The Role of the CJEU in the Strengthening of the Participation of Third-Country Nationals in the Academic Life in the EU – Analysis of the Ruling of the CJEU in Case M.A. v Consul of the Republic of Poland in N

2021 ◽  
pp. 91-106
Author(s):  
Anna Magdalena Kosińska
Keyword(s):  
National Court ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Foreign National ◽  
Residence Permit ◽  
Voluntary Service ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Republic ◽  
New Student ◽  
The Eu

The analyzed ruling is the first judgement which the Court of Justice passed in order to provide interpretationfor the new Student Directive (2016/801 of 11 May 2016 on the conditions of entry and residence ofthird-country nationals for the purposes of research, studies, training, voluntary service, pupil exchange schemesor educational projects and au pairing). Due to its judiciary activism, the Court was able to find a connectionbetween the case pending before a national court and EU law in the case of M.A. In the end, the Court finallydecided that in the case at issue, regarding the rights of a foreign national to apply for a residence permit for thepurpose of enrolling in second-cycle studies programme in Poland, the procedure of applying for a long-stay visaon the grounds of national law must be safeguarded by the guarantees under Article 47 of the Charter of FundamentalRights. The guarantees apply to the actual states in which EU law is applicable – in this case the “StudentDirective.” It seems that the ruling in the case of M.A. will play a crucial role in facilitating students’ – TCNs’ – entryinto the territory of the Republic of Poland, while the Polish legislator, in all probability, will be obliged to changethe provisions of the national law in such a way as to make it possible for future students to access a full array oflegal remedies against the negative decisions of consuls.

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.

The “Polemical” Spirit of European Constitutional Law: On the Importance of Conflicts in EU Law

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1343-1374 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giuseppe Martinico
Keyword(s):  
Constitutional Law ◽  
The Other ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Cautious Approach ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The One ◽  
The Eu

Recently, scholars have argued of the necessity of going beyond “judicial dialogues” and “conflict-and-power” approaches to the analysis of the role of national Constitutional Courts in the Union. On the one hand, there are risks connected to a “too welcoming an approach by national constitutional courts to EU law”; on the other hand, it is possible to criticize both the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) and some national Constitutional Courts for other, less cooperative, decisions. I share this cautious approach for many reasons, and primarily because the preliminary ruling mechanism does not exhaust all the possible means of communication between constitutional courts and the CJEU. For instance, what Komárek calls “parallel references” can serve, in some circumstances, as a technique of alternative (or hidden) dialogue, that has favored a sort of “remote dialogue” over the years. My sole point of disagreement with this scholarly position is over the role of conflicts in this scenario. Whilst Komárek seems to confine conflicts to phenomena of mere resistance or to “‘cold’ strategic considerations,” in this work I am going to adopt a much broader idea of conflict, which goes beyond mere “conflicts and power games.”

scholarly journals The Randstad Case: Melki Reloaded? The Fundamental Right to Effective Judicial Protection as Battleground for Judicial Supremacy in European Law

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-68
Author(s):  
Orlando Scarcello
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
European Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Supremacy ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
The Eu

This paper will examine the recent preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice issued by the Italian Court of Cassation in the Randstad case, aimed at rearranging the internal constitutional separation between ordinary and administrative courts (article 111(8) of the Constitution). I will first provide some context on both the relations between Italian and EU courts (2.1) and on the confrontation between the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Court in interpreting article 111 (2.2). I will then specifically examine the referring order to the Court of Justice of the EU (3), focusing on the role of general clauses of EU law as articles 4(3) and 19 TEU and 47 of the Charter in it. Finally, I will consider the instrumental use of EU law made by the Cassation to overcome an unpleasant constitutional arrangement. This aligns Randstad with previous cases such as Melki or A v. B and may foster constitutional conflict in the future. 

scholarly journals The current role of the Court of Justice of the EU in the legal institutional system of the European Uniuon

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maxim Toncoglaz ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Legal Order ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Current Role ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
General Principles Of Law ◽  
Dynamic Integration ◽  
Institutional System ◽  
The Eu

In this article, we will discuss the role of the ECJ in the EU legal order. The concept of general principles of law is of great importance today for deepening the process of European integration, the formation and development of EU law as a whole. An important role in its development and consolidation lies with the EU Court of Justice. Its consistent practice has led to the formation of the very concept of EU law and the recognition of its general principles. The Court of Justice of the European Union not only models the concept, but also ensures that the general principles of law are respected by all the institutions of the European Communities and the Member States, which in turn contributes to strengthening the legitimacy of the Communities and of the Union and their legal system and, on the other hand, contributes to a more dynamic integration.

The Court of Justice of the European Union and the Armenian Legal Order

2020 ◽  
pp. 199-219
Author(s):  
Narine Ghazaryan
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
National Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Republic ◽  
Partnership Agreement ◽  
The Eu

The chapter analyses the limited impact of Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) case law on the legal order of the Republic of Armenia. Despite Armenia’s geographic proximity to the EU, CJEU precedents feature in only two cases of the Constitutional Court of Armenia. In both cases, CJEU case law is seen merely as part of comparative international legal practice, informing the judgment of the national court, rather than affecting the ratio per se. The chapter analyses the main reasons behind the apparent lack of CJEU impact on Armenian judicial practice and the legal order more generally. These include, for example, low intensity in bilateral relations between the EU and Armenia and cognitive barriers. The chapter also addresses the main features of the Comprehensive and Enhanced Partnership Agreement and covers future possibilities for judicial interaction between the two legal orders.

scholarly journals The Doctrinaire Authority: The Court of Justice of The EU and the Fundamental Rights / Doktrinarni Autoritet: Sud Pravde Evropske Unije I Osnovna Prava

2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-6
Author(s):  
Goran Ilik
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Fundamental Rights And Freedoms ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Interpretive Framework

Abstract This paper represents the analysis of the Court of Justice of the EU, in particular the Court of Justice, and its “interpretive power”, within its authority for diffusion and proliferation of the EU law. Namely, the paper describes the position, responsibilities, powers and the role of the Court of Justice, in order to penetrate into its institutional performances as doctrinaire authority, regarding the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU as its interpretive framework. Also, the paper presents the most representative axiological determinations of the EU as a basis of the “interpretive power” of the Court of Justice. Accordingly, the paper describes the Court as a central judicial EU institution that with its “interpretive power” generates legal doctrines through the prism of fundamental rights and freedoms. Consequently, the Court of Justice appears as undisputed doctrinaire authority that assumes the role of doctrine - maker and doctrine - keeper of the human rights and freedoms, accepted and promulgated by the EU.

scholarly journals Nacionalinio teismo vaidmuo įgyvendinant Europos Sąjungos teisę ir teisinio saugumo principo pažeidžiamumas

Teisė ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 78 ◽  
pp. 137-151
Author(s):  
Skirgailė Žaltauskaitė-Žalimienė
Keyword(s):  
National Court ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Legal Certainty ◽  
Res Judicata ◽  
The Eu

Straipsnyje analizuojamas nacionalinio teismo vaidmuo įgyvendinant Europos Sąjungos (ES) teisę, ypač atkreipiant dėmesį į Europos Sąjungos teisės viršenybės ir teisinio saugumo principų galimą koliziją bei jų suderinamumo problematiką, kuri straipsnyje atskleidžiama remiantis Europos Teisingumo Teismo (ETT) praktika. Nagrinėjamas ETT Lucchini sprendimas, šio sprendimo išvadų reikšmė res judicata prin­cipui jo ribojimo požiūriu. The article deals with the role of national court in implementation of the EU law. In particular, atten­tion is paid to the problem of possible collision and compatibility between the principles of supremacy of the EU law and legal certainty which is revealed relying on the ECJ case-law. The ECJ Lucchini judgment is also analysed as well as significance of its outcomes to the principle of res judicata in regard to the limitation of the latter.sp;

EU Non-Refoulement: (The Irrelevance of) Territoriality and Pre-Border Controls

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Violeta Moreno-Lax
Keyword(s):  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
Refugee Law ◽  
Functional Understanding ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
International Refugee Law ◽  
Border Controls ◽  
The Eu

This chapter identifies the content and scope of application of the EU prohibition of refoulement. Following the ‘cumulative standards’ approach, the analysis incorporates developments in international human rights law (IHRL) and international refugee law (IRL). Taking account of the prominent role of the ECHR and the Refugee Convention (CSR51) as sources of Article 19 CFR, these are the two main instruments taken in consideration. The scope of application of Articles 33 CSR51 and 3 ECHR will be identified in turns. Autonomous requirements of EU law will be determined by reference to the asylum acquis as interpreted by the CJEU. The main focus will be on the establishment of the territorial reach of EU non-refoulement. The idea that it may be territorially confined will be rejected. Drawing on the ‘Fransson paradigm’, a ‘functional’ understanding of the ‘implementation of EU law’ standard under Article 51 CFR will be put forward, as the decisive factor to determine applicability of Charter provisions. The implications of non-refoulement for the different measures of extraterritorial control considered in Part I will be delineated at the end.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document