Skip to main content

The Judicial Path to European Constitutionalism: The Role of the National Judge in the Multi-Level Dialogue

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Judicial Power in a Globalized World
  • 947 Accesses

Abstract

The purpose of this essay is to reconstruct how the integration process of the international and supranational Charters on fundamental rights within the multi-level system is changing the essence of the identity of the judge as conceived by the traditional nation-state model. This evolution concurs to carve out a growing trend that sees the ordinary judge as a pivot player of a judicial path to the European integration process. Judicial implementation of the fundamental rights provided by both the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the European Convention of Human Rights into national legal orders is nowadays the most significant test-bench. This process particularly brings into question two aspects of the traditional view of the role played by the judicial function in the nation-state. The first sensitive point regards the long-established way to conceive the illuminist idea of separation of powers, one of whose essential cores is the principle of submission of the judge to the primacy of statutory law, in which the states mostly tied to the civil law legal tradition are mainly rooted. Second, a process of sovereignty dilution calls into question the long-established conception of sovereignty in the modern state whose cornerstone is the legitimate claim of the nation-state to exert the sovereignty in an exclusive manner over its own territory. The multi-level integration process requires national judges to put into play new professional skills that are not necessarily part of their genetic heritage and to be able to manage the logic inherent to judge-made law systems. First, the ratio decidendi-oriented reasoning and the result-oriented approach characterising the epistemological approach of the European Court of Human Rights and the method of distinguishing on which it is grounded. Second, the para-legislative power of the European Court of Justice and the teleological-orientation of the EU legal order. Third, the cultural impact of both the European non-discrimination principle and the balancing test on the judicial practice. Forth, the impact of the principles of primacy of EU law and direct effect onto the traditional doctrine of the national sovereignty in the modern state.

Francesco Perrone is Labour Judge at Court of Padova. He holds a PhD in Constitutional Law.

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

Access this chapter

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
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
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.

    Cartabia (2007), p. 59.

  2. 2.

    Garapon and Allard (2005), passim.

  3. 3.

    de Charles Montesquieu (1748), Book XI, ch. 6.

  4. 4.

    See for example Article 101 § 2 of the Italian Constitution.

  5. 5.

    GC, C-441/14, Rasmussen v. Dansk Industri, 19.4.2016.

  6. 6.

    Gallo (2017), p. 249.

  7. 7.

    C.C., no. 115 of 10.4.2018.

  8. 8.

    ECJ, GC, C-42/17, M.A.S., M.B., 5.12.2017, GC, C-105/14, Taricco, 8.9.2015.

  9. 9.

    ECtHR, GC, 21.10.2013, Del Rio Prada v. Spain, no. 42750/2009.

  10. 10.

    See, for example, the ECtHR judgment 20.11.1989, Kostovski v. the Netherland, no. 11454/85, which led the Dutch Supreme Court to amend its own well-established case law on the use of statements anonymously made by witnesses during the preliminary investigation in criminal trials (H.R., no. 2.7.1990). See Efthymiou and de Wit (2013), p. 75.

  11. 11.

    Hartley (1986), p. 229.

  12. 12.

    ECJ, C-292/04, Wienand Meilicke and Others, 6.3.2007.

  13. 13.

    C.C., no. 311/2011, n. 241/2005, n. 125/2004.

  14. 14.

    A. Rosas (2007), Separation of powers in The European Union. https://scholar.smu.edu/til/vol41/iss4/6.

  15. 15.

    ECtHR, GC, 21.10.2013, Del Rio Prada v. Spain, no. 42750/2009.

  16. 16.

    S.C., no. 197 of 28.2.2006.

  17. 17.

    See also Kokkinakis v. Greece, 25.51993, no. 14307/88, §§ 40-41; Cantoni v. France, 15.11.1996, no. 17862/91, § 29; Coëme and Others v. Belgium, nos. 32492/96, 32547/96, 32548/96, 33209/96 and 33210/96, § 145; E.K. v. Turkey, 7.2.2002, no. 28496/95, § 51.

  18. 18.

    C.C., no. 230 of 12.10.2012.

  19. 19.

    Article 673 c.p.p.

  20. 20.

    Pollard (2007), p. 15; Steyn (2006), pp. 243–246.

  21. 21.

    On the difference between potestas and auctoritas, see Res gestae divi Augusti, Pars prima, cap. XXXIV.

  22. 22.

    Halpérin (1989), p. 226; Idem (2014), p. 51; Palmer (1999), p. 277.

  23. 23.

    A. Cochin, L’esprit du jacobinisme, Paris, 1779, passim.

  24. 24.

    Bartole (1964); Guarnieri and Pederzoli (2007), p. 76.

  25. 25.

    Friedman (1994), p. 97; Casper (1980), p. 773; Garapon (1996), p. 31.

  26. 26.

    U.S. Supreme Court, Marbury v. Madison, 1803; United States v. Nixon, 1974.

  27. 27.

    Dworkin (1977), p. 184.

  28. 28.

    Rawls (1983).

  29. 29.

    ECJ, C-26/62, Van Gend en Loos, 5.2.196; C-6/64, Costa v. Enel, 15.7.1964; C-106/77, Simmenthal, 9.3.1978.

  30. 30.

    ECJ, GC, C-106/89, Marleasing, 13.11.1990. See also C-282/10, Dominguez, 11.11.2015; C-91/92, Faccini Dori, 14.7.1994; C-129/96, Nier-Environnement Wallonie, 18.12.1997; C-131/97 Carbonari, 25.2.1999.

  31. 31.

    ECJ, GC, joined cases C-397/01 to C-403/01, Pfeiffer, 5.10.2004.

  32. 32.

    ECJ, GC, C-106/89, Marleasing, 13.11.1990, § 26; C-63/97, BMW, 23.2.1999, § 22; joined cases C-240/98 to C-244/98, Ocèano Grupo Editorial, 5.10.2004; C-408/01, Adidas-Salomon, 23.10.2003, § 21.

  33. 33.

    Bell (2003), p. 91.

  34. 34.

    ECJ, C-64/16, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses, 27.2.2018.

  35. 35.

    ECJ, C-32/12, Soledad Durante Hueros, 3.10.2013; joined cases C-568/14 to C-570/14, Fernández Oliva and others, 26.10.2016; C-101/01, Bodil Lindqvist’s, 6.11.2003.

  36. 36.

    ECJ, C-243/08, Pannon GSM Ztr., 4.6.2009, § 25.

  37. 37.

    ECJ, C-169/14, Sánchez Morcillo, 17.7.2014.

  38. 38.

    ECJ, C-43/75, Defrenne v. Sabena, 15.6.1978; C-11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, 17.12.1970; C-75/82, Razzouk and Beydoun v. Commission, 20.3.1984.

  39. 39.

    M. Barbera (2018), Principi contesi e contese su principi. Gli effetti dei principi di eguaglianza e non discriminazione nella giurisprudenza della Corte di Giustizia. http://csdle.lex.unict.it/Archive/WP/WP%20CSDLE%20M%20DANTONA/WP%20CSDLE%20M%20DANTONA-IT/20181008-105240_Barbera_n372-2018itpdf.pdf.

  40. 40.

    ECJ, C-43/75, Defrenne v. Sabena, 15.6.1978; ECtHR, Marckx v. Belgium, no. 6833/74, 13.6.1979; Abdulaziz v. The United Kingdom, no. 9214/80, 28.5.1985.

  41. 41.

    Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics. Chicago: University Chicago Press, Book 5, Ch. 5.

  42. 42.

    ECtHR, GC, Burden v. the United Kingdom, no. 13378/05, 29.4.2008; Guberina v. Croatia, no. 23682/13, 22.32016. ECJ, GC, Egenberger, C-414/16, 17.4.2018; GC, IR v. JQ, C-68/17, 11.9.2018; Abercrombie & Fitch Italia Srl, C-143/16, 19.7.2017.

  43. 43.

    ECtHR, Eweida v. United Kingdom, no. 46852/13, 15.1.2013. See, in particular, the joint partly dissenting opinion of Judges N. Vučinić and V. De Gaetano.

  44. 44.

    ECJ, Samira Achbita, C-157/2015, 14.3.2017.

  45. 45.

    ECJ, Asma Bougnaoui, C-188/2015, 14.3.2017.

  46. 46.

    V. De Gaetano (2014), Riflessioni sulla libertà di religione e di coscienza: l’articolo 9 della convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo. Online Working Paper, 61. http://www.cde.unict.it/quadernieuropei/linguistico-letterarie/61_2014.pdf.

  47. 47.

    Ghera (2003), p. 95; Kenner (2003), p. 19; Lenaerts and De Smijter (2001), p. 285.

  48. 48.

    Handbook on European non-discrimination law, 2018 edition, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, European Court of Human Rights, 92. https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2018/handbook-european-law-non-discrimination.

  49. 49.

    ECtHR, GC, Bărbulescu v. Romania, no. 61496/08, 5.9.2017.

  50. 50.

    Perrone (2018), p. 283.

  51. 51.

    C.C., judgment no. 49 of 14.1.2015.

  52. 52.

    See, ex multis, ECHR, GC, Lekić v. Slovenia, 11.12.2018, no. 36480/07, § 107-112.

  53. 53.

    ECJ, C-106/77, Simmenthal SpA, 9.3.1978.

  54. 54.

    C.C., no. 17 of 18.6.1984.

  55. 55.

    Craig (2009), p. 349.

  56. 56.

    In respect of Articles 21, 31 and 47 CFREU, see ECJ, GC, C-193/17, Cresco, 22.1.2019; GC, C-684/16, Max-Planck, 6.11.2018; GC, C-68/17, IR c. JQ, 11.9.2018; C-322/16, Global Starnet Ltd, 20.12.2017; GC, C-441/14, Rasmussen v. Dansk Industri, 19.4.2016.

  57. 57.

    ECJ, GC, C-414/16, Egenberger, 17.4.2018.

  58. 58.

    C.C., no. 269 of 14.12.2017.

  59. 59.

    D. Gallo (2019), Efficacia diretta del diritto UE, procedimento pregiudiziale e Corte Costituzionale: una lettura congiunta delle sentenze n. 269/2017 e 115/2018. Rivista AIC, https://www.rivistaaic.it/images/rivista/pdf/1_2019_Gallo.pdf.

  60. 60.

    R. Conti (2019), Giudice comune e diritti protetti sulla Carta UE. https://www.europeanrights.eu.

References

  • Bartole, S. (1964). Autonomia e indipendenza dell’ordine giudiziario. Padova: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell, M. (2003). The right to equality and non-discrimination. In T. Hervey & J. Kenner (Eds.), Economic and social rights under the EU Charter of fundamental rights. A legal perspective (p. 91). Oxford/Portland: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cartabia, M. (2007). L’ora dei diritti fondamentali nell’Unione europea, in I diritti in azione. Universalità e pluralismo dei diritti fondamentali nelle Corti europee (p. 59). Bologna: Il Mulino.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casper, G. (1980). Guardians of the constitution. Southern California Law Review, 53, 773.

    Google Scholar 

  • Craig, P. (2009). The legal effect of directives: Policy, rules and exceptions. European Law Review, 34, 349.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Charles Montesquieu, H. (1748). L’Esprit des Lois. Geneva: Barrillot.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking rights seriously (p. 184). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Efthymiou, N. S., & de Wit, J. C. (2013). The role of Dutch Courts in the protection of fundamental rights. Utrecht Law Review, 9, 75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, L. M. (1994). Total justice (p. 97). New York: Russell Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gallo, D. (2017). Controlimiti, identità nazionale e i rapporti di forza tra primato ed effetto diretto nella saga Taricco. Diritto dell’Unione Europea, 2, 249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garapon, A. (1996). Le gardien des promesses. Justice et démocratie (p. 31). Paris: Odile Jacob.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garapon, A., & Allard, J. (2005). Le juge dans la modialisation. Paris: Seuil.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ghera, F. (2003). Il principio di eguaglianza nella Costituzione italiana e nel diritto comunitario (p. 95). Padova: Cedam.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guarnieri, C., & Pederzoli, P. (2007). La magistratura nelle democrazie contemporanee (p. 76). Roma-Bari: Laterza.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpérin, J. (1989). Le Tribunal de Cassation et la naissance de la jurisprudence moderne. Une autre justice (p. 226). Paris: Fayard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halpérin, J. (2014). Five legal revolutions since the 17th century (p. 51). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, T. (1986). Federalism, courts and legal systems: The emerging constitution of the European community. American Journal of Comparative Law, 34(2), 229.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kenner, J. (2003). Economic and social rights in the EU legal order: The mirage of indivisibility. In T. Hervey & J. Kenner (Eds.), Economic and social rights under the EU charter of fundamental rights (p. 19). Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenaerts, K., & De Smijter, E. (2001). A “Bill of rights” for the European Union. Common Market Law Review, 285.

    Google Scholar 

  • Palmer, V. (1999). From embrace to Banishment: A study of judicial equity in France. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 47, 277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perrone, F. (2018). La tutela della privacy sul luogo di lavoro: il rinnovato dialogo tra Corte Europea dei Diritti dell’Uomo e giurisdizione nazionale dopo la sentenza Bărbulescu 2. Labor, 3, 283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pollard, D. (2007). Constitutional and administrative law: Text with material (p. 15). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1983). Political liberalism. New York: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steyn, L. (2006). Democracy, the rule of law and the role of judges. European Human Rights Law Review, 3, 243–246.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Francesco Perrone .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

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

Perrone, F. (2019). The Judicial Path to European Constitutionalism: The Role of the National Judge in the Multi-Level Dialogue. In: Pinto de Albuquerque, P., Wojtyczek, K. (eds) Judicial Power in a Globalized World. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20744-1_26

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-20744-1_26

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-030-20743-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-030-20744-1

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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics