The Taricco saga

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 4-11
Author(s):  
Stefano Manacorda
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Legal Regime ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
History Of ◽  
Grand Chamber ◽  
European Criminal Law

On 8 September 2015, a new chapter opened in the history of European Criminal Law as a consequence of the judgment issued by the Grand Chamber of the European Court of Justice in the Taricco case. As a background hereto, the complex series of judicial decisions that have taken place must be recalled, by stressing the role played – among others – by the Italian Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice (I). On such a basis, a comparative overview will allow us to identify some of the essential legal dilemmas at stake by focusing on the different conceptions surrounding the legal regime of time limitation for criminal offences and the wider implications arising therefrom (II). Apart from the divergence of perspectives which arises between the Italian and European judges, the judicial saga represents a turn in the history of the so-called European Criminal Law which deserves to be analysed.

Das „Kooperationsverhältnis“ zwischen Bundesverfassungsgericht und Europäischem Gerichtshof nach dem PSPP-Urteil

Der Staat ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 60 (1) ◽  
pp. 99-131
Author(s):  
Andrej Lang
Keyword(s):  
Network Structure ◽  
Third Parties ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
German Constitutional Court ◽  
Cooperative Relationship ◽  
Grand Chamber

Der Beitrag diskutiert die Konsequenzen des PSPP-Urteils für das Kooperationsverhältnis zwischen dem BVerfG und dem EuGH. Dabei wird für eine nüchternere Perspektive statt martialischer Zuspitzungen und gegen einseitige Schuldzuweisungen plädiert. Vielmehr sind wechselseitige Kooperation und Konfrontation in der netzwerkartigen Struktur der Gerichtsbeziehung angelegt. Deshalb markiert das Urteil zwar eine Krise, aber noch nicht das Ende des „Kooperationsverhältnisses“. Die Vorstellung, der Gerichtskonflikt lasse sich nur durch Dritte lösen, sei es in Form eines Vertragsverletzungsverfahrens, sei es durch eine spezielle Gerichtskammer für Kompetenzkonflikte, unterschätzt die fein ausbalancierte Funktionsweise des Gerichtsdialogs und birgt ein bedenkliches Eskalationspotenzial. Der Impuls, die Wiederherstellung der europäischen Rechtseinheit trotz grundlegendem Dissens rechtlich zu erzwingen, kann den Gerichtskonflikt auch eskalieren und eine Lösung zusätzlich erschweren. The article analyzes the consequences of the PSPP ruling for the cooperative relationship between the German Constitutional Court and the European Court of Justice. It argues for a sober perspective instead of martial exaggerations and against apportioning one-sided blame. Rather, reciprocal cooperation and confrontation are inherent in the network structure of the judicial relationship. Although the ruling creates a crisis, it does not yet mark the end of the “cooperative relationship”. The idea that the judicial conflict can only be resolved by third parties, whether in the form of infringement proceedings or by a Mixed Grand Chamber for the delimitation of EU competences, underestimates the delicately balanced functioning of the judicial dialogue and harbors a worrying potential for escalation. The impulse to legally enforce the restoration of European legal unity despite fundamental dissent may end up escalating the judicial conflict and making a solution even more difficult.

A Constitutional Court for Europe?

2004 ◽  
Vol 6 ◽  
pp. 1-34
Author(s):  
Anthony Arnull
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Council ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Future ◽  
Draft Constitution

The purpose of this article is to consider the effect of the draft Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe on the European Court of Justice (ECJ). At the time of writing, the future of the draft Constitution is somewhat uncertain. Having been finalised by the Convention on the Future of Europe in the summer of 2003 and submitted to the then President of the European Council, it formed the basis for discussion at an intergovernmental conference (IGC) which opened in October 2003. Hopes that the text might be finalised by the end of the year were dashed when a meeting of the IGC in Brussels in December 2003 ended prematurely amid disagreement over the weighting of votes in the Council. However, it seems likely that a treaty equipping the European Union with a Constitution based on the Convention’s draft will in due course be adopted and that the provisions of the draft dealing with the ECJ will not be changed significantly. Even if either assumption proves misplaced, those provisions will remain of interest as reflecting one view of the position the ECJ might occupy in a constitutional order of the Union.

The EC and WTO Trade and Environment Case Law: Procedural Aspects, Legal Principles and Institutional Matters

2000 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 327-350
Author(s):  
Nicola Notaro
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Trade And Environment ◽  
Legal Principles ◽  
Judicial Decisions ◽  
Appellate Body ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Court Of First Instance ◽  
Two Bodies

Hundreds of studies have been conducted by lawyers, economists and political scientists on international trade and environment, yet very few attempts have been made to compare judicial decisions adopted in this area by the European Court of Justice, its Court of First Instance, and GATT/WTO rulings on trade and environment. Most of the existing publications are either limited in scope, because they only focus on a comparison of two cases at any one time, or are outdated, especially in the light of innovative European and Appellate Body jurisprudence of the last few years. Here, a comparison of the main trade and environment themes traversing the two bodies of case-law, including procedural issues, will be undertaken. This will cast light on the means by which the current tension between trade and environment might be resolved. Account will be taken of the different “constitutional” positions of judicial bodies in the two legal orders, the role played by the presence (or absence) of the legislator, and its influence on reasoning in judicial decisions.

Negotiating the Foundations of European Law, 1950–57: The Legal History of the Treaties of Paris and Rome

2012 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 339-356 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANNE BOERGER-DE SMEDT
Keyword(s):  
Legal History ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
European Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Conscious Choice ◽  
History Of ◽  
The 1960S

AbstractThis article analyses how the seeds for the development of European law from the 1960s onwards were sown in the foundational treaties. It argues that despite the fact that both European treaties embodied a conscious choice by the majority of the governments not to establish the European Communities on a constitutional basis, a small number of politicians and jurists managed nonetheless to insert the potential for the constitutional practice. Following a chronological account of each set of negotiations, the article untangles the complex ideas and decisions, which crafted both the legal shape of the treaties and the jurisdiction of the new European Court of Justice.

scholarly journals The Randstad Case: Melki Reloaded? The Fundamental Right to Effective Judicial Protection as Battleground for Judicial Supremacy in European Law

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-68
Author(s):  
Orlando Scarcello
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
European Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Supremacy ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
The Eu

This paper will examine the recent preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice issued by the Italian Court of Cassation in the Randstad case, aimed at rearranging the internal constitutional separation between ordinary and administrative courts (article 111(8) of the Constitution). I will first provide some context on both the relations between Italian and EU courts (2.1) and on the confrontation between the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Court in interpreting article 111 (2.2). I will then specifically examine the referring order to the Court of Justice of the EU (3), focusing on the role of general clauses of EU law as articles 4(3) and 19 TEU and 47 of the Charter in it. Finally, I will consider the instrumental use of EU law made by the Cassation to overcome an unpleasant constitutional arrangement. This aligns Randstad with previous cases such as Melki or A v. B and may foster constitutional conflict in the future. 

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document