{"title":"初步参考程序下司法独立标准的变迁:欧盟法院近期判例法评述及《欧盟运作条约》第 267 条的发展轨迹","authors":"Beatrice Monciunskaite","doi":"10.1007/s40803-024-00243-2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>The preliminary reference procedure forms the foundation of judge-to-judge dialogue in the EU, which has been imperative to the inclusion of member state courts in the Union’s judicial system. In response to the Union’s ever-growing rule of law problem, the CJEU strengthened judicial independence criteria to fortify the Article 2 TEU value of the rule of law. Now, it seems the CJEU’s fight to save judicial independence is spilling over into the preliminary reference mechanism as it overhauls its judicial independence standards under Article 267 TFEU. In particular, the CJEU has chosen to treat traditional and non-traditional courts in a divergent way and introduced significant reliance on judicial decisions emanating from outside the immediate CJEU court structure; this multi-dimensional change to the operation of the preliminary reference mechanism has far-reaching consequences. As this article highlights, the most notable consequences are to the uniform application of EU law, the principle of subsidiarity and autonomy of EU law. Perhaps the most important point raised is the effect of the new limitation on Article 267 TFEU references on EU citizens and our right to access the ‘natural judge’ (the CJEU) in matters concerning EU law.</p>","PeriodicalId":45733,"journal":{"name":"Hague Journal on the Rule of Law","volume":"438 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Shifting Landscape of Judicial Independence Criteria Under the Preliminary Reference Procedure: A Comment on the CJEU’s Recent Case Law and the Trajectory of Article 267 TFEU\",\"authors\":\"Beatrice Monciunskaite\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40803-024-00243-2\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>The preliminary reference procedure forms the foundation of judge-to-judge dialogue in the EU, which has been imperative to the inclusion of member state courts in the Union’s judicial system. In response to the Union’s ever-growing rule of law problem, the CJEU strengthened judicial independence criteria to fortify the Article 2 TEU value of the rule of law. Now, it seems the CJEU’s fight to save judicial independence is spilling over into the preliminary reference mechanism as it overhauls its judicial independence standards under Article 267 TFEU. In particular, the CJEU has chosen to treat traditional and non-traditional courts in a divergent way and introduced significant reliance on judicial decisions emanating from outside the immediate CJEU court structure; this multi-dimensional change to the operation of the preliminary reference mechanism has far-reaching consequences. As this article highlights, the most notable consequences are to the uniform application of EU law, the principle of subsidiarity and autonomy of EU law. Perhaps the most important point raised is the effect of the new limitation on Article 267 TFEU references on EU citizens and our right to access the ‘natural judge’ (the CJEU) in matters concerning EU law.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45733,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Hague Journal on the Rule of Law\",\"volume\":\"438 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-19\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Hague Journal on the Rule of Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-024-00243-2\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hague Journal on the Rule of Law","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-024-00243-2","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Shifting Landscape of Judicial Independence Criteria Under the Preliminary Reference Procedure: A Comment on the CJEU’s Recent Case Law and the Trajectory of Article 267 TFEU
The preliminary reference procedure forms the foundation of judge-to-judge dialogue in the EU, which has been imperative to the inclusion of member state courts in the Union’s judicial system. In response to the Union’s ever-growing rule of law problem, the CJEU strengthened judicial independence criteria to fortify the Article 2 TEU value of the rule of law. Now, it seems the CJEU’s fight to save judicial independence is spilling over into the preliminary reference mechanism as it overhauls its judicial independence standards under Article 267 TFEU. In particular, the CJEU has chosen to treat traditional and non-traditional courts in a divergent way and introduced significant reliance on judicial decisions emanating from outside the immediate CJEU court structure; this multi-dimensional change to the operation of the preliminary reference mechanism has far-reaching consequences. As this article highlights, the most notable consequences are to the uniform application of EU law, the principle of subsidiarity and autonomy of EU law. Perhaps the most important point raised is the effect of the new limitation on Article 267 TFEU references on EU citizens and our right to access the ‘natural judge’ (the CJEU) in matters concerning EU law.
期刊介绍:
The Hague Journal on the Rule of Law (HJRL) is a multidisciplinary journal that aims to deepen and broaden our knowledge and understanding about the rule of law. Its main areas of interest are: current developments in rule of law in domestic, transnational and international contextstheoretical issues related to the conceptualization and implementation of the rule of law in domestic and international contexts;the relation between the rule of law and economic development, democratization and human rights protection;historical analysis of rule of law;significant trends and initiatives in rule of law promotion (practitioner notes).The HJRL is supported by HiiL Innovating Justice, The Hague, the Netherlands and the Paul Scholten Center for Jurisprudence at the Law School of the University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.Editorial PolicyThe HJRL welcomes contributions from academics and practitioners with expertise in any relevant field, including law, anthropology, economics, history, philosophy, political science and sociology. It publishes two categories of articles: papers (appr. 6,000-10,000 words) and notes (appr. 2500 words). Papers are accepted on the basis of double blind peer-review. Notes are accepted on the basis of review by two or more editors of the journal. Manuscripts submitted to the HJRL must not be under consideration for publication elsewhere. Acceptance of the Editorial Board’s offer to publish, implies that the author agrees to an embargo on publication elsewhere for a period of two years following the date of publication in the HJRL.