The European Court of Justice and the National Interests of the European Union’s Member States
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.21564/2414-990x.134.73677Keywords:
the European Union, the Court of Justice of the European Union, judicial system of the EU, Member States of the EUAbstract
The article is devoted to the research of CJEU’s practice concerning the interpretation of national interests of the European Union’s Member States in resolving disputes submitted for its consideration. Analyzed decisions of the CJEU allows to trace its position on the matter and the evolution of practices regarding the balance between different interests – the interests of the Union and the States. Also in article there are analyzed actual problems of the modern European Union law (human rights, free enterprise, etc.), its institutional system and direct the judicial authorities in the EU.
For modern evolution of the EU it is highly important to have orientation not only on common interests of the EU but on interests of members states. In the late jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union there is a tendency of retreating from strict practice of favoring only to interests of the EU and interpreting interests of members states in order to find the balance between two types of interest especially after amendments of Lisbon treaty.
In the context of this research it should be noted that the Court of Justice of the European Union during interpretation of national interests of member states uses the principle of self-restriction in interpretation of law. Herewith the Court quite flexible uses this principle and this leads to appearance of new highly important precedents.
It should be underlined that the Court has a negative to the application of acte claire doctrine because of some risk of been bound to act only in one direction without taking into consideration any possible changes of judicial practice in future.
The conclusion is made that for the strengthening of European integration it is highly important not only the jurisprudence of the Court, but the activity of constitutional courts of member states and also their parliaments, which under Lisbon treaty got a lot of democratic competences. Exactly the cooperation of these key subjects of European integration will help in future to avoid the collisions of interests of member-states and of the EU.
References
Golovko, O.I. (2001). Jevropejs’ka Komisija: pravovyj status v systemi organiv Jevropejs’kogo Sojuzu [The European Commission: legal status in the system of organs of the European Union]. Derzhava i pravo. Jurydychni i politychni nauky – State and law. Legal and Political Science. Kuiv: In-t derzhavy i prava NAN Ukrai’ny, 9, 474–479 [in Ukrainian].
G’oci, S. (2007). Jevropejs’ka Komisija. Procesy uhvalennja rishen’ i vykonavchi povnovazhennja [The European Commission. The process of decision making and executionv]. Kuiv: К.І.С. [in Ukrainian].
Jentin, L.M. (Eds.). (2005). Evropejskoe pravo. Pravo Evropejskogo Sojuza i pravovoe obespechenie zashhity prav cheloveka [The European Law. The Law of the European Union and legal assurance of protection of human rights]. Moscow [in Russian].
Kapustin, A.Ja. (2000). Evropejskij Sojuz: integracija i pravo [The European Union: integration and law]. Moscow [in Russian].
Komarova, T.V. (2010). Jurysdykcija Sudu Jevropejs’kogo Sojuzu. [The Jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice]. Kharkiv: Pravo [in Ukrainian].
Komarova, T.V. (2010). Sud Jevropejs’kogo Sojuzu v jevropejs’kij systemi zahystu prav ljudyny [The European Court of Justice in the European system of protection of human rights]. Problemy cyvil’nogo prava ta procesu –Problems of Civil Law and Procedure: materialy mizhnarodnoi’ naukovo-praktychnoi’ konferencii’, proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference. (pp. 351-352). Kharkiv : Khark. nac. un-t vnutr. sprav [in Ukrainian].
Komarova, T.V. (2011). Vnesok Sudu Jevropejs’kogo Sojuzu v ukriplennja prav ljudyny [Contribution of the European Court of Justice in strengthening of human rights protection] Pravovi problemy derzhavotvorennja i zahystu prav ljudyny v Ukrai’ni – Legal problems of state and defense of human rights in Ukraine: materialy mizhnarodnoi’ naukovo-praktychnoi’ konferencii’11, 23-24 ljutogo 2011 r. – Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference. (pp. 78–80). Kharkiv [in Ukrainian].
Muravjov, V.I. (2004). Nadnacional’ni instytuty v systemi organiv Jevropejs’kogo Sojuzu [National institutions in the system of organs of the European Union]. Chasopys Kyi’vs’kogo universytetu prava, 3, 105–113 [in Ukrainian].
The decision of the State Council of France on case Syndicat General de Fabricants de Semoules de France (Syndicat General de Fabricants de Semoules de France). (1970). Common Market Law Reports. Vol. 7, 395–401.
The decision of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany on case Internationale Handelsgesellschaft , 29 may 1974. Common Market Law Reports. p. 540.
Tkachenko, E. (2005). FETAl’nyj konflikt [Fetal conflict]. Juridicheskaja praktika – Practice of law, 49(415) [in Russian].
Jentin, M.L. (2003). Zashhita i obespechenie prav cheloveka po pravu Evrosojuza [The Protection and Ensuring of human rights protection under the Law of the Eurounion: the corse of lectionaries]. Moscow [in Russian].
Case 87/97, Consorzio per la tutela del formaggio Gorgonzola v Kaserei Champignon Hofmeister GmbH &Co. KG and Eduard Bracharz GmbH. (1999). European Court Reports, I,
p. 1301.
Case C-36/02, Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberburgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn. (2004). European Court Reports, I, p. 9609.
Case C-171/07, Apothekerkammer des Saarlandes and others v Saarland and Ministerium fur Justiz, Gesundheit und Sziales. (2009). European Court Reports, I, p. 4171.
Decision of the Fedetral Constitutional Court of 22 October 1986 [BVerfGE 73, 339–388].
Edward, D.A.O. (1998-1999). What Kind of Law Does Europe Need? The Role of Law, Lawyers and Judges in Contemporary European Integration. Columbia Journal of European Law, Vol. 5.
Grimm, D. (1997). The European Court of Justice and National Courts: the German Constitutional Perspectives after the Maastricht Decision. Columbia Journal of European Law, Vol. 3, 229-242.
Schermers, H.G., Waelbroeck, D.F. (2001). Judicial Protection in the European Union. The Hague, London, New York.
Burca, G. de, Weiler, J.H.H. (Ed.). (2001). The European Court of Justice. New York, XXVI.
Slaughter, A.-M., Stone Sweet, A., Weiler, J.H.H. (Ed.). (1989). The European Court and National Court. Doctrine and Jurisprudence. Legal Change in Its Social Context. Oxford.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2016 Тетяна Комарова
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
