Romanian version of the rule of law crisis comes to the ECJ:
The AFJR case is not just about the Cooperation and
Verification Mechanism

J 2022

Romanian version of the rule of law crisis comes to the ECJ: The AFJR case is not just about the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism

KADLEC, Ondřej a David KOSAŘ

Základní údaje

Originální název

Romanian version of the rule of law crisis comes to the ECJ: The AFJR case is not just about the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism

Autoři

KADLEC, Ondřej (203 Česká republika, domácí) a David KOSAŘ (203 Česká republika, domácí)

Vydání

Common Market Law Review, Alphen aan den Rijn, Sijthoff, 2022, 0165-0750

Další údaje

Jazyk

angličtina

Typ výsledku

Článek v odborném periodiku

Obor

50501 Law

Stát vydavatele

Velká Británie a Severní Irsko

Utajení

není předmětem státního či obchodního tajemství

Odkazy

Open access časopisu

Impakt faktor

Impact factor: 2.300

Kód RIV

RIV/00216224:14220/22:00127274

Organizační jednotka

Právnická fakulta

DOI

http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/cola2022120

UT WoS

000927847300007

Klíčová slova anglicky

Rule of Law; European Court of Justice; Romania; Judicial Reforms

Štítky

rivok

Příznaky

Mezinárodní význam, Recenzováno

Změněno: 19. 4. 2023 16:39, Mgr. Petra Georgala

Anotace

V originále

The article analyses the European Court of Justice’s landmark judgement in AFJR concerning judicial reform in Romania. It argues that the judgment brings three new insights into how the Court approaches rule of law oversight in the Member States. First, by relying almost exclusively on the requirements of Article 19(1) TEU, instead of the more specific requirement stemming from the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), the Court showed that it prefers to tackle rule of law problems in the Member States using a framework which is unified, universally applicable, and forward-looking, rather than one which is specific, tailored-made, and retrospective. Second, AFJR allows us to better understand the Court’s minimalist approach in some of the national rule of law cases. Specifically, it shows that (i) the Court’s silence on the limits of Article 19(1) TEU may not mean that the provision has no limits, but only that there has not yet been a suitable case for spelling out the limits, and that (ii) in cases such as AFJR, the Court’s deferential approach, leaving much of the work on the shoulders of national courts, might be a conscious and prudent choice. Finally, we argue that the Court’s analysis of the three Romanian judicial liability mechanisms not only clarifies the requirements which each of the three regimes must satisfy, but also brings to light a subsequent, more practical, risk relating to how and by whom the Court’s standards, which require quite complex, contextual assessment, should – or even could – be properly applied. Overall, the article argues that the commented judgment does not concern only, or not even mainly, Romania or Bulgaria, the only two EU Member States subject to the CVM. Its universalistic framework and its comprehensiveness ensure that in the time to come, the judgment will be an important reference for assessing judicial organization throughout the Union.

Návaznosti

101002660, interní kód MU

Název: Informal Judicial Institutions: Invisible Determinants of Democratic Decay (Akronym: INFINITY)

Investor: Evropská unie, Informal Judicial Institutions: Invisible Determinants of Democratic Decay, ERC (Excellent Science)

Přiložené soubory

COLA2022120.pdf

Vyhledat podobné dokumenty

Citovat

KADLEC, Ondřej a David KOSAŘ. Romanian version of the rule of law crisis comes to the ECJ: The AFJR case is not just about the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism. Common Market Law Review. Alphen aan den Rijn: Sijthoff, 2022, roč. 59, č. 6, s. 1823-1852. ISSN 0165-0750. Dostupné z: https://dx.doi.org/10.54648/cola2022120.

@article{2234424,
   author = {Kadlec, Ondřej and Kosař, David},
   article_location = {Alphen aan den Rijn},
   article_number = {6},
   doi = {http://dx.doi.org/10.54648/cola2022120},
   keywords = {Rule of Law; European Court of Justice; Romania; Judicial Reforms},
   language = {eng},
   issn = {0165-0750},
   journal = {Common Market Law Review},
   title = {Romanian version of the rule of law crisis comes to the ECJ: The AFJR case is not just about the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism},
   url = {https://kluwerlawonline.com/api/Product/CitationPDFURL?file=Journals%5CCOLA%5CCOLA2022120.pdf},
   volume = {59},
   year = {2022}
}

TY  - JOUR
ID  - 2234424
AU  - Kadlec, Ondřej - Kosař, David
PY  - 2022
TI  - Romanian version of the rule of law crisis comes to the ECJ: The AFJR case is not just about the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism
JF  - Common Market Law Review
VL  - 59
IS  - 6
SP  - 1823-1852
EP  - 1823-1852
PB  - Sijthoff
SN  - 01650750
KW  - Rule of Law
KW  - European Court of Justice
KW  - Romania
KW  - Judicial Reforms
UR  - https://kluwerlawonline.com/api/Product/CitationPDFURL?file=Journals%5CCOLA%5CCOLA2022120.pdf
N2  - The article analyses the European Court of Justice’s landmark judgement in AFJR concerning judicial reform in Romania. It argues that the judgment brings three new insights into how the Court approaches rule of law oversight in the Member States. First, by relying almost exclusively on the requirements of Article 19(1) TEU, instead of the more specific requirement stemming from the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM), the Court showed that it prefers to tackle rule of law problems in the Member States using a framework which is unified, universally applicable, and forward-looking, rather than one which is specific, tailored-made, and retrospective. Second, AFJR allows us to better understand the Court’s minimalist approach in some of the national rule of law cases. Specifically, it shows that (i) the Court’s silence on the limits of Article 19(1) TEU may not mean that the provision has no limits, but only that there has not yet been a suitable case for spelling out the limits, and that (ii) in cases such as AFJR, the Court’s deferential approach, leaving much of the work on the shoulders of national courts, might be a conscious and prudent choice. Finally, we argue that the Court’s analysis of the three Romanian judicial liability mechanisms not only clarifies the requirements which each of the three regimes must satisfy, but also brings to light a subsequent, more practical, risk relating to how and by whom the Court’s standards, which require quite complex, contextual assessment, should – or even could – be properly applied. Overall, the article argues that the commented judgment does not concern only, or not even mainly, Romania or Bulgaria, the only two EU Member States subject to the CVM. Its universalistic framework and its comprehensiveness ensure that in the time to come, the judgment will be an important reference for assessing judicial organization throughout the Union.
ER  -

KADLEC, Ondřej a David KOSAŘ. Romanian version of the rule of law crisis comes to the ECJ: The AFJR case is not just about the Cooperation and Verification Mechanism. \textit{Common Market Law Review}. Alphen aan den Rijn: Sijthoff, 2022, roč.~59, č.~6, s.~1823-1852. ISSN~0165-0750. Dostupné z: https://dx.doi.org/10.54648/cola2022120.

Podrobný výpis o publikaci