scholarly journals Judicial cooperation in environmental matters

2018 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 89-108
Author(s):  
Lorenzo Squintani ◽  
Jon Rakipi
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Uk ◽  
Willingness To Cooperate

The need to ensure a uniform interpretation and effective application of the large corpus of EU environmental regulation in the jurisdictions of the Member States remains a task of pivotal importance for the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). A quick look at the CURIA database reveals that many judgments are handed down every year to clarify the meaning of EU environmental provisions. It is therefore important to study the proper functioning of the tandem composed of the CJEU and the national courts in this field of EU law. In that sense, this article responds to Bogojević’s call ‘to draw a grander map of judicial dialogues initiated across various Member States’. More specifically, the topic investigated by this article is how the United Kingdom (UK) courts have followed up on responses received from the CJEU to their preliminary reference requests in the field of EU environmental law, from the UK’s accession in 1972 until January 2017. All the cases we have retrieved from the UK show various degrees of willingness to cooperate with the CJEU. This article highlights the existence of three trends: full cooperation, fragmented cooperation and presumed cooperation.

scholarly journals Judicial Cooperation in Environmental Matters: Mapping National Courts’ Behaviour in Follow-up Cases

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 147-170
Author(s):  
Lorenzo Squintani ◽  
Dionne Annink
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Almost All ◽  
Willingness To Cooperate ◽  
Large Corpus

The need to ensure a uniform interpretation and effective application of the large corpus of EU environmental regulation in the jurisdictions of the Member States remains a task of pivotal importance for the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). A quick look at the CURIA database reveals that many judgments are handed down every year to clarify the meaning of EU environmental provisions. It is therefore important to study the proper functioning of the tandem composed of the CJEU and the national courts in this field of EU law. In that sense, this article responds to Bogojević’s call ‘to draw a grander map of judicial dialogues initiated across various Member States’. More specifically, the topic investigated by this article is how Dutch courts have followed up on responses received from the CJEU to their preliminary reference requests in the field of EU environmental law, until January 2017. Almost all the cases we have retrieved from the Netherlands show various degrees of willingness to cooperate with the CJEU. This article highlights the existence of three trends: full cooperation, gapped cooperation and withdrawn cooperation.

The preliminary ruling procedure at the court of justice of the European Union and transformation of European anti-discrimination law

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
pp. 66-72
Author(s):  
Elena Sorokina
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Essential Feature ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Eu

The preliminary ruling procedure is an essential feature of the EU legal system, which is a unique cooperation tool as part of the dialogue between the Court of Justice of the EU and national courts of the Member States. Its main purpose is to ensure uniform interpretation and application of the provisions of EU law with all Member States and to preserve the uniformity of the European legal system. The continuous use by national courts of the Member States of the mechanism of preliminary ruling and constructive inter-judicial cooperation, the Court of Justice has developed an extremely extensive case law on the prohibition of discrimination and with the result to introduce substantial changes in European anti-discrimination law.The preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice have shown its inclination to expand notions of what constitutes discrimination and in most cases the Court prompt by the desire to interpret the provisions of European law so as to ensure the full effectiveness of the law, as well as a willingness to promote and strengthen protection against discrimination in Europe. While the protection against discrimination on some grounds is stronger than others, however, the preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice are important contribution to the transformation of anti-discrimination law, promote change in the national legislation of the Member States and provide the more effective protection of human rights in general.

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.

Part IX International Environmental Law in National/Regional Courts, Ch.63 European Union/United Kingdom

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Scotford Eloise
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Court System ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Environmental Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

This chapter evaluates international environmental law (IEL) in the courts of the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom. This topic potentially covers many different kinds of courts, considering that the EU comprises many member states, each with its own court system, and the United Kingdom itself is a system of devolved government with different court systems. To draw out some key themes, the chapter focuses on decisions of the EU courts and the UK courts in England and Wales, as well as particularly notable decisions of other EU member state courts (available in English). The different experiences of IEL in these three sets of courts demonstrate that the doctrines of different legal systems and their legal cultures are critical to the experiences of their courts in implementing IEL. The chapter examines the reception and application of IEL in these different courts in two steps. It first looks at cases in which IEL has been directly applied by courts, considering the complex EU law in this area, and the EU's special role in implementing IEL in member states. The chapter then addresses cases where IEL applies indirectly in judicial reasoning.

scholarly journals Continuity, Convergence and Change in Environmental Law and Governance in Scotland – an Assessment of Recent Developments and Future Directions

2021 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 315-341
Author(s):  
James Harrison
Keyword(s):  
United Kingdom ◽  
Environmental Governance ◽  
Environmental Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Environmental Standards ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Impact

There was a concern following the 2016 Brexit referendum that environmental standards in the United Kingdom (UK) may be lowered unless action was taken to address gaps in environmental governance that would be caused by leaving the European Union (EU). Debates over the nature of those gaps and how to fill them have continued over the years since the referendum and it is only recently that the emerging picture of post-Brexit environmental governance in Scotland has been revealed, allowing a preliminary study of the future for environmental standards in the jurisdiction. This article aims to provide an overview and analysis of recent legal developments which are likely to influence the future of environmental law in Scotland, including the UK-EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement, the United Kingdom Internal Market Act, the incorporation of environmental principles into Scots law, new powers to align Scottish environmental standards with EU law, and the new institutional framework to oversee compliance with environmental law in Scotland. The article considers the impact that these new arrangements will have on the development of Scottish environmental law and in particular the implications for Scottish institutions in deciding whether to promote ongoing continuity with EU law, promote convergence with other parts of the UK, or strike out on their own path of environmental law reform.

The Mutual Judicial Influence of National Courts and the European Court of Justice through the Preliminary Rulings Mechanism

2020 ◽  
pp. 107-126
Author(s):  
Gráinne de Búrca
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Mutual Influence ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Lack Of Information ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Moment ◽  
The Uk

Taking the moment of imminent UK exit from the European Union as an opportunity to reflect on the mutual influence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the English courts, this chapter examines the 113 preliminary references made by the higher English courts over a 10-year period to investigate two related questions. These are: first, the extent to which the CJEU’s rulings have been implemented by the British courts, and second, the extent to which the interpretations proposed by the UK courts may have influenced the CJEU. On the first question, the chapter’s findings indicate that it is very difficult to assess the extent to which the preliminary rulings of the CJEU were implemented by the referring UK courts, given the remarkable lack of information available about what happens following a preliminary ruling of the Luxembourg Court. On the second question, the chapter’s findings suggest that in the substantial number of cases in which the British courts advanced a proposed interpretation of EU law, the CJEU adopted that interpretation in a majority of those cases. Hence, even though the CJEU has rarely acknowledged the influence of national referring courts on its rulings, the cases referred from the higher UK courts over the past decade suggest that instead of a one-way relationship in which British courts were subject to the overriding authority of the CJEU, there was a process of mutual influence in which the Luxembourg court more often than not adopted the interpretation of EU law proposed by the British court.

scholarly journals Lower Instance National Courts and Tribunals in Member States and Their Judicial Dialogue with the Court of Justice of the European Union

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 19-36
Author(s):  
Graham Butler
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Reference Procedure ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Recent Developments

The vast majority of cases that are submitted to the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court) through the preliminary reference procedure that is contained in Article 267 TFEU come from lower instance national courts and tribunals in EU Member States. As a result, it is not always appellate courts, or higher instance national courts and tribunals, such as courts of final appeal, which make orders for reference. Judicial dialogue between national courts and the Court through this Article 267 TFEU procedure is notable for its particular quality of it being open to receiving orders for reference, for an interpretation of EU law from national courts and tribunals – of any instance – from first instance, to final instance. But can this judicial dialogue between lower instance national courts and tribunals and the Court be impeded by national courts’ more senior national Brethren, with appeals being allowed against orders for reference within national legal orders? The case law of the Court on such an issue has been progressive, in that it developed slowly over time, and the Court, by 2021, becoming increasingly assertive. As will be analysed in this article, the Court’s approach to the arising issue has clearly been an attempt to balance the interests of judicial dialogue on the one hand, and national rules on the other. Yet, with the Court’s broader case law tightening the understanding of who constitutes the European judiciary, and ensuring that all national courts and tribunals remain independent from executive interference in EU Member States, the article commends recent developments, but makes the further plea for an affirmative judgment of the Court to not permit, as a matter of EU law, appeals against orders for reference made by lower instance national courts and tribunals in EU Member States, in the name of preserving judicial dialogue through the preliminary reference procedure.

Legal conflict between the EU and the republic of Poland regarding polish judicial reform

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan Yakovyuk ◽  
Suzanna Asiryan ◽  
Anastasiya Lazurenko
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Reform ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Constitutional Tribunal ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Eu

Problem setting. On October 7, 2021, the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland ruled in favor of Polish law over European Union law, which in the long run may violate the principles according to which the Union operates and the rights enjoyed by citizens of the state. Such a precedent can further serve as a basis for identical decisions of the bodies of constitutional jurisdiction of those states that have problems in fulfilling their obligations in the European community. Analysis of recent researches and publications. The problems of the functioning of the bodies of the European Union, the implementation of their decisions and the general status in EU law are widely studied in national science. In particular, many scholars have studied the legal nature of the EU, including: TM Anakina, VI Muravyov, NM Ushakov, A. Ya. Kapustina, NA Korolyova, Yu. Yumashev, BN Topornin, OYa Tragniuk, SS Seliverstov, IV Yakovyuk and others. Target of research is to establish the foundations of EU law in the functioning of Union bodies, especially the Court, as well as to determine the hierarchy of national law and EU law. Article’s main body. Over the years, the Court has, within its jurisdiction, issued a large number of judgments which have become the source of the Union’s Constituent Treaties and of EU law in general. Over the last two decades, the powers of the Court of Justice have changed significantly. In particular, this is due to the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, which amended the EU’s founding treaties on the powers of the Court, then the reform of the European Court took place in 2015-2016, which concerned a change in the organizational structure of the Court. Despite the generally well-established case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the unification of the observance by the Member States of the basic principles of the European Union, the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland adopted a decision on 7 October. Conclusions and prospects for the development. Following the decision of the Constitutional Court, the Polish authorities found themselves in a situation that significantly complicated its internal and external situation. The way out of which requires answers to fundamental questions about the legal nature of the EU. Undoubtedly, this is an issue not only between Poland and the EU, but also between other member states.

Mutual Trust between the Member States of the European Union and the United Kingdom after Brexit:

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Radovan Malachta
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Transitional Period ◽  
Mutual Trust ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
International Convention ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
The Uk

The paper follows up on the arguments introduced in the author’s article Mutual Trust as a Way to an Unconditional Automatic Recognition of Foreign Judgments. This paper, titled Mutual Trust between the Member States of the European Union and the United Kingdom after Brexit: Overview discusses, whether there has been a loss of mutual trust between the European Union and the United Kingdom after Brexit. The UK, similarly to EU Member States, has been entrusted with the area of recognition and enforcement of judgements thus far. Should the Member States decrease the level of mutual trust in relation to the UK only because the UK ceased to be part of the EU after 47 years? Practically overnight, more precisely, the day after the transitional period, should the Member States trust the UK less in the light of legislative changes? The article also outlines general possibilities that the UK has regarding which international convention it may accede to. Instead of going into depth, the article presents a basic overview. However, this does not prevent the article to answer, in addition to the questions asked above, how a choice of access to an international convention could affect the level of mutual trust between the UK and EU Member States.

Non-EU Legal Instruments (EFSF, ESM, AND Fiscal Compact)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Martucci
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Treaties ◽  
Fiscal Discipline ◽  
Member States ◽  
The United Kingdom ◽  
Fiscal Compact ◽  
Angela Merkel

‘Another Legal Monster?’ That was the question asked by the Law Department of the European University Institute on 16 February 2012 in a debate about the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union (TSCG), also known as the Fiscal Compact Treaty. On 2 March 2012, twenty-five Member States of the European Union minus the United Kingdom and the Czech Republic signed the TSCG. A month before, on 2 February 2012, the euro area Member States signed the Treaty Establishing the European Stability Mechanism (ESM Treaty), another legal monster. In both cases, the monstrosity lies in the fact that Member States have preferred to conclude an international treaty, rather than to use the European Union (EU) institutional system. Why did the European Commission not propose a legislative act to establish a financial assistance mechanism in the Eurozone and strengthen the fiscal discipline in the EU? Does this mean the end of community method and a victory for the intergovernmental method? As Herman Van Rompuy commented about the crisis; ‘often the choice is not between the community method and the intergovernmental method, but between a co-ordinated European position and nothing at all’. In 2010, Angela Merkel defended her vision of a new ‘Union Method’ in a speech held at the College of Europe. This approach can be defined by the following description: ‘co-ordinated action in a spirit of solidarity–each of us in the area for which we are responsible but all working towards the same goal’. Each of us means the European institutions and Member States. The new ‘Euro-international’ treaties (or inter se treaties) raise a number of questions regarding their compatibility with EU law, implications for the Union legal system, institutional balance, national sovereignty and democratic accountability. These questions are all the more important because international treaties raise a number of questions on their compatibility with EU law, implications for the Union legal system and institutional balance.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document