Normative Approach to the Interplay between the CCC and the CJEU/ECtHR
Judicial Dialogue or a Dictate?
Abstract
The article aims to identify the rules governing the mutual relationships among the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice, the constitutional courts of EU’s Member States, and the EFTA Court. Its second goal is to determine to what extent their decisions and interpretive conclusions mutually bind these courts. The third goal is to present the approach taken by the Czech Constitutional Court towards the European Court of Human Rights and Court of Justice, and their decisions, on the one hand, and that of the Court of Justice to rulings made by the European Court of Human Rights and the EFTA Court, on the other hand. To find an answer to these questions, the article first analysis the normative settings and the links among individual legal systems and also among these courts. The second part of the article focuses on the case-law of these courts and thus on the reality of their “mutual” decision-making. The author concludes that there is a significant difference between the decisions of the Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights. While the former has the power to determine the binding and, therefore correct interpretation of EU law, the latter does not have comparable competence when it comes to the European Convention. Therefore, European Court of Human Rights decisions are only de facto binding. However, in the case law of the Constitutional Court, the exact opposite is the reality. The European Court of Human Rights judgments are unquestioningly respected and followed, while the approach to the Court of Justice’s decisions oscillates between two extremes. Some of its decisions are fully reflected, while others are silently ignored. Similarly, the Court of Justice works differently with the European Court of Human Rights decisions and the EFTA Court. The Czech Constitutional Court and the Court of Justice also have in common that they treat decisions of the European Court of Human Rights (Czech Constitutional Court) and the EFTA Court (Court of Justice) basically like their own.
References
Kuijer, M. (2011) ‘The Accession of the European Union to the ECHR: A Gift for the ECHR’s 60th Anniversary or an Unwelcome Intruder at the Party?’, Amsterdam Law Forum, 3(4), pp. 17–32. Available at: http://amsterdamlawforum.org/.
Baudenbacher, C. (2004) ‘The EFTA Court: An Actor in the European Judicial Dialogue’, Fordham International Law Journal, 28(2), pp. 353–391.
Bronckers, M. (2007) ‘The Relationship of the EC Courts with Other International Tribunals: Non-committal, Respectful or Submissive?’, Common Market Law Review, 44(3), pp. 601–627.
Douglas-Scott, S. (2006) ‘A Tale of Two Courts: Luxembourg, Strasbourg and the Growing European Human Rights Acquis’, Common Market Law Review, 43(3), pp. 629–665.
Filip, J. (2005) ‘Evropský zatýkací rozkaz a rozhodování ústavních soudů [European Arrest Warrant and Judicial Practice of Constitutional Courts.]’, Právní zpravodaj, 6(8), pp. 3–7.
Forejtová, M. (2015) Přistoupit či nepřistoupit k EÚLP – to je oč tu už neběží. [To Accede or Not to Accede to the ECHR – That is No Longer the Question.] [Online]. Available at: http://www.pravniprostor.cz/.
Hamuľák, O. (2016) National Sovereignty in the European Union: View from the Czech Perspective. Cham: Springer International Publishing AG.
Hlinková, K. (2016) ‘Interakce Soudního dvora EU a Soudního dvora Evropského sdružení volného obchodu. [Interactions of the EU Court of Justice and the Court of the European Free Trade Association.]’ in Sehnálek, D., Týč, V. (eds.) Soudní dvůr EU a výklad práva Evropské unie. [Court of Justice of the EU and Interpretation of European Union Law.] Brno: Masaryk University, pp. 950–111.
Kaczorowska-Ireland, A. (2016) European Union Law. 4th Edition. London: Routledge.
Kosař, D. (2006) ‘Co si myslí štrasburský soud o lucemburských institucích? [What is the Stance of the Strasbourg Court on Luxembourg Institutions?]’, Právní rozhledy, 2006/4, pp. 135–141.
Král, R. (2005) ‘K přezkumu ústavnosti českých předpisů transponujících, popř. implementujících komunitární či unijní akty. [On the Review of Constitutionality of Czech Laws Transposing or Implementing Community or Union Acts.]’, Právní rozhledy, 2005/ 6, pp. 218–220.
Lock, T. (2015) The European Court of Justice and International Courts. Oxford University Press.
Molek, P. (2014) Materiální ohnisko ústavy: věčný limit evropské integrace? Brno: Masarykova univerzita
Mcgregor, D. B., Adams, C. M. (2008) The International Lawyers Guide to Legal Analysis and Communication in the United States. New York: Aspen Publisher.
Sehnálek, D., Stehlík. V. (2019) ‘European “Judicial Monologue” of the Czech Constitutional Court: A Critical Review of its approach to the Preliminary Ruling Procedure’, International and Comparative Law Review, Univerzita Palackého v Olomouci, 19 (2), pp. 181–199.
Stehlík, V., Sehnále, D. (2019) ‘The Use of the Preliminary Ruling Procedure by Czech Courts: Historical Retrospective and Beyond’, Baltic Journal of European Studies. Tallinn University of Technology, 9(4), pp. 150–172.
Stehlík, V. (2019) ‘Constitutional review and the preliminary ruling procedure: Commentary on the CCB decision of the Czech Constitutional Court’, Czech Yearbook of International Law, 2019/10, pp. 117–129.
Stehlík, V. (2017) ‘Application of CILFIT Criteria by Czech Supreme Courts’, Czech Yearbook of International Law, 2017/8, pp. 577–588.
Tomášek, M. (2006) ‘Cesty k eurokonformnímu výkladu v trestním právu. [Paths towards Euro-conforming Interpretation in Criminal Law.]’, Trestněprávní revue, 2006/7, pp. 200–203.
Týč, V. (2017) Základy práva Evropské unie pro ekonomy. [Basics of EU Law for Economists.] 7th edition. Prague: Leges, s.r.o.
Zemánek, J. (2006) ‘Evropskoprávní meze přezkumu ústavnosti transpozice rámcového rozhodnutí o eurozatykači. [European-law Limits to Review of Constitutionality of the Transposition of the Framework Decision on European Arrest Warrant.]’, Právní rozhledy, 2006/3, pp. 90–95.
