European Justice Court Decisions
The obligation of national courts to ensure the full effectiveness of Community law, even if it is necessary to provide for a national remedy where it did not previously exist. The only specialised court created to date is the European Civil Service Tribunal. The General Court was established in 2005 for cases between the EU and its civil service and was dissolved in 2016 and its jurisdiction transferred to the General Court. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is the EU`s judicial body. It ensures that EU law is interpreted and applied uniformly by its 2 courts, the Court of Justice and the General Court. Court of Justice of the European Union, Case law and opinions, Dissenting opinions, Legal proceedings The Court of Justice of the European Union has jurisdiction to interpret and apply EU law for 28 Member States which differ politically, culturally and linguistically. In its 60 years of existence, the Court has prohibited the publication of its judges` individual opinions and voting records, preferring instead short, unsigned majority unanimous decisions. The CJEU defends its practice in the interest of protecting the independence of the judiciary as well as its own authority and legitimacy. Critics of the court call for more transparency by issuing dissenting opinions, as does the U.S. Supreme Court. The CJEU is one of the most influential courts in the world and a trustworthy European institution that has everything to lose if it loses its authority and legitimacy.
The introduction of dissenting opinions, exposing the CJEU to the challenges of non-compliance with its judgments and its judges to endemic corruption, would seriously compromise its independence, authority and legitimacy. Regulatory breaches and corruption have not yet been linked to the Court`s impact in such a new judicial environment. There is no comprehensive analysis of how corruption in EU member states, recently described as “staggering”, would affect the independence of the judiciary. Similarly, there is a lack of scientific discourse on fragmented opinions in the context of the emerging issue of Member States` non-compliance with CJEU judgments. Until multidisciplinary research and in-depth analysis find a safe path for the Court free of destructive elements, a different path to greater transparency must be followed. At present, there is no such research and analysis. Since 1 August 2018, the Court has also had advisory jurisdiction. Protocol No. 16 to the European Convention, which entered into force on 1 August, allows the highest national courts of States Parties to the Protocol to request advisory opinions from the European Court of Justice on questions of interpretation of the European Convention and its Protocols. The questions must arise from the cases pending before the national court.
[IJRC] The Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe is responsible for the execution of the Court`s judgments. States are bound by the Court`s decisions and must implement them accordingly. Often, this means that legislation needs to be changed to ensure that the violation does not happen again. However, the Court does not have jurisdiction to annul a national decision or annul national laws. In the present case, the Court adopted a more liberal approach to determining individual concern than Plaumann`s restrictive criterion, but this has not been followed in subsequent judgments. Speakers from the European Court of Human Rights and the member courts of the Network discussed the procedural and practical measures taken to adapt to this unprecedented situation, as well as the standards applicable under Article 6 (Right to a fair trial) of the Convention. A national court which, within the limits of its jurisdiction, is called upon to apply provisions of Community law is required to give full effect to those provisions by refusing, where appropriate, of its own motion the application of conflicting provisions of national law, even if they are adopted subsequently, without having to request or await the prior repeal of such provisions by legislative or other constitutional means. [4] The European Parliament and the Council may set up specialised courts under the ordinary legislative procedure (Article 257 TFEU). These courts may rule on certain issues in the first instance.
The most violated provision of the Convention is Article 6, with regard to the right to a fair trial, followed by the requirement of a reasonable time. The second most frequent offence is Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 (protection of property) and Article 5 of the Convention (right to liberty and security). Aversion to dissent for the Court of Justice of the European Union The acts of the European institutions must be duly reasoned and their validity will be examined by the Court of Justice. `Fundamental rights shall be enshrined in the general principles of Community law and shall be protected by the Court of Justice.` National law must be interpreted and applied as far as possible in order to avoid any conflict with a provision of Community law. “The Court of First Instance. is competent to respond.