AI Summary & Key Takeaways
AI InsightThe reasons behind this development are threefold: first, the fundamental principles and the constitutional character of the EU law have already been well-established in the national legal orders by the 90s; second, during this period, the political institutions of the EU and the Member States have embarked upon a vigorious process of legislative activity; and third, the ongoing political redefinition process has obliged the Court to take a considerably less significant role.
📌 3 Key Takeaways
Abstract
The European Court of Justice has played a significant role as regards the proper interpretation and effective enforcement of EU law since the establishment of the integration process. The well functioning cooperation relationship between the national courts and the European Court of Justice has largely contributed to the success of the Court in that regard. Within confines of this articl,e an attempt will be made to analyse this crucial relationship and the reasons behind its relative smooth functioning to this day with a view to discern the patterns and atitudes which might jeopardise this cooperation. In that context, the claims regarding the so-called judicial activism of the European Court of Justice will be explored. Here it is argued that such claims are unfounded: the Court functions within the limits of its competences, and exercises its interpretative function in accordance with methods and techniques accepted in domestic or international law, albeit ocassionally in a controversial manner. Thus, the relative decrease in the number of the controversial judgments of the Court in the 90s stems only to a limited extent from the restraint triggered by the reaction of the national governments or the national courts. The reasons behind this development are threefold: first, the fundamental principles and the constitutional character of the EU law have already been well-established in the national legal orders by the 90s; second, during this period, the political institutions of the EU and the Member States have embarked upon a vigorious process of legislative activity; and third, the ongoing political redefinition process has obliged the Court to take a considerably less significant role.
Özet
The European Court of Justice has played a significant role as regards the proper interpretation and effective enforcement of EU law since the establishment of the integration process. The well functioning cooperation relationship between the national courts and the European Court of Justice has largely contributed to the success of the Court in that regard. Within confines of this articl,e an attempt will be made to analyse this crucial relationship and the reasons behind its relative smooth functioning to this day with a view to discern the patterns and atitudes which might jeopardise this cooperation. In that context, the claims regarding the so-called judicial activism of the European Court of Justice will be explored. Here it is argued that such claims are unfounded: the Court functions within the limits of its competences, and exercises its interpretative function in accordance with methods and techniques accepted in domestic or international law, albeit ocassionally in a controversial manner. Thus, the relative decrease in the number of the controversial judgments of the Court in the 90s stems only to a limited extent from the restraint triggered by the reaction of the national governments or the national courts. The reasons behind this development are threefold: first, the fundamental principles and the constitutional character of the EU law have already been well-established in the national legal orders by the 90s; second, during this period, the political institutions of the EU and the Member States have embarked upon a vigorious process of legislative activity; and third, the ongoing political redefinition process has obliged the Court to take a considerably less significant role.