Abstract
The standardization of adjudication in the EC law is preserved by three strategies. The public strategy is based on Article 226 of the EC Treaty. The deliberative strategy has been regulated under Article 234 of the EC Treaty. The recent rulings of the Court of Justice of the European Union in Köbler and Traghetti cases have created the framework for the application of the improved deliberative strategy that might be called a strategy of privatization. In many cases the heterodoxical judicial practice of the national courts creates negative externalities for subjects whose rights being formally protected by the EC law are in fact neglected by the national legal system. Thus, the activity of national courts throughout the European Union should be standardized, leading to a greater homogeneity of judicial rulings concerning the application of the EC law in different Member States. The economic analysis of those strategies will enable one to formulate an answer to fundamental questions about the application of the EC law by the national courts within Member States.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
This chapter has been prepared within the framework of the research project: NN110196334 financed by the Polish Ministry of Science.
References
Albors-Llorens, A. (2007). The principle of state liability in EC law and the supreme courts of the member states. The Cambridge Law Journal, 66, 270–273.
Barnard, C. (2007). The substantive law of the EU. The four freedoms. (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bertolino, G. (2008). The thraghetti case: A new ECJ decision on state liability for judicial acts- national legislation under examination. Civil Justice Quarterly, 27, 448–453.
Breuer, M. (2004). State liability for judicial wrongs and community law: The case of Gerhard Köbler v. Austria. European Law Review, 29, 243–254.
Calabresi, G., & Melamed, A. D. (1972). Property rules, liability rules, and inalienability: One view of the cathedral Harvard Law Review, 85, 1089–1128.
Chalmers, D. (1997). Judicial preferences and the community legal order. The Modern Law Review, 60, 164–199.
Chalmers, D., Hadjiemmanuil, C., Monti, G., & Tomkins, A. (2006). European union law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coase, R. H. (1988). The problem of social cost. In R. H. Coase (Ed.), The firm, the market and the law (pp. 95–156). Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Cohen, M. A. (1991). Explaining judicial behavior or what’s ‘unconstitutional’ about the sentencing commission? Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 7, 183–199.
Cohen, M. A. (1992). The motives of judges: Empirical evidence from antitrust sentencing. International Review of Law and Economics, 12, 13–30.
Cooter, R. (1983). The objectives of private and public judges. Public Choice, 41, 107–132.
Cooter, R., & Ginsburg, T.(1996). Comparative judicial discretion: An empirical test of economic models. International Review of Law and Economics, 16, 245–313.
Elder, H. W. (1987). Property rights structures and criminal courts: An analysis of state criminal courts. International Review of Law and Economics, 7, 21–32.
Fon, V., & Schaefer, H.-B. (2007). State liability for wrongful conviction: Incentive effects on crime levels. available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=942691
van Gerven, W. (1995). Bridging the gap between community and national laws: Towards a principle of homogeneity in the field of legal remedies. Common Market Law Review, 32, 679–702.
Greenberg, P. E., & Haley, J. A. (1986). The role of the compensation structure in enhancing judicial quality. Journal of Legal Studies, 15, 417–426.
Hart, H. L. A. (1997). The concept of law (2nd ed.). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Higgins, R. A., & Rubin, P. H. (1980). Judicial discretion. Journal of Legal Studies, 9, 129–138.
Holler, M. J., Knieps, G., & Niskanen, E. (1997). Standardization in transportation markets: A European perspective. Homo Oeconomicus, 14(3), 371–390.
Jørgensen, S. (1997). Law as a standardizing system. Homo Oeconomicus, 14(3), 409–414.
Kornhauser, L., Lewis, A., & Sager, L. G. (1986). Unpacking the court. Yale Law Journal, 96, 82–117.
Landes, W. M. (1971). An economic analysis of the courts. Journal of Law and Economics, 14, 61–107.
Landes, W. M., & Posner, R. A. (1979). Adjudication as a Private Good. Journal of Legal Studies, 8, 235–284.
Landes, W. M., & Posner, R. A. (1980). Legal change, judicial behavior and the diversity jurisdiction. Journal of Legal Studies, 9, 367–386.
Posner, R. A. (1973). An economic approach to legal procedure and judicial administration. Journal of Legal Studies, 2, 399–458.
Posner, R. A. (1992). Economic analysis of law (4th ed.). Boston-Toronto-London: Litle Brown and Company.
Posner, R. A. (1996). Law and legal theory in the UK and USA. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Pound, R. (1940). The economic interpretation and the law of torts. Harvard Law Review, 53, 365–385.
Ruffert, M. (2007). Case C-173/03 Traghetti del Mediterraneo SpA in Liquidation v. Italian Republic, Judgment of the court (Great Chamber) of 13 June 2006. Common Market Law Review, 44, 479–500.
Schauer, F. (2002). Playing by the rules. A philosophical examination of rule-based decision-Making in law and in life. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Searl, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Shavell, A. (1995). The appeals process as a means of error correction. Journal of Legal Studies, 24, 379–426.
Somek, A. (2007). Inexplicable law. Legality’s adventure in Europe, University of Iowa legal studies research papers, 11; available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=887149 Accessed 20 February 2009.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2010 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Golecki, M.J. (2010). Some Idealism About Realism. Judging Under Certainty and the Standardization of Adjudication in the EC Law. In: Jemielniak, J., Miklaszewicz, P. (eds) Interpretation of Law in the Global World: From Particularism to a Universal Approach. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04886-9_10
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-04886-9_10
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-04885-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-04886-9
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)