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

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 LAW Hague Journal on the Rule of Law Pub Date : 2024-08-19 DOI:10.1007/s40803-024-00243-2
Beatrice Monciunskaite
{"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}
引用次数: 0

摘要

初步参考程序构成了欧盟法官与法官对话的基础,对于将成员国法院纳入欧盟司法体系至关重要。针对欧盟日益严重的法治问题,欧盟法院加强了司法独立标准,以巩固《欧盟条约》第 2 条的法治价值。现在,随着欧盟法院根据《欧盟运作条约》(TFEU)第 267 条全面修订其司法独立标准,欧盟法院拯救司法独立的斗争似乎正在蔓延到初步参考机制。特别是,欧盟法院选择了以不同的方式对待传统法院和非传统法院,并引入了对欧盟法院直接结构之外的司法裁决的重大依赖;这种对初步参考机制运作的多维度改变具有深远的影响。正如本文所强调的,最显著的后果是欧盟法律的统一适用、辅助性原则和欧盟法律的自主性。最重要的一点可能是《欧盟运作条约》第 267 条的新限制对欧盟公民的影响,以及我们在涉及欧盟法律的事务中诉诸 "自然法官"(欧盟法院)的权利。
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 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.

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
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
18.20%
发文量
16
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.
期刊最新文献
How to Assess Rule-of-Law Violations in a State of Emergency? Towards a General Analytical Framework 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 Rule of Law and Corporate Actors: Measuring Influence EU Lawlessness Law at the EU-Belarusian Border: Torture and Dehumanisation Excused by ‘Instrumentalisation’ Confused Constitutionalism in Hungary—New Assessment Criteria for Recognising a Populist Constitutional Court
×
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