Central European Constitutional Courts in the Face of EU Membership explores German legal influence on other systems of constitutional justice, concentrating on the impact of the Federal Constitutional Court’s approach to EU integration on constitutional courts in Hungary and Poland.
Dissent in courts has always existed. It is natural and healthy that judges disagree on legal issues of a certain importance and difficulty. The question is if it is reasonable to conceal dissent. Not every legal system allows judges to explain their disagreement to the public in a separate opinion attached to the judgment of the court. Most constitutional courts do. This book presents a comparative analysis of the practice of judicial dissent in constitutional courts from the perspective of the civil law tradition. It discusses the theoretical background, presents the history of the institution and today’s practice, thus laying down the basis for an accurate consideration of the phenomenon from a legal perspective.
The onset of the 2004 EU enlargement witnessed a number of predictions being made about the approaches, capacity and ability of Central European judges who were soon to join the Union. Optimistic voices, foreshadowing the deep transformative power that Europe was bound to exercise with respect to the judicial mentality and practice in the new Member States, were intertwined with gloomy pictures of post-Communist limited formalism and mechanical jurisprudence that could not be reformed, which were likely to undermine the very foundations of mutual trust and recognition the judicial system of the Union is built upon. Ten years later, this volume revisits these predictions and critically assesses the evolution of Central European judicial mentality, institutions and constitutionality under the influence of the EU membership. Comparatively evaluating the situation in a number of Central European Member States in their socio-legal contexts, notably Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania, the volume offers unique insights into the process of (non) Europeanisation of national legal systems and cultures.
Do individual constitutions, and the legal cultures underlying them, pose an obstacle to future EU integration? This ambitious collection brings together reports from all the European Member States, systematically setting out their individual constitutional guarantees. In doing so, it tracks possible roadblocks to the future evolution of European integration. Written by recognised authorities in each Member State, it offers an authoritative and rigorous overview of the European Union's constitutional landscape. Its single-structure approach allows for comparison while maintaining consistency. It will become the standard reference work for academics, students and practitioners in the field of European Union law and integration.
This book presents the case law of Polish courts, namely the Supreme Court, administrative courts and the Constitutional Tribunal, in which the principles of EU law have been successfully applied. It discusses how Polish courts apply principles of consistent interpretation, primacy and direct effect of EU law in their daily adjudicating practice in order to ensure effet utile of EU law, resulting in effective protection of individuals' rights derived from the EU legal order. The book explores the legal nature of these principles and, in particular, the requirement that national rules that are found to be incompatible with legally binding and enforceable EU law should be disapplied by the domestic courts. It explains Polish courts’ reasoning concerning the inseparable relationship between the principle of primacy of EU law and the remedy of disapplication of national law. As the guidelines provided for the national courts by the Court of Justice of the European Union are often quite vague, the work will be important and useful for academics and practitioners from different European jurisdictions to observe the manner in which these principles of EU law are applied in jurisdictions other than their own.
To what extent is the language of judicial opinions responsive to the political and social context in which constitutional courts operate? Courts are reason-giving institutions, with argumentation playing a central role in constitutional adjudication. However, a cursory look at just a handful of constitutional systems suggests important differences in the practices of constitutional judges, whether in matters of form, style, or language. Focusing on independently-verified leading cases globally, a combination of qualitative and quantitative analysis offers the most comprehensive and systematic account of constitutional reasoning to date. This analysis is supported by the examination of eighteen legal systems around the world including the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice. Universally common aspects of constitutional reasoning are identified in this book, and contributors also examine whether common law countries differ to civil law countries in this respect.
This two-volume book, published open access, brings together leading scholars of constitutional law from twenty-nine European countries to revisit the role of national constitutions at a time when decision-making has increasingly shifted to the European and transnational level. It offers important insights into three areas. First, it explores how constitutions reflect the transfer of powers from domestic to European and global institutions. Secondly, it revisits substantive constitutional values, such as the protection of constitutional rights, the rule of law, democratic participation and constitutional review, along with constitutional court judgments that tackle the protection of these rights and values in the transnational context, e.g. with regard to the Data Retention Directive, the European Arrest Warrant, the ESM Treaty, and EU and IMF austerity measures. The responsiveness of the ECJ regarding the above rights and values, along with the standard of protection, is also assessed. Thirdly, challenges in the context of global governance in relation to judicial review, democratic control and accountability are examined. On a broader level, the contributors were also invited to reflect on what has increasingly been described as the erosion or ‘twilight’ of constitutionalism, or a shift to a thin version of the rule of law, democracy and judicial review in the context of Europeanisation and globalisation processes. The national reports are complemented by a separately published comparative study, which identifies a number of broader trends and challenges that are shared across several Member States and warrant wider discussion. The research for this publication and the comparative study were carried out within the framework of the ERC-funded project ‘The Role and Future of National Constitutions in European and Global Governance’. The book is aimed at scholars, researchers, judges and legal advisors working on the interface between national constitutional law and EU and transnational law. The extradition cases are also of interest to scholars and practitioners in the field of criminal law. Anneli Albi is Professor of European Law at the University of Kent, United Kingdom. Samo Bardutzky is Assistant Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Ljubljana, Slovenia.
National Courts and EU Law examines both how and why national courts and judges are involved in the process of legal integration within the European Union. As well as reviewing conventional thinking, the book presents new legal and empirical insights into the issue of judicial behaviour in this process. The expert contributors provide a critical analysis of the key questions, examining the role of national courts in relation to the application of various EU legal instruments.
Can courts really build democracy in a state emerging from authoritarian rule? This book presents a searching critique of the contemporary global model of democracy-building for post-authoritarian states, arguing that it places excessive reliance on courts. Since 1945, both constitutional courts and international human rights courts have been increasingly perceived as alchemists, capable of transmuting the base materials of a nascent democracy into the gold of a functioning democratic system. By charting the development of this model, and critically analysing the evidence and claims for courts as democracy-builders, this book argues that the decades-long trend toward ever greater reliance on courts is based as much on faith as fact, and can often be counter-productive. Offering a sustained corrective to unrealistic perceptions of courts as democracy-builders, the book points the way toward a much needed rethinking of democracy-building models and a re-evaluation of how we employ courts in this role.
The relationship between national constitutional courts and the European Court of Justice (CJEU) is increasingly cast in terms of communication, understood as having a constructive connotation, and as an alternative to the prior and more destructive language of guerre des juges, conflict and revolt. This change in approach fits in the transformation of the wider conceptual framework within which the relationship between European and national legal orders is understood and the rise of the 'pluralist movement.' Judicial conversations between national constitutional courts and the CJEU offer a unique object for academic research on 'constitutional pluralism' and transnational relations in a new world order. This book provides a critical examination of the normative, empirical, and contextual aspects of such judicial conversations. It first addresses the appropriateness of conceiving as conversations the interactions between the CJEU and constitutional courts. This is followed by an exploration of the avenues for, and contents of, judicial engagements between both sets of courts. Lastly, the book focuses on the ordinary national courts and the European Court of Human Rights - as the other main judicial interlocutors of the CJEU and constitutional courts - from a conversational angle. Constitutional Conversations in Europe makes a valuable contribution to the ongoing academic discourse on the relationship between the CJEU and national constitutional courts by explaining their current attitudes to transnational conversations and by identifying potential catalysts for future changes. (Series: Ius Commune Europaeum - Vol. 107)