Judicial Coherence In The European Union

This book provides a selection of interesting papers presented at the Third REALaw Research Forum, which was held in Utrecht on January 30, 2015. The overarching theme of the colloquium was Judicial Coherence in the European Union. 0 0Ever since the establishment of the EU’s judicial system, coherence in the administration of justice within the EU has been an intriguing topic for debate amongst legal scholars and practitioners. Throughout the development of EU (administrative) law in recent decades, courts have been major players in shaping the EU legal order in law and practice. In the overwhelming majority of cases in everyday EU legal practice, national courts and tribunals fulfil the duty of ensuring that the law is observed in the interpretation and application of EU law. Recent judgments clearly illustrate that judicial coherence in the EU concerns a shared responsibility of the Court of Justice and the courts in the Member States. Between the lines, anticipation of the growing horizontal interaction between national courts of the EU Member States can be observed. 0 0The variety, richness and refreshing approaches to questions relating to judicial coherence in the European Union in this book prove that judicial coherence deserves to be further explored and discovered and is of great societal relevance as well.

This volume examines the problems of legal and linguistic diversity in the EU legal system. In a union of 27 member states, with 23 different languages, how can the coherence of EU law be guaranteed? The volume addresses this central question from a range of theoretical and practical perspectives.

The EU legal order sits above a diverse mix of 27 national legal systems, with some 23 different languages. Amongst such diversity, how can the unity and coherence of the European legal system be guaranteed? Is there a common understanding between lawyers from different national backgrounds as to the meaning and application of EU law? In addressing these issues the idea of 'common concepts' has played a crucial role - it is argued that the unity of the system is guaranteed by the consistent application of certain core principles shaping the law. To what extent can these concepts be trusted to provide a firm basis for the coherence of the EU legal order? Believers in common concepts argue that there is a relatively clear, shared and accepted framework of ideas, providing an understanding of the system that is ultimately unified in spite of all apparent divergence. Sceptics hold that there is no such framework; 'common concepts' turn out to be additional sources of misunderstanding, confusion and, subsequently, legal divergence. According to a third thesis, there is indeed no common conceptual core, but the necessary unity and coherence of EU law can be articulated and even reinforced through the use of divergent concepts. The contributors to this collection of essays address these issues from different disciplinary perspectives - legal sociology, linguistics, comparative law, European legal scholarship, legal theory and practical experience. The research group focused on the application of two general themes: the protection of rights and judicial discretion. In addition to the thematic research, case studies from core policy sectors are featured, including energy regulation and social policy.

At the heart of the European Union is the establishment of a European market grounded in the free movement of people, goods, services, and capital. The implementation of the free market has preoccupied European lawyers since the inception of the Union's predecessors. Throughout the Union's development, as obstacles to free movement have been challenged in the courts, the European Court of Justice has had to expand on the internal market provisions in the founding Treaties to create a body of law determining the scope and meaning of the EU protection of free movement. In doing so, the Court has often taken differing approaches across the different freedoms, leaving a body of law apparently lacking a coherent set of foundational principles. This book presents a critical analysis of the European Courts' jurisprudence on free movement, examining the Court's constitutional responsibility to articulate a coherent vision of the EU internal market. Through analysis of restrictions on free movement rights, it argues that four main drivers are distorting the system of the case law and its claims to coherence. The drivers reflect 'good' impulses (the protection of fundamental rights); avoidable habits (the proliferation of principles and conflicting lines of case law authority); inherent ambiguities (the unsettled purpose and objectives of the internal market); and broader systemic conditions (the structure of the Court and its decision-making processes). These dynamics cause problematic instances of case law fragmentation - which has substantive implications for citizens, businesses, and Member States participating in the internal market as well as reputational consequences for the Court of Justice and for the EU more generally. However, ultimately the Member States must take greater responsibility too: only they can ensure that the Court of Justice is properly structured and supported, enabling it to play its critical institutional part in the complex narrative of EU integration. Examining the judicial development of principles that define the scope of EU free movement law, this book argues that sustaining case law coherence is a vital constitutional responsibility of the Court of Justice. The idea of constitutional responsibility draws from the nature of the duties that a higher court owes to a constitutional text and to constitutional subjects. It is based on values of fairness, integrity, and imagination. A paradigm of case law coherence is less rigid, and therefore more realistic, than a benchmark of legal certainty. But it still takes seriously the Court's obligations as a high-level judicial institution bound by the rule of law. Judges can legitimately be expected - and obliged - to be aware of the public legal resource that they construct through the evolution of case law.

This comprehensive book examines the judicial governance of the patent system in Europe and beyond, and looks at mechanisms for enhancing coherence. Federica Baldan investigates the challenges to judicial coherence which may arise after the establishment of a specialised patent court in Europe.

ÔThis well-constructed, and well-written, collection fills a gap in the scholarship. It offers a rounded and plausible picture of the CourtÕs role in Europe, engaging with the complexity of the law without losing sight of the bigger political picture. Well-contextualised, critical, but nuanced, discussions of the role of rights, economics, science, and institutions, and of the important particularities of EU adjudication, will make this volume unmissable for those interested in the political role of the Court of Justice of the EU.Õ Ð Gareth Davies, VU University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands This book delves into the rationale, components of, and responses to accusations of judicial activism at the European Court of Justice. Detailed chapters from academics, practitioners and stakeholders bring diverse perspectives on a range of factors Ð from access rules to institutional design and to substantive functions Ð influencing the European CourtÕs political role. Each of the contributing authors invites the reader to approach the debate on the role of the Court in terms of a constantly evolving set of interactions between the EU judiciary, the European and national political spheres, as well as a multitude of other actors vested in competing legitimacy claims. The book questions the political role of the Court as much as it stresses the opportunities Ð and corresponding responsibilities Ð that the CourtÕs case law offers to independent observers, political institutions and civil society organisations. Judicial Activism at the European Court of Justice will appeal to researchers and graduate students as well as to EU and national officials.

This book offers a thorough legal and policy examination of the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) as latest 'grand' experiment in achieving coherent external relations for the Union. The book draws on legal and political scholarship to attain a definition of coherence in EU external relations. It argues that traditional definitions such as vertical or horizontal coherence are insufficient and sets out a new definition in order to more accurately capture the reality of EU external relations. The book goes on to look in depth at the ENP, arguing that the innovative nature of the ENP in regard to coherence lies beyond the narrowly defined legal sphere, but stems mostly from its hybrid composition of hard legal, soft legal and non-legal policy instruments.

This Research Handbook offers a comprehensive study of existing and emerging general principles of EU law by scholars from a wide range of expertise in EU law, international law, legal theory and different areas of substantive law. It explores the theory, content, role and function of general principles in EU law to better understand general principles as a mechanism for the substantive openness of the EU legal order as well as for cross-fertilization and coherence of legal orders. Their potential as a tool to manage the interaction of legal regimes and orders is a particular focal point and will make this Handbook a must-read for scholars of EU Law.