Download Free Legal Reasoning And Judicial Interpretation Of European Law Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Legal Reasoning And Judicial Interpretation Of European Law and write the review.

Marc Jacob analyses in depth the most important justificatory and decision-making tool of one of the world's most powerful courts.
Since its formation the European Union has expanded beyond all expectations, and this expansion seems set to continue as more countries seek accession and the scope of EU law expands, touching more and more aspects of its citizens' lives. The EU has never been stronger and yet it now appears to be reaching a crisis point, beset on all sides by conflict and challenges to its legitimacy. Nationalist sentiment is on the rise and the Eurozone crisis has had a deep and lasting impact. EU law, always controversial, continues to perplex, not least because it remains difficult to analyse. What is the EU? An international organization, or a federation? Should its legal concepts be measured against national standards, or another norm? The Oxford Handbook of European Union Law illuminates the richness and complexity of the debates surrounding the law and policies of the EU. Comprising eight sections, it examines how we are to conceptualize EU law; the architecture of EU law; making and administering EU law; the economic constitution and the citizen; regulation of the market place; economic, monetary, and fiscal union; the Area of Freedom, Security, and Justice; and what lies beyond the regulatory state. Each chapter summarizes, analyses, and reflects on the state of play in a given area, and suggests how it is likely to develop in the foreseeable future. Written by an international team of leading commentators, this Oxford Handbook creates a vivid and provocative tapestry of the key issues shaping the laws of the European Union.
The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has started to implement what is arguably the most signi cant set of reforms since the Nice Treaty, with notably the doubling of the number of judges at the General Court and the disappearance of the Civil Service Tribunal. Controversies surrounding the process and outcomes of the reforms called for a broader re ection on the European Courts and the way they cope with old and new challenges. To this end, this volume brings together junior and seasoned academics and practitioners to take stock of the various aspects of these reforms and the overall functioning of the EU Judiciary, from comparative, ‘insider’, and ‘outsider’ perspectives. Broadening and deepening our understanding of the reorganisation of the EU Judiciary, the contributors offer incisive analyses of reforms and evolutions, including: – a critical appraisal of the reform process and the role and powers of the CJEU; – implications of the reforms for the Court of Justice and the General Court; – lessons from the practice of the now dismantled Civil Service Tribunal; – a re ection on the future Uni ed Patent Court; – an evaluation of the role of the CJEU’s members and staffs and their selection; – an insider’s perspective into the workings of the repeat players (Legal Services of the European Commission and of the European Parliament) and the parties’ lawyers; – an assessment of the procedural reforms before the Court of Justice and the General Court with a speci c focus on the PPU; – the unfolding and impact of the digital revolution (e-Curia) on the CJEU; – the challenges of the languages regime and legal reasoning before the CJEU. Comparative perspectives elucidate speci c judiciary reforms across Europe, including detailed analyses of developments at the European Court of Human Rights, the French Conseil Constitutionnel, and the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom. As a timely assessment of the effects of recent reforms on the EU Courts’ decision-making practices, roles, and identities, and more broadly on the legitimacy of the EU and its institutions as a whole, this book is unparalleled. It will be of great value to practitioners engaged in EU litigation, scholars of European law and policymakers at EU institutions, and all those interested in judicial process and reform.
Can a jurisprudential approach help lawyers and legal philosophers to understand the sources, organization, and main features of European Community (EC) law? How does the European Court of Justice interpret EC law and justify its decisions? This study examines these questions and related issues--analyzing EC law and the decision-making process of the European Court of Justice from a legal theoretical perspective. The justification of legal decisions is a crucial issue in legal and political theory, with courts achieving legitimation through their practice of justification. This study also assesses the justificatory practice of the European Court of Justice and how its jurisprudential approach contributes to an understanding of European integration.
Appearing at a time when the ancient problem of the individual versus the state once again occupies the minds of thinking Europeans, this important new book thoroughly evaluates the judicial system of the European Union, fully describing the nature of the judicial protection available to individuals, undertakings, and member States. With attention to the rapid and continuing development of the Community legal order, Schermers and Waelbroeck provide a much-needed perspective on the reasoning of the European Court of Justice in significant decisions, especially recent cases, and shed revealing light on how the rule of law may develop in future. An introductory chapter offers a masterful description of how Treaty provisions, Community acts, international law, and national legal orders interact in the procedures and decisions of the Court of Justice. Further chapters provide analysis and insight into such matters as the following: the crucial role of national courts as guarantors of the rights of individuals in Community law the validity of acts taken by Community institutions and member States, and protection against them the delivery of non-judicial opinion and other tasks of the Court of Justice the composition, function, and rules of procedure of the Court the organisation of the Court of First Instance and the appeal procedure against its decisions. Judicial Protection in the European Union is organised to facilitate its prodigious reference value. All important cases are examined, and abundant footnotes clearly indicate relevant precedents in each case. This is a fundamental source for students of European law, as well as a basic reference for practitioners and a valuable analysis of the strengths and weaknesses of the European system of judicial protection.
How can multilingualism and legal certainty be reconciled in EU law? Despite the importance of multilingualism for the European project, it has attracted only limited attention from legal scholars. This book provides a valuable contribution to this otherwise neglected area. Whilst firmly situated within the field of EU law, the book also employs theories developed in linguistics and translation studies. More particularly, it explores the uncertainty surrounding the meaning of multilingual EU law and the impact of multilingualism on judicial reasoning at the European Court of Justice. To reconceptualize legal certainty in EU law, the book highlights the importance of transparent judicial reasoning and dialogue between courts and suggests a discursive model for adjudication at the European Court of Justice. Based on both theory and case law analysis, this interdisciplinary study is an important contribution to the field of European legal reasoning and to the study of multilingualism within EU legal scholarship.
Fundamental rights provisions are known for their relatively vague and general formulation. As a result, judges dealing with these provisions are confronted with many and often controversial interpretative choices. These interpretative choices already present judges operating in a national context with difficulties, but even more so for European judges operating in a multilevel context. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) are often criticized for delivering judgments that contain debatable choices, and they do not offer sufficient insight into the reasons which led to making these choices. Especially in a multilevel context, where the cooperation of national authorities plays an important role as regards the effectiveness of the European courts, it is important that interpretation methods and principles are used in a transparent manner so that the reasons that justify a specific interpretative choice are clear. This book analyzes the use of a selected number of interpretation methods and principles in the fundamental rights case law of the ECtHR and the CJEU. The use of teleological, comparative, evolutive, and autonomous interpretation by the ECtHR and the CJEU are elaborately discussed on the basis of both legal theoretical literature and case law. The legal theoretical analysis provides the basis for various relevant questions, hypotheses, and (analytical) suggestions, that are further studied in the subsequent case law analysis. This leads to a thorough overview of the role of these interpretation methods and principles, as well as the possibilities for improvement. This volume has been written as a PhD thesis in the framework of the research project "Judicial Reasoning in Fundamental Rights Cases: National and European Perspectives." (Series: School of Human Rights Research - Vol. 46)
The Court of Justice of the European Union has often been characterised both as a motor of integration and a judicial law-maker. To what extent is this a fair description of the Court's jurisprudence over more than half a century? The book is divided into two parts. Part one develops a new heuristic theory of legal reasoning which argues that legal uncertainty is a pervasive and inescapable feature of primary legal material and judicial reasoning alike, which has its origin in a combination of linguistic vagueness, value pluralism and rule instability associated with precedent. Part two examines the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the EU against this theoretical framework. The author demonstrates that the ECJ's interpretative reasoning is best understood in terms of a tripartite approach whereby the Court justifies its decisions in terms of the cumulative weight of purposive, systemic and literal arguments. That approach is more in line with orthodox legal reasoning in other legal systems than is commonly acknowledged and differs from the approach of other higher, especially constitutional courts, more in degree than in kind. It nevertheless leaves the Court considerable discretion in determining the relative weight and ranking of the various interpretative criteria from one case to another. The Court's exercise of its discretion is best understood in terms of the constraints imposed by the accepted justificatory discourse and certain extra-legal steadying factors of legal reasoning, which include a range of political factors such as sensitivity to Member States' interests, political fashion and deference to the 'EU legislator'. In conclusion, the Court of Justice of the EU has used the flexibility inherent in its interpretative approach and the choice it usually enjoys in determining the relative weight and order of the interpretative criteria at its disposal, to resolve legal uncertainty in the EU primary legal materials in a broadly communautaire fashion subject, however, to i) regard to the political, constitutional and budgetary sensitivities of Member States, ii) depending on the constraints and extent of interpretative manoeuvre afforded by the degree of linguistic vagueness of the provisions in question, the relative status of and degree of potential conflict between the applicable norms, and the range and clarity of the interpretative topoi available to resolve first-order legal uncertainty, and, finally, iii) bearing in mind the largely unpredictable personal element in all adjudication. Only in exceptional cases which the Court perceives to go to the heart of the integration process and threaten its acquis communautaire, is the Court of Justice likely not to feel constrained by either the wording of the norms in issue or by the ordinary conventions of interpretative argumentation, and to adopt a strongly communautaire position, if need be in disregard of what the written laws says but subject to the proviso that the Court is assured of the express or tacit approval or acquiescence of national governments and courts.
This handbook addresses legal reasoning and argumentation from a logical, philosophical and legal perspective. The main forms of legal reasoning and argumentation are covered in an exhaustive and critical fashion, and are analysed in connection with more general types (and problems) of reasoning. Accordingly, the subject matter of the handbook divides in three parts. The first one introduces and discusses the basic concepts of practical reasoning. The second one discusses the general structures and procedures of reasoning and argumentation that are relevant to legal discourse. The third one looks at their instantiations and developments of these aspects of argumentation as they are put to work in the law, in different areas and applications of legal reasoning.
This edited volume examines the very essence of the function of judges, building upon developments in the quality of justice research throughout Europe. Distinguished authors address a gap in the literature by considering the standards that individual judgments should meet, presenting both academic and practical perspectives. Readers are invited to consider such questions as: What is expected from judicial reasoning? Is there a general concept of good quality with regard to judicial reasoning? Are there any attempts being made to measure the quality of judicial reasoning? The focus here is on judges meeting the highest standards possible in adjudication and how they may be held to account for the way they reason. The contributions examine theoretical questions surrounding the measurement of the quality of judicial reasoning, practices and legal systems across Europe, and judicial reasoning in various international courts. Six legal systems in Europe are featured: England and Wales, Finland, Italy, the Czech Republic, France and Hungary as well as three non-domestic levels of court jurisdictions, including the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). The depth and breadth of subject matter presented in this volume ensure its relevance for many years to come. All those with an interest in benchmarking the quality of judicial reasoning, including judges themselves, academics, students and legal practitioners, can find something of value in this book.