Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-7bjf6 Total loading time: 0.232 Render date: 2021-08-06T04:45:23.951Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Resistance against the Court of Justice of the European Union

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 May 2018

Andreas Hofmann
Affiliation:
Otto Suhr Institute of Political Science, Freie Universität Berlin
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

This contribution reviews different forms of resistance against the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). While backlash is rare, various forms of pushback are more common than accounts of the CJEU's apparent success suggest. It is not uncommon that national policy-makers, administrations and the judiciary fail to comply with individual rulings. Moreover, Member State authorities have developed multiple strategies to limit the practical effect of controversial lines of CJEU case-law. The availability of ‘work-arounds’ that national authorities can live with shields the CJEU against significant backlash. At the same time, the multiple processes of pushback in the Member States lead to an outcome of considerable heterogeneity.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alter, KJ (1996) The European court's political power. West European Politics 19, 458487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersen, S (2012) The Enforcement of EU Law: The Role of the European Commission. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armstrong, KA (2017) Brexit Time: Leaving the EU – Why, How and When? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnard, C (2016) The Substantive Law of the EU: The Four Freedoms. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batory, A (2016) Defying the commission: creative compliance and respect for the rule of law in the EU. Public Administration 94, 685699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernitz, U (2016) Förhandsavgöranden av EU-domstolen: Utvecklingen av svenska domstolars hållning och praxis 2010–2015. Rapport nr. 9, September 2016. Stockholm: SIEPS Svenska institutet för europapolitiska studier.Google Scholar
Blauberger, M (2012) With Luxembourg in mind … the remaking of national policies in the face of ECJ jurisprudence. Journal of European Public Policy 19, 109126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blauberger, M and Kelemen, RD (2017) Can courts rescue national democracy? Judicial safeguards against democratic backsliding in the EU. Journal of European Public Policy 24, 321336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blauberger, M and Schmidt, SK (2014) Welfare migration? Free movement of EU citizens and access to social benefits. Research and Politics 1, 17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blauberger, M and Schmidt, SK (2017 a) Free movement, the welfare state, and the European Union's over-constitutionalization: administrating contradictions. Public Administration 95, 437449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blauberger, M and Schmidt, SK (2017 b) The European Court of Justice and its political impact’, West European Politics, early view.Google Scholar
Blauberger, M, et al. (forthcoming) ECJ judges read the morning papers: explaining the turnaround of European citizenship jurisprudence. Journal of European Public Policy.Google Scholar
Börzel, TA and Risse, T (2012) From Europeanisation to diffusion: introduction. West European Politics 35, 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börzel, TA, et al. (2010) Obstinate and inefficient: why Member States do not comply with European law. Comparative Political Studies 43, 13631390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruun, N and Jonsson, C-M (2010) Nordic countries: consequences and policy perspectives in the Nordic countries as a result of certain important decisions of the European Court of Justice. In Bücker, A and Warneck, W (eds), Viking – Laval – Rüffert: Consequences and Policy Perspectives. Brussels: ETUI, pp. 1528.Google Scholar
Bücker, A and Warneck, W (eds) (2010) Viking – Laval – Rüffert: Consequences and Policy Perspectives. Brussels: ETUI.Google Scholar
Carrubba, C, Gabel, M and Hankla, C (2012) Understanding the role of the European court of justice in European integration. American Political Science Review 106, 212223.Google Scholar
Conant, L (2002) Justice Contained: Law and Politics in the European Union. Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Court of Justice of the European Union (2017) ‘Annual Report 2016 – Judicial Activity’, Luxembourg.Google Scholar
Davies, G (2012) Activism relocated: the self-restraint of the European Court of Justice in its national context. Journal of European Public Policy 19, 7691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, G (2014) Legislative control of the European Court of Justice. Common Market Law Review 51, 15791607.Google Scholar
Dawson, M, De Witte, B and Muir, E (eds) (2013) Judicial Activism at the European Court of Justice. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Waele, H (2010) The role of the European Court of Justice in the integration process: a contemporary and normative assessment. Hanse Law Review 6, 326.Google Scholar
De Witte, B (2016) The preliminary ruling dialogue: three types of questions posed by national courts In de Witte, B, Mayoral, JA, Jaremba, U, Wind, M and Podstawa, K (eds), National Courts and EU Law: New Issues, Theories and Methods. Cheltanham: Edward Elgar, pp. 1525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dyevre, A (2016) Domestic judicial defiance in the European Union: a systemic threat to the authority of EU law? Yearbook of European Law 35, 106144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
European Commission (2004) Posted workers: Commission takes action against the Netherlands, Press release IP/04/178.Google Scholar
Falkner, G (2014) Archive of ECJ Penalization Proceedings Analyses, Institute for European Integration Research, University of Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
Falkner, G (2015) Fines against Member States: an effective new tool in EU infringement proceedings? Comparative European Politics 14, 3652.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Freedland, M and Prassl, J (2015 a) Viking, Laval and beyond: an introduction. In Freedland, M and Prassl, J (eds), Viking, Laval and Beyond. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 122.Google Scholar
Freedland, M and Prassl, J (eds) (2015 b) Viking, Laval and Beyond. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Goldmann, M (2017) ‘Summer of love: Karlsruhe refers the QE case to Luxembourg’, Verfassunsblog, 16 August.Google Scholar
Golub, J (1996) The politics of judicial discretion: rethinking the interaction between national courts and the European Court of Justice. West European Politics 19, 360385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartlapp, M and Falkner, G (2009) Problems of operationalization and data in EU compliance research. European Union Politics 10, 281304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heindlmaier, A and Blauberger, M (2017) Enter at your own risk: free movement of EU citizens in practice. West European Politics 40, 11981217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helfer, LR (2013) The effectiveness of international adjudicators. In Romano, CPR, Alter, KJ and Avgerou, C (eds), The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 464483.Google Scholar
Herzog, R and Gerken, L (2008) Stoppt den Europäischen Gerichtshof, Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, 8 September, p. 8.Google Scholar
Hirschl, R (2008) The judicialization of mega-politics and the rise of political courts. Annual Review of Political Science 11, 93118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hofmann, A (2013) Strategies of the Repeat Player: The European Commission between Courtroom and Legislature. Berlin: ePubli.Google Scholar
Hübner, DC (2017) The decentralized enforcement of European law: national court decisions on EU directives with and without preliminary reference submissions. Journal of European Public Policy, early view.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaremba, U (2016) Polish civil judiciary vis-à-vis the preliminary ruling procedure: in search of a mid-range theory. In de Witte, B, Mayoral, JA, Jaremba, U, Wind, M and Podstawa, K (eds), National Courts and EU Law: New Issues, Theories and Methods. Cheltanham: Edward Elgar, pp. 4967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Joerges, C and Rödl, F (2009) Informal politics, formalised law and the ‘social deficit’ of European integration: reflections after the judgments of the ECJ in Viking and Laval. European Law Journal 15, 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, E and Kelemen, RD (2014) The EURO goes to court. Survival: Global Politics and Strategy 56, 1523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelemen, RD (2016) The Court of Justice of the European Union in the twenty-first century. Law and Contemporary Problems 79, 117140.Google Scholar
Kilbey, I (2010) The interpretation of Article 260 TFEU (ex 228 EC). European Law Review 35, 370386.Google Scholar
Korte, J (ed.) (1991) Primus Inter Pares: The European Court and National Courts: The Follow-Up by National Courts of Preliminary References ex Art. 177 of the Treaty of Rome: A Report on the Situation in the Netherlands. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Larsson, O (2016) Minoritarian Activism – Judicial Politics in the European Union. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg.Google Scholar
Larsson, O and Naurin, D (2016) Judicial independence and political uncertainty: how the risk of override affects the Court of Justice of the EU. International Organization 70, 377408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leczykiewicz, D (2015) Effectiveness of EU law before national courts: direct effect, effective judicial protection, and state liability. In Chalmers, D and Arnull, A (eds), The Oxford Handbook of European Union Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 212248.Google Scholar
Leijon, K (2015) The choices courts make: explaining when and why domestic courts express opinions in the preliminary ruling procedure, paper prepared for the General ECPR Conference, Montréal, 26–29 August 2015.Google Scholar
Leijon, K and Karlsson, C (2013) Nationella domstolar som politiska aktörer – främjare av rättslig integration eller försvarare av nationella intressen? Statsvetenskaplig tidskrift 115, 534.Google Scholar
Madsen, MR, Olsen, HP and Sadl, U (2017) Competing supremacies and clashing institutional rationalities: the Danish Supreme Court's decision in the AJOS case and the national limits of judicial cooperation. European Law Journal 23, 140150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Madsen, MR, Cebulak, P and Wiebusch, M (2018) Backlash against international courts: explaining the forms and patterns of resistance to international courts. International Journal of Law in Context 14, 528.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinsen, D (2005) The Europeanization of welfare: the domestic impact of intra-European social security. Journal of Common Market Studies 43, 10271054.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinsen, D (2015) An Ever More Powerful Court? The Political Constraints of Legal Integration in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martinsen, D and Mayoral, JA (2017) A judicialisation of healthcare policies in Denmark and Spain? The universalist healthcare model meets the European Union. Comparative European Politics 15, 414434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayoral, JA, Jaremba, U and Nowak, T (2014) Creating EU law judges: the role of generational differences, legal education and judicial career paths in national judges’ assessment regarding EU law knowledge. Journal of European Public Policy 21, 11201141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neergaard, U and Nielsen, R (2010) Blurring boundaries: from the Danish welfare state to the European social model? European Labour Law Journal 1, 434488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Novitz, T and Syrpis, P (2015) The United Kingdom. In Freedland, M and Prassl, J (eds), Viking, Laval and Beyond. Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 261276.Google Scholar
Nyikos, SA (2003) The preliminary reference process: national court implementation, changing opportunity structures and litigant desistment. European Union Politics 4, 397419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyikos, SA (2006) Strategic interaction among courts within the preliminary reference process – stage 1: national court preemptive opinions. European Journal of Political Research 45, 527550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Obermaier, AJ (2008) The national judiciary – sword of European Court of Justice rulings: the example of the Kohll/Decker jurisprudence. European Law Journal 14, 735752.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panke, D (2007) The European Court of Justice as an agent of Europeanization? Restoring compliance with EU law. Journal of European Public Policy 14, 847866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piqani, D (2016) The Simmenthal revolution revisited: what role for constitutional courts? In de Witte, B, Mayoral, JA, Jaremba, U, Wind, M and Podstawa, K (eds), National Courts and EU Law: New Issues, Theories and Methods. Cheltanham: Edward Elgar, pp. 2648.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pollack, MA (2018) The legitimacy of the court of justice of the European Union. In Grossmann, N, Cohen, HG, Follesdal, A and Ulfstein, G (eds), Legitimcay and International Courts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Rogowski, R and Gawron, T (eds) (2002) Constitutional Courts in Comparison: The US Supreme Court and the German Federal Constitutional Court. New York/Oxford: Berghahn.Google Scholar
Rönnmar, M (2008) Free movement of Services versus National labour law and industrial relations systems: understanding the laval case from a Swedish and Nordic perspective. Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies 10, 493524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, G (1991) The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Scharpf, F (2008) The only solution is to refuse to comply with ECJ rulings: interview with Cornelia Girndt. Social Europe Journal 4, 1621.Google Scholar
Scheingold, SA (1974) The Politics of Rights: Lawyers, Public Policy, and Political Change. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Schwarze, JR (1988) Die Befolgung von Vorabentscheidungen des Europäischen Gerichtshofs durch deutsche Gerichte. Baden-Baden: Nomos.Google Scholar
Seikel, D (2015) Class struggle in the shadow of Luxembourg: the domestic impact of the European Court of Justice's case law on the regulation of working conditions. Journal of European Public Policy 22, 11661185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Slack, J (2016) Enemies of the people, The Daily Mail, 4 November, p. 1.Google Scholar
Slaughter, A-M, Stone Sweet, A and Weiler, JHH (1998) The European Court and National Courts, Doctrine and Jurisprudence: Legal Change in Its Social Context. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Smith, M (2016) The visible, the invisible and the impenetrable: innovations or rebranding regulatory goals and constituitional values. In Drake, S and Smith, M (eds), New Directions in the Effective Enforcement of EU Law and Policy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar, pp. 4576.Google Scholar
Spaventa, E (2017) Earned citizenship – understanding union citizenship through its scope. In Kochenov, D (ed.), EU Citizenship and Federalism: The Role of Rights. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 204225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stein, E (1981) Lawyers, judges, and the making of a transnational constitution. American Journal of International Law 75, 128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone Sweet, A and Brunell, TL (2012) The European Court of Justice, state noncompliance, and the politics of override. American Political Science Review 106, 204213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taborowski, M (2012) Infringement proceedings and non-compliant national courts. Common Market Law Review 49, 18811914.Google Scholar
Tallberg, J (2002) Paths to compliance: enforcement, management, and the European Union. International Organization 56, 609643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treib, O (2014) Implementing and complying with EU governance outputs. Living Reviews in European Governance 9, 147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vasev, N, Vrangbæk, K and Křepelka, F (2017) The end of eastern territoriality? CJEU compliance in the new Member States. Comparative European Politics 15, 459477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Werner, B (2016) Why is the Court of Justice of the European Union not more contested? Three mechanisms of opposition abatement. Journal of Common Market Studies 54, 14491464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wind, M (2010) The Nordics, the EU and the reluctance towards supranational judicial review. Journal of Common Market Studies 48, 10391063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wind, M, Martinsen, DS and Rotger, GP (2009) The uneven legal push for Europe: questioning variation when national courts go to Europe. European Union Politics 10, 6388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org 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.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Resistance against the Court of Justice of the European Union
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

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.

Resistance against the Court of Justice of the European Union
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

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.

Resistance against the Court of Justice of the European Union
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *