Entrapment between Two Pillars: The European Court of Justice Rulings in Criminal Law

Abstract:  This article deals with the possibility of adopting criminal law provisions on a first pillar legal basis. The analysis focuses on two decisions of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) dealing with the matter, with specific emphasis on the second one. The main problems debated are the legality principle, the implicit competence of the Community legislator, the criteria for establishing when there is a need for adopting criminal law provisions on an EC legal basis and the scope and depth of this competence. Comparing the arguments of the Advocate General with the ECJ's approach to the matter, the author tries to establish whether the right decision has been adopted and what the solutions for the future are.     

欧洲法院初步裁决制度评述

初步裁决制度是欧盟法中的一项特殊的法律程序制度,适用初步裁决制度的案件占欧洲法院受理案件量的大多数.欧洲法院通过初步裁决制度对欧盟法进行解释,积极扩张其司法管辖的范围,促进了自身和成员国法院的合作,保证了欧盟法律在属于不同法律体系、适用不同诉讼规则的各成员国法院的统一适用,成为推动欧洲一体化进程的重要力量.就初步裁决的运行机制、这一制度本身存在的主要问题以及该制度的改革等进行了深入的探研,以期获得对欧盟法的这一重要制度的一个正确、客观、全面的认识.     

欧洲法院在欧洲一体化中的作用——对欧洲法院有关公司法裁决的分析

自1957年欧洲经济共同体成立以来,欧洲一体化始终是欧共体和欧盟的目标.欧洲共同市场的建设与运行,既是这一目标的核心组成部分,又是实现这一目标的主要途径.     

The Caribbean Court of Justice and the Legal Profession: Promoting a Caribbean Jurisprudence*

The author submits that the main purpose in the establishment of the Caribbean Court of Justice (CCJ) is to promote the development of a Caribbean jurisprudence, based on the Commonwealth Caribbean's common historic, political, economic and cultural experiences and mutual history.

The article examines the role of final appellate courts, noting that judges of such courts must often choose between alternatives which are perfectly capable of being defended as rational, reasonable and consistent with ‘the law’. Factors such as life experiences, socialisation, and backgrounds all play a role in determining the choices that are ultimately made. This is why, the author underscores that ‘it is so important to have a diverse Bench, to have Judges from different backgrounds’.

For judges to come close to steering the right course they must have an understanding of the society that gives rise to the legal disputes. They must be grounded in that society. In this respect, the author argues, it is remarkable that the evolution of certain landmark judgments relating to human rights, particularly capital punishment, have been rendered by British judges, sitting and residing in England.

The article, which draws on a wealth of jurisprudence, proceeds to examine the original jurisdiction of the CCJ and the role of the Bar in defending the integrity of the Court and the justice system as well as in enhancing the quality of judgments.

Finally, it emphasises the need to promote Caribbean jurisprudence and access to local judgments. In this regard, it is lamented that many truly outstanding judgments of Caribbean judges do not receive the recognition they should because, if there is an appeal, they become almost automatically buried beneath the judgments of the higher court.     

The Demarcation of Straddling Villages in Accordance with the International Court of Justice Jurisprudence: The Cameroon-Nigeria Experience

Bi a ba ran eniyan ni ise eru ologbon afi ti omo je (Where instructionsare insensitive and befitting of a slave, a reasonable fellowamends it sensitively and delivers it in a manner befittingthe free).¹

The existence of straddling settlements between Cameroon andNigeria is one of the features of their geographical locationas neighbouring West African States. Although the existenceof these settlements did not constitute a central part of theboundary dispute between both States, implementation of therecent World Court judgment presents crucial dilemmas as tothe treatment of straddling communities in particular and, tosome extent, boundary villages as well. This article exploresthe alternatives that may be adopted in attaining a fair andjust implementation of the Court's judgment in relation to straddlingvillages and boundary communities. The delimitation and demarcationof straddling villages and villages that fall into another State'sterritory are bound to be an increasingly common feature ofthe work of international courts and demarcation commissionsas populations increase and the need to definitively specifyborders increases. It is, therefore, necessary that a specializedjurisprudence is developed for this area of law. This article,therefore, attempts to highlight difficulties in the jurisprudenceof the International Court of Justice in its work in this areaand suggests a typology of factors that may be adopted in varyingdelimitation lines by adjudicators and demarcators. It alsoattempts a digest of what may represent good practice in thelaw of boundary delimitation and demarcation by examining similarcases around the world. The argument presented is that thereis enough within the corpus of international law and internationalrelations for courts to avoid splitting communities needlesslyor subjecting populations to the whims and caprice of hostileStates' territorial jurisdiction, particularly in relation toa continent such as Africa, which has suffered a long and unfairhistory of balkanization of its peoples and civilizations. Thearticle makes the case that the World Court needs more law elaborationif not judicial activism in its delimitation work to avoid inadvertentcomplicity in the abuse of peoples' rights and to attain a morerobust resolution of boundary disputes. The view advanced isthat where aspects of the Court's delimitation may be unsatisfactoryand contrary to the mutual interests of disputants, those chargedwith the task of implementing the Court's judgment must notbe slavish in their appreciation of the spirit of judicial resolution.Where there is the danger that human and generational rightswould be needlessly compromised, nothing apart from an unimaginativeand unco-operative approach prevents demarcators from independentlyadopting a more holistic resolution of the dispute in the interestof human justice, such as by (within very strict limits) varyingdelimitation lines suggested by the Court in particular sectors.     

The European Court of Justice and the Rhetoric of Affirmative Action

The recent Marschall decision by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to uphold a principle giving precedence to women for promotions in the workplace seems promising for the future of affirmative action. At first glance, this decision seems to indicate that the ECJ has taken a different path, moving away from its earlier Kalanke decision which had jeopardised further development of affirmative action in the European Union. On a closer examination, both Kalanke’s sweeping ban of preferential treatment based on gender and Marschall’s new interpretation appear as discursive replies to the same dilemma: should the Court deny the normative objective of equality contained in EC law to generate meaning, thus turning equality into a mere formal principle and rendering judicial review trivial? Or should it embrace a substantive reading of the fundamental principle of equality between men and women, thus substituting the Court judgment for that of the legislature, and subverting the limits of the ECJ’s powers? The aim of this article is to analyse the ECJ’s rhetorical response to the complexities contained in affirmative action judicial review.     

Dismantling or Strengthening Labour Law: The Case of the European Court of Justice

Abstract: The European Court of Justice is increasingly accused of dismantling labour law. The unusually sharp criticism is mainly motivated by four determining, though concealed reasons. First, the fact that many decisions address conflicts familiar to national law which are however largely repressed in the national context; second, the crisis of the national labour markets and the ensuing attempts to fence them off from the consequences of advancing integration; third, the inconsistent policies of a Union caught between the prevailing orientation towards a distinctly economic Community and the demands of a slowly progressing political Union; and fourth, the Union's difficulties to meet its own claims. As a result, the Court of Justice is more and more distracted from its judicial role and forced into a regulatory function. Hence, it is important to recall that a consistent integration process inevitably requires abandoning national regulations and creating a growing body of common rules intended to realise the common objectives. Further, the Union must more than ever attempt to correct its structural deficiencies and lay down fundamental rights, both in order to give direction to its regulatory interventions, and to limit them. Finally, the time has come for a clear specialisation of the European Court of Justice itself, as well as a systematic review of the conditions governing preliminary rulings, in order to avoid any further instrumen-talisation of the Court for the solution ofinternal conflicts of the Member States.     

The Evolving Judicial Politics of European Integration: The European Court of Justice and national courts revisited

This article analyzes how the judicial politics sparked by the European Union's (EU) legal development have evolved over time. Existing studies have traced how lower national courts began cooperating with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to apply EU law because this empowered them to challenge government policies and the decisions of their domestic judicial superiors. We argue that the institutional dynamics identified by this ‘judicial empowerment thesis’ proved self‐eroding over time, incentivizing domestic high courts to reassert control over national judicial hierarchies and to influence the development EU law in ways that were also encouraged by the ECJ. We support our argument by combining an analysis of a dataset of cases referred to the ECJ with comparative case study and interview evidence. We conclude that while these evolving judicial politics signal the institutional maturation of the EU legal order, they also risk weakening the decentralized enforcement of European law.     

Comparative Institutional Analysis,the European Court of Justice and the General Principle of Non‐Discrimination—or—Alternative Tales on Equality Reasoning

The general principle of equality in European law is often held to be inconsistently applied by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and insufficiently supported by methodology. Contrary to this assessment, this paper argues that there is substantial coherence and theoretical underpinning to the court's equality reasoning. First, it shows that the respective case‐law can be subdivided into three groups, depending on the level of scrutiny applied. Second, it establishes that the prevailing accounts have difficulty in explaining the court's choice of scrutiny due to their limited selection of analytical parameters. Third, it concludes that comparative institutional analysis offers an alternative framework to make the ECJ's testing approaches in equality matters more intelligible.     

Direct Concern in Regional Policy: The European Court of Justice and the Southern Question

For a few years, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has declared inadmissible, for lack of direct concern, a number of annulment actions initiated by sub‐state actors in the context of regional policy. This article compares the ECJ's holdings with the General Court's more generous application of the ‘direct concern’ standard in some of the same disputes, and argues in favour of the General Court's approach. The cases hereby analysed pertain to the implementation of structural funds in Southern Italy. Relating regional policy to the historical unfolding of the ‘Southern Question’, this article examines the unexpected opportunity for civic and administrative renewal brought by regional policy to Italy's South in the late 1990s, and links standing for sub‐state actors to the long‐term realisation of that opportunity. It further argues that a more direct judicial involvement with territorial policies would prompt taxonomic renewal in EU law as a discipline.     

National Constitutional Jurisprudence in a Post‐National Europe: The ESM Ruling of the German Federal Constitutional Court and the Disavowal of Conflict

In its pending decision on the constitutionality of the European Stability Mechanism and Fiscal Compact, the German Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has recently ruled on several applications for temporary injunctions against the transposition of these instruments. The problem of democratic self‐determination under the constraints of monetary integration has been a main concern in the ruling. Yet, the democracy‐safeguards the FCC has prescribed are parochial in not considering their impact on other EU Member States, and the Court's view of autonomy is skewed towards the issue of spending. Both concepts are at odds with the current level of transnational interdependence, which the FCC as relay to ‘integration by stealth’ has facilitated during two decades of EU‐jurisprudence. Constitutional jurisdiction should acknowledge its role in this state of affairs and fortify its effort in building judicial networks of deliberative exchange to overcome outworn parochialisms.     

Between Procedural Impermeability and Constitutional Openness: The Italian Constitutional Court and Preliminary References to the European Court of Justice

On 15 April 2008, the Italian Constitutional Court (ICC) raised for the first time a preliminary question to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). This decision (see judgment No 102/2008 and order No 103/2008) represented a turning point in the ICC's case‐law, and calls for a careful assessment of the motives backing such revirement as well as of the legal reasoning that the Italian judges used to wrap it up without repudiating their previous case‐law. In addition to this preliminary analysis, the aim of this essay is to explore two themes: i) the developments of the ICC's case‐law as regards the role of Community Law and the ECJ, and ii) the appraisal of the interplay between the ICC and the ECJ in the light of the notion of ‘interpretive competition’.     

Enlargement at the European Court of Justice: Law,Language and Translation

The enlargement of the EU to 25 Member States in May 2005, followed by the accession of two more states in January 2007, raised a number of questions concerning the organisational structure of that Union—the sheer scale of the largest EU expansion to date highlighted the need to restructure EU institutions. For the European Court of Justice (ECJ), enlargement meant a huge influx of people to staff new divisions in the administrative hierarchy of the Court. This article describes the process and effects of enlargement at the ECJ, particularly in relation to translation and the language regime of that Court. Prior to the May 2004 and January 2007 enlargements there was a general perception among those working at the Court that enlargement would result in significant dislocation of life at that institution. In particular, it was felt that the translation directorate would not be able to cope with the addition of 11 ‘new’ languages to the list of official EU languages. The reality, however, was far from the disaster that many had predicted. That said, even a mere year following the May 2004 enlargement, a number of changes in the functioning and dynamics of that Court were already noticeable.     

The European Court of Justice and the Annulment of the Tobacco Advertisement Directive: Friend of National Sovereignty or Foe of Public Health?

In Case C-376/98 Germany v Council the European Court of Justice annulled a Directive which banned the advertisement and sponsorship of tobacco. The judgment sanctions regulatory policy-making at the national rather than the Community level. The paper examines the legal basis of the annulment, its effect on economic efficiency and the implied role of the Court in the formulation of public policy in Europe. Within the institutional limits of the judicial power to determine policy, the Court focused on whether or not disparate national laws restrict free movement and distort competition and affirmed the primacy of the nation state to regulate economic activity.