Cilfit Still Fits

IF 1.6 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW European Constitutional Law Review Pub Date : 2022-09-01 DOI:10.1017/S1574019622000293
François-Xavier Millet
{"title":"Cilfit Still Fits","authors":"François-Xavier Millet","doi":"10.1017/S1574019622000293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What is a good case? Although the question may sound bizarre to the ear of most academics, who are primarily interested in what a good (or a bad) judgment is, judges are probably more familiar with it. It is indeed more usual for those on the bench to have a discussion on whether the cases upon which they are asked to adjudicate are suitable for a reconsideration of previous judgments and whether such reconsideration should take the form of a mere clarification, a revisiting, an overhauling or even an overruling. Making such a decision is obviously not easy. It depends on a mix of endogenous and exogenous factors: on one side, the facts of the case, its legal context, the type of legal issues at stake, the capacity of the bench to come up with a new, workable and assumingly better solution; on the other side, the timing, the political and judicial context, the embeddedness or the popular support of a long-standing solution. Against that background, it is rather clear that the case in Consorzio Italian Management1 was not deemed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (referred to throughout as the Court of Justice or simply the Court) to constitute","PeriodicalId":45815,"journal":{"name":"European Constitutional Law Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Constitutional Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019622000293","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

What is a good case? Although the question may sound bizarre to the ear of most academics, who are primarily interested in what a good (or a bad) judgment is, judges are probably more familiar with it. It is indeed more usual for those on the bench to have a discussion on whether the cases upon which they are asked to adjudicate are suitable for a reconsideration of previous judgments and whether such reconsideration should take the form of a mere clarification, a revisiting, an overhauling or even an overruling. Making such a decision is obviously not easy. It depends on a mix of endogenous and exogenous factors: on one side, the facts of the case, its legal context, the type of legal issues at stake, the capacity of the bench to come up with a new, workable and assumingly better solution; on the other side, the timing, the political and judicial context, the embeddedness or the popular support of a long-standing solution. Against that background, it is rather clear that the case in Consorzio Italian Management1 was not deemed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (referred to throughout as the Court of Justice or simply the Court) to constitute
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Cilfit仍然适合
什么是好案例?虽然这个问题对大多数学者来说可能听起来很奇怪,他们主要对什么是好的(或坏的)判断感兴趣,但法官们可能更熟悉这个问题。事实上,法官们更常讨论的是,他们被要求裁决的案件是否适合对以前的判决进行复议,以及这种复议是否应该采取单纯的澄清、重审、彻底修改甚至推翻的形式。做出这样的决定显然不容易。这取决于内生和外部因素的混合:一方面,案件的事实,其法律背景,涉及的法律问题的类型,法官提出新的,可行的和假设更好的解决方案的能力;另一方面,一个长期解决方案的时机、政治和司法背景、嵌入性或民众支持。在这种背景下,相当清楚的是,欧洲联盟法院(通篇称为法院或简称法院)并不认为意大利管理财团案构成
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.80
自引率
14.30%
发文量
31
期刊介绍: The European Constitutional Law Review (EuConst), a peer reviewed English language journal, is a platform for advancing the study of European constitutional law, its history and evolution. Its scope is European law and constitutional law, history and theory, comparative law and jurisprudence. Published triannually, it contains articles on doctrine, scholarship and history, plus jurisprudence and book reviews. However, the premier issue includes more than twenty short articles by leading experts, each addressing a single topic in the Draft Constitutional Treaty for Europe. EuConst is addressed at academics, professionals, politicians and others involved or interested in the European constitutional process.
期刊最新文献
How to Detect Abusive Constitutional Practices A Doctrinal Approach to Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendments: Judicial Review of Constitutional Amendments in Sweden Constitutional Courts as Guarantors of EU Charter Rights: A Rhetorical Perspective on Constitutional Change in Austria and Germany Constitutional Referrals by Ordinary Courts: A Platform for Judicial Dialogue and Another Toolkit for Judicial Resistance? Of Winners and Losers: A Commentary of the Bundesverfassungsgericht ORD Judgment of 6 December 2022
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1