12 October 2021
In the Courts the CJEU does not Trust?
In last week’s long-awaited judgment, the CJEU had the opportunity to revisit its case law concerning the national courts’ obligation to refer preliminary questions. The Court largely maintained its strict approach and thereby, at first sight, admits of little trust in the national courts’ handling of EU law. Upon closer inspection, however, an alternative reading of the judgment seems possible. Continue reading >>
0 
26 March 2020
The Court gives with one hand and takes away with the other
On March 26, the CJEU released a surprising – if not to say disappointing – judgment on the Polish system of disciplinary measures against judges. While the Court confirmed the ample material scope of Article 19(1)(2) TEU, it simultaneously restricted the procedural possibilities to remedy infringements via the preliminary reference procedure. Continue reading >>06 March 2019
Countering the Judicial Silencing of Critics: Novel Ways to Enforce European Values
The Polish government is stepping up its repression. The freedom of political speech is a main target. A national judge has not just the right but an outright duty to refer a case to the CJEU whenever the common value basis is in danger. Thus, a Polish judge faced with a case concerning the silencing of critics, must refer the matter to the CJEU and request an interpretation of Article 2 TEU in light of the rights at stake. Continue reading >>17 October 2018
Will Poland, With Its Own Constitution Ablaze, Now Set Fire to EU Law?
The Polish justice minister and Prosecutor-General Zbigniew Ziobro has asked the Constitutional Court to declare Art. 267 TFEU unconstitutional "to the extent that it allows referring to the Court [of Justice] a preliminary question … in matters pertaining to the design, shape, and organisation of the judiciary as well as proceedings before the judicial organs of a member state". If the Court adopts Ziobro's arguments, that will have drastic implications for the integrity of EU law. Continue reading >>11 September 2017
Das Bundesverfassungsgericht und die „Direktionskraft“ der Normen?
Mit seiner Vorlage zum EuGH in Sachen Quantitative Easing zeigt das Bundesverfassungsgericht einmal mehr, dass es bei der Beurteilung ökonomischer Zusammenhänge fundamental schief liegt. Weiterbildung ist angesagt. Continue reading >>16 August 2017
Summer of Love: Karlsruhe Refers the QE Case to Luxembourg
It seems that the BVerfG has learned a lesson. Yesterday’s referral about the the European Central Bank’s policy of Quantitative Easing (QE) sets a completely different tone. It reads like a modest and balanced plea for judicial dialogue, rather than an indictment. Fifty years after the original event, a new Summer of Love seems to thrive between the highest judicial bodies. It shows no traces of the aplomb with which Karlsruhe presented its stance to Luxembourg three years ago. Continue reading >>08 November 2016
Miller, Brexit and the (maybe not to so evil) Court of Justice
As strange as this might sound, hardcore Brexiteers have now their closest and most reliable ally not at home. But in what they have considered to be, all these years, the evil, monstrous, devilish, undemocratic, unelected, corrupt and dictatorial Court of Justice of the European Union. Continue reading >>08 November 2016
The Article 50 Litigation and the Court of Justice: Why the Supreme Court must NOT refer
Is the UK Supreme Court in the current Brexit case obliged to refer to the Luxembourg Court? If that were the case, the conformity of any Member State’s EU exit with its own constitutional requirements would be open to review by the CJEU – and hence could no longer be qualified as an act of self-determination since a EU institution would have the final say on it. Continue reading >>06 November 2016