CCR №1 (134) 2020
Transitional judicial interactions and the diplomatization of judicial decision-making

The full text of the article is available only in Russian.

Abstract

The courts of countries that are part of integration projects in Europe – the European Union or the Council of Europe – operate under conditions where their decisions may differ from the positions of transnational courts, the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, respectively. By joining these organizations, participating countries have made certain commitments, including taking into account the requirements of transnational legal systems. However, in practice, the limits of these obligations are the subject of disagreement between transnational courts and the constitutional or other apex courts of particular countries. The main issue is the question which court plays the decisive role by resolving hard cases. Both sides are responsible for increasing tensions between national and transnational courts. For example, ECtHR judges may be less informed about the situation that caused the dispute in a particular country and about the consequences of their decision for that country. In turn, the national courts may not exceed transnational courts in understanding and quality of interpretation of transnational law. Because of this, courts at both levels seek cooperation, which can take place in different forms. This can be publication of books and articles that express the position of a particular court, as well as meetings between judges of different courts, among which the annual conference under the auspices of the ECtHR should be highlighted. Additionally, cooperation can also be established while considering specific cases. Courts can put statements that are not crucial for the substantiation of a decision, but which express the position of the court on the issue under consideration (obiter dictum). Requests for interpretation of transnational law submitted by national courts to transnational courts also play an important role. Responses to such requests may be mandatory (European Court of Justice) or advisory (ECtHR). For illustration of the relationship between the Federal constitutional court of Germany and transnational courts, the article provides the following two examples. The FCC and the ECtHR held somewhat different views on the issue of the so-called preventive detention of persons who are considered dangerous. After several decisions by both courts, they managed to bring their positions closer together. The relationship between the FCC and the European Court of Justice over the European Central Bank’s right to buy government bonds of Euro zone member states has become more complicated. The main reason for this is the fact that this issue from the sphere of economic policy is difficult to settle in court. At the end of the article, the author points out that reaching compromises between national and transnational courts can bring advantages as well as disadvantages. Compromises are a sign of political activity that is not typical for courts, and under certain circumstances can reduce the effectiveness of the judiciary.

About the author:

Gertrude Lübbe-Wolff – Professor of Public Law, University of Bielefeld, Germany; judge of the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany (2002–2014)

Citation: Lübbe-Wolff G. (2020) Vzaimodeystvie sudov na transnatsional’nom urovne i “diplomatizatsiya” protsessa prinyatiya sudebnykh resheniy [Transitional judicial interactions and the diplomatization of judicial decision-making]. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, vol.29, no.1, pp.43–56. (In Russian).

References

Alter K.J., Helfer L.R., Madsen M.R. (2016) How Context Shapes the Authority of International Courts. Law and Contemporary Problems, vol.79, no.1, pp.1–36.

Ernst W. (2016) Rechtserkenntnis durch Richtermehrheiten: “Group Choice” in europäischen Justiztraditionen, Tübingen : Mohr Siebeck.

Hertig Randall M. (2014) Der grundrechtliche Dialog der Gerichte in Europa. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (EuZW), vol.40, pp.5–18.

Jost S. (2016) Endspiel der Gerichte. Die Welt, 17 February.

Law D.S. (2015) Judicial Comparativism and Judicial Diplomacy. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol.163, no.4, pp.927–1036.

Lenaerts K. (2014) Kooperation und Spannung im Verhältnis von EuGH und nationalen Verfassungsgerichten: Conference talk at Humboldt University, November 24, 2014. Available at: https://www.rewi.hu-berlin.de/de/lf/oe/whi/FCE/2014/veroeffentlichung-lenaerts.pdf (accessed: 07.10.2019).

Lübbe-Wolff G. (2011) Who Has the Last Word? National and Transnational Courts – Conflict and Cooperation. Yearbook of European Law, vol.30, pp.86–99.

Lübbe-Wolff G. (2012) How Can the European Court of Human Rights Reinforce the Role of National Courts in the Convention system. Human Rights Law Journal, vol.32, no.1–6, pp.11–15.

Lübbe-Wolff G. (2016) Cultures of Deliberation in Constitutional Courts. In Maraniello P. (ed.) Justicia Constitucional, La Justicia constitucional en los diferentes ámbitos del derecho y sus nuevas tendencias, Resistencia, Chaco: Contexto, vol.1, pp.37–52.

Mak E. (2013) Judicial Decision-Making in a Globalised World: A Comparative Analysis of the Changing Practices of Western Highest Courts, Oxford; Portland, OR: Hart Publishing.

Mayer F. (2015) Die EZB vor Gericht – nächste Runde. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (EuZW), vol.26, no.4, pp.121–122.

Paterson A. (2013) Final Judgment: The Last Law Lords and the Supreme Court, Oxford; Portland, OR; Hart Publishing.

Skouris V. (2015) Der Dialog des EuGH mit Praxis und Wissenschaft. Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (EuZW), vol.26, pp.24.

Skouris V. The Position of the European Court of Justice in the EU Legal Order and Its Relationship with National Constitutional Courts: Conference presentation, Constitutional Court of Slovenia. Available at: https://www.us-rs.si/o-sodiscu/katalog-inf-javnega-znacaja/contributions/presentation-by-dr-vassilios-skouris-president-of-the-european-court-of-justice/ (accessed: 07.10.2019).

Spielmann D. (2014) Opening Speech (Solemn Hearing of the European Court of Human Rights on the Occasion of the Opening of the Judicial Year). In: Dialogue between Judges: Proceedings of the Seminar 31 January 2014 “Implementation of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: a shared judicial responsibility?”, Strasbourg: European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe, pp.31–35. Available at: https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Dialogue_2014_ENG.pdf (accessed: 07.10.2019).

Toader T., Safta M. (2016) The Dialogue of Constitutional Judges, Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.

Villiger M. (2014) From the Point of View of National Judiciaries: The Role of National Courts in the Implementation of the Court’s Judgments. In: Dialogue between Judges: Proceedings of the Seminar 31 January 2014 “Implementation of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: a shared judicial responsibility?”, Strasbourg: European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe, pp.27–29.

Voßkuhle A. (2014) Pyramid or Mobile? – Human Rights Protection by the European Constitutional Court (speech given on the occasion of the solemn hearing of the European Court of Human Rights on the occasion of the opening of the judicial year). In: Dialogue between Judges: Proceedings of the Seminar 31 January 2014 “Implementation of the judgments of the European Court of Human Rights: a shared judicial responsibility?”, Strasbourg: European Court of Human Rights, Council of Europe, pp.36–40.

Wendel M. (2013) Richterliche Rechtsvergleichung als Dialogform: Die Integrationsrechtsprechung nationaler Verfassungsgerichte in gemeineuropäischer Perspektive. Der Staat, vol.52, no.3, pp.339–370.

Issue articles