Effet utile and the (re)organisation of national judiciaries: A not so unique institutional response to a uniquely important challenge?

IF 1.4 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW European Law Journal Pub Date : 2022-07-12 DOI:10.1111/eulj.12437
Ruairi O'Neill
{"title":"Effet utile and the (re)organisation of national judiciaries: A not so unique institutional response to a uniquely important challenge?","authors":"Ruairi O'Neill","doi":"10.1111/eulj.12437","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The current repurposing of the principle of effet utile of European Union law can be found in the revolutionary steps taken by the Court of Justice in its application of Article 19 TEU. The implicit goal of this recent body of case-law is to equip national judges with the tools to resist domestic judicial reforms that affect their freedom to adjudicate independently. Considering <i>Simmenthal</i> to <i>Unibet, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses</i> to the latest case-law relating to the organisation of national judiciaries, this article contends that, while the case-law on judicial independence is unprecedented, the Court of Justice has gone to great lengths to ensure that the developments in EU law precipitated by its rulings are grounded in established doctrine. They follow a line of case-law that builds on the principle of primacy of EU law and the obligation to guarantee the effectiveness of EU law in the domestic legal order. Further, the current trajectory is for Article 19 TEU to form the operational basis of review of any judicially minded reforms, whether they be organisational (Article 19 TEU, together with Article 47 CFREU), limit actually or potentially the freedom for dialogue between national courts and the Court of Justice (Article 19 TEU together with Article 267 TFEU and Article 47 CFREU) or where they reduce the protection of the value of the rule of law (Article 19 TEU, Article 2 TEU, Article 49 TEU and Article 47 CFREU), with potential implications for the effective application in EU law of the principle of mutual trust.</p>","PeriodicalId":47166,"journal":{"name":"European Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eulj.12437","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

The current repurposing of the principle of effet utile of European Union law can be found in the revolutionary steps taken by the Court of Justice in its application of Article 19 TEU. The implicit goal of this recent body of case-law is to equip national judges with the tools to resist domestic judicial reforms that affect their freedom to adjudicate independently. Considering Simmenthal to Unibet, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses to the latest case-law relating to the organisation of national judiciaries, this article contends that, while the case-law on judicial independence is unprecedented, the Court of Justice has gone to great lengths to ensure that the developments in EU law precipitated by its rulings are grounded in established doctrine. They follow a line of case-law that builds on the principle of primacy of EU law and the obligation to guarantee the effectiveness of EU law in the domestic legal order. Further, the current trajectory is for Article 19 TEU to form the operational basis of review of any judicially minded reforms, whether they be organisational (Article 19 TEU, together with Article 47 CFREU), limit actually or potentially the freedom for dialogue between national courts and the Court of Justice (Article 19 TEU together with Article 267 TFEU and Article 47 CFREU) or where they reduce the protection of the value of the rule of law (Article 19 TEU, Article 2 TEU, Article 49 TEU and Article 47 CFREU), with potential implications for the effective application in EU law of the principle of mutual trust.

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
国家司法机构的有效性和(重新)组织:对一个独特的重要挑战的不那么独特的机构反应?
目前欧洲联盟法律效力原则的重新定位可以从法院在适用第19条标准箱时所采取的革命性步骤中找到。这一最新判例法的隐含目标是为国家法官提供工具,以抵制影响其独立审判自由的国内司法改革。从Simmenthal到Unibet,从associa o sindic dos Juízes葡萄牙到与国家司法机构组织有关的最新判例法,本文认为,尽管关于司法独立的判例法是前所未有的,但欧洲法院已竭尽全力确保其裁决促成的欧盟法律发展以既定原则为基础。它们遵循一套判例法,建立在欧盟法律至上的原则和保证欧盟法律在国内法律秩序中的有效性的义务之上。进一步,当前轨迹是第十九条集装箱形式审查的操作基础的公正地的改革,无论是组织(第十九条集装箱和第四十七条CFREU),限制实际上或潜在的自由国家法庭和法院之间的对话(第十九条集装箱一起第267条TFEU和第四十七条CFREU)或他们减少保护法治的价值(第十九条集装箱,第二条集装箱,第49条TEU和第47条CFREU),对欧盟法律中相互信任原则的有效适用具有潜在的影响。
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
2.10
自引率
21.10%
发文量
13
期刊介绍: The European Law Journal represents an authoritative new approach to the study of European Law, developed specifically to express and develop the study and understanding of European law in its social, cultural, political and economic context. It has a highly reputed board of editors. The journal fills a major gap in the current literature on all issues of European law, and is essential reading for anyone studying or practising EU law and its diverse impact on the environment, national legal systems, local government, economic organizations, and European citizens. As well as focusing on the European Union, the journal also examines the national legal systems of countries in Western, Central and Eastern Europe and relations between Europe and other parts of the world, particularly the United States, Japan, China, India, Mercosur and developing countries. The journal is published in English but is dedicated to publishing native language articles and has a dedicated translation fund available for this purpose. It is a refereed journal.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information Datafication of the hotspots in the blind spot of supervisory authorities Limits to discretion and automated risk assessments in EU border control: Recognising the political in the technical Decoding Frontex's fragmented accountability mosaic and introducing systemic accountability - System Reset Rule of law backsliding within the EU: The case of informal readmissions of third-country nationals at internal borders
×
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