Abstract
The chapter is based on the premise that economics may present epistemic difficulties for judges. It offers to conceptualize situations where judges may or have to apply economic thinking. The chapter focuses on four model categories where judges intentionally or unintentionally use economic considerations and economic arguments, or where there is a place for an economic consideration to be employed: issue of procedural economy and efficient management in everyday decision-making, abstract economic reasoning in explicitly economic fields of law, economic analysis of facts, and awareness of different economic theories that may have an impact on the judicial decision-making.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
- 2.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance, T-83/91, Tetra Pak v. Commission, ECLI:EU:T:1994:246, para 137.
- 3.
Judgment of the Court of First Instance, T-340/03, France Télécom v. Commission, ECLI:EU:T:2007:22, para 224.
- 4.
More examples in Hubková (2014).
- 5.
- 6.
The determination of detailed rules on how the courts should estimate damages is left to national law (Recital 46 of the Directive). In Czech law, see the judgment of the Supreme Court, 21 December 2009, no. 30 Cdo 5188/2007 or the judgment of the High Court in Prague, 17 January 2012, no. 4 Cmo 29/2011-252.
- 7.
Communication from the Commission on quantifying harm in actions for damages based on breaches of Article 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (Text with EEA relevance) (2013/C 167/07), p. 3.
- 8.
Communication from the Commission. Guidelines for national courts on how to estimate the share of overcharge which was passed on to the indirect purchaser (2019/C 267/07).
- 9.
Similarly, in the field of tax law, see the judgment of the CJEU, C-147/01, Weber’s Wine World and Others, EU:C:2003:533, paras 96 and 100.
- 10.
See Broulík (2020).
- 11.
See, for example, a judgment of the UK court: The High Court of Justice. Queen’s Bench Division. BSkyB v. EDS, [2010] EWHC 86 (TCC) (26/01/2010), para 303.
- 12.
See Giocoli (2020).
- 13.
It is important to note that the previous two categories of use of economics are typically influenced by a leading economic theory. Even the experts hired by opposing parties usually subscribe to the same theory and they disagree on how it applies to the facts.
- 14.
Arguably, the process of European integration was influenced significantly by ordoliberalism. See, for example, Nedergaard (2013).
- 15.
See article 3(3) TEU that stipulates that the EU “shall work for the sustainable development of Europe based on balanced economic growth and price stability” (emphasis added).
- 16.
Judgment of the Court of Justice, C-438/05, Viking Line, ECLI:EU:C:2007:772, para 44.
- 17.
Ibid., para 72.
- 18.
Ibid., para 90.
- 19.
Judgment of the Court of Justice, C-112/00, Schmidberger v. Austria, ECLI:EU:C:2003:333, paras 78–79.
- 20.
On the basic economic model of the legal process, see Cserne (2020, pp. 35–37).
- 21.
The examples are taken from Czech law, but they may appear in other jurisdictions as well.
- 22.
Article 219a and article 221 of the Act no. 99/1963 Sb., Czech Civil procedural code.
- 23.
Article 112 of the Act no. 99/1963 Sb., Czech Civil procedural code.
- 24.
Article 109(2)(c) of the Act no. 99/1963 Sb., Czech Civil procedural code.
- 25.
Article 135(2) of the Act no. 99/1963 Sb., Czech Civil procedural code.
- 26.
In general, Czech courts are not very keen to stay proceedings on competition damages. For example, in case no 15 Cm 56/2012, the Municipal Court in Prague (first-instance court) stayed proceedings in order to wait for the decision of the competition authority, but the High Court in Prague (appeal court) dismissed this decision saying that it would delay the exercise of justice excessively (case no Cmo 126/2013-437) and ordered the first-instance court to continue.
References
Aghion, Philippe, and Peter W. Howitt. 1997. Endogenous Growth Theory. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Beker, Víctor A., ed. 2019. Alternative Approaches to Economic Theory: Complexity, Post Keynesian and Ecological Economics. Routledge Frontiers of Political Economy. New York: Routledge.
Brisimi, Vasiliki S. 2016. The Interface between Competition and the Internal Market: Market Separation under Article 102 TFEU. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Broulík, Jan. 2020. What is Forensic Economics? In Economics in Legal Reasoning, ed. Péter Cserne and Fabrizio Esposito, 83–99. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Bugaric, Bojan. 2013. Europe Against the Left? On Legal Limits to Progressive Politics. LSE “Europe in Question” Discussion Paper Series, No. 61.
Canale, Damiano, and Giovanni Tuzet. 2020. What is Legal Reasoning About: A Jurisprudential Perspective. In Economics in Legal Reasoning, ed. Péter Cserne and Fabrizio Esposito, 9–24. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Coviello, Decio, Andrea Ichino, and Nicola Persico. 2014. Time Allocation and Task Juggling. American Economic Review 104 (2): 609–623. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.2.609.
Cserne, Péter. 2020. Economic Approaches to Legal Reasoning: An Overview. In Economics in Legal Reasoning, ed. Péter Cserne and Fabrizio Esposito, 25–41. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Durand, Benoît, and Iestyn Williams. 2017. The Importance of Accounting for Passing-on When Calculating Damages That Result from Infringement of Competition Law. ERA Forum 18 (1): 79–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12027-017-0458-3.
Epstein, Lee, and Jack Knight. 2017. The Economic Analysis of Judicial Behavior. In The Oxford Handbook of U.S. Judicial Behavior, ed. Lee Epstein and Stefanie A. Lindquist. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Epstein, Richard Allen. 1996. Economics and the Judges. The Case for Simple Rules and Boring Courts. New Zealand Business Roundtable.
Giocoli, Nicola. 2020. Why US Judges Reject Economic Experts? In Economics in Legal Reasoning, ed. Péter Cserne and Fabrizio Esposito, 101–117. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Grubbs, Shelby R. 2003. International Civil Procedure. WLGS 5. The Hague: Kluwer Law International.
Hős, Nikolett. 2010. The Principle of Proportionality in Viking and Laval: An Appropriate Standard of Judicial Review? European Labour Law Journal 1 (2): 236–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/201395251000100204.
Hubková, Pavlína. 2014. Economic Reasoning in the Court of Justice of the EU: A Study on the Use of Economics in Competition Case-Law. EUI LLM thesis. http://hdl.handle.net/1814/34406
Kaupa, Clemens. 2013. Maybe Not Activist Enough? On the Court’s Alleged Neoliberal Bias in Its Recent Labor Cases. In Judicial Activism at the European Court of Justice, ed. Mark Dawson, Bruno de Witte, and Elise Muir, 56–75. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing Limited.
Krajewski, Michał. 2019. The Many-Faced Court: The Value of Participation in Annulment Proceedings. European Constitutional Law Review 15 (2): 220–246. https://doi.org/10.1017/S157401961900018X.
Lavoie, Marc. 2011. History and Methods of Post-Keynesian Economics. In A Modern Guide to Keynesian Macroeconomics and Economic Policies, ed. Eckhard Hein and Engelbert Stockhammer. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Lawson, Tony. 2006. The Nature of Heterodox Economics. Cambridge Journal of Economics 30 (4): 483–505. https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bei093.
Lenaerts, Koen. 2012. Exploring the Limits of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. European Constitutional Law Review 8 (3): 375–403. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019612000260.
MacCormick, Neil. 1978. Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. Clarendon Law Series. Oxford [Eng.]; New York: Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press.
Menéndez, Agustín José. 2011. A Proportionate Constitution? Economic Freedoms, Substantive Constitutional Choices and Dérapages in European Union Law. In Hope, Reluctance or Fear? The Democratic Consequences of the Case Law of the European Court of Justice, ed. Flavia Carbonell, Agustín José Menéndez, and John Erik Fossum, 167–252. Oslo: ARENA Centre for European Studies.
Mulder, Jotte. 2018. Unity and Diversity in the European Union’s Internal Market Case Law: Towards Unity in ‘Good Governance’? Utrecht Journal of International and European Law 34 (1): 4–23. https://doi.org/10.5334/ujiel.454.
Nedergaard, Peter. 2013. The Influence of Ordoliberalism in European Integration Processes—A Framework for Ideational Influence with Competition Policy and the Economic and Monetary Policy as Examples. MPRA Paper, No. 52331. https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/52331/
Palumbo, Giuliana, Giulia Giupponi, Luca Nunziata, and Juan S. Mora-Sanguinetti. 2013. The Economics of Civil Justice: New Cross-Country Data and Empirics. OECD Economics Department Working Papers 1060. https://doi.org/10.1787/5k41w04ds6kf-en
Posner, Richard A. 2007. Economic Analysis of Law. 7th ed. New York: Aspen.
Reinert, Erik S., Jayati Ghosh, and Rainer Kattel, eds. 2016. Handbook of Alternative Theories of Economic Development. Cheltenham, UK and Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Samuelson, Paul A. 1948. International Trade and the Equalisation of Factor Prices. The Economic Journal 58 (230): 163. https://doi.org/10.2307/2225933.
Sibony, Anne-Lise. 2012. Limits of Imports from Economics into Competition Law. In The Global Limits of Competition Law, ed. Ioannis Lianos and Daniel D. Sokol, 39–53. Stanford: Stanford Law Books.
Voigt, Stefan. 2016. Determinants of Judicial Efficiency: A Survey. European Journal of Law and Economics 42: 183–208.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Hubková, P. (2020). Economics in Judicial Decision-Making: Four Types of Situations Where Judges May Apply Economics. In: Cserne, P., Esposito, F. (eds) Economics in Legal Reasoning. Palgrave Studies in Institutions, Economics and Law. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40168-9_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-40168-9_4
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-40167-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-40168-9
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)