欧洲法院司法独立判例法中制度规范的未开发潜力

IF 1.5 Q1 LAW German Law Journal Pub Date : 2023-09-01 DOI:10.1017/glj.2023.57
Mathieu Leloup
{"title":"欧洲法院司法独立判例法中制度规范的未开发潜力","authors":"Mathieu Leloup","doi":"10.1017/glj.2023.57","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article explores the use of the systemic criterion in the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) case law on judicial independence under Article 19(1)(2) Treaty on European Union (TEU). It starts from the observation that ever since the Portuguese Judges judgment, the case law has moved towards a more abstract and general assessment of issues of judicial independence. Yet, despite that evolution, the Court—perhaps surprisingly—only rarely uses the systemic criterion in its judgments. There are only two strands of case law to be found, neither of which tell us much about how the Court understands the notion of “systemic” in this field. This article argues that this criterion nevertheless has an important role to play in the case law on judicial independence and that the Court should explicitly limit the finding of a violation of Article 19(1)(2) TEU to those issues that have a systemic impact on the functioning of the domestic judiciary. By limiting the effects of Article 19(1)(2) TEU in such a way, the Court would strike a balance between the protection of the independence of the domestic judiciary, which is crucial for the proper functioning of the European Union (EU), and respect for the autonomy of the Member States as to the organization of their judiciary.","PeriodicalId":36303,"journal":{"name":"German Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Untapped Potential of the Systemic Criterion in the ECJ’s Case Law on Judicial Independence\",\"authors\":\"Mathieu Leloup\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/glj.2023.57\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract This article explores the use of the systemic criterion in the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) case law on judicial independence under Article 19(1)(2) Treaty on European Union (TEU). It starts from the observation that ever since the Portuguese Judges judgment, the case law has moved towards a more abstract and general assessment of issues of judicial independence. Yet, despite that evolution, the Court—perhaps surprisingly—only rarely uses the systemic criterion in its judgments. There are only two strands of case law to be found, neither of which tell us much about how the Court understands the notion of “systemic” in this field. This article argues that this criterion nevertheless has an important role to play in the case law on judicial independence and that the Court should explicitly limit the finding of a violation of Article 19(1)(2) TEU to those issues that have a systemic impact on the functioning of the domestic judiciary. By limiting the effects of Article 19(1)(2) TEU in such a way, the Court would strike a balance between the protection of the independence of the domestic judiciary, which is crucial for the proper functioning of the European Union (EU), and respect for the autonomy of the Member States as to the organization of their judiciary.\",\"PeriodicalId\":36303,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"German Law Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"German Law Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.57\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"German Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2023.57","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要本文探讨了欧洲法院(ECJ)判例法依据《欧盟条约》(TEU)第19(1)(2)条对司法独立的系统性标准的运用。它从以下观察开始:自从葡萄牙法官的判决以来,判例法已趋向于对司法独立问题作出更抽象和一般的评价。然而,尽管有这样的演变,法院却很少在其判决中使用系统标准——这也许令人惊讶。只有两种判例法可以找到,它们都没有告诉我们法院是如何理解这一领域的“系统”概念的。本文认为,这一标准在关于司法独立的判例法中仍可发挥重要作用,法院应明确将对违反第19条第(1)款第(2)项TEU的认定限制在对国内司法机构的运作产生系统性影响的问题上。通过以这种方式限制第19(1)(2)条的效力,法院将在保护国内司法机构的独立性(这对欧洲联盟(欧盟)的正常运作至关重要)和尊重成员国在其司法机构组织方面的自主权之间取得平衡。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Untapped Potential of the Systemic Criterion in the ECJ’s Case Law on Judicial Independence
Abstract This article explores the use of the systemic criterion in the European Court of Justice’s (ECJ) case law on judicial independence under Article 19(1)(2) Treaty on European Union (TEU). It starts from the observation that ever since the Portuguese Judges judgment, the case law has moved towards a more abstract and general assessment of issues of judicial independence. Yet, despite that evolution, the Court—perhaps surprisingly—only rarely uses the systemic criterion in its judgments. There are only two strands of case law to be found, neither of which tell us much about how the Court understands the notion of “systemic” in this field. This article argues that this criterion nevertheless has an important role to play in the case law on judicial independence and that the Court should explicitly limit the finding of a violation of Article 19(1)(2) TEU to those issues that have a systemic impact on the functioning of the domestic judiciary. By limiting the effects of Article 19(1)(2) TEU in such a way, the Court would strike a balance between the protection of the independence of the domestic judiciary, which is crucial for the proper functioning of the European Union (EU), and respect for the autonomy of the Member States as to the organization of their judiciary.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
German Law Journal
German Law Journal Social Sciences-Law
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
7.70%
发文量
75
期刊最新文献
Demystifying autonomy: tracing the international law origins of the EU principle of autonomy – ERRATUM My Body Is My Temple? Comparing Sexual Crimes and Property Crimes in a Human Rights Tradition – ERRATUM The Diagonal Application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: From “Displacement” through “Agency” to “Scope” and Beyond My Body Is My Temple? Comparing Sexual Crimes and Property Crimes in a Human Rights Tradition Regulating Parties by Constitutional Rules in Liberal Democracies
×
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