Abstract
The EU legal order is autonomous vis-a-vis both the national and international legal orders. It has its own constitutional framework, its own founding principles and institutional structure, as well as a full set of legal rules to ensure its operation. In this legal order, the EU and its Member States—but also the Member States among themselves—are linked together in “an ever closer Union”. This close relationship involves a dialogue not only between the courts of the Member States and the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘Court of Justice’) but also among national courts themselves. Both of those dialogues are equally vital to uphold the rule of law within the EU. This article addresses both aspects of that judicial network.
This article is based on a lecture given on the occasion of the congress marking the 25th anniversary of the Academy of European Law in Trier on 19 October 2017. All opinions expressed herein are strictly personal to the author.
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.
Opinion 2/13, EU:C:2014:2454, para. 158.
- 2.
Halberstam (2008), p. 142.
- 3.
Case 106/77, Simmenthal, EU:C:1978:49, para. 21.
- 4.
Opinion 1/09, EU:C:2011:123, para. 69.
- 5.
Opinion 1/09, EU:C:2011:123, para. 66-69; Lenaerts (2013), p. 40.
- 6.
Opinion 1/09, EU:C:2011:123, para. 84.
- 7.
Case 314/85, Foto-Frost, EU:C:1987:452.
- 8.
Case C-54/07, Feryn, EU:C:2008:397, para. 19; Lenaerts (2013), p. 41.
- 9.
Case C-64/16, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses, EU:C:2018:117.
- 10.
Ibid., para 32.
- 11.
Ibid., para. 34.
- 12.
Ibid., paras 42, 43 and 44. Regarding Article 47 of the Charter—which contains the notion of ‘independent and impartial tribunal’, the Court of Justice referred to Case C-685/15, Online Games and Others, EU:C:2017:452, para. 60; and 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 Case C-506/04, Wilson, EU:C:2006:587, para. 49, and Case C-503/15, Margarit Panicello, EU:C:2017:126, para. 37.
- 13.
Case 106/77, Simmenthal, EU:C:1978:49, para. 21-23.
- 14.
Case 106/77, Simmenthal, EU:C:1978:49, para. 19-20; Case C-689/13, PFE, EU:C:2016:199, para. 38-41.
- 15.
Case C-378/08, ERG, EU:C:2010:126, para. 32.
- 16.
Case C-689/13, PFE, EU:C:2016:199.
- 17.
Case C-100/12, Fastweb, EU:C:2013:448.
- 18.
Case C-689/13, PFE, EU:C:2016:199, para. 32-35.
- 19.
Case C-614/14, Ognyanov, EU:C:2016:514.
- 20.
Case C-614/14, Ognyanov, EU:C:2016:514, para. 22-23.
- 21.
Case C-614/14, Ognyanov, EU:C:2016:514, para. 25.
- 22.
Case C-72/15, Rosneft, EU:C:2017:236, para. 58-81.
- 23.
See also: Case C-455/14P, H v Council, EU:C:2016:569, para. 41.
- 24.
Case C-260/89, ERT, EU:C:1991:254, para. 41; Case C-299/95, Kremzow, EU:C:1997:254, para. 14; Case C-112/00, Schmidberger, EU:C:2003:333, para. 73; and Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P, Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, EU:C:2008:461, paras. 283 and 284.
- 25.
Case C-11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, EU:C:1970:114, para. 4, and Joined Cases C-402/05 P and C-415/05 P Kadi and Al Barakaat International Foundation v Council and Commission, EU:C:2008:461, para. 281-285; Opinion 2/13, EU:C:2014:2454, para. 166-170.
- 26.
Case C-617/10, Åkerberg Fransson, EU:C:2013:105, para. 17-21.
- 27.
Lenaerts (2017), pp. 808–812.
- 28.
Lenaerts (2017), pp. 808–812.
- 29.
Case C-452/16 PPU, Poltorak, EU:C:2016:858, para. 28-35.
- 30.
See also: Case C-453/16 PPU, Özçelik, EU:C:2016:860.
- 31.
Case C-477/16 PPU, Kovalkovas, EU:C:2016:861.
- 32.
Case C-452/16 PPU, Poltorak, EU:C:2016:858, para. 39-45.
- 33.
Case C-452/16 PPU, Poltorak, EU:C:2016:858, para. 44.
- 34.
Opinion 2/13, EU:C:2014:2454, para. 192.
- 35.
Joined Cases C-411 and 493/10, N.S. and M.E., EU:C:2011:865, para. 94.
- 36.
Case C-578/16 PPU, C.K., EU:C:2017:127, para. 91-93.
- 37.
Joined Cases C-404 and 659/15 PPU, Aranyosi and Căldăraru, EU:C:2016:198, para. 85-89.
- 38.
Joined Cases C-404 and 659/15 PPU, Aranyosi and Căldăraru, EU:C:2016:198, para. 93-95.
- 39.
Lenaerts (2017), pp. 836, 840.
- 40.
Case C-216/18 PPU, Minister for Justice and Equality v LM (Deficiencies in the system of justice), EU:C:2018:586.
- 41.
See, in this regard, recital 10 of 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 2009 L 81/24.
References
Halberstam D (2008) Comparative federalism and the role of the judiciary. In: Whittington K, Kelmen D, Caldeira G (eds) The Oxford Handbook of Law and Politics. Oxford University Press, Oxford, p 142
Lenaerts K (2013) The Court’s outer and inner selves: exploring the external and internal legitimacy of the European Court of Justice. In: Adams M, de Waele H, Meeusen J, Straetmans G (eds) Judging Europe’s judges: the legitimacy of the case law of the European Court of Justice. Hart Publishing, Oxford, p 40
Lenaerts K (2017) La vie après l’avis: exploring the principle of mutual (yet not blind) trust. Common Mark Law Rev 54(3):805 ff
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Lenaerts, K. (2019). The Court of Justice of the European Union as the guardian of the authority of EU law: A networking exercise. In: Heusel, W., Rageade, JP. (eds) The Authority of EU Law. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58841-3_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-58841-3_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-662-58840-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-662-58841-3
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)