Is the Court of Justice of the EU more Europeanist than Member State governments?

No, because it strictly applies the laws Member States have previously approved.
8% (7 votes)
No, because Member States have retained the power to appoint and re-appoint judges.
4% (4 votes)
Yes, because of its institutional design, it has been able to push integration forward when governments have been unable to.
85% (78 votes)
Yes, because of judicial drift, which has fuelled the kind of Euroscepticism that led to Brexit.
3% (3 votes)
Total votes: 92

Comments

Curtea de Justitie a Uniunii Europene este instituția care interpretează legislația UE și se asigură că această legislație se aplică uniform în toate țările membre. De asemenea, soluționează litigiile juridice dintre guvernele naționale și instituțiile europene. Deși judecătorii și avocații generali sunt desemnați de guvernele statelor membre, aceștia depun jurământ (jurând independență, imparțialitate, respectarea secretului) înainte de preluarea funcțiilor. Așadar, Curtea este mult mai europenistă decât guvernele statelor membre, deoarece aceasta lucrează cu legislația comunitară, care e pusă mai presus decât cea națională, lucru înfăptuit prin hotărârea pronunțată la 15 iulie 1964 în cauza Costa/Enel, care a avut un rol esențial în definirea dreptului Comunității Europene ca sistem independent, având întâietate în raport cu prevederile legale naționale. În mod similar, hotărârea din 5 februarie 1963, pronunțată în cauza Van Gend & Loos, a stabilit principiul conform căruia dreptul comunitar este direct aplicabil de către instanțele statelor membre. Așadar, Curtea poate acționa europenist, tocmai pentru a facilita aplicarea legislației comunitare în statele membre. De asemenea, trebuie menționat unul dintre marile merite ale Curții: enunțarea principiului potrivit căruia tratatele nu trebuie interpretate în mod rigid, ci trebuie considerate în contextul stadiului de integrare și al obiectivelor pe care le-au stabilit. Acest principiu i-a permis Comunității să legifereze în domenii cu referire la care în tratate nu există dispoziții specifice, de exemplu cel al combaterii poluării (în hotărârea din 13 septembrie 2005 − cauza C-176/03 − în care Curtea a autorizat în fapt Uniunea Europeană să ia măsuri legate de dreptul penal, atunci când acestea sunt considerate „necesare” pentru atingerea obiectivului urmărit în ceea ce privește protecția mediului). Astfel, Curtea se implică în numeroase domenii și își urmărește obiectivele, ajutând statele membre să aplice optim legislația comunitară sau impulsionându-le să o facă, fapt care o face mai europenistă decât guvernele statelor membre. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/factsheets/ro/sheet/26/curtea-de-justitie-a-uniunii-europene
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 18
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Expert vote

Like most people who voted, I'm sure that Court of Justice EU is more Europeanist. It reflects common politisc and decisions of Member state combined in one organization. Nowadays the level of Euroscepticizm is grown up and CJEU should reduce it and made some kind of propaganda of EU, I guess.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 12
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Expert vote

Is the Court of Justice of the EU more Europeanist than Member State governments? I think yes, , because it symbolizes the values ​​of the European Union. The state always follows its sovereign goals and interests. The the Court of Justice of the EU also establishes a balance between the states and the European Union, which, in turn, helps to build a common european community that, in my opinion, will allow in the future to destroy the borders between peoples in the European Union, cultural,religion, and any other national borders.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 11
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Expert vote

The member states of the EU claim to have the common foreign policy, follow the common law and all the signs treaties. The main goal of the Court of Justice is to interprete the Law of the Union as well as to keep an eye on the states and how they follow and implement it. Being within th EU borders, the countries have to foolow its rules, so the Court has the objective supremacy above all of them. The national judiciary system is also adjusted to the general laws and this is a step forward to the unity of all the members. Furthermore, the Court regulates th misuderstandings and controls the functioning of the whole European mechanism. To rcaputilate, I consider That the Court of Justice of the EU ia more Europeanist than member State governments and it has been able to push integration forward when governments have been unable to.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 12
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Expert vote

Curtea Europeană de Justiție aplică și interpretează legislația uniform în toate statele membre ale Uniunii Europene. Aceasta are jurisdicție în sensul că acționează legal și soluționează litigii în diverse domenii de activitate din interiorul statelor care conduc spre extindere. Spre exemplu, în cadrul funcționării Pieței Comune drepturile sunt aplicate echitabil în toate statele membre UE, conducând spre o bună integrare și extindere. Totodată, Curtea obligă guvernele, principalul agent UE-CEJ, să-și urmărească interesele , iar în cazul în care apar derapaje Curtea intervine și le sancționează. Curtea Europeană de Justiție este mai europenistă în sensul în care avansează integrarea europeană prin reunirea legilor ale diferitelor țări, prin punerea accentului pe individ (are interes european, oferă soluții plauzibile, rezolvă conflicte și interese) , pe respectarea drepturilor fundamentale ale acestuia, în special pe respectarea valorilor Uniunii Europene( demnitatea umană, libertate, democrație, egalitate, domnia legii) care sunt esențiale pentru viitorul și integrarea Uniunii Europene. Când avem în vedere procedura de ratificare a tratatelor de drept internațional public încheiate de Comunitate, Jurisprudența Curții este acceptată că sursă subsidiară a dreptului comunitar, contribuind la complinirea lacunelor acestuia, precum și la lămurirea formulărilor mai puțin clare ale actelor normative comunitare (organele comunitare sunt obligate să se consulte cu această înainte de semnarea unor astfel de tratate) , acesta reprezentând o nevoie de a face alți pași spre integrare.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 16
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Expert vote

Each of member State governments is a specific one and only a part of great European Union, but all of state members are united with the same ideas and principles of functioning, that are exactly controlled by the Court of Justice of the EU. But, for instance, if we are talking about Xiaomi company, who is more Xiaomiest: software developer, hardware developer or general director? As for me, if we are talking about a single mechanism it is unfair to say that some of parts are more related to mechanism than the others, even if they are managing. In my opinion, EU is a true example of a single mechanism, and the Court of Justice of the EU is not more Europeanist than Member State governments.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 11
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Expert vote

I am quite positive about CJEU to be perceived as a supreme agent that facilitates the Member States’ developing their own legal and policy choices in areas where European and national competences overlap. Legally speaking, the European Union (according to the Treaty of the EU) constitutes an area of freedom, security and justice with respect for fundamental rights and the different legal systems and traditions of the Member States. Judicial cooperation in the Union is based on the principle of mutual recognition of judgments given by the courts and decisions issued by the judicial authorities. Consequently, decisions issued by the authorities of a Member State must be recognized and may be enforced in all other Member States. The EU may act only in areas where the Member States have conferred powers upon it. Whereas individual Member State governments occasionally complain about judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union, curtailing that state’s policy autonomy in a sensitive domain, the collectivity of the Member State governments have agreed, in each treaty revision so far, to confirm and extend the far-reaching powers which the Court of Justice possesses for enforcing EU law. Unfortunately, the bias also speaks in favor of CGH’s main finding concerning member states’ influence over the CJEU, since it is most likely that the court chooses to refer to those observations which are in alignment with their own position. The CJEU does not adjudicate between the parties in the case, but guides the national court in the understanding and construction of EU law. Often this implies deciding whether there is a conflict between EU law and national laws, regulations and practices in the case at hand. Due to the principle of supremacy of EU law over national law, the judgments of the CJEU in most cases, imply deciding whether national autonomy will be restricted or not. Unfortunately, the bias also speaks in favor of CGH’s main finding concerning member states’ influence over the CJEU, since it is most likely that the court chooses to refer to those observations which are in alignment with their own position. However, the in-depth analysis testifies to the fact that the Court of Justice, quite often, does not leave sufficient autonomy to the Member States.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 10
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 0
Expert vote

Yes, because of its institutional design, it has been able to push integration forward when governments have been unable to. The Court of Justice of the European Union interprets EU law to make sure it is applied in the same way in all EU countries, and settles legal disputes between national governments and EU institutions. If a member national courts of EU countries are required to ensure EU law is properly applied, but courts in different countries might interpret it differently. National court is in doubt about the interpretation or validity of an EU law, it can ask the Court for clarification. The same mechanism can be used to determine whether a national law or practice is compatible with EU law. All members need those laws because the Court of Justice establishes a balance between the states and the European Union.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 14
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Expert vote

I voted for the third variant: yes, because of its institutional design, it has been able to push integration forward when governments have been unable to. I think that the Court of Justice of the EU is one more an instrument to improve EU integration, to build a connection between EU citizen and EU Institutions. It is another way to contribute EU member`s law.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 8
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Expert vote

I stand for the third answer, that the Court of Justice has been able to push integration forward when governments have been unable to. Its judgements can affect both member states and individuals, and it is the referee between member states, institutions and individuals in disputes relating the EU law.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 14
Peer vote
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Total votes: 1
Expert vote