scholarly journals Intermezzo in the Rule of Law Play: The Court of Justice’s LM Case

Author(s):  
Matteo Bonelli

AbstractIn the LM case, the CJEU was called to decide on whether systemic rule of law deficiencies in Poland could lead to the suspension of EU cooperation based on mutual trust, in particular under the European Arrest Warrant system. Building on its earlier decision in Aranyosi, the Court concluded that EAWs may be suspended only after the executing authority conducts a general analysis of the situation in the country concerned and an individual assessment of the specific situation of the applicant. For some, the decision was a disappointing one, as the Court failed to take a clear stance on the Polish constitutional crisis. This chapter argues, on the other hand, that the Court reached a balanced decision: while it is true that it confirmed the strict Aranyosi test, it also sent some key messages on the crucial importance of the rule of law and judicial independence for the EU and underlined the red lines of European constitutionalism. Furthermore, a different line of cases that originated from the groundbreaking decision of the Court in the ‘Portuguese judges’ case seems much more promising for the protection of EU values. Thus, rather than a constitutional moment for the Union, LM was ultimately an intermezzo between the two main acts of the rule of law play before the Court of Justice.

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mattias Wendel

Mutual trust – Essence of EU fundamental rights – Values under Article 2 TEU – Intrinsic link between essence and values – Federalism – LM judgment – Rule of law crisis in Poland – Right to fair trial – Judicial independence – Fundamental right to an independent tribunal – Prohibition on transfers – Obligation to presume compliance with fundamental rights – Condition of ‘systemic deficiencies’ as a federal safeguard – Area of Freedom, Security and Justice – European Arrest Warrant – Dublin system


Author(s):  
Catherine Dupré

AbstractThe 2018 CJEU ruling in LM highlighted the importance of judicial independence for the rule of law and protection of the right to fair trial. In so doing, the judgment raised problematic questions about the relationship between Article 2 values and the EU Charter rights, and their connection with mutual trust. This chapter considers these issues through the lens of human dignity, which is both the first foundational value under Article 2 and the first right in the EU Charter. By discussing how the LM judgment raises the constitutional status of the right to a fair trial, this chapter argues that a focus on human dignity could effectively link Article 2 values with EU Charter rights and facilitate assessment of their respective breach.


Teisė ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 114 ◽  
pp. 144-153
Author(s):  
Inês Pereira de Sousa

Judicial independence is declared as a primary law obligation to be respected by every national body which may apply or interpret European Union law. Recent legislative reforms of national judicial systems in Poland and other Member States undermine the principles of judicial independence and mutual trust and raise the idea of a rule of law crisis, claiming for an intervention of the European Union.


1970 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 34-36
Author(s):  
Mehedi Imam

In Bangladesh, demand for judicial independence in practice has been a much debated issue and the demand is fulfilled but expectation of people is not only limited to have an independent judiciary but to have an impartial system and cadre of people, which will administer justice rationally being free from fear or force. The independence of judiciary and the impartial judicial practice are related concepts, one cannot sustain without the other and here existence as well as the need of practicing impartiality is well recognized. But the art of practicing impartiality does not develop overnight as it’s related to development of one’s attitude. It takes a considerable time resulting from understanding, appreciating and acknowledging the moral values, ethics and professional responsibility. The judiciary includes Judges, Advocates mostly who are expected to demonstrate a high level of moral values and impartiality towards people seeking justice and ‘rule of law’. This is true that bench officers and clerks are also part of the process to ensure rule of law with same level of participation by the law enforcing agencies such as police. However the paper includes only those who either join judiciary as Judge/Magistrate or Advocate to explore level and extent of ethical knowledge they receive being key role players of the system. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3329/bioethics.v1i2.9628 Bangladesh Journal of Bioethics 2010; 1(2): 34-36


2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 353-365 ◽  
Author(s):  
Petra Bárd ◽  
Wouter van Ballegooij

This article discusses the relationship between judicial independence and intra-European Union (EU) cooperation in criminal matters based on the principle of mutual recognition. It focuses on the recent judgment by the Court of Justice of the EU in Case C-216/18 PPU Minister for Justice and Equality v. LM. In our view, a lack of judicial independence needs to be addressed primarily as a rule of law problem. This implies that executing judicial authorities should freeze judicial cooperation in the event should doubts arise as to respect for the rule of law in the issuing Member State. Such a measure should stay in place until the matter is resolved in accordance with the procedure provided for in Article 7 TEU or a permanent mechanism for monitoring and addressing Member State compliance with democracy, the rule of law and fundamental rights. The Court, however, constructed the case as a possible violation of the right to a fair trial, the essence of which includes the requirement that tribunals are independent and impartial. This latter aspect could be seen as a positive step forward in the sense that the judicial test developed in the Aranyosi case now includes rule of law considerations with regard to judicial independence. However, the practical hurdles imposed by the Court on the defence in terms of proving such violations and on judicial authorities to accept them in individual cases might amount to two steps back in upholding the rule of law within the EU.


Author(s):  
Maria Fanou

In its recent Opinion 1/17, the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) examined the compatibility of an external judicial body, the Investment Court System (ICS) under the EU–Canada Comprehensive and Economic Trade Agreement (CETA), with EU law. At a time when judicial independence has arisen as one of the main challenges for the rule of law in the EU, this article discusses the Court’s findings in relation to the compatibility of the ICS with the right of access to an independent and impartial tribunal.


2021 ◽  

Περιμένοντας τους Bαρβάρους. Law in a Time of Constitutional Crisis is not a typical celebratory book offered to the dedicatee for an academic jubilee. The studies offered to Professor Mirosław Wyrzykowski present the readers with essays analysing the most pressing problems of modern constitutionalism in its European dimension. The primary themes of the book are topics dear to Wyrzykowski: the rule of law, human rights, the crooked paths of European constitutionalism, and last, but not least, one that binds them all: judicial independence and judicial review, as well as the role of the courts in upkeeping the rule of law.


Author(s):  
Neil MacCormick

This lecture discusses judicial independence. It notes that the increase in concern over judicial independence was due to recent developments in Scotland, England and Wales. The constitutional changes also led to new relationships between ministers and judges, which in turn has led to governmental declarations to respect the rule of law and judicial independence. The lecture also stresses the importance of considering and re-asserting the principles that justify judicial independence, as well as the underlying concept of separation of powers.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document