When can a national measure be annulled by the ECJ? Case C-202/18 Ilmārs Rimšēvičs v Republic of Latvia and case C-238/18 European Central Bank v Republic of Latvia

Takis Tridimas, Luigi Lonardo

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

Abstract

In Rimšēvičs v Latvia and ECB v Latvia the ECJ had the opportunity to consider for the first time the interpretation of art.14.2 of the ECSB Statute which provides for redress where central bank Governors are relieved from their position in the Governing Council of the ECB. In a bold judgment, the Court held that, even though the decision to dismiss a Governor is a national act, art.14.2 vests the Court with jurisdiction to annul it. The judgment departs from the national-EU dichotomy in the exercise of public power that determines the allocation of jurisdiction between EU and Member State courts. Although correct in its context, Rimšēvičs is of limited exportability to other EU institutional or administrative contexts. It is, however, indicative of a trajectory of increasing hybridity where traditional boundaries between EU and national action as separate expressions of pouvoir public break down.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)732-744
Number of pages13
JournalEuropean Law Review
Volume45
Issue number5
StatePublished - Oct 2020

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Law

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'When can a national measure be annulled by the ECJ? Case C-202/18 Ilmārs Rimšēvičs v Republic of Latvia and case C-238/18 European Central Bank v Republic of Latvia'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this