Comparative reasoning
It can be very useful to take a look to the approach endorsed by the legislators of other States or by foreign courts to similar legal questions/problems. This technique can thus offer a solution adopted by another national judge when confronted with the application of the same EU legal provision or ECHR, or when the State acts within the margin of appreciation/discretion. The national judge who wants to engage in comparative reasoning will have to 1) choose a foreign decision that might be helpful to decide their own cases; 2) adapt the solution experimented in another context to their own legal orders.
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
Portugal, Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) - Case 403/2015, 27 August 2015
Conflict:
Conflict of interpretation
Judicial interaction techniques:
Interpretative techniques - Consistent interpretation - Comparative reasoning
Judicial interaction type:
Horizontal interaction - External - Internal
Categories: Portugal - National Courts - Constitutional Court - Art. 7 - Respect for private and family life - Art. 8 - Protection of personal data
JUDCOOP CASE
Romania, Curtea Constitu?ional? a României (Romanian Constitutional Court), 424 D/2014 & 478/D/2014, 8 july 2014
Conflict:
Judicial interaction techniques:
Interpretative techniques - Consistent interpretation - Comparative reasoning - Proportionality test
Judicial interaction type:
Horizontal interaction - External - Vertical interaction - External
Categories: Romania - Court of Justice of European Union - National Courts - Constitutional Court - Art. 7 - Respect for private and family life - Art. 11 - Freedom of expression and information - Art. 8 - Right to respect for private and family life - Art. 10 - Freedom of expression
JUDCOOP CASE
Ireland, Graham Dwyer v. Data Commissioner, The High Court, n. 351/2015, 6 December 2018
Conflict:
Conflict of interpretation
Judicial interaction techniques:
Interpretative techniques - Consistent interpretation - Comparative reasoning
Judicial interaction type:
Horizontal interaction - External - Supra-national level
Categories: Ireland - Court of Justice of European Union - European Court of Human Rights - National Courts - Supreme Court - Art. 7 - Respect for private and family life - Art. 8 - Protection of personal data - Art. 8 - Right to respect for private and family life - Art. 10 - Freedom of expression
JUDCOOP CASE
Italy, Court of Padua, n. 709/2018, 24 December 2018
Conflict:
Conflict of interpretation
Judicial interaction techniques:
Interpretative techniques - Comparative reasoning - Interaction between courts - Dissenting judicial interpretation
Judicial interaction type:
Horizontal interaction - External - Supra-national level - Vertical interaction - External - Internal
Categories: Italy - European Court of Human Rights - National Courts - Supreme Court - Ordinary Court - Art. 7 - Respect for private and family life - Art. 8 - Protection of personal data
JUDCOOP CASE
Portugal, Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) - Case 333/2018, 27 June 2018
Conflict:
Conflict of interpretation
Judicial interaction techniques:
Interpretative techniques - Consistent interpretation - Comparative reasoning
Judicial interaction type:
Horizontal interaction - External
Categories: Portugal - Constitutional Court - Art. 8 - Protection of personal data
JUDCOOP CASE
ECtHR, Avotins v. Latvia, judgment of 23 May 2016
Conflict:
Conflict of interpretation
Judicial interaction techniques:
Interpretative techniques - Consistent interpretation - Comparative reasoning - Interaction between courts - Mutual recognition
Judicial interaction type:
Horizontal interaction - External
Categories: European Court of Human Rights - Effective judicial protection - Art. 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial - Art. 6 - Right to a fair trial
JUDCOOP CASE
Ireland,Supreme Court, Minister for Justice & Equality v Ostrowski [2013] IESC 24, appellate, 15 May 2013, [2013] 5 JIC 1501
Conflict:
Conflict of interpretation
Judicial interaction techniques:
Interpretative techniques - Comparative reasoning - Interaction between rights - Proportionality test - Interaction between courts - Deferential approach - Dissenting judicial interpretation
Judicial interaction type:
Horizontal interaction - External
Categories: Ireland - National Courts - Supreme Court - Criminal law - Art. 7 - Respect for private and family life - Art. 8 - Right to respect for private and family life
JUDCOOP CASE
Ireland, Supreme Court, Dundon v Governor of Cloverhill Prison [2005] IESC 83, [2006] 1 IR 518, 19 December 2005
Conflict:
Conflict of interpretation
Judicial interaction techniques:
Interpretative techniques - Consistent interpretation - Comparative reasoning - Interaction between courts - Equivalent protection - Mutual adaptation of jurisprudence
Judicial interaction type:
Horizontal interaction - External - Vertical interaction - External
Categories: Ireland - National Courts - Supreme Court - Criminal law - Right to liberty and security
JUDCOOP CASE
Ireland, The High Court, Smith v Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Judgement of 5 March 2012
Conflict:
Judicial interaction techniques:
Interpretative techniques - Consistent interpretation - Comparative reasoning - Interaction between provisions - Proportionality test
Judicial interaction type:
Horizontal interaction - External - Vertical interaction - External
Categories: Ireland - National Courts - Migration and asylum - Art. 7 - Respect for private and family life - Art. 21 - Non-discrimination - Art. 51 - Field of application - Art. 8 - Right to respect for private and family life
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