Constitutional review of member state action

The virtues and vices of an incomplete jurisdiction

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

25 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

In providing preliminary rulings on the interpretation of EU law, the European Court of Justice carries out essentially review of constitutionality of Member State action. The ECJ enjoys discretion in determining the specificity of its ruling. It may give an answer so specific that it leaves the referring court no margin for maneuver and provides it with a ready-made solution to the dispute (outcome cases); it may, alternatively, provide the referring court with guidelines as to how to resolve the dispute (guidance cases); finally, it may answer the question in such general terms that, in effect, it defers to the national judiciary (deference cases). The degree of specificity is not a random exercise but a conscious judicial choice. The ECJ's discretion in this respect operates as a constitutional valve and illustrates the direct use of judicial power. This article seeks to examine the varying degrees of specificity, the types of case where each is used, the reasons which determine variations, and whether any conclusions can be drawn as to the optimum approach that the Court should take.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)737-756
Number of pages20
JournalInternational Journal of Constitutional Law
Volume9
Issue number3-4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 1 2011

Fingerprint

jurisdiction
judicial power
European Court of Justice
constitutionality
General Terms
European Law
judiciary
interpretation

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Law

Cite this

@article{ba4c2b33f3484ee79da294507827ed14,
title = "Constitutional review of member state action: The virtues and vices of an incomplete jurisdiction",
abstract = "In providing preliminary rulings on the interpretation of EU law, the European Court of Justice carries out essentially review of constitutionality of Member State action. The ECJ enjoys discretion in determining the specificity of its ruling. It may give an answer so specific that it leaves the referring court no margin for maneuver and provides it with a ready-made solution to the dispute (outcome cases); it may, alternatively, provide the referring court with guidelines as to how to resolve the dispute (guidance cases); finally, it may answer the question in such general terms that, in effect, it defers to the national judiciary (deference cases). The degree of specificity is not a random exercise but a conscious judicial choice. The ECJ's discretion in this respect operates as a constitutional valve and illustrates the direct use of judicial power. This article seeks to examine the varying degrees of specificity, the types of case where each is used, the reasons which determine variations, and whether any conclusions can be drawn as to the optimum approach that the Court should take.",
author = "Panagiotis Tridimas",
year = "2011",
month = "10",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1093/icon/mor052",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "9",
pages = "737--756",
journal = "International Journal of Constitutional Law",
issn = "1474-2640",
publisher = "Oxford University Press",
number = "3-4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Constitutional review of member state action

T2 - The virtues and vices of an incomplete jurisdiction

AU - Tridimas, Panagiotis

PY - 2011/10/1

Y1 - 2011/10/1

N2 - In providing preliminary rulings on the interpretation of EU law, the European Court of Justice carries out essentially review of constitutionality of Member State action. The ECJ enjoys discretion in determining the specificity of its ruling. It may give an answer so specific that it leaves the referring court no margin for maneuver and provides it with a ready-made solution to the dispute (outcome cases); it may, alternatively, provide the referring court with guidelines as to how to resolve the dispute (guidance cases); finally, it may answer the question in such general terms that, in effect, it defers to the national judiciary (deference cases). The degree of specificity is not a random exercise but a conscious judicial choice. The ECJ's discretion in this respect operates as a constitutional valve and illustrates the direct use of judicial power. This article seeks to examine the varying degrees of specificity, the types of case where each is used, the reasons which determine variations, and whether any conclusions can be drawn as to the optimum approach that the Court should take.

AB - In providing preliminary rulings on the interpretation of EU law, the European Court of Justice carries out essentially review of constitutionality of Member State action. The ECJ enjoys discretion in determining the specificity of its ruling. It may give an answer so specific that it leaves the referring court no margin for maneuver and provides it with a ready-made solution to the dispute (outcome cases); it may, alternatively, provide the referring court with guidelines as to how to resolve the dispute (guidance cases); finally, it may answer the question in such general terms that, in effect, it defers to the national judiciary (deference cases). The degree of specificity is not a random exercise but a conscious judicial choice. The ECJ's discretion in this respect operates as a constitutional valve and illustrates the direct use of judicial power. This article seeks to examine the varying degrees of specificity, the types of case where each is used, the reasons which determine variations, and whether any conclusions can be drawn as to the optimum approach that the Court should take.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84856654483&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84856654483&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1093/icon/mor052

DO - 10.1093/icon/mor052

M3 - Article

VL - 9

SP - 737

EP - 756

JO - International Journal of Constitutional Law

JF - International Journal of Constitutional Law

SN - 1474-2640

IS - 3-4

ER -