{"title":"Cilfit仍然适合","authors":"François-Xavier Millet","doi":"10.1017/S1574019622000293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"What is a good case? Although the question may sound bizarre to the ear of most academics, who are primarily interested in what a good (or a bad) judgment is, judges are probably more familiar with it. It is indeed more usual for those on the bench to have a discussion on whether the cases upon which they are asked to adjudicate are suitable for a reconsideration of previous judgments and whether such reconsideration should take the form of a mere clarification, a revisiting, an overhauling or even an overruling. Making such a decision is obviously not easy. It depends on a mix of endogenous and exogenous factors: on one side, the facts of the case, its legal context, the type of legal issues at stake, the capacity of the bench to come up with a new, workable and assumingly better solution; on the other side, the timing, the political and judicial context, the embeddedness or the popular support of a long-standing solution. Against that background, it is rather clear that the case in Consorzio Italian Management1 was not deemed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (referred to throughout as the Court of Justice or simply the Court) to constitute","PeriodicalId":45815,"journal":{"name":"European Constitutional Law Review","volume":"18 1","pages":"533 - 555"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Cilfit Still Fits\",\"authors\":\"François-Xavier Millet\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1574019622000293\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"What is a good case? Although the question may sound bizarre to the ear of most academics, who are primarily interested in what a good (or a bad) judgment is, judges are probably more familiar with it. It is indeed more usual for those on the bench to have a discussion on whether the cases upon which they are asked to adjudicate are suitable for a reconsideration of previous judgments and whether such reconsideration should take the form of a mere clarification, a revisiting, an overhauling or even an overruling. Making such a decision is obviously not easy. It depends on a mix of endogenous and exogenous factors: on one side, the facts of the case, its legal context, the type of legal issues at stake, the capacity of the bench to come up with a new, workable and assumingly better solution; on the other side, the timing, the political and judicial context, the embeddedness or the popular support of a long-standing solution. Against that background, it is rather clear that the case in Consorzio Italian Management1 was not deemed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (referred to throughout as the Court of Justice or simply the Court) to constitute\",\"PeriodicalId\":45815,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Constitutional Law Review\",\"volume\":\"18 1\",\"pages\":\"533 - 555\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Constitutional Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019622000293\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Constitutional Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1574019622000293","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
What is a good case? Although the question may sound bizarre to the ear of most academics, who are primarily interested in what a good (or a bad) judgment is, judges are probably more familiar with it. It is indeed more usual for those on the bench to have a discussion on whether the cases upon which they are asked to adjudicate are suitable for a reconsideration of previous judgments and whether such reconsideration should take the form of a mere clarification, a revisiting, an overhauling or even an overruling. Making such a decision is obviously not easy. It depends on a mix of endogenous and exogenous factors: on one side, the facts of the case, its legal context, the type of legal issues at stake, the capacity of the bench to come up with a new, workable and assumingly better solution; on the other side, the timing, the political and judicial context, the embeddedness or the popular support of a long-standing solution. Against that background, it is rather clear that the case in Consorzio Italian Management1 was not deemed by the Court of Justice of the European Union (referred to throughout as the Court of Justice or simply the Court) to constitute
期刊介绍:
The European Constitutional Law Review (EuConst), a peer reviewed English language journal, is a platform for advancing the study of European constitutional law, its history and evolution. Its scope is European law and constitutional law, history and theory, comparative law and jurisprudence. Published triannually, it contains articles on doctrine, scholarship and history, plus jurisprudence and book reviews. However, the premier issue includes more than twenty short articles by leading experts, each addressing a single topic in the Draft Constitutional Treaty for Europe. EuConst is addressed at academics, professionals, politicians and others involved or interested in the European constitutional process.