16. The Court of Justice of the European Union

2020 ◽  
pp. 298-315
Author(s):  
Simon Bulmer ◽  
Owen Parker ◽  
Ian Bache ◽  
Stephen George ◽  
Charlotte Burns
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Policy ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Judgments ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Structure And Functions ◽  
Made In

This chapter focuses on the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which comprises two courts: the CJEU and the General Court. It first provides an overview of the CJEU’s structure and functions, and then discusses some of its main rulings and their significance. It further considers rulings on the powers of the institutions, some key legal judgments made in response to questions referred to the CJEU by national courts, the impact of CJEU rulings on EU policy, and post-Maastricht trends in the CJEU and EU law. It also assesses the evolving political reactions towards the judgments of the Court, along with the debate over whether the member states have been able to effectively curb the CJEU’s radical jurisprudence.

16. The European Court of Justice

2014 ◽  
pp. 290-307
Author(s):  
Ian Bache ◽  
Simon Bulmer ◽  
Stephen George ◽  
Owen Parker
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Civil Service Tribunal ◽  
Legal Judgments ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Structure And Functions

This chapter focuses on the European Court of Justice (ECJ), one of the three courts that make up the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU); the others are the General Court and the EU Civil Service Tribunal. It first provides an overview of the ECJ’s structure and functions before discussing some of its main rulings and their significance. It then considers rulings on the powers of the institutions, some key legal judgments made in response to questions referred to the ECJ by national courts, the impact of ECJ rulings on EU policy, and post-Maastricht trends in the ECJ and EU law. It also assesses the evolving political reactions towards the judgments of the Court, along with the debate over whether the member states have lost control of the process of European integration because of the ECJ’s radical jurisprudence.

Review by Constitutional Courts of the Obligation of National Courts of Last Instance to Refer a Preliminary Question to the Court of Justice of the EU

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1663-1700 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clelia Lacchi
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Member States ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
The Eu

The Constitutional Courts of a number of Member States exert a constitutional review on the obligation of national courts of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).Pursuant to Article 267(3) TFEU, national courts of last instance, namely courts or tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, are required to refer to the CJEU for a preliminary question related to the interpretation of the Treaties or the validity and interpretation of acts of European Union (EU) institutions. The CJEU specified the exceptions to this obligation inCILFIT. Indeed, national courts of last instance have a crucial role according to the devolution to national judges of the task of ensuring, in collaboration with the CJEU, the full application of EU law in all Member States and the judicial protection of individuals’ rights under EU law. With preliminary references as the keystone of the EU judicial system, the cooperation of national judges with the CJEU forms part of the EU constitutional structure in accordance with Article 19(1) TEU.

The Impact of the Court of Justice of the European Union on Neighbouring Countries

2020 ◽  
pp. 349-396
Author(s):  
Arie Reich ◽  
Hans-W. Micklitz
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Policy Recommendations ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Third ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Legal Integration

The concluding chapter sums up the overall findings of the project through three different strands of analysis: the first breaks down the eleven jurisdictions into three groups based on the relative quantity and impact of Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) citations found in these jurisdictions. By drawing conclusions from all the country reports through a comparative and macro-perspective, the goal is to distil the insights of the entire project and formulate policy recommendations in the light of EU external policy and legal integration objectives vis-à-vis its neighbourhood; the second examines the many factors that a priori could have an impact on whether judges are likely to cite the CJEU in their judgments, and then discusses what the research has found in relation to the actual role played by these factors; the third tries to place the current project into the context of overall research on the global reach of EU law, which can be ‘exported’ to non-members of the EU through various mechanisms, such as mutual and formal agreement or through more unilateral and spontaneous forms. They include modes of extraterritorial application of EU law, territorial extension, and the so-called ‘Brussels Effect’. The chapter concludes with some general observations and thoughts and formulates possible policy recommendations.

The Impact of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the Russian Legal System

2020 ◽  
pp. 143-172
Author(s):  
Paul Kalinichenko
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Final Section ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
System P ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Russian Model

This chapter presents the findings of the author on the impact of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the Russian legal system. To start with, this chapter includes a brief description of the background to the modern Russian legal system and, in particular, the structure of the Russian judiciary. The contribution goes on to describe the Russian model for approximating its legal order with EU rules and standards, as well as adding some remarks on the application of EU law by the Russian courts. Then follows an explanation of the specifics of the database used, together with a description and analysis of citation of CJEU decisions by Russian courts in the period 2006–18. Conclusions and recommendations are presented in the final section of the chapter.

The Impact of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the Turkish Legal System

2020 ◽  
pp. 115-140
Author(s):  
Ulaş Karan
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Government Procurement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
System P ◽  
Underlying Causes ◽  
Accession Process ◽  
The Impact

This chapter explores whether the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) produces any impact on the Turkish legal system and, if so, its possible underlying causes. Protection of intellectual, industrial, and commercial property rights, competition, trade defence instruments, government procurement, direct and indirect taxation have been regarded as the main areas of ‘approximation of legislation’. Accordingly, laws adopted mostly in the past three decades show that the influence of EU law is valid only in certain fields of law, such as intellectual property law, labour law, and competition law, and this is also where we find most CJEU citations. This influence forms part of the EU accession process, which requires Turkey to harmonize its laws with the acquis. According to the research, despite the existence of a long-standing accession process and legislation based on the acquis in certain fields of law, on the whole, the Turkish judiciary does not seem committed to follow EU law in general or CJEU jurisprudence in particular.

8. Enforcing EU law

2020 ◽  
pp. 205-239
Author(s):  
Sylvia de Mars
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Indirect Effect ◽  
Similar Process ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
State Liability ◽  
The Impact

This chapter addresses the Treaty's provisions on the enforcement of EU law, particularly looking at Articles 258–260 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). The European Commission's enforcement action, known as ‘infringement proceedings’, is set out in Article 258 TFEU. If the Commission proves an infringement has occurred, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will issue a binding verdict that requires the Member State to rectify the breach: in other words, to amend its domestic laws until they are compliant with EU law. Article 260 TFEU makes clear, however, that the CJEU can only order ‘compliance’. Article 259 sets out a very similar process, rarely used, for Member State v Member State infringement proceedings. The chapter then considers the CJEU's development of the principles of direct and indirect effect and state liability, and explores the remedies for breaches of EU law. It also assesses the impact of Brexit on the enforcement of EU law.

scholarly journals The Court of Justice, the National Courts, and the Controversy over the ‘Ultimate Arbiter’ of the Constitutionality of Law in the European Union

2020 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-41
Author(s):  
Roman Kwiecień
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Legal Reasoning ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
European Union Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Space ◽  
The One

The paper addresses the issue of a judicial forum entitled to resolve conflicts between European Union law and national constitutional rules. First and foremost, the issue is discussed under the old primacy/supremacy of EU law controversy. The author seeks to answer whether the national law, including constitutional rules, of a Member State can be ineffective owing to being contradictory to EU law. If so, by whom can national laws be held ineffective? In other words, which of the two judicial fora (national and European) have the last word in these conflicts or who is the ultimate arbiter of the constitutionality of law within the European legal space? The author argues that legal reasoning should reconcile, on the one hand, the specificity of the EU’s unique legal order and effective application of its provisions and, on the other hand, the international legal status of the Member States and their constitutions. This approach leads to the conclusion that there is no ultimate judicial arbiter within the European legal space.

10. The preliminary ruling procedure

2020 ◽  
pp. 225-250
Author(s):  
Marios Costa ◽  
Steve Peers
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Gain Access

This chapter examines the relationship between the Court of Justice (CJ) and the national courts in the context of the preliminary ruling procedure provided by Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The chapter focuses on the text of Article 267 TFEU. It analyses the extent to which national courts are willing and able to gain access to the CJ in order to resolve the questions of European Union (EU) law before them. The chapter also explains the concept of acte clair. The analysis reveals that the CJ has rarely refused its jurisdiction and has interpreted broadly the term ‘court or tribunal’. The CJ has also rarely attempted to interfere with national courts’ discretion in matters of referral and application of EU law, while national courts have generally been ready to refer cases to the CJ.

Why is the Köbler Principle Not Applied in Practice?

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 984-1008
Author(s):  
Zsó;fia Varga
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Effective Application ◽  
Actual Role ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
State Liability ◽  
The Impact

Since the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Köbler, there has been speculation that state liability for violation of EU law by national supreme courts might remain mere theory. However, more than a decade after the CJEU judgment, there is no study available to confirm or disprove this assumption. This article seeks to fill this gap by providing an analysis on the practice and the impact of the liability principle. According to the research conducted, only about 35 Köbler actions have been reported over the last 13 years from all of the 28 Member States, of which only four have been successful. This article investigates why this enforcement deficit of the liability principle can be observed. Therefore, the article examines the main limitations to the effective application of the Köbler doctrine in order to understand their actual role in hindering the establishment of liability and the allocation of damages. In this context, it also examines whether, and to what extent, the liability principle has contributed to the protection of individual rights and the effective application of EU law over the last thirteen years.

Preliminary References

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Morten Broberg ◽  
Niels Fenger
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
National Court ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Reference Procedure ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Appeal

A reference for a preliminary ruling is a request from the national court of a Member State to the Court of Justice of the European Union to give an authoritative interpretation of an EU act or a decision on the validity of such an act. In this situation, the Court of Justice does not function as a court of appeal that rules on the outcome of the main proceedings before the referring court: it makes judgment neither on the facts in the main proceedings nor on the interpretation and application of national law. Moreover, in principle it does not itself pronounce on the concrete application of EU law in the main proceedings before the referring court. Finally, while a preliminary ruling is normally given in the form of a judgment, the ruling is addressed to the referring court and not to the parties to the main proceedings. Only the referring court’s subsequent decision can be enforced against those parties. The preliminary reference procedure is therefore an expression of the interplay and allocation of tasks between national courts and the Court of Justice.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document