Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

On Judicial Independence and the Quest for National, Supranational and Transnational Justice

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Art of Judicial Reasoning

Abstract

For centuries, judges, lawyers and legal scholars have read the law, examined the case law and studied the text books with the same objective in mind, that of finding justice. It is this quest for justice—our ‘Holy Grail’ as one might call it—that defines the legal profession in its mission to pass on a fairer and more equal society for the next generation.

President of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Professor of European Union Law at the University of Leuven (Belgium).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    ECJ order of 20 November 2017 in case C-441/17 R, Commission v Poland, EU:C:2017:877.

  2. 2.

    Ibid., paras 102, 103, and 109.

  3. 3.

    US Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137 (1803).

  4. 4.

    See generally EFTA Court (eds) (2015) The EEA and the EFTA Court: Decentred Integration.

  5. 5.

    ECJ judgment of 27 February 2018 in case C-64/16, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses, EU:C:2018:117.

  6. 6.

    ECJ judgment of 6 March 2018 in case C-284/16, Achmea, EU:C:2018:158.

  7. 7.

    See generally Lenaerts (2017), pp. 805–840.

  8. 8.

    See generally De Witte et al. (2016).

  9. 9.

    See, e.g., ECJ judgments of 9 March 1978 in case 106/77, Simmenthal, EU:C:1978:49, and of 8 September 2010 in case C-409/06, Winner Wetten, EU:C:2010:503.

  10. 10.

    Regarding interim relief against national measures, see, e.g., ECJ judgment of 19 June 1990 in case C-213/89, Factortame and Others, EU:C:1990:257. As to EU measures, see ECJ judgment of 21 February 1991 in joined cases C-143/88 and C-92/89, Zuckerfabrik Süderdithmarschen and Zuckerfabrik Soest, EU:C:1991:65.

  11. 11.

    See, e.g., ECJ judgments of 19 November 1991 in joined cases C-6/90 and C-9/90, Francovich and Others, EU:C:1991:428; of 5 March 1996, in joined cases C-46/93 and C-48/93, Brasserie du Pêcheur and Factortame, EU:C:1996:79; of 20 September 2001 in case C-453/99, Courage and Crehan, EU:C:2001:465; of 30 September 2003 in case C-224/01, Köbler, EU:C:2003:513.

  12. 12.

    ECJ Opinion 2/13 (Accession of the European Union to the ECHR) of 18 December 2014, EU:C:2014:2454, para. 176.

  13. 13.

    ECJ judgment of 28 March 2017 in case C-72/15, Rosneft, EU:C:2017:236, para. 68.

  14. 14.

    See, generally, Broberg and Fenger (2014).

  15. 15.

    See, e.g., ECJ judgment of 24 May 2016 in case C-396/14, MT Højgaard and Züblin, EU:C:2016:347, para. 23.

  16. 16.

    See, for example, ECJ judgments of 30 June 1966 in case 61/65, Vaassen-Göbbels, EU:C:1966:39; of 10 December 2009 in case C-205/08, Umweltanwalt von Kärnten, EU:C:2009:767, para. 35; of 6 October 2015 in case C-203/14, Consorci Sanitari del Maresme, EU:C:2015:664, para. 17, and MT Højgaard and Züblin, cited above, para. 23.

  17. 17.

    The ECJ noted that, whilst the member of that Council in charge of investigating the case did not participate in the deliberations, nor took part in the adoption of the final decision, there was a close functional link between him and that Council. See ECJ order of 28 November 2013 in case C-167/13, Devillers, not published, EU:C:2013:804, para. 19.

  18. 18.

    ECJ judgment of 19 September 2006 in case C-506/04, Wilson, EU:C:2006:587, paras 49–52.

  19. 19.

    Ibid., para. 51.

  20. 20.

    See ECJ judgments of 22 October 1998, in joined cases C-9/97 and C-118/97, Jokela and Pitkäranta, EU:C:1998:497, para. 20, and judgment of 4 February 1999 in case C-103/97, Köllensperger and Atzwanger, EU:C:1999:52, para. 21.

  21. 21.

    ECJ judgment of 31 May 2005 in case C-53/03, Syfait and Others, EU:C:2005:333, para. 31.

  22. 22.

    ECJ judgment of 16 February 2017 in case C-503/15, Margarit Panicello, EU:C:2017:126, paras 41 and 42.

  23. 23.

    See EFTA Court judgment of 16 December 1994 in case E-1/94, Restamark, [1994–95] EFTA Ct. Rep. 15, paras 24 et seq. See also EFTA Court judgment of 16 June 1995 in joined cases E-8/94 and E-9/94, Mattel and Lego [1994–95] EFTA Ct. Rep. 113.

  24. 24.

    See Restamark, cited above, para. 24 (referring to ECJ judgment of 27 April 1994 in case C-393/92, Almelo, EU:C:1994:171, para. 21), and of 27 January 2010 in case E-4/09, Inconsult Anstalt, [2009–2010] EFTA Ct. Rep p. 88, para. 23 (referring to ECJ judgments of 17 September 1997 in case C-54/96, Dorsch Consult, EU:C:1997:413, para. 23 and of 14 June 2001 in case C-178/99, Salzman, EU:C:2001:331, para. 13).

  25. 25.

    Inconsult Anstalt, cited above, para. 23.

  26. 26.

    See e.g. Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation, [2000] OJ L 303/16.

  27. 27.

    ECJ judgment of 13 June 2017 in case C-258/14, Florescu and Others, EU:C:2017:448.

  28. 28.

    Ibid., paras 48 and 49.

  29. 29.

    Ibid., para. 56.

  30. 30.

    Ibid., paras 57 and 58.

  31. 31.

    ECJ judgment of 6 November 2012 in case C-286/12, Commission v Hungary, EU:C:2012:687.

  32. 32.

    Ibid., para. 80.

  33. 33.

    Ibid., paras 68, 69 and 70.

  34. 34.

    Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses, cited above.

  35. 35.

    Ibid., para. 29.

  36. 36.

    Ibid., para. 32.

  37. 37.

    Ibid., para. 34.

  38. 38.

    Ibid., paras 42, 43 and 44. Regarding Article 47 of the Charter – which contains the notion of “independent and impartial tribunal” – the ECJ referred to ECJ judgments of 14 June 2017 in case C-685/15, Online Games and Others, EU:C:2017:452, para. 60; and of 13 December 2017 in case C-403/16, El Hassani, EU:C:2017:960, para. 40. As to the notion of “court or tribunal” set out in Article 267 TFEU, it referred to Wilson, cited above, para. 49, and Margarit Panicello, cited above, para. 37.

  39. 39.

    Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses, cited above, para. 45.

  40. 40.

    Ibid., para. 40.

  41. 41.

    Ibid., para. 46.

  42. 42.

    Ibid., para. 47.

  43. 43.

    Ibid., para. 50.

  44. 44.

    Ibid., para. 49.

  45. 45.

    ECJ Opinion 1/09 (Agreement creating a Unified Patent Litigation System) of 8 March 2011, EU:C:2011:123.

  46. 46.

    Ibid., para. 84.

  47. 47.

    Ibid., para. 85.

  48. 48.

    Achmea, cited above.

  49. 49.

    Ibid., para. 55.

  50. 50.

    Opinion 2/13 (Accession of the European Union to the ECHR), para. 191.

  51. 51.

    ECJ judgment of 9 March 2017 in case C-551/15, Pula Parking, EU:C:2017:193.

  52. 52.

    Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, [2012] OJ L 351/1.

  53. 53.

    Ibid., para. 42.

  54. 54.

    Ibid., para. 52.

  55. 55.

    Ibid., para. 54.

  56. 56.

    Ibid., para. 57.

  57. 57.

    ECJ judgment of 14 November 2013 in case C-60/12, Baláž, EU:C:2013:733.

  58. 58.

    Council Framework Decision 2005/214/JHA of 24 February 2005 on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties, [2005] OJ L 76/16, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, [2009] OJ L 81/24.

  59. 59.

    Baláž, cited above, para. 32.

  60. 60.

    Ibid., para. 36.

  61. 61.

    El Hassani, cited above, para. 40. See also Opinion of Advocate General Bobek in El Hassani, cited above, EU:C:2017:659, point 121.

  62. 62.

    Opinion of Advocate General Bobek in Pula Parking, cited above, EU:C:2016:825, point 100.

  63. 63.

    Wilson, cited above, paras. 49–52. That judgment does not concern the notion of “court or tribunal” within the meaning of Article 267 TFEU but within the meaning of Directive 98/5/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 February 1998 to facilitate practice of the profession of lawyer on a permanent basis in a Member State other than that in which the qualification was obtained, [1997] OJ L 77/36. However, in Wilson, the ECJ explicitly referred to its case law on Article 267 TFEU. Ibid., para. 48. Subsequently, the ECJ applied its main findings in Wilson – i.e. that judicial independence has an external and internal aspect – in the context of Article 267 TFEU. See, e.g., ECJ judgment of 17 July 2014 in joined cases C-58/13 and C-59/13, Torresi, EU:C:2014:2088, paras 96 and 97.

  64. 64.

    ECJ judgment of 31 January 2013 in case C-175/11, D. and A., EU:C:2013:45, para. 81.

  65. 65.

    Opinion of Advocate General Bobek in Pula Parking, cited above, point 102.

  66. 66.

    See, e.g., ECJ judgment of 25 June 2009 in case C-14/08, Roda Golf & Beach Resort, EU:C:2009:395, paras 33–34.

  67. 67.

    See ECJ judgment of 3 March 1994 in joined cases C-332/92, C-333/92 and C-335/92, Eurico Italia and Others, EU:C:1994:79, para. 11.

  68. 68.

    Council Framework Decision 2002/584/JHA of 13 June 2002 on the European arrest warrant and the surrender procedures between Member States, [2002] OJ L 190/1, as amended by Council Framework Decision 2009/299/JHA of 26 February 2009, [2009] OJ L 81/24.

  69. 69.

    See ECJ judgments of 10 November 2016 in case C-452/16 PPU, Poltorak, EU:C:2016:858; in case C-477/16 PPU, Kovalkovas, EU:C:2016:861, and in case C-453/16 PPU, Özçelik, EU:C:2016:860.

  70. 70.

    Poltorak, cited above, para. 32.

  71. 71.

    Ibid., para. 33.

  72. 72.

    Ibid., paras. 34 and 35.

  73. 73.

    Ibid., para. 37. Currently, each type of cooperation is defined in a separate Chapter of the Title relating to the AFSJ (i.e. Title V of Part Three of the TFEU), namely Chapter 4 (Articles 82 to 86 TFEU) for judicial cooperation and Chapter 5 (Articles 87 and 88 TFEU) for police cooperation.

  74. 74.

    Ibid., paras 44 and 45.

  75. 75.

    Kovalkovas, cited above, para. 47.

  76. 76.

    Özçelik, cited above, para. 34 (referring to ECJ judgment of 29 June 2016 in case C-486/14, Kossowski, EU:C:2016:483, para. 39).

  77. 77.

    Opinion of Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona in Özçelik, cited above, EU:C:2016:783, point 62 (referring to ECJ judgment of 12 December 1996 in joined cases C-74/95 and C-129/95, X, EU:C:1996:491, para. 19).

References

  • Broberg M, Fenger N (2014) Preliminary references to the European Court of Justice. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • De Witte B et al (eds) (2016) National courts and EU law: new issues, theories and methods. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts K (2017) La vie après l’avis: exploring the principle of mutual (yet not blind) trust. Common Mark Law Rev 54(3):805–840

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Court of Justice of the European Union, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg

    Koen Lenaerts

Authors
  1. Koen Lenaerts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. EFTA Court, Luxembourg City, Luxembourg

    Gunnar Selvik , Michael-James Clifton , Theresa Haas , Luísa Lourenço  & Kerstin Schwiesow , , ,  & 

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Lenaerts, K. (2019). On Judicial Independence and the Quest for National, Supranational and Transnational Justice. In: Selvik, G., Clifton, MJ., Haas, T., Lourenço, L., Schwiesow, K. (eds) The Art of Judicial Reasoning. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02553-3_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-02553-3_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-02552-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-02553-3

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation