26 May 2020
The European Court of Justice Enters a New Era of Scrutiny
Among the many unintended consequences of the PSPP judgment, the most unforeseen of all was to thrust the Court of Justice of the European Union into the limelight. All of a sudden, the media coverage is no longer limited to what the CJEU decides but how it decides and operates. Continue reading >>
1 
22 May 2020
Squaring the PSPP Circle
The PSPP judgment made a core problem of the European Union painfully visible as the supremacy of EU law clashed with national constitutional identity. There is, however, a possibility to square this circle: national apex courts could be empowered to issue ‘declarations of incompatibility’ under Article 4(2) TEU as an alternative to the disapplication of EU law. Continue reading >>20 May 2020
From Dialogue to Trialogue
The current clash between the Federal Constitutional Court and the ECJ should not obscure the fact that none of the two courts fits the cliché they are often turned into. A view at some ECJ decisions regarding criminal law makes this clear. Nonetheless, the dynamic between the courts must change – maybe the European citizen can step in and offer help. Continue reading >>
0
20 May 2020
When is a Court a Court?
The PSPP decision is not the first time a national court objected the CJEU. In Ajos, for example, the Danish Supreme Court rebelled against conform interpretation. The PSPP decision is nonetheless different: It is a challenge on a whole new level. Continue reading >>
0
05 February 2020
You Can’t Forbid Judges to Think
The Polish judiciary is split apart. One part adheres to the ruling of the Court of Justice of the EU of 19th November 2019, another does not. This legal chaos and catastrophe was caused by the recent judicial reforms and it deprives citizens of the most important right – to be certain what their legal situation in court is. Continue reading >>
0
23 January 2020
Only a Court Established by Law Can Be an Independent Court
In A.K. and others, the European Court of Justice established a detailed method for assessing the independence (or lack thereof) of courts. The judicial independence test laid down by the ECJ, however, may not be entirely fit for the purpose of assessing the lawfulness of courts and judges which are established and appointed on the basis of flawed procedures by bodies arguably violating basic judicial independence requirements as established in EU law. The ECJ appears to limit the required verification under EU law to the issue of independence only. Instead, the reviewing body should, first, check whether the challenged court (judge) is “established by law” and only then, if necessary, follow up on the examination of its independence. Today the Polish Supreme Court has the opportunity to step up and give full effect to that criterion. Continue reading >>
0
18 December 2019
Brexit and the CJEU: why the Opinion of the Court Should be Sought as a Matter of Emergency
With the comfortable majority he managed to secure in the Commons, Boris Johnson is now very likely to be able to push through the British Parliament the withdrawal agreement he negotiated with the European Union back in October. Provided that the European Parliament greenlights it quickly enough, it may well come into force by 31 January 2020, deadline of the last extension decision agreed between the EU-27 and the UK. However, one actor of the process seems to have been forgotten: the Court of Justice of the European Union. This could end up being a huge mistake. Continue reading >>11 December 2019
Open Letter to the President of the European Commission
Ever since the European Commission initiated a third infringement procedure in respect to the recurrent attacks on the rule of law by Polish authorities last April, the situation has continued to seriously deteriorate. It is now upon the Commission to promptly submit to the European Court of Justice an application for interim measures in the infringement case C-791/19 Commission v Poland now pending before the Court of Justice. Continue reading >>21 August 2019
In Rights We Trust
Cases concerning the execution of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) provide seemingly endless material for new questions of fundamental importance to the relationship of the multiple constitutional layers in Europe. In a barely noted judgment in the case of Romeo Castaño v. Belgium, the European Court of Human Rights has now added an important piece to this puzzle. The judgment indicates that, in the light of other recent jurisprudence of both the Court of Justice of the EU and the ECtHR, both Courts are on their way to find a workable framework to address some of the issues in this field. Continue reading >>28 July 2019