Advertisement

The Quality of Decision-Making at the Court of Justice of the European Union

  • Gerard ConwayEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Ius Gentium: Comparative Perspectives on Law and Justice book series (IUSGENT, volume 69)

Abstract

The concept of quality of decision-making relates to the core function of courts: to give a legitimate and justified judgment according to an accepted legal method. Thus, while other types of social or political decisions might be largely judged by the acceptability of the eventual outcome (though political decisions often depend on a particular institutional procedure being followed), courts are expected to adhere to a distinctly legal method. The idea of a distinctly legal method can be understood in different aspects: normative or institutional legitimacy; epistemic quality; argumentative, dialectical or deliberative quality; consistency or coherence; moral and consequentialist quality; and jurisdictional quality. Following a discussion of each of these aspects of the Court of Justice’s legal reasoning, this chapter looks at the impact of the Lisbon Treaty and Fiscal Compact; recent scholarship; and, finally, the broader political context in which the Court operates. The chapter concludes that characterising the quality of the Court depends upon the conception of quality employed and that process-oriented and consequentialist justification can be contrasted in the institutional context of courts. Consequentialist reasoning is clearly less dependent upon legal sources and the discipline of legal method, thus raising a question mark over the legitimacy of effet utile arguments widely deployed, as they sometimes are, in the legal reasoning of the Court of Justice.

References

  1. Alexy R (1989) A theory of legal argumentation: the theory of rational discourse as theory of legal justification. Oxford University Press, USA, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Alter KJ (2001) Establishing the supremacy of European law: the making of an international rule of law in Europe. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck G (2011) The Lisbon judgment of the German Constitutional Court, the primacy of EU law and the problem of Kompetenz-Kompetenz: a conflict between right and right in which there is no praetor. Eur Law J 17:470–494CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beck G (2012) The legal reasoning of the court of justice of the EU. Hart PublishingGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck G (2014) The legal reasoning of the court of justice: a response to Michal Bobek. Eur Law Rev 579–581Google Scholar
  6. Bengoetxea J (1993) The legal reasoning of the European court of justice: towards a European jurisprudence. Oxford University Press, USA, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  7. Bengoetxea J (2007) Quality standards in judicial adjudication: the European court of justice. In: Muller-Dietz H, Muller E, Kunz L, et al (eds) Festschrift für Heike Jung : zum 65. Geburtstag am 23. April 2007. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG, Baden-BadenGoogle Scholar
  8. Bertea S (2005) The arguments from coherence: analysis and evaluation. Oxf J Leg Stud 369–391Google Scholar
  9. Bobek M (2014) The court of justice of the European union. Coll Eur Natolin Res Pap Law 02:1–25Google Scholar
  10. Borissova L (2007) Enforcement actions under EU law—the new member statesGoogle Scholar
  11. Bredimas AE (1978) Methods of interpretation and community law. North Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  12. Broberg M, Fenger N (2014) Preliminary references to the European court of justice. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  13. Burley A-M, Mattli W (1993) Europe before the court: a political theory of legal integration. Int Organ 47:41–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Conway G (2012) The limits of legal reasoning and the European court of justice. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  15. Conway G (2015) Book review: European court of justice legal reasoning in context, by Suvi Sankari. (Groningen: Europa Law Publishing, 2013). Common Mark Law Rev 52:856–858Google Scholar
  16. Craig PP (2013) Pringle: legal reasoning, text, purpose and teleology. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law 3–11Google Scholar
  17. D’Andrea TD (2006) Tradition, rationality, and virtue: the thought of Alasdair MacIntyre. Ashgate Publishing Ltd, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  18. Dawson M (2014) How does the European court of justice reason? A review essay on the legal reasoning of the European court of justice. Eur Law J 20:423–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. de Figueiredo Marcos RM (2015) The coimbra faculty of law in retrospect. Imprensa da Universidade de Coimbra, CoimbraGoogle Scholar
  20. de Waele HCFJ (2009) Rechterlijk activisme en het Europees Hof van Justitie. Boom Juridische Uitgevers, Den HaagGoogle Scholar
  21. de Witte B, Muir E, Dawson M (2013) Judicial activism at the European court of justice. Edward Elgar PublishingGoogle Scholar
  22. Dworkin R (1996) Freedom’s law. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MassGoogle Scholar
  23. Everling U (1994) The ECJ as a decision-making authority. Mich Law Rev 82:1294–1308CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Feteris ET (1994) Recent developments in legal argumentation theory: dialectical approaches to legal argumentation. Rev Int Semiot Jurid 7:133–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Finnis J (2011) Natural law and natural rights, 2nd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  26. Fiss OM (1982) Objectivity and interpretation. Stanford Law Rev 34:739–763CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Garben S (2010) [Review of] HCFA de Waele, Rechterlijk Activisme en Het Europees Hopf van Justitie (Boom Juridische Uitgevers 2009) (in Dutch, but with an English-language summary at 411–419) Common Mark Law Rev 47:1564Google Scholar
  28. Gormley L (2016) Enforcement initiated by institutions or member states. In: Jakab A, Kochenov D (eds) The enforcement of EU law and values: methods against defiance. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  29. Gutman K (2016) Liability for breach of EU law by the union, member states and individuals: damages, enforcement and effective judicial protection. In: Lazowski A, Blockmans S (eds) Research handbook on EU institutional law. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham, pp 441–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jacob M (2014) Precedents and case-based reasoning in the European court of justice: unfinished business. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kochenov D (2015) Biting intergovernmentalism: the case for the reinvention of article 259 TFEU to make it a viable rule of law enforcement tool. Hague J Rule Law 7:153–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kornezov A (2016) The new format of the acte clair doctrine and its consequences. Common Mark Law Rev 53:1317–1342Google Scholar
  33. Kumm M (2005) The jurisprudence of constitutional conflict: constitutional supremacy in Europe before and after the constitutional treaty. Eur Law J 11:262–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lasser MDS-O-L (2004) Judicial deliberations in comparative perspective: a comparative analysis of judicial transparency. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  35. MacCormick N (1978) Legal reasoning and legal theory. Clarendon Press, Oxford, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  36. MacCormick N (1993) Argumentation and interpretation in law. Ratio Juris 6:16–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rasmussen H (1986) On law and policy in the European court of justice: a comparative study in judicial policymaking. BRILL, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  38. Sankari S (2013) European court of justice legal reasoning in context. Europa Law PublishingGoogle Scholar
  39. Snyder F (1993) The effectiveness of European community law: institutions, processes, tools and techniques. Mod Law Rev 56:19–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Stein E (1981) Lawyers, judges, and the making of a transnational constitution. Am J Int Law 75:1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sweet AS (2004) The judicial construction of Europe. Oxford Univerity Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sweet AS, McCowan M (2013) Decision and precedent in European law. In: Wiklund O (ed) Judicial discretion in European perspective. Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp 48–74Google Scholar
  43. Tamanaha BZ (2004) On the rule of law: history, politics, theory. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tamanaha BZ (2006) Law as a means to an end: threat to the rule of law. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vauchez A (2007) Embedded law-political sociology of the European community of law: elements of a renewed research agenda. Eur Univ Inst Work Pap 23:1–29Google Scholar
  46. Walker N (2005) Legal theory and the European union: a 25th anniversary essay. Oxf J Leg Stud 25:581–601CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Weiler JH (1993) Journey to an unknown destination: a retrospective and prospective of the European court of justice in the arena of political integration. JCMS J Common Mark Stud 31:417–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Brunel Law SchoolBrunel University LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations