness vigorously or in a manner that attacks credibility, which contrasts with the civil principle that credibility assessment is the jury’s or factfinder’s domain. Also, while judges in civil law courts can actively question witnesses to uncover truth, this active role invites concerns about fairness and due process that are less pronounced in common law adversarial settings where questioning is allocated to lawyers.
The Scandinavian Countries Often Top The Lists For Worlds Best Court Systems; How Do They Do it?
In Scandinavia (Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Finland, and to a lesser extent Iceland), judges do relatively little direct questioning of witnesses compared to, for example, many continental European civil-law countries (like Germany or France). The Scandinavian legal systems are often described as a hybrid between the adversarial Anglo-American model (common) and the inquisitorial continental model (civil), but in trial practice they lean more toward the adversarial side when it comes to witness examination.
Key points:
1. Primary questioning is done by the lawyers (prosecutor and defense counsel)
The parties (not the judge) lead the examination-in-chief and cross-examination of witnesses.
This is very similar to common-law systems (England, US, etc.).
2. The judge’s role is more passive during the witness phase
Judges can ask questions, but they usually do so sparingly and only:
to clarify something that is unclear,
to resolve ambiguities, or
if something important has been completely overlooked by the parties.
It is not common for judges to take over the examination or conduct extensive questioning themselves.
3. Country-by-country nuances
Sweden: Judges ask questions only exceptionally. The trial is very much party-driven.
Norway: Slightly more active judicial intervention than in Sweden, but still far from the judge leading the examination.
Denmark: Judges tend to be a bit more active than in Sweden/Norway, especially in criminal cases, but the parties still do most of the questioning.
Finland: Similar to Sweden—quite restrained judicial questioning.
4. Contrast with “classic” inquisitorial systems
In countries like Germany, Austria, or France, the presiding judge typically conducts the main examination of witnesses and the defendant, and the lawyers ask supplemental questions afterward. That model is not followed in Scandinavia.