在解释与适用之间:高等法院初审程序中的个案判决

Jasper Krommendijk
{"title":"在解释与适用之间:高等法院初审程序中的个案判决","authors":"Jasper Krommendijk","doi":"10.36969/njel.v6i3.25180","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The division of roles between the CJEU and national courts in the preliminary ruling procedure is clearly defined, at least on paper. The CJEU interprets EU law and the referring national court applies this interpretation to the case pending before it. In the literature, there are often complaints that this is different in practice and that the CJEU all too often steps into the domain of the national judge by not limiting itself to only interpreting EU law but also applying the interpretation to the national legal or factual context. Too much case specificity may put the referring court in a difficult position, especially in cassation appeals when the facts have already been established. Little is known as to whether the CJEU adheres to the clear ‘separation of functions’. This contribution analyses to what extent and why the CJEU abides by this division. It examines 55 judgments delivered during the period between 1 January 2020 and 22 March 2021 in response to questions from courts in five EU Member States (the Netherlands, Ireland, the Czech Republic, Sweden and Greece). This structured case law analysis aids the identification of factors that contribute to outcome-oriented judgments. The article also critically examines the approach of the CJEU from a normative perspective weighing the pros and cons.","PeriodicalId":489206,"journal":{"name":"Nordic journal of european law","volume":"115 ","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Between interpretation and application: case-specific CJEU judgments in the preliminary ruling procedure\",\"authors\":\"Jasper Krommendijk\",\"doi\":\"10.36969/njel.v6i3.25180\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The division of roles between the CJEU and national courts in the preliminary ruling procedure is clearly defined, at least on paper. The CJEU interprets EU law and the referring national court applies this interpretation to the case pending before it. In the literature, there are often complaints that this is different in practice and that the CJEU all too often steps into the domain of the national judge by not limiting itself to only interpreting EU law but also applying the interpretation to the national legal or factual context. Too much case specificity may put the referring court in a difficult position, especially in cassation appeals when the facts have already been established. Little is known as to whether the CJEU adheres to the clear ‘separation of functions’. This contribution analyses to what extent and why the CJEU abides by this division. It examines 55 judgments delivered during the period between 1 January 2020 and 22 March 2021 in response to questions from courts in five EU Member States (the Netherlands, Ireland, the Czech Republic, Sweden and Greece). This structured case law analysis aids the identification of factors that contribute to outcome-oriented judgments. The article also critically examines the approach of the CJEU from a normative perspective weighing the pros and cons.\",\"PeriodicalId\":489206,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Nordic journal of european law\",\"volume\":\"115 \",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-10-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Nordic journal of european law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.36969/njel.v6i3.25180\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordic journal of european law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36969/njel.v6i3.25180","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

欧洲法院和各国法院在初步裁决程序中的角色分工至少在纸面上有明确规定。欧洲法院解释欧盟法律,而提交的国家法院将这一解释适用于它面前的未决案件。在文献中,经常有人抱怨这在实践中是不同的,欧洲法院经常进入国家法官的领域,不仅限于解释欧盟法律,而且还将解释应用于国家法律或事实背景。过多的案件专门性可能会使移交法院陷入困境,特别是在事实已经确定的撤销上诉中。很少有人知道欧洲法院是否坚持明确的“职能分离”。这篇文章分析了欧洲法院在多大程度上以及为什么遵守这一划分。它审查了2020年1月1日至2021年3月22日期间作出的55项判决,以回应五个欧盟成员国(荷兰、爱尔兰、捷克共和国、瑞典和希腊)法院提出的问题。这种结构化的判例法分析有助于识别有助于以结果为导向的判决的因素。本文还从规范的角度审视了欧洲法院的做法,权衡了利弊。
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
Between interpretation and application: case-specific CJEU judgments in the preliminary ruling procedure
The division of roles between the CJEU and national courts in the preliminary ruling procedure is clearly defined, at least on paper. The CJEU interprets EU law and the referring national court applies this interpretation to the case pending before it. In the literature, there are often complaints that this is different in practice and that the CJEU all too often steps into the domain of the national judge by not limiting itself to only interpreting EU law but also applying the interpretation to the national legal or factual context. Too much case specificity may put the referring court in a difficult position, especially in cassation appeals when the facts have already been established. Little is known as to whether the CJEU adheres to the clear ‘separation of functions’. This contribution analyses to what extent and why the CJEU abides by this division. It examines 55 judgments delivered during the period between 1 January 2020 and 22 March 2021 in response to questions from courts in five EU Member States (the Netherlands, Ireland, the Czech Republic, Sweden and Greece). This structured case law analysis aids the identification of factors that contribute to outcome-oriented judgments. The article also critically examines the approach of the CJEU from a normative perspective weighing the pros and cons.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Digitalisation in EU Competition Law and the Swedish Principle of Transparency Transparency Unveiled: Access to Information in Digital Markets Act Proceedings at Member State Level – The German and Austrian Experience Digitalisation of the Preliminary Investigation Phase, Fundamental and Human Rights and the Principle of Openness - Balancing Conflicting Interests in the Review of Large Data Sets EU Competition Law, Fundamental Rights and the Principle of Transparency – An Evolving Relationship A Few Words on Drittwirkung, Transparency and Personal Integrity in the Light of Digitalization
×
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