Activism relocated. The self-restraint of the European Court of Justice in its national context

Journal of European Public Policy

Volumn 19, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 76-91

  Davies, Gareth ^a  

^a VU UNIVERSITY AMSTERDAM   (Netherlands)

Author keywords

Activism; Court of Justice; judicial discretion; national courts; preliminary reference; proportionality

Indexed keywords

EID: 84855434128     PISSN: 13501763     EISSN: 14664429     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2012.632146     Document Type: Article

References (44)

1. Alter, K. J. 2001. Establishing the Supremacy of European Law: The Making of an International Rule of Law in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2. Alter, K. J. and Meunier-Aitsahalia, S. 1994. Judicial politics in the European Community: European integration and the pathbreaking "Cassis de Dijon" decision. Comparative Political Studies, 26(4): 535-61.
3. Alter, K. J. and Vargas, J. 2000. Explaining variation in the use of European litigation strategies. Comparative Political Studies, 33(4): 452-82.
4. Arnull, A. 1996. The European Court and judicial objectivity: a reply to Professor Hartley. Law Quarterly Review, 112: 411-23.
5. Arnull, A. 2002. The past and future of the preliminary rulings procedure. European Business Law Review, 13(3): 183-91.
6. Arnull, A. 2003. Annotation of Arsenal v Reed. Common Market Law Review, 40(3): 753-69.
7. Bengoetxea, J., MacCormick, N. and Soriano, L. M. 2001. "Integration and integrity in the legal reasoning of the European Court of Justice". In The European Court of Justice, Edited by: De Burca, G. and Weiler, J.H.H. 43-86. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
8. Betlem, G. 2002. The doctrine of consistent interpretation: managing legal uncertainty. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 22(3): 397-418.
9. Cichowski, R. 2004. Women's rights, the European Court, and supranational constitutionalism. Law and Society Review, 38(3): 489-512.
10. Cohen, J. C. 1996. The European preliminary reference and US Supreme Court review of state court judgments: a study in comparative judicial federalism. American Journal of Comparative Law, 44(3): 421-61.
11. Conant, L. 2001. "Europeanization and the courts: variable patterns of adaption among national judiciaries". In Transforming Europe - Europeanization and Domestic Change, Edited by: Cowles, M. G., Caporaso, J. A. and Risse, T. 97-115. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
12. Conant, L. 2003. Justice Contained: Law and Politics in the European Union, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
13. Craig, P. 2011. The ECJ and Ultra Vires action: a conceptual analysis. Common Market Law Review, 48(2): 395-437.
14. Davies, G. 2003. Of rules and referees: Arsenal v Reed. European Law Review, 28(3): 408-17.
15. Davies, G. 2006. "Abstractness and concreteness in the preliminary reference procedure". In Regulating the Internal Market, Edited by: Shuibhne, N. N. 210-44. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
16. De Burca, G. 1993. The principle of proportionality and its application in EC law. Yearbook of European Law, 13: 105-50.
17. Golub, J. 1996. The politics of judicial discretion. West European Politics, 19(2): 360-85.
18. Granger, M.-P. 2007. National applications of Francovich and the construction of a European administrative IUS commune. European Law Review, 32(2): 157-92.
19. Greer, S. L. and Rauscher, S. 2011. Destabilization rights and restabilization politics: policy and political reactions to European Union healthcare services law. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(2): 220-40.
20. Hartley, T. C. 1996. The European Court: judicial objectivity and the Constitution of the European Union. Law Quarterly Review, 112: 95-109.
21. Jarvis, M. 1998. The Application of EC Law by National Courts: The Free Movement of Goods, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22. Kapteyn, P., McDonnell, A. M., Mortelmans, K. and Timmermans, C. W.A. 2008. Kapteyn and Verloren van Themaat: The Law of the European Union and the European Communities, 4, Edited by: Kapteyn, P., McDonnell, A. M., Mortelmans, K. and Timmermans, C. W.A. The Hague: Kluwer.
23. Kumm, M. 2010. The idea of Socratic contestation and the right to justification: the point of rights-based proportionality review. Law and Ethics of Human Rights, 4(2): 141-75.
24. Lasser, M. 2003. Anticipating three models of judicial control, debate and legitimacy: the European Court of Justice, the Cour de Cassation, and the United States Supreme Court. Jean Monnet Working Paper 1/03,
25. Majone, G. 1995. Mutual trust, credible commitment and the evolution of the rules of the single market. EUI RSC Working Paper 95/01,
26. Martinsen, D. S. 2011. Judicial policy-making and Europeanization: the proportionality of national control and administrative discretion. Journal of European Public Policy, 18(7): 944-61.
27. Martinsen, D. S. and Wind, M. 2010. "When national courts go to Europe: reluctant or active players in the integration process?". In Europe. The New Legal Realism, Edited by: Koch, H., Hogel-Sorensen, K., Haltern, U. and Weiler, J. H.H. 479-500. Copenhagen: DJØF Publishing.
28. Nowak, T. 2010. Of garbage cans and rulings: judgments of the European Court of Justice in the EU legislative process. West European Politics, 33(4): 753-69.
29. Nyikos, S. A. 2003. The Preliminary Reference Process. European Union Politics, 4(4): 397-419.
30. Nyikos, S. A. 2006. Strategic interaction among Courts within the Preliminary Reference Process - Stage 1: National court pre-emptive opinions. European Journal of Political Research, 45(4): 527-50.
31. Pelkmans, J. 2003. Mutual recognition in goods and services: an economic perspective. ENEPRI Working Paper 16/March 2003, (Brussels: European Network of Economic Policy Research Institutes), available at www.ceps.eu/ceps/download/867
32. Prechal, S. 2008. Free movement and procedural requirements: proportionality reconsidered. Legal Issues of Economic Integration, 35(3): 201-16.
33. Rasmussen, H. 1986. On Law and Policy in the European Court of Justice. A Comparative Study in Judicial Policymaking, Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.
34. Sabel, C. F. and Simon, W. H. 2004. Destabilization rights: how public law litigation succeeds. Harvard Law Review, 117(4): 1015-101.
35. Scharpf, F. W. 2002. The European social model: coping with the challenges of diversity. Journal of Common Market Studies, 40(4): 645-70.
36. Semmelman, C. 2010. The European Union's economic constitution under the Lisbon Treaty: soul searching among lawyers shifts the emphasis to procedure. European Law Review, 35(4): 516-41.
37. Slepcevic, R. 2009. The judicial enforcement of EU law through national courts: possibilities and limits. Journal of European Public Policy, 16(3): 378-94.
38. Stone Sweet, A. 2004. The Judicial Construction of Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
39. Stone Sweet, A. 2010. The European Court of Justice and the judicialization of EU governance. Faculty Scholarship Series, Paper 70, available at http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/70 (accessed 7 September 2011)
40. Stone Sweet, A. and Mathews, J. 2008. Proportionality balancing and global constitutionalism. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 47(1): 73-165.
41. Van Gerven, W. 1999. "The effect of proportionality on the actions of member states of the European Community: national viewpoints from continental Europe". In The Principle of Proportionality, Edited by: Ellis, E. 37-63. Oxford: Hart.
42. Wasserfallen, F. 2010. The judiciary as legislator? How the European Court of Justice shapes policy-making in the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy, 17(8): 1128-46.
43. Weatherill, S. 2003. "Activism and restraint in the European Court of Justice". In Asserting Jurisdiction: International and European Legal Perspectives, Edited by: Capps, P., Evans, M. and Konstadinidis, S. 255-81. Oxford: Hart.
44. Weiler, J. 1991. The transformation of Europe. Yale Law Journal, 100(8): 2403-83.