To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Find out more about sending to your Kindle.
Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account.
Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.
To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account.
Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
1 Case 26/62, Van Gend en Loos v. Nederlandse Administratie der Belastingen, ECLI:EU:C:1963:1, Judgment of 5 Feb. 1963.
3See, e.g., Case C-619/18, Comm’n v. Poland (Independence of the Supreme Court), 2019 E.C.R. 531, para. 47. See also Opinion 1/09, Agreement Creating a Unified Patent Litigation System, 2011 E.C.R. 123, para. 66; Case C-583/11 P, Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v. Parliament and Council, 2013 E.C.R. 625, para. 90; Case C-456/13 P, T & L Sugars and Sidul Açúcares v. Comm’n, 2015 E.C.R. 284, para. 45.
4See, e.g., Case 222/84, Johnston v. Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary, 1986 E.C.R. 206.
5See, e.g., Case C-409/06, Winner Wetten GmbH v. Bürgermeisterin der Stadt Bergheim, 2010 E.C.R. 503, para. 61 (holding that “[r]ules of national law, even of a constitutional order, cannot be allowed to undermine the unity and effectiveness of Union law”). See also Case 11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft mbH v. Einfuhr- und Vorratsstelle für Getreide und Futtermittel, 1970 E.C.R. 114, para. 3.
6See Case C-213/89, The Queen v. Secretary of State for Transport, ex parte: Factortame Ltd. and others, 1990 E.C.R. 257; Case 106/77, Amministrazione delle Finanze dello Stato v. Simmenthal SpA, 1978 E.C.R. 49; Joined Cases C-46/93 & 48/93, Brasserie du Pêcheur v. Germany, 1996 E.C.R. 79.
7 Opinion 2/13, Accession of the European Union to the ECHR, 2014 E.C.R. 2454, para. 176; see also Case C-284/16, Achmea, 2018 E.C.R. 158, para. 37.
8See, e.g., Kakouris, Constantinos, Do the Member States Possess Judicial Procedural Autonomy?, 34Common Mkt. L. Rev.1389, 1389–112 (1997); Prechal, Sacha, Community Law in National Courts: The Lessons from Van Schijndel, 35Common Mkt. L. Rev681, 681–706 (1998); van Gerven, Walter, Of Rights, Remedies and Procedures, 37Common Mkt. L. Rev.501, 501–36 (2000). See alsoMichaelDougan, National Remedies Before the Court of Justice: Issues of Harmonisation and Differentiation (2004).
9 See, for example, Joined Cases C-110/98 to 147/98, Gabalfrisa and Others, 2000 E.C.R. 145, which is now under consideration in Case C-274/14 Banco de Santander (pending). See Opinion of Advocate General Hogan, Case C-274/14, Banco de Santander, (Sept. 24, 2019).
10Von Danwitz, Thomas, Values and the Rule of Law: Foundations of the European Union–An Inside Perspective from the ECJ, 21Potchefstroom Electronic L.J.1, 1–17 (2018).
11 Case C-621/18, Wightman and Others, 2018 E.C.R. 999, para. 63. See also Comm’n v. Poland, Case C-619/18 at para. 42.
12SeeAdamski, Dariusz, The Social Contract of Democratic Backsliding in the “New EU” Countries, 56Common Mkt. L. Rev.623, 623–66 (2019).
13SeeThe Federalist No. 78 (Alexander Hamilton).
14 Case C-64/16, Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses, 2018 E.C.R. 117.
15Id. at para. 29.
16Id. at paras. 37–38.
17Id. at para. 43.
18 Case C-216/18, Minister for Justice and Equality (Deficiencies in the system of justice), 2018 E.C.R. 586, paras. 58–59.
19Id. at para. 48.
20Lenaerts, Koen, Limits on Limitations: The Essence of Fundamental Rights in the EU, 20German L. J.783, 779–93 (2019).
21Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses, Case C-64/16 at para. 45; Case C-49/18, Escribano Vindel, 2019 E.C.R. 106, para. 66.
22Minister for Justice and Equality, Case C-216/18 at para. 66.
25Id. at para. 67.
26Comm’n v. Poland, Case C-619/18 at para. 76.
28Id. at para. 52.
29 To name just a few, see Case C-192/18, Comm’n v. Poland (pending); Joined Cases C-558/18 & 563/18, Miasto Łowicz (pending); Joined Cases C-83/19, 127/19 & 195/19, Asociaţia “Forumul Judecătorilor Din România” (pending); Case C-272/19 Land Hessen (pending); and Case C-564/19 IS (pending).
30 The fact that Poland repealed the law that was under consideration in Commission v. Poland—before the Court of Justice ruled on that case—is a positive sign in that regard. See Case C-619/18 R, Comm’n v. Poland, 2018 E.C.R. 1021, paras. 27–31.
* President of the Court of Justice of the European Union and Professor of European Union Law, Leuven University. All opinions expressed herein are personal to the author.
Recommend this journal
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.