Abstract
Drawing on insights from legal theory and political science, this third chapter advances a theoretical framework on the nature and long-term legitimacy-strengthening effects of reasoning by precedent. These legitimacy-strengthening effects are explored for two distinct categories of CJEU interlocutors. That is, first, the Court’s judicial interlocutors, most notably, litigant parties and national courts and, second, non-judicial interlocutors, that is, most importantly, Member States. The theoretical perspectives adduced in the two sections run parallel to one another. Each subsection discusses first, generally, the manner in which adherence to precedent aids the Court in cultivating well-functioning, cooperative relations with each set of interlocutors and how this strengthens the overall positive reception of the Court’s activities by these interlocutors. Next, the sections turn to review how precedents’ legitimating influence, over time, moves beyond the context of singular cases to start operating within the broader, long-term development of these relations.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The standard volume in this regard is that of MacCormick and Summers (1997) who provide a comparative overview of precedents across European legal systems. More recent enquiries into the subject have been provided by Komarek (2009, 2013). See also Pelc (2014) or Lupu and Voeten (2012) on precedent-formation in international law systems.
- 2.
Further categories of interlocutors can of course be identified. To begin with, in the legal-judicial sphere, precedent-based reasoning can also bolster the legitimacy of the Court’s reasoning vis-à-vis academics (see on CJEU-legal scholars’ interactions e.g., Schepel & Wesseling, 1997). Relying on precedent can also be expedient in the context of interactions with other supra-state courts, most notably the ECtHR (see on discursive interactions between the CJEU and the ECtHR for instance Schimmelfennig, 2006). Furthermore, it is plausible that precedent-based reason-giving could be of use, not only in relation to ‘external’ interlocutors, but also vis-à-vis ‘internal’ interlocutors, that is, fellow judges. By grounding their arguments in previously approved Court decisions, judges may find it easier to convince their peers of the appropriateness of their reasoning (see e.g., Jacob, 2014, for suggestions along these lines). These additional categories of interlocutors, however, fall outside of the scope of the research questions guiding the present study.
- 3.
In expounding this reasoning, McCown’s contentions strongly mirror Alter’s time horizons argument. The authorship of Alter is not engaged with, however, nor referred to. Alter, vice versa, has not connected her observations explicitly to the insights of studies that engage with the workings of precedent.
References
Primary Sources
CJEU Case Law
Case C-26/62 NV Algemene Transport- en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Netherlands Inland Revenue Administration [1963] ECR 13.
Case C-6/64 Flaminio Costa v E.N.E.L. [1964] ECR 585.
Case C-85/96 María Martínez Sala v Freistaat Bayern [1998] ECR I-2691.
Other Documents
Court of Justice of the European Union. (2017). Annual Report 2016. The Year in Review. Retrieved from https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2017-04/ragp-2016_final_en_web.pdf
Literature
Alter, K. (1996). The European Court’s Political Power. West European Politics, 19(3), 458–487.
Alter, K. (1998). Who are the Masters of the Treaty? European Governments and the European Court of Justice. International Organization, 25(1), 125–152.
Alter, K. (2008). Agents or Trustees? International Courts in their Political Context. European Journal of International Relations, 14(1), 33–63.
Arnull, A. (1993). Owning up to Fallibility: Precedent and the Court of Justice. Common Market Law Review, 30(2), 247–266.
Bankowski, Z., MacCormick, N., Morawski, L., & Ruiz Miguel, A. (1997). Rationales for Precedent. In N. MacCormick & R. Summers (Eds.), Interpreting Precedents: A Comparative Study (pp. 481–503). Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
Barceló, J. (1997). Precedent in European Community Law. In N. MacCormick & R. Summers (Eds.), Interpreting Precedents: A Comparative Study (pp. 407–436). Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
Beck, G. (2012). The Legal Reasoning of the Court of Justice of the EU. Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Bengoetxea, J. (1993). The Legal Reasoning of the European Court of Justice. Oxford: Claredon Press.
Bengoetxea, J., MacCormick, N., & Moral Soriano, L. (2001). Integration and Integrity in the Legal Reasoning of the European Court of Justice. In G. de Búrca & J. Weiler (Eds.), The European Court of Justice (pp. 43–85). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Blauberger, M. (2012). With Luxembourg in Mind…The Remaking of National Policies in the Face of ECJ Jurisprudence. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(1), 109–126.
Blauberger, M. (2014). National Responses to European Court Jurisprudence. West European Politics, 37(3), 457–474.
Bobek, M. (2013). Of Feasibility and Silent Elephants: The Legitimacy of the Court of Justice through the Eyes of National Courts. In M. Adams, H. de Waele, J. Meeusen, & G. Straetmans (Eds.), Judging Europe’s Judges—The Legitimacy of the Case Law of the European Court of Justice (pp. 197–234). Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Burley, A.-M., & Mattli, W. (1993). Europe before the Court: A Political Theory of Legal Integration. International Organization, 47(1), 41–76.
Chalmers, D., & Chaves, M. (2012). The Reference Points of EU Judicial Politics. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(1), 25–42.
Cichowski, R. (2004). Women’s Rights, the European Court, and Supranational Constitutionalism. Law & Society Review, 38(3), 489–512.
Cichowski, R. (2007). The European Court and Civil Society: Litigation, Mobilization and Governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Conant, L. (2002). Justice Contained: Law and Politics in the European Union. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Conway, G. (2012). The Limits of Legal Reasoning and the European Court of Justice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Dawson, M. (2014). How Does the European Court of Justice Reason? A Review Essay on the Legal Reasoning of the European Court of Justice. European Law Journal, 20(3), 423–435.
De Búrca, G. (2001). Introduction. In G. de Búrca & J. Weiler (Eds.), The European Court of Justice (pp. 1–8). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Garrett, G. (1995). The Politics of Legal Integration in the European Union. International Organization, 49(1), 171–181.
Garrett, G., Kelemen, R. D., & Schulz, H. (1998). The European Court of Justice, National Governments, and Legal Integration in the European Union. International Organization, 52(1), 149–176.
Golding, M. (1984). Legal Reasoning. New York: Knopf.
Granger, M.-P. (2004). When Governments Go to Luxembourg…: The Influence of Governments on the Court of Justice. European Law Review, 29(1), 3–31.
Hart, H. L. A. (1994). The Concept of Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Itzcovich, G. (2009). The Interpretation of Community Law by the European Court of Justice. German Law Journal, 10(5), 537–560.
Jacob, M. (2014). Precedents and Case-based Reasoning in the European Court of Justice: Unfinished Business. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Kelemen, D. (2011). Eurolegalism: The Transformation of Law and Regulation in the European Union. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Komarek, J. (2009). Precedent and Judicial Lawmaking in Supreme Courts: The Court of Justice Compared to the US Supreme Court and the French Cour de Cassation. In C. Barnard & O. Odudu (Eds.), Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies (Vol. 11, pp. 399–434). Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Komarek, J. (2013). Reasoning with Previous Decisions: Beyond the Doctrine of Precedent. American Journal of Comparative Law, 61(1), 149–171.
Lasser, M. D. S.-O.-L.’. E. (2009). Judicial Deliberations: A Comparative Analysis of Judicial Transparency and Legitimacy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lenaerts, K. (2015). EU Citizenship and the European Court of Justice’s ‘Stone-by-Stone’ Approach. International Comparative Jurisprudence, 1, 1–10.
Lupu, Y., & Voeten, E. (2012). Precedent in International Courts: A Network Analysis of Case Citations by the European Court of Human Rights. British Journal of Political Science, 42(2), 413–439.
MacCormick, N., & Summers, R. (1997). Interpreting Precedents: A Comparative Study. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
Maduro, M. P. (2007). Interpreting European Law: Judicial Adjudication in a Context of Constitutional Pluralism. European Journal of Legal Studies, 1(2), 1–21.
Mattli, W., & Slaughter, A.-M. (1995). Law and Politics in the European Union: A Reply to Garrett. International Organization, 49(1), 183–190.
Mattli, W., & Slaughter, A.-M. (1998). Revisiting the European Court of Justice. International Organization, 52(1), 177–209.
McCown, M. (2003). The European Parliament before the Bench: ECJ Precedent and EP Litigation Strategies. Journal of European Public Policy, 10(6), 974–995.
Pelc, K. (2014). The Politics of Precedent in International Law: A Social Network Application. American Political Science Review, 108(3), 547–564.
Pierson, P. (1996). The Path to European Integration: A Historical Institutionalist Perspective. Comparative Political Studies, 29(2), 123–163.
Pierson, P. (2000). Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics. American Political Science Review, 94(02), 251–267.
Rasmussen, H. (1986). On Law and Policy in the European Court of Justice: A Comparative Study in Judicial Policymaking. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Shapiro, M., & Stone Sweet, A. (2002). On Law, Politics, and Judicialization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schauer, F. (1987). Precedent. Stanford Law Review, 39, 571–605.
Schepel, H., & Wesseling, R. (1997). The Legal Community: Judges, Lawyers, Officials and Clerks in the Writing of Europe. European Law Journal, 3(2), 165–188.
Schimmelfennig, F. (2006). Competition and Community: Constitutional Courts, Rhetorical Action, and the Institutionalization of Human Rights in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(8), 1247–1264.
Schmidt, S. (2012). Who Cares about Nationality? The Path-dependent Case Law of the ECJ from Goods to Citizens. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(1), 8–24.
Schmidt, S. (2014). Judicial Europeanisation: The Case of Zambrano in Ireland. West European Politics, 37(4), 769–785.
Stone Sweet, A. (2004). The Judicial Construction of Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Stone Sweet, A., & Stranz, K. (2012). Rights Adjudication and Constitutional Pluralism in Germany and Europe. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(1), 92–108.
Tridimas, T. (2012). Precedent and the Court of Justice: A Jurisprudence of Doubt? In J. Dickson & P. Eleftheriadis (Eds.), Philosophical Foundations of European Union Law (pp. 307–330). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weiler, J. (1991). The Transformation of Europe. Yale Law Journal, 100, 2403–2483.
Weiler, J. (1994). A Quiet Revolution. The European Court of Justice and Its Interlocutors. Comparative Political Studies, 26(4), 510–534.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 The Author(s)
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
De Somer, M. (2019). Precedents and Judicial Politics. In: Precedents and Judicial Politics in EU Immigration Law. European Administrative Governance. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93982-7_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93982-7_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-93981-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-93982-7
eBook Packages: Political Science and International StudiesPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)