国家法院与欧洲法院通过初步裁决机制的相互司法影响

Gráinne de Búrca
{"title":"国家法院与欧洲法院通过初步裁决机制的相互司法影响","authors":"Gráinne de Búrca","doi":"10.1093/oso/9780198845249.003.0006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Taking the moment of imminent UK exit from the European Union as an opportunity to reflect on the mutual influence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the English courts, this chapter examines the 113 preliminary references made by the higher English courts over a 10-year period to investigate two related questions. These are: first, the extent to which the CJEU’s rulings have been implemented by the British courts, and second, the extent to which the interpretations proposed by the UK courts may have influenced the CJEU. On the first question, the chapter’s findings indicate that it is very difficult to assess the extent to which the preliminary rulings of the CJEU were implemented by the referring UK courts, given the remarkable lack of information available about what happens following a preliminary ruling of the Luxembourg Court. On the second question, the chapter’s findings suggest that in the substantial number of cases in which the British courts advanced a proposed interpretation of EU law, the CJEU adopted that interpretation in a majority of those cases. Hence, even though the CJEU has rarely acknowledged the influence of national referring courts on its rulings, the cases referred from the higher UK courts over the past decade suggest that instead of a one-way relationship in which British courts were subject to the overriding authority of the CJEU, there was a process of mutual influence in which the Luxembourg court more often than not adopted the interpretation of EU law proposed by the British court.","PeriodicalId":386897,"journal":{"name":"The Foundations and Future of Public Law","volume":"67 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Mutual Judicial Influence of National Courts and the European Court of Justice through the Preliminary Rulings Mechanism\",\"authors\":\"Gráinne de Búrca\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/oso/9780198845249.003.0006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Taking the moment of imminent UK exit from the European Union as an opportunity to reflect on the mutual influence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the English courts, this chapter examines the 113 preliminary references made by the higher English courts over a 10-year period to investigate two related questions. These are: first, the extent to which the CJEU’s rulings have been implemented by the British courts, and second, the extent to which the interpretations proposed by the UK courts may have influenced the CJEU. On the first question, the chapter’s findings indicate that it is very difficult to assess the extent to which the preliminary rulings of the CJEU were implemented by the referring UK courts, given the remarkable lack of information available about what happens following a preliminary ruling of the Luxembourg Court. On the second question, the chapter’s findings suggest that in the substantial number of cases in which the British courts advanced a proposed interpretation of EU law, the CJEU adopted that interpretation in a majority of those cases. Hence, even though the CJEU has rarely acknowledged the influence of national referring courts on its rulings, the cases referred from the higher UK courts over the past decade suggest that instead of a one-way relationship in which British courts were subject to the overriding authority of the CJEU, there was a process of mutual influence in which the Luxembourg court more often than not adopted the interpretation of EU law proposed by the British court.\",\"PeriodicalId\":386897,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"The Foundations and Future of Public Law\",\"volume\":\"67 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-03-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"The Foundations and Future of Public Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198845249.003.0006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Foundations and Future of Public Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198845249.003.0006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

以英国即将退出欧盟为契机,反思欧盟法院(CJEU)和英国法院的相互影响,本章审查了英国高等法院在10年期间提出的113份初步参考资料,以调查两个相关问题。它们是:第一,欧洲法院的裁决在多大程度上被英国法院执行;第二,英国法院提出的解释可能在多大程度上影响了欧洲法院。关于第一个问题,本章的调查结果表明,很难评估欧洲法院的初步裁决在多大程度上被转介的英国法院执行,因为关于卢森堡法院的初步裁决之后会发生什么情况的信息明显缺乏。关于第二个问题,本章的调查结果表明,在英国法院提出对欧盟法律的拟议解释的大量案件中,欧洲法院在大多数案件中采用了该解释。因此,尽管欧洲法院很少承认国家转诉法院对其裁决的影响,但在过去十年中,英国高等法院转诉的案件表明,英国法院不受欧洲法院最高权威的单向关系,而是一个相互影响的过程,在这个过程中,卢森堡法院往往采用英国法院提出的对欧盟法律的解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Mutual Judicial Influence of National Courts and the European Court of Justice through the Preliminary Rulings Mechanism
Taking the moment of imminent UK exit from the European Union as an opportunity to reflect on the mutual influence of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the English courts, this chapter examines the 113 preliminary references made by the higher English courts over a 10-year period to investigate two related questions. These are: first, the extent to which the CJEU’s rulings have been implemented by the British courts, and second, the extent to which the interpretations proposed by the UK courts may have influenced the CJEU. On the first question, the chapter’s findings indicate that it is very difficult to assess the extent to which the preliminary rulings of the CJEU were implemented by the referring UK courts, given the remarkable lack of information available about what happens following a preliminary ruling of the Luxembourg Court. On the second question, the chapter’s findings suggest that in the substantial number of cases in which the British courts advanced a proposed interpretation of EU law, the CJEU adopted that interpretation in a majority of those cases. Hence, even though the CJEU has rarely acknowledged the influence of national referring courts on its rulings, the cases referred from the higher UK courts over the past decade suggest that instead of a one-way relationship in which British courts were subject to the overriding authority of the CJEU, there was a process of mutual influence in which the Luxembourg court more often than not adopted the interpretation of EU law proposed by the British court.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信