A number of intricate questions on effects of supranational legal acts upon and within the national law frameworks appear in relation to the establishing of the Eurasian Economic Union, The author demonstrates that the decisions of supranational bodies are effective within the national legal systems without enactment of national laws, what presupposes the transfer of the power to establish uniform rules of conduct from national judiciary to supranational international organization. Special attention is paid to the characteristics of international and supranational courts decisions. In this respect, the author, dwelling on her own comparative study, concludes that the decisions made by international courts are of a clearly distinct nature, differing from the decisions of supranational courts: whereas the former are only binding upon the parties of a dispute, the latter are binding upon every member state of a supranational entity – erga omnes. The special character of each of these types of decisions has an impact on the interplay between supranational and national judiciaries. As an example the article illustrates the history of interaction between the supreme courts of Germany and Italy and the Court of Justice of the European Union. The second illustrative example is the interplay between the Constitutional Court of Russia and the court of the Eurasian Economic Community, and later, with the one of the Eurasian Economic Union. The author also suggests possible ways to minimize conflicts between supranational and national judiciaries firstly through mutual respect and cooperation.
About the author
Tatyana Neshataeva – Judge of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union, Doctor of LegalSciences, Professor of Law, Head of International Law Department, Russian State University of Justice; Honored Lawyer of the Russian Federation
Neshataeva T. (2016) O problemakh v deystvii resheniy organov EAES v natsional’nykh pravoporyadkakh gosydarstv-chlenov [On ambiguous effects of the EAEU bodies’ decisions within national legal systems of the member states]. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, no.3, pp.10–17. (In Russian).
Baudenbacher C. (2005) The Implementation of Decisions of the ECJ and of the EFTA Court in the Member States’ Domestic Legal Orders. Texas International Law Journal, vol.40, no.3, pp.383–416.
Conant L. (2002) Justice Contained: Law and Politics in the European Union, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Craig P.P. (1998) Report on the United Kingdom: The European Court and National Courts, Doctrine and Jurisprudences: Legal Change in its Social Context, Oxford: Hart Publishing.
Ispolinov A.S. (2013) Reshenie bol’shoy kollegii Suda EvrAzES po delu Yuzhnogo Kuzbassa: naskol’ko obosnovan sudeyskiy aktivizm? [Eurasian Economic Community Court Grand Collegium decision in Yuzhny Kuzbass case: in what measure is judicial activism justified?]. Evraziyskiy uiridicheskiy zhurnal, vol.60, no.5, pp.19–26. (In Russian).
Mitrany D. (1943) A Working Peace System, London: Quadrangle Books.
Myslivskiy P.P. (2015) Mezhdunarodno-pravovoe regulirovanie sozdaniya Evraziyskogo ekonomicheskogo soyuza i sposoba razresheniya sporov: diss. kand. yurid. nauk [International law regulation in establishing the Eurasian Economic Union and methods of dispute settlement. Ph.D. in Law dissertation], Moscow. (In Russian).
Neshataeva V.O., Myslivskiy P.P. (2015) Vzglyad iznutri: uchastie v reforme Evropeyskogo Suda po pravam cheloveka [An inside look: participating in the European Human Rights Court reform]. Rossiyskoe pravosudie, no.3, pp.5–13. (In Russian).
Thirlway H. (2008). The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice: Fifty Years of Jurisprudence, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Tolstykh V.L. (2013) Nedavnie resheniya Suda EvrAzES: popytka doktrinal’nogo analiza [Recent decisions of the Eurasian Economic Community]. Evraziyskiy uiridicheskiy zhurnal, vol.63, no.8, pp.37–42. (In Russian).
Moscow, Shchepkina str., 8
+7 (495) 608-69-59
+7 (495) 608-66-35