Advertisement

Juridification, Judicialisation and Judicial Activism in Higher Education: Views from the CJEU

  • Fausto ComandèEmail author
  • Jan De Groof
Chapter
Part of the Issues in Higher Education book series (IHIGHER)

Abstract

A heated and at times acrimonious debate exists on whether the Court of Justice’s far-reaching attitude in interpreting EU law should be seen as legal creativity or abuse of power. Bearing in mind the political sensitivity of such discussion, the chapter advises against the temptation to just split between European integration supporters and opponents. The concepts of juridification, judicial activism and judicialisation are first contemplated from a theoretical viewpoint and then applied to the peculiarities of higher education: cultural, economic and societal relevance; centrality of the teaching function; autonomy and collegiality. While arguing in favour of a “room for silence” in shaping education policies, including self-restraint by the Court, the authors envisage a greater role of case law beyond the paradigms of internal market.

References

  1. Adams, M., de Waele, H., Meeusen, J., & Straetmans, G. (Eds.). (2014). Judging Europe’s Judges: The Legitimacy of the Case Law of the European Court of Justice. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  2. Amaral, A., & Neave, G. (2000). On Bologna, Weasels and Creeping Competence. In A. Amaral, G. Neave, C. Musselin, & P. Maassen (Eds.), European Integration and the Governance of Higher Education and Research (pp. 281–300). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  3. Amaral, A., Tavares, O., Cardoso, S., & Sin, C. (2016). Shifting Institutional Boundaries Through Cross-Border Higher Education. Journal of Studies in International Education, 20(1), 48–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnull, A. (2006). The European Union and Its Court of Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Barbas Homem, A. P. (2000). Education Law and Legal Methodology. In W. Berka, J. De Groof, & H. Penneman (Eds.), Autonomy in Education: Yearbook of the European Association for Education Law and Policy (Vol. III, pp. 155–167). Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  6. Bengoetxea, J., MacCormick, N., & Soriano, M. L. (2001). Integration and Integrity in the Legal Reasoning of the European Court of Justice. In G. de Búrca & J. H. H. Weiler (Eds.), The European Court of Justice (pp. 43–86). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bossuyt, M. (2015). Judicial Activism in Strasbourg. In Karel Wellens (Ed.), International Law in Silver Perspective: Challenges Ahead (pp. 31–56). Brill: Nijhoff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cappelletti, M. (1987). Is the European Court of Justice ‘Running Wild’? European Law Review, 12(1), 3–17.Google Scholar
  9. Case 112/83 Société des produits de maïs SA v Administration des douanes et droits indirects.Google Scholar
  10. Case 24/86 Vincent Blaizot v University of Liège and others.Google Scholar
  11. Case 242/87 Commission of the European Communities v Council of the European Communities, paras 11 and 21.Google Scholar
  12. Case 26/62 NV Algemene Transport – en Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v Nederlandse administratie der belastingen.Google Scholar
  13. Case 263/86 Belgian State v René Humbel and Marie-Thérèse Edel.Google Scholar
  14. Case 293/83 Françoise Gravier v City of Liège.Google Scholar
  15. Case 6/64 Costa v ENEL.Google Scholar
  16. Case 9/74 Donato Casagrande v Landeshauptstadt München.Google Scholar
  17. Case C-147/03 Commission of the European Communities v Republic of Austria.Google Scholar
  18. Case C-158/07 Jacqueline Förster v Hoofddirectie van de Informatie Beheer Groep.Google Scholar
  19. Case C-184/99 Rudy Grzelczyk v Centre public d’aide sociale d’Ottignies-Louvain-la-Neuve.Google Scholar
  20. Case C-209/03 The Queen, on the Application of Dany Bidar v London Borough of Ealing and Secretary of State for Education and Skills.Google Scholar
  21. Case C-224/98 Marie-Nathalie D’Hoop v Office national de l’emploi.Google Scholar
  22. Case C-337/97 C.P.M. Meeusen v Hoofddirectie van de Informatie Beheer Groep.Google Scholar
  23. Case C-370/12 Thomas Pringle v Government of Ireland.Google Scholar
  24. Case C-523/12 Dirextra Alta Formazione srl v Regione Puglia.Google Scholar
  25. Case C-65/03 Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium.Google Scholar
  26. Case C-91/05 Commission v Council.Google Scholar
  27. Case T-52/15 Sharif University of Technology v Council of the European Union.Google Scholar
  28. Case Tarantino and others v. Italy, no. 25851/09, 29284/09 and 64090/09, ECHR, 2013.Google Scholar
  29. Colin, J.-P. (1966). Le gouvernement des juges dans les Communautés européennes. In Bibliothèque de droit international (Vol. 31).Google Scholar
  30. Craig, P., & de Búrca, G. (2011). EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Crisp, J. (2016, June 27). Diplomats: UK Must Accept Freedom of Movement and ECJ to Get Single Market. EurActiv.com. Retrieved September 1, 2016, from http://www.euractiv.com/section/uk-europe/news/post-brexit-britain-must-accept-eu-courts-freedom-of-movement-rules-to-access-single-market-warn-diplomats/.
  32. Cruz Vilaça, J. L. (2013). Le principe de l’effet utile du droit de l’Union dans la jurisprudence de la Cour. In A. Rosas, E. Levits, & Y. Bot (Eds.), The Court of Justice and the Construction of Europe: Analyses and Perspectives on Sixty Years of Case-Law (pp. 279–306). Den Haag: Asser Press. Google Scholar
  33. Day, K. (2016, April 19). Michael Gove: Remaining in EU Like ‘Voting to Be Hostages’. Politico. Retrieved September 1, 2016, from http://www.politico.eu/article/michael-gove-remaining-in-eu-like-voting-to-be-hostages-brexit-date-june-23-eu-referendum.
  34. De Groof, J. (2009). European Higher Education in Search of a New Legal Order. In B. M. Kehm, J. Huisman, & B. Stensaker (Eds.), The European Higher Education Area: Perspectives on a Moving Target (pp. 79–106). Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.Google Scholar
  35. De Groof, J. (2012a). Legal Framework for Freedom of Education. In C. L. Glenn & J. De Groof (Eds.), Balancing Freedom, Autonomy and Accountability in Education (Vol. 1, pp. 25–61). Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publishers.Google Scholar
  36. De Groof, J. (2012b). Thoughts on Autonomy in Policy and Law Within the European Higher Education Space. In B. Léonce (Ed.), Intercultural Dialogue and Multi-level Governance in Europe (pp. 81–140). Brussels: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  37. De Groof, J. (2013). In Bluebeard’s Castle? Some Musings on Academic Freedom and Academic Integrity. In A. Alen, V. Joosten, R. Leysen, & W. Verrijdt (Eds.), Liberae cogitationes: Liber amicorum Marc Bossuyt (pp. 153–178). Cambridge: Intersentia.Google Scholar
  38. De Groof, J. (2016). The New Old Debate. Free Movement of Services and the Freedom of Establishment Within the Internal European Market: Does the Directive 2006/123 EC Move Past Education? Concerning the Border of National Sovereignty Within the EU. In M. J. Rosa, C. S. Sarrico, O. Tavares, & A. Amaral (Eds.), Cross-Border Higher Education and Quality Assurance: Commerce, the Services Directive and Governing Higher Education (pp. 117–137). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  39. De Groof, J., Neave, G. R., & Švec, J. (Eds.). (1998). Democracy and Governance in Higher Education. Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
  40. De Waele, H. (2010). The Role of the European Court of Justice in the Integration Process: A Contemporary and Normative Assessment. Hanse Law Review, 6(1), 3–26.Google Scholar
  41. Domingo, P. (2004). Judicialization of Politics or Politicization of the Judiciary? Recent Trends in Latin America. Democratization, 11(1), 104–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Durand-Prinborgne, C. (1988). Evolution et juridication de l’enseignement supérieur en France. European Journal of Education, 23(1–2), 105–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Estermann, T., & Nokkala, T. (2009). University Autonomy in Europe I: Exploratory Study. Brussels: European University Association.Google Scholar
  44. Feeley, M. M. (2013). Foreword. In S. A. Scheingold (Ed.), The Rule of Law in European Integration: The Path of the Schuman Plan. New Orleans: Quid Pro Books.Google Scholar
  45. Ginsburg, T. (2004). Bounded Discretion in International Judicial Lawmaking. Virginia Journal of International Law, 45, 631–673.Google Scholar
  46. Hirschl, R. (2011). The Judicialization of Politics. In E. Goodin (Ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Political Science (pp. 253–274). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Kaplin, W. A., & Lee, B. A. (2013a). The Law of Higher Education: A Comprehensive Guide to Legal Implications of Administrative Decision Making. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  48. Kaplin, W. A., & Lee, B. A. (2013b). The Law of Higher Education: Student Version. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Google Scholar
  49. Kmiec, K. D. (2004). The Origin and Current Meanings of ‘Judicial Activism’. California Law Review, 92(5), 1442–1477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kumm, M. (2005). The Jurisprudence of Constitutional Conflict: Constitutional Supremacy in Europe Before and After the Constitutional Treaty. European Law Journal, 11(3), 262–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Maduro, M. P. (1998). We the Court: The European Court of Justice and the European Economic Constitution: A Critical Reading of Article 30 of the EC Treaty. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  52. Mancini, G. F. (2000). Democracy and the European Court of Justice. Democracy and Constitutionalism in the European Union: Collected Essays (pp. 31–50). Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
  53. Neave, G. (1994). The Politics of Quality: Developments in Higher Education in Western Europe 1992–1994. European Journal of Education, 29(2), 115–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Neave, G. (1998). Growing Pains: The Dearing Report from a European Perspective. Higher Education Quarterly, 52(1), 118–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Pépin, L. (2006). The History of European Cooperation in Education and Training: Europe in the Making—An Example. Luxembourg: European Commission.Google Scholar
  56. Pescatore, P. (1983). The Doctrine of ‘Direct Effect’: An Infant Disease of Community Law. European Law Review, 8, 155–157.Google Scholar
  57. Kwikkers, P., & van Wageningen, A. (2012). A Space for the European Higher Education Area: The Guidance from the EU Court of Justice to Member States. Higher Education Policy, 25(1), 39–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Rasmussen, H. (1986). On Law and Policy in the European Court of Justice: A Comparative Study in Judicial PolicyMaking. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.Google Scholar
  59. Sauvé, J.-M. (2013). Le rôle du comité 255 dans la sélection du juge de l’Union. In A. Rosas, E. Levits, & Y. Bot (Eds.), La Cour de Justice et la Construction de l’Europe: Analyses et Perspectives de Soixante Ans de Jurisprudence [The Court of Justice and the Construction of Europe: Analyses and Perspectives on Sixty Years of Case-Law] (pp. 99–119). Den Haag: Asser Press.Google Scholar
  60. Scheingold, S. A. (2013). The Rule of Law in European Integration: The Path of the Schuman Plan (first published 1965). New Orleans: Quid Pro Books.Google Scholar
  61. Schwarze, J. (2013). Balancing EU Integration and National Interests in the Case-Law of the Court of Justice. In A. Rosas, E. Levits, & Y. Bot (Eds.), La Cour de Justice et la Construction de l’Europe: Analyses et Perspectives de Soixante Ans de Jurisprudence [The Court of Justice and the Construction of Europe: Analyses and Perspectives on Sixty Years of Case-Law] (pp. 257–278). Den Haag: Asser Press.Google Scholar
  62. Shapiro, M. (1999). The European Court of Justice. In P. Craig & G. de Búrca (Eds.), The Evolution of EU Law (pp. 321–347). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  63. Sieder, R., Schjolden, L., & Angell, A. (2005). Introduction. In R. Sieder, L. Schjolden, & A. Angell (Eds.), The Judicialization of Politics in Latin America (pp. 1–20). London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  64. Stone Sweet, A. (2010). The European Court of Justice and the Judicialization of EU Governance. Living Reviews in European Governance, 5(2), 5–50.Google Scholar
  65. Stone Sweet, A. (2011). The European Court of Justice. In P. Craig & G. de Búrca (Eds.), The Evolution of EU Law (pp. 121–154). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Tamm, D. (2013). The History of the Court of Justice of the European Union Since Its Origin. In A. Rosas, E. Levits, & Y. Bot (Eds.), La Cour de Justice et la Construction de l’Europe: Analyses et Perspectives de Soixante Ans de Jurisprudence [The Court of Justice and the Construction of Europe: Analyses and Perspectives on Sixty Years of Case-Law] (pp. 9–35). Den Haag: Asser Press.Google Scholar
  67. Tomusk, V. (2011). The Garbage of the Garbage: The Second-Level Sub-optimal Policy Process in European Higher Education. Cahiers de la recherche sur l’éducation et les savoirs, 3, 21–41.Google Scholar
  68. Torchia, L., & Clarizia, P. (2010). Il mutuo riconoscimento e la differenziazione dei diritti nell’ordinamento europeo. In L. Torchia (Ed.), Lezioni di diritto amministrativo progredito (pp. 361–391). Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
  69. Tridimas, T. (1996). The Court of Justice and Judicial Activism. European Law Review, 21(3), 199–210.Google Scholar
  70. Vallinder, T. (1994). The Judicialization of Politics—A World-Wide Phenomenon: Introduction. International Political Science Review, 15(2), 91–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Vilaça, J. L. (2013). Le principe de l’effet utile du droit de l’Union dans la jurisprudence de la Cour. In A. Rosas, E. Levits, & Y. Bot (Eds.), La Cour de Justice et la Construction de l’Europe: Analyses et Perspectives de Soixante Ans de Jurisprudence [The Court of Justice and the Construction of Europe: Analyses and Perspectives on Sixty Years of Case-Law]. Den Haag: Asser Press.Google Scholar
  72. Winkler, R. (2005). Right to Education According to Article 14 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. International Journal for Education, Law and Policy, 1–2, 60–65.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of LawUniversity of Milano-BicoccaMilanItaly
  2. 2.Tilburg UniversityTilburgThe Netherlands
  3. 3.College of EuropeBruggeBelgium
  4. 4.Higher School of EconomicsNational Research UniversityMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations