Total Row: 118 / View:
Page:

Consistent interpretation


Typically, national judges must strive to interpret national law in compliance with their constitution. In addition, they are under the obligation to interpret domestic laws in such manner so as not to breach EU and ECHR law obligations. This duty results from the principle of primacy of EU law over national law, and from the obligation of the High Contracting Parties to ensure that the Convention is implemented within the domestic legal order. According to the doctrine of consistent interpretation, a national judge has to choose among the different possible interpretations of a domestic norm one that does not lead to a conflict with EU norms or the ECHR. In particular, as far as EU law is concerned, consistent interpretation is a technique through which national judges can sometimes overcame the lack of implementation of EU legislation by the domestic legislator, eventually limiting the implications of the lack of horizontal effect of certain EU secondary sources (notably, directives). In order to perform conform interpretation with EU law, national judges must use the room available under national law (as a whole) in order to achieve the purpose of the EU act.
JUDCOOP CASE
European Union, CJEU, A v. B and Others, judgment of 11 September 2014
Conflict: Conflict of interpretation
Judicial interaction techniques: Interpretative techniques - Consistent interpretation - Interaction between courts - Preliminary ruling
Judicial interaction type: Vertical interaction - External
Categories: Austria - Court of Justice of European Union - Criminal law - Effective judicial protection - Art. 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial - Art. 6 - Right to a fair trial
JUDCOOP CASE
Austria, Austrian Constitutional Court, Case B166/2013, 13 March 2014
Conflict: Conflict of interpretation
Judicial interaction techniques: Interpretative techniques - Consistent interpretation
Judicial interaction type: Horizontal interaction - External - National level
Categories: Austria - Court of Justice of European Union - European Court of Human Rights - National Courts - Constitutional Court - Non-discrimination - Art. 21 - Non-discrimination - Art. 51 - Field of application - Art. 52 - Scope and interpretation of rights and principles
JUDCOOP CASE
European Union, CJEU, Texdata, judgment of 26 September 2013
Conflict: Conflict of interpretation
Judicial interaction techniques: Interpretative techniques - Consistent interpretation - Interaction between courts - Preliminary ruling
Judicial interaction type: Vertical interaction - External
Categories: Austria - Court of Justice of European Union - Effective judicial protection - Art. 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial - Art. 6 - Right to a fair trial
JUDCOOP CASE
CJEU, Google Spain SL and Google Inc. v Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD) and Mario Costeja González, Case C?131/12
Conflict: Conflict of interpretation
Judicial interaction techniques: Interpretative techniques - Consistent interpretation - Interaction between courts - Preliminary ruling - Dissenting judicial interpretation
Judicial interaction type: Vertical interaction - External
Categories: Spain - Court of Justice of European Union - National Courts - Supreme Court - Other body - Art. 7 - Respect for private and family life - Art. 8 - Protection of personal data - Art. 11 - Freedom of expression and information
JUDCOOP CASE
CJEU, Tietosuojavaltuutettu v Satakunnan Markkinapörssi Oy and Satamedia Oy, Case C-73/07
Conflict: Conflict of interpretation
Judicial interaction techniques: Interpretative techniques - Consistent interpretation - Interaction between courts - Preliminary ruling
Judicial interaction type: Horizontal interaction - External - Supra-national level - Vertical interaction - External
Categories: Finland - Court of Justice of European Union - European Court of Human Rights - National Courts - Supreme Court - Ordinary Court - Other body - Art. 7 - Respect for private and family life - Art. 8 - Protection of personal data - Art. 11 - Freedom of expression and information - Art. 8 - Right to respect for private and family life - Art. 10 - Freedom of expression
JUDCOOP CASE
Romania, High Court of Cassation and Justice, decision no. 3216/2014, 19 november 2014
Conflict: Conflict of interpretation
Judicial interaction techniques: Interpretative techniques - Consistent interpretation
Judicial interaction type: Vertical interaction - External
Categories: Romania - European Court of Human Rights - Art. 11 - Freedom of expression and information - Art. 10 - Freedom of expression
JUDCOOP CASE
Italy, Tribunal of Rovereto, 19 November 2015
Conflict: Conflict of interpretation
Judicial interaction techniques: Interpretative techniques - Consistent interpretation - Interaction between provisions - Proportionality test
Judicial interaction type: Vertical interaction - External
Categories: Italy - European Court of Human Rights - National Courts - Ordinary Court - Art. 10 - Freedom of expression
JUDCOOP CASE
Romania, High Court of Cassation and Justice, decision no. 359/2014 of 28 January 2014
Conflict: Conflict of interpretation
Judicial interaction techniques: Interpretative techniques - Consistent interpretation
Judicial interaction type: Vertical interaction - External
Categories: Romania - European Court of Human Rights - National Courts - Supreme Court - Art. 11 - Freedom of expression and information - Art. 10 - Freedom of expression
JUDCOOP CASE
Slovakia, Constitutional Court II. ÚS 152/08, 15 December 2009
Conflict: Conflict of interpretation
Judicial interaction techniques: Interpretative techniques - Consistent interpretation - Comparative reasoning
Judicial interaction type: Horizontal interaction - External - Vertical interaction - External
Categories: Slovakia - European Court of Human Rights - National Courts - Supreme Court - Art. 11 - Freedom of expression and information - Art. 10 - Freedom of expression
JUDCOOP CASE
Greece, Council of State, Case 1901/2014 (Supreme Administrative Court)
Conflict: Conflict of interpretation
Judicial interaction techniques: Interpretative techniques - Consistent interpretation - Interaction between courts - Dissenting judicial interpretation
Judicial interaction type: Vertical interaction - External
Categories: Greece - European Court of Human Rights - National Courts - Supreme Court - Art. 11 - Freedom of expression and information - Art. 51 - Field of application
Total Row: 118 / View:
Page:
 
Project implemented with financial support of the Fundamental Rights & Citizenship Programme of the European Union
© European University Institute 2019
Villa Schifanoia - Via Boccaccio 121, I-50133 Firenze - Italy