Judicial Application of European Union Law in post-Communist Countries
The Cases of Estonia and Latvia
- 258 pages
- English
- ePUB (mobile friendly)
- Available on iOS & Android
Judicial Application of European Union Law in post-Communist Countries
The Cases of Estonia and Latvia
About This Book
This book discusses how the plurality of legal norms operating in the European Union can be balanced to produce a functioning, sustainable and legitimate legal system. Presenting a conceptual framework for assessing and comparing transformations of national judicial systems in the context of EU membership, the book contributes to the EU legal theoretical debate on the relationship between 'authority' and 'coherence'. The author develops an original analytical framework of coherence to assess the application of EU law by national courts and uses interdisciplinary scientific methods and research design that combine legal doctrinal and social science methodology to the study of 'classical' legal questions. Providing an extensive database of 2004-2009 national judgments of national courts in Latvia and Estonia, the book offers an extensive comparative review of the jurisprudence of constitutional and supreme courts, as well as providing insight into the jurisprudence of ordinary national courts. It will appeal to legal scholars and political scientists studying courts and jurisprudence.
Frequently asked questions
Information
PART I The Three-Dimensional Coherence Approach
1 Conceptual Framework
⌠discussing problems of law or legal theory in terms of narrative coherence gets on lawyersâ nerves. They become impatient when someone tries to convince them of the quite received opinion that law should be and is presumed to be coherent. They become suspicious when they are asked to learn still another fashionable word for what â if anyone knows â they know about coherence in law ⌠They even become slightly aggressive, at least in my country, when they hear coherence in law epitomized as ânarrativeâ: for ânarâ in Dutch means âfoolâ or âjesterâ; and should not law at least be taken seriously?Bert C. van Roermund 1990: 310 11 Bert C. van Roermund, âNarrative Coherence and the Guises of Legalismâ, in Nerhot, P (ed.), Law, Interpretation and Reality (Springer and Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1990) p. 310, with kind permission from Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
State of the Art â Literature Review
Locus of final authority/mechanism of justification | Hierarchical | Non-hierarchical | |
---|---|---|---|
âWestphalianâ (sovereign-pluralist) | âRegulatoryâ (complex unity) | Post-sovereign (synthesis) | |
Legalistic/mechanical | Classical international conflict of laws approach characterized by predominant reliance on national constitutional doctrines and linguistic arguments. National Constitutional Courts are final arbiters in the legal conflicts of competing norms. References to the ECJ are rare. | Multilevel conflict of laws solutions where the EU is the final normative authority and EU-wide legal unity is a leading structuring element supported by predominantly technical, linguistic arguments. The ECJ is the final arbiter. The role of the ECJ is central. | |
High proportion of legalistic, technical and bureaucratic language in the court opinions. The predominant style of court opinions is magisterial and authoritative. High proportion of formal rather than substantive reasons. Implicit logic of rationality is logico-deductive, that is, syllogistic subsumptions. | |||
Discursive/persuasive | As above but national courts in addition to linguistic arguments also refer to systemic and evaluative arguments, although preserving national sovereignty rights as a final criterion in resolving conflicts. | As above but the ECJ in addition to linguistic arguments also refers to systemic and evaluative arguments preserving unity of EU law as a final criterion in resolving conflicts. | Best reason âcommon goodâ solutions of competing normative claims. National sovereignty/authority based arguments replaced by main reliance on âreason basedâ systemic, evaluative and transcategorical arguments based on universal and common values. |
Lower proportion of legalistic and technical language in court opinions. Court opinions are extended and elaborate. Lower proportion of formal rather than substantive reasons. Implicit model of rationality is not deductive but discursive â open choice supported by arguments. |
Table of contents
- Cover
- Halftitle Page
- Routledge Page
- Title Page
- Copyright Page
- Contents
- List of Tables and Figures
- List of Cases
- List of EU Secondary Legislation
- List of Abbreviations
- Foreword
- Preface and Acknowledgements
- Introduction
- PART I THE THREE-DIMENSIONAL COHERENCE APPROACH
- 1 Conceptual Framework
- PART II INTRA-SYSTEM COHERENCE
- 2 Substantive Coherence: Constitutional Structures and Principles
- 3 Institutional Coherence: Interests and Interactions
- 4 Argumentative Coherence: Justifications, Values and Legal Culture
- PART III ADJUDICATION OF EU LAW BY THE NATIONAL ORDINARY COURTS
- 5 Comparative Overview of National Case Law
- 6 Jurisprudence of Estonian Courts
- 7 Jurisprudence of Latvian Courts
- SYNTHESIS AND CONCLUSION
- 8 Domestic Courts and the Application of EU Law: Sources and Methods of Coherence
- Bibliography
- Index