Search

In an interdependent world, the use of foreign law by national or domestic courts is a common practice and challenge. Various courts, worldwide, use foreign doctrine and jurisprudence to support their judgments. In that perspective, this paper analyzes the use of the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Colombia by the Peruvian Constitutional Court. In Peru, the Constitutional Court uses the jurisprudence of its Colombian counterpart in two ways: (1) binding use: the ruling refers to a category or figure developed by the Colombian court and is mentioned in the operative part, i.e., it conditions the meaning of the judgment and (2) incidental use: the ruling uses for illustrative purposes a category or figure developed by the Colombian court and is not mentioned in the operative part, therefore, it does not condition the meaning of the decision. Finally, from the above, both courts have generated a kind of dialogue around the protection of rights, because figures or categories such as the unconstitutional state of affairs, a creation of the Colombian court, are used by the Peruvian court, in addition, this court uses the decisions of its Colombian counterpart more frequently., En un mundo interdependiente, el uso del derecho extranjero por tribunales nacionales o domésticos es una práctica y desafío común. Diversas cortes en todo el orbe utilizan doctrina y jurisprudencia extranjera para fundamentar sus sentencias. En esa perspectiva, este trabajo analiza el uso de las decisiones de la Corte Constitucional de Colombia por el Tribunal Constitucional peruano. En el Perú, el Tribunal Constitucional emplea la jurisprudencia de su par colombiano de dos maneras: (1) uso vinculante: el fallo se remite a una categoría o figura desarrollada por la Corte colombiana y se menciona en la parte resolutiva, es decir, condiciona el sentido de la sentencia y (2) uso incidental: el fallo usa con fines ilustrativos una categoría o figura desarrollada por la Corte colombiana y no se menciona en la parte resolutiva, por consiguiente, no condiciona el sentido de la decisión. Finalmente, a partir de lo anterior, ambas cortes han generado una especie de diálogo en torno a la protección de derechos, debido a que figuras o categorías como el estado de cosas inconstitucional¸ una creación de la Corte colombiana, son empleadas por el tribunal peruano; además, este tribunal usa las decisiones de su par colombiano con mayor frecuencia.

The research problem is preliminary protection as a preventive action of the court which can protect the individual from violation of their rights. Preliminary questions can be considered a mechanism for effective legal protection of the individual. The judicial dialogue initiated by preliminary questions has, apart from determining the result of a particular case, a twofold effect: building up the acquis de l’Union and influencing national law and its application. The aim of this article is to examine the preliminary procedure: firstly from a national perspective, secondly from administrative courts perspective, and thirdly from the perspective of the Supreme Administrative Court as a court “against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law”. The paper covers the normative basis for preliminary questions (in the context of the principles of EU law and the paradigm of co-application of European and national law), and then selected examples of the use of this mechanism by the SAC. The text is dominated by the dogmatic-legal method and thus involves an analysis of legal provisions and the relevant case law. It concludes that the experience of the SAC confirms that, in cooperation with the CJEU, it effectively performs its task of ensuring respect for the law while interpreting and applying the EU treaties. It makes legitimate use of the preliminary ruling procedure, which confirms the role of the national court as an EU court. The questions and case law following preliminary rulings contribute to the development of the acquis in the various areas covered by the jurisdiction of the administrative courts. Therefore, the issue in question – together with the practical scheme of the preliminary ruling procedure – is important, and the updated 'review' of the case law of the SAC constitutes an element of novelty., Artykuł dotyczy zagadnienia ochrony prejudycjalnej, oznaczającej działanie sądu w trybie prewencyjnym, co może uchronić jednostkę przed naruszeniem jej praw. Pytania prejudycjalne można uznać za mechanizm skutecznej ochrony prawnej jednostki. Inicjowany przez pytania prejudycjalne dialog sądowy ma, oprócz wpływu na wynik konkretnej sprawy, dwojaki skutek: buduje acquis de l’Union oraz wpływa na prawo krajowe i jego stosowanie. Celem artykułu jest spojrzenie na pytania prejudycjalne: (1) z perspektywy krajowej, (2) sądowoadministracyjnej oraz (3) z pozycji Naczelnego Sądu Administracyjnego jako sądu, którego orzeczenia „nie podlegają zaskarżeniu według prawa wewnętrznego”. Analizie poddano podstawy normatywne pytań prejudycjalnych (w kontekście zasad prawa UE oraz modelu współstosowania prawa unijnego z krajowym), a następnie wybrane przypadki wykorzystania tego mechanizmu przez NSA. Przeprowadzona analiza przepisów oraz relewantnego orzecznictwa prowadzi do konkluzji, że doświadczenia NSA potwierdzają, że we współpracy z Trybunałem Sprawiedliwości Unii Europejskiej skutecznie realizuje zadania służące zapewnieniu poszanowania prawa w wykładni i stosowaniu traktatów. Sąd ten korzysta z procedury prejudycjalnej w sposób uzasadniony, co potwierdza rolę sądu krajowego jako sądu unijnego. Pytania prawne i orzecznictwo wydawane w następstwie orzeczeń prejudycjalnych stanowią wkład w rozwój unijnego acquis w różnorodnych dziedzinach podlegających kognicji sądów administracyjnych. Dlatego analizowane zagadnienie – wraz z praktycznym schematem procedury prejudycjalnej – jest istotne, a zaktualizowany „przegląd” orzecznictwa NSA stanowi element nowatorski.

This essay tackles Protocol No. 16 to the ECHR as a positive instrument for judicial dialogue and effective multilevel protection of fundamental rights. Such approach is emphasized in Part I, together with the praxis of the ECtHR’s advisory jurisdiction since the entry into force of Protocol No. 16 on 1 August 2018. Part II examines the virtuality and effectiveness of Protocol No. 16 in Spain by criticizing, on the one hand, Spain’s incomprehensible reluctant position towards the acceptance of the Protocol and, on the other hand, its potential indirect constitutional impact on our country. Part III focuses on the projection of Protocol No. 16 within the European Union and on the need to articulate the triple relationship between the ECtHR, the CJEU and the National Courts. Finally, Part IV includes some final conclusions and proposals aimed at underlining the role of Protocol No. 16 as an optimisation vector of the constitutional fundamental rights system in Spain. Received: 15.05.2022Accepted: 14.06.2022, El artículo aborda el Protocolo n.º 16 al CEDH como un instrumento positivo para el diálogo judicial y la efectiva protección multinivel de los derechos fundamentales. Dicha aproximación se enfatiza en la parte I, junto con la praxis de la jurisdicción consultiva del TEDH desde la entrada en vigor del Protocolo n.º 16 el 1 de agosto de 2018. En la parte II se examina la virtualidad y efectividad del Protocolo n.º 16 en España criticando, de un lado, la incomprensible posición española reticente hacia la aceptación de dicho Protocolo y, de otro lado, su potencial impacto constitucional indirecto en nuestro país. La parte III pone el foco de interés en la proyección del Protocolo n.º 16 en el seno de la Unión Europea y en la necesidad de articular la triple relación entre el TEDH, el TJUE y los tribunales nacionales. Por último, la parte IV incluye unas conclusiones y propuestas finales tendentes a subrayar el papel del Protocolo n.º 16 como vector de optimización del sistema constitucional español de derechos fundamentales. Recibido: 15.05.2022Aceptado: 14.06.2022

This essay tackles Protocol No. 16 to the ECHR as a positive instrument for judicial dialogue and effective multilevel protection of fundamental rights. Such approach is emphasized in Part I, together with the praxis of the ECtHR’s advisory jurisdiction since the entry into force of Protocol No. 16 on 1 August 2018. Part II examines the virtuality and effectiveness of Protocol No. 16 in Spain by criticizing, on the one hand, Spain’s incomprehensible reluctant position towards the acceptance of the Protocol and, on the other hand, its potential indirect constitutional impact on our country. Part III focuses on the projection of Protocol No. 16 within the European Union and on the need to articulate the triple relationship between the ECtHR, the CJEU and the National Courts. Finally, Part IV includes some final conclusions and proposals aimed at underlining the role of Protocol No. 16 as an optimisation vector of the constitutional fundamental rights system in Spain. Received: 15.05.2022Accepted: 14.06.2022, El artículo aborda el Protocolo n.º 16 al CEDH como un instrumento positivo para el diálogo judicial y la efectiva protección multinivel de los derechos fundamentales. Dicha aproximación se enfatiza en la parte I, junto con la praxis de la jurisdicción consultiva del TEDH desde la entrada en vigor del Protocolo n.º 16 el 1 de agosto de 2018. En la parte II se examina la virtualidad y efectividad del Protocolo n.º 16 en España criticando, de un lado, la incomprensible posición española reticente hacia la aceptación de dicho Protocolo y, de otro lado, su potencial impacto constitucional indirecto en nuestro país. La parte III pone el foco de interés en la proyección del Protocolo n.º 16 en el seno de la Unión Europea y en la necesidad de articular la triple relación entre el TEDH, el TJUE y los tribunales nacionales. Por último, la parte IV incluye unas conclusiones y propuestas finales tendentes a subrayar el papel del Protocolo n.º 16 como vector de optimización del sistema constitucional español de derechos fundamentales. Recibido: 15.05.2022Aceptado: 14.06.2022

This Training Handbook offers an overview of the main challenges in the protection of what can be considered a cornerstone of European democracies: freedom of expression. Taking the protection afforded by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and the European Convention of Human Rights, the Hanndbook will guide you through different facets of freedom of expression, taking into account also the interplay between freedom of expression and Internet technologies, looking at the potential conflicts with other fundamental rights, such as dignity, data protection, and copyright. The analysis includes the presentation of the variety of cases sourcing from pan European and national courts inviting the learners to put on judge’s hats and decide on the legal problems emerging from the presented case studies.

This Training Handbook provide an overview of the right to the protection of personal data and the right to privacy, provided by Articles 8 and 7 of the EU Charter. It addresses the different facets of data protection in the light of primary and secondary EU law. Moreover, it analyses in detail the interplay between data protection and cross-border digital technologies, paying particular attention to the territorial scope and cross-border data transfers as well as to the potential conflicts with other fundamental rights and interests, such as law enforcement, scientific research and property rights. The analysis is based on the exchanges with legal practitioners at the European and national level, including a variety of cases sourcing from pan European and national courts.

This Handbook addresses the complexity of legal and jurisprudential legal sources governing asylum and immigration, involving highly specialised and technical set of norms originating from multiple legal sources. The analysis focus on the jurisprudence of the CJEU and the ECtHR selecting the cases where they engaged in a constructive and coordinated discussion of their respective fundamental rights charters, and showing where their judicial interpretations have left room for divergent application at the domestic level. The Handbook highlights the role of national courts in avoiding the risk of conflicting interpretations through judicial interactions that forced the supranational courts to adjust their interpretations. Then, the Handbook shows that the compatibility of EU secondary legislation was increasingly challenged in light of international and regional, but also EU primary legislation. This requires raising awareness of legal practitioners that in addition to the correct application of EU law, they also need to consider the fundamental rights.

This introductory article lays out the background of the inquiry proposed by the contributions of this special issue, while also presenting its main findings and adopting a forward-looking stance. To this end, it first briefly recalls what the origins of the identity clause are, before it discusses what meanings this clause could have. Subsequently, the main conclusions of the various articles are presented. The final part concludes by restating that national identity remains an undefined concept, which can only be defined on a case-by-case basis by means of dialogue between national and European courts.

This Training Handbook focuses on two (macro-)sets of situations in which the relevance of EU law is triggered by the circumstance that children or their parents are (or have been) on the move. Attention is paid in particular to the contribution of EU law (1) in cases concerning family reunification or family unity, and (2) in the context of migration and asylum law. The Handbook begins with a preliminary assessment of the provisions in the EUCFR potentially relevant in child-related cases. The scope and content of EU primary and secondary law concerning the fields chosen are then reconstructed. Then, the relevant case law of the European Court of Justice and of the Member States in the project is collected, classified and examined, also in terms of its interrelation with ECtHR jurisprudence.

This Handbook addresses the complexity of legal and jurisprudential legal sources governing asylum and immigration, involving highly specialised and technical set of norms originating from multiple legal sources. The analysis focus on the jurisprudence of the CJEU and the ECtHR selecting the cases where they engaged in a constructive and coordinated discussion of their respective fundamental rights charters, and showing where their judicial interpretations have left room for divergent application at the domestic level. The Handbook highlights the role of national courts in avoiding the risk of conflicting interpretations through judicial interactions that forced the supranational courts to adjust their interpretations. Then, the Handbook shows that the compatibility of EU secondary legislation was increasingly challenged in light of international and regional, but also EU primary legislation. This requires raising awareness of legal practitioners that in addition to the correct application of EU law, they also need to consider the fundamental rights.

This Training Handbook offers an overview of the main challenges in the protection of what can be considered a cornerstone of European democracies: freedom of expression. Taking the protection afforded by the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU and the European Convention of Human Rights, the Hanndbook will guide you through different facets of freedom of expression, taking into account also the interplay between freedom of expression and Internet technologies, looking at the potential conflicts with other fundamental rights, such as dignity, data protection, and copyright. The analysis includes the presentation of the variety of cases sourcing from pan European and national courts inviting the learners to put on judge’s hats and decide on the legal problems emerging from the presented case studies.

This Training Handbook offers an overview of the main challenges in the protection of social rights. Contrary to other legal systems solely dedicated to the protection of social rights (such as the International Labour Organisation or the European Social Charter of the Council of Europe), the EU has a broader political and economic agenda. Social rights in the EU face several challenges, such as keeping social dumping at bay, reconciling high standard labour markets and social security policies with the stringent post-crisis requirements of the Economic and Monetary Union, and finding a harmonious balance between worker’s rights and the freedom to conduct business. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU is not always effective when it comes to the social rights it claims to protect. This Handbook aims at detangling the complicated web of EU fundamental social rights protection, highlighting the impact of EU and national jurisprudence on this topic.

This Training Handbook provide an overview of the right to the protection of personal data and the right to privacy, provided by Articles 8 and 7 of the EU Charter. It addresses the different facets of data protection in the light of primary and secondary EU law. Moreover, it analyses in detail the interplay between data protection and cross-border digital technologies, paying particular attention to the territorial scope and cross-border data transfers as well as to the potential conflicts with other fundamental rights and interests, such as law enforcement, scientific research and property rights. The analysis is based on the exchanges with legal practitioners at the European and national level, including a variety of cases sourcing from pan European and national courts.

This introductory article lays out the background of the inquiry proposed by the contributions of this special issue, while also presenting its main findings and adopting a forward-looking stance. To this end, it first briefly recalls what the origins of the identity clause are, before it discusses what meanings this clause could have. Subsequently, the main conclusions of the various articles are presented. The final part concludes by restating that national identity remains an undefined concept, which can only be defined on a case-by-case basis by means of dialogue between national and European courts.

The increasing specialization of Public International Law and the diversity of international courts and tribunals with specific competences ratione materiae and personae in the multiple international normative sectors are still generating challenges for coherence, consistency and predictability of international jurisprudence. Procedural rules and principles may have a cohesive effect on judicial practice and foster a judicial dialogue and cross-fertilization at a procedural level. It may contribute to the unity of the international legal order through the formation of common rules of procedure. In this paper we explore this cohesive effect exhaustively, studying the interaction between the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights when they interpret and apply the revision provision., La creciente especialización del Derecho Internacional Público y la variedad de tribunales internacionales con competencias específicas ratione personae y materiae en los múltiples sectores normativos que se han conformado sigue planteando desafíos para la coherencia, consistencia y previsibilidad en la jurisprudencia internacional. Las normas y principios procesales pueden tener un efecto cohesionador en la acción de los distintos tribunales internacionales y propiciar un diálogo judicial y un efecto de fertilización cruzada en clave procesal que contribuya a reforzar la unidad del ordenamiento jurídico internacional a través de la formación de un derecho procesal común. En este estudio exploramos este efecto cohesionador estudiando con carácter exhaustivo cómo se materializa la interacción entre la Corte Internacional de Justicia y el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos a la hora de interpretar y aplicar la cláusula de revisión.

The increasing specialization of Public International Law and the diversity of international courts and tribunals with specific competences ratione materiae and personae in the multiple international normative sectors are still generating challenges for coherence, consistency and predictability of international jurisprudence. Procedural rules and principles may have a cohesive effect on judicial practice and foster a judicial dialogue and cross-fertilization at a procedural level. It may contribute to the unity of the international legal order through the formation of common rules of procedure. In this paper we explore this cohesive effect exhaustively, studying the interaction between the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights when they interpret and apply the revision provision., La creciente especialización del Derecho Internacional Público y la variedad de tribunales internacionales con competencias específicas ratione personae y materiae en los múltiples sectores normativos que se han conformado sigue planteando desafíos para la coherencia, consistencia y previsibilidad en la jurisprudencia internacional. Las normas y principios procesales pueden tener un efecto cohesionador en la acción de los distintos tribunales internacionales y propiciar un diálogo judicial y un efecto de fertilización cruzada en clave procesal que contribuya a reforzar la unidad del ordenamiento jurídico internacional a través de la formación de un derecho procesal común. En este estudio exploramos este efecto cohesionador estudiando con carácter exhaustivo cómo se materializa la interacción entre la Corte Internacional de Justicia y el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos a la hora de interpretar y aplicar la cláusula de revisión.

The impact of EU law on the Member States depends decisively on the application by national judges of principles and rules elaborated by the EU Court of Justice in response to the preliminary ruling references made by the national judges themselves. Therefore the good functioning of the complex system resulting from the interaction between the EU legal order and the Member States implies a constructive relationship between the Court of Justice and the national judges. With this premise, the volume aims to face the di culties experienced in the ‘dialogue’ between all national courts (on the merits, supreme, constitutional) and the EU Court of Justice. To this purpose the national judges themselves are called to express their opinions: they were requested to illustrate, from their experience, the drawbacks encountered in the communication with the CJEU. The voice of professors specialised in European and comparative law is then heard.

The impact of EU law on the Member States depends decisively on the application by national judges of principles and rules elaborated by the EU Court of Justice in response to the preliminary ruling references made by the national judges themselves. Therefore the good functioning of the complex system resulting from the interaction between the EU legal order and the Member States implies a constructive relationship between the Court of Justice and the national judges. With this premise, the volume aims to face the di culties experienced in the ‘dialogue’ between all national courts (on the merits, supreme, constitutional) and the EU Court of Justice. To this purpose the national judges themselves are called to express their opinions: they were requested to illustrate, from their experience, the drawbacks encountered in the communication with the CJEU. The voice of professors specialised in European and comparative law is then heard.

The increasing specialization of Public International Law and the diversity of international courts and tribunals with specific competences ratione materiae and personae in the multiple international normative sectors are still generating challenges for coherence, consistency and predictability of international jurisprudence. Procedural rules and principles may have a cohesive effect on judicial practice and foster a judicial dialogue and cross-fertilization at a procedural level. It may contribute to the unity of the international legal order through the formation of common rules of procedure. In this paper we explore this cohesive effect exhaustively, studying the interaction between the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights when they interpret and apply the revision provision., La creciente especialización del Derecho Internacional Público y la variedad de tribunales internacionales con competencias específicas ratione personae y materiae en los múltiples sectores normativos que se han conformado sigue planteando desafíos para la coherencia, consistencia y previsibilidad en la jurisprudencia internacional. Las normas y principios procesales pueden tener un efecto cohesionador en la acción de los distintos tribunales internacionales y propiciar un diálogo judicial y un efecto de fertilización cruzada en clave procesal que contribuya a reforzar la unidad del ordenamiento jurídico internacional a través de la formación de un derecho procesal común. En este estudio exploramos este efecto cohesionador estudiando con carácter exhaustivo cómo se materializa la interacción entre la Corte Internacional de Justicia y el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos a la hora de interpretar y aplicar la cláusula de revisión.

Climate litigation has become a permanent fixture in the climate law and policy landscape. Across jurisdictions, climate litigation takes different shapes, with actions based on administrative, civil, or criminal law. An increasing number of cases incorporate human rights, leading to courts inter alia imposing more onerous mitigation obligations on governments and private actors in light of human rights provisions. Several landmark cases in this domain have come from European jurisdictions and have been argued with reference to both the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the European Union's Charter of Fundamental Rights. An analysis of case law from the European Member States shows that the emerging picture is one of the Charter playing a secondary role to the ECHR. Based on this jurisprudential analysis, this article reflects on the future role of the Charter in climate litigation, and by extension, in shaping environmental human rights.

What motivates national judges to be either active in the preliminary reference procedure by expressing opinions in the requests they send to the Court of Justice or passive by not voicing their views? This Article sheds light on how national judges perceive the possibility of framing the cases they refer to the Court, for instance, by expressing an opinion in defence of the challenged national law. Based on interviews with Swedish judges, this Article shows that the respondents express opinions to provide the Court with information and to influence the development of EU law. The Article also uncovers what motivates national judges not to express opinions. These three previously untheorised motivations are: 1) protecting one’s reputation, 2) respecting the division of competences between the Court and national courts and 3) upholding the impartiality of the courts. Furthermore, the findings indicate that high court judges in particular are opposed to the inclusion of opinions in a request. In contrast, most of the interviewed lower court judges view the inclusion of opinions in the requests as practically mandatory. This Article proposes that this difference in attitudes towards opinions between high and low court judges originate from variations in professional norms regarding what constitutes appropriate behaviour.

Con la STC 145/2015, de 25 de junio, se dio un paso más respecto a la configuración del alcance general del derecho a la objeción de conciencia. Sin embargo, podemos hacer una lectura positiva y otra negativa de la misma. En este trabajo pretendo sostener: 1) que las consecuencias negativas tienen mayor relevancia porque circunscriben su ejercicio a un supuesto; y 2) que los precedentes de derecho extranjero e internacional hubieran contribuido a asentar las razones de la decisión del TC que ya se desprenden del derecho español. Para ofrecer una explicación teórica del segundo punto, debemos acudir a la propuesta del diálogo judicial como equilibrio reflexivo amplio., SCCD 145/2015 offered a new step towards setting the general scope of the right to conscientious objection and it is possible to highlight positive and negative consequences. In this essay I try to show that: 1) negative consequences have a broader significance as confine its exercise to one assumption; 2) judicial precedents, from foreign and international law, would have contributed to solidify the SCC decision based only on Spanish law. In order to show a theoretical explanation to point two, we must draw on reflexive equilibrium as judicial dialogue proposal.

What motivates national judges to be either active in the preliminary reference procedure by expressing opinions in the requests they send to the Court of Justice or passive by not voicing their views? This Article sheds light on how national judges perceive the possibility of framing the cases they refer to the Court, for instance, by expressing an opinion in defence of the challenged national law. Based on interviews with Swedish judges, this Article shows that the respondents express opinions to provide the Court with information and to influence the development of EU law. The Article also uncovers what motivates national judges not to express opinions. These three previously untheorised motivations are: 1) protecting one’s reputation, 2) respecting the division of competences between the Court and national courts and 3) upholding the impartiality of the courts. Furthermore, the findings indicate that high court judges in particular are opposed to the inclusion of opinions in a request. In contrast, most of the interviewed lower court judges view the inclusion of opinions in the requests as practically mandatory. This Article proposes that this difference in attitudes towards opinions between high and low court judges originate from variations in professional norms regarding what constitutes appropriate behaviour.

What motivates national judges to be either active in the preliminary reference procedure by expressing opinions in the requests they send to the Court of Justice or passive by not voicing their views? This Article sheds light on how national judges perceive the possibility of framing the cases they refer to the Court, for instance, by expressing an opinion in defence of the challenged national law. Based on interviews with Swedish judges, this Article shows that the respondents express opinions to provide the Court with information and to influence the development of EU law. The Article also uncovers what motivates national judges not to express opinions. These three previously untheorised motivations are: 1) protecting one’s reputation, 2) respecting the division of competences between the Court and national courts and 3) upholding the impartiality of the courts. Furthermore, the findings indicate that high court judges in particular are opposed to the inclusion of opinions in a request. In contrast, most of the interviewed lower court judges view the inclusion of opinions in the requests as practically mandatory. This Article proposes that this difference in attitudes towards opinions between high and low court judges originate from variations in professional norms regarding what constitutes appropriate behaviour.

What motivates national judges to be either active in the preliminary reference procedure by expressing opinions in the requests they send to the Court of Justice or passive by not voicing their views? This Article sheds light on how national judges perceive the possibility of framing the cases they refer to the Court, for instance, by expressing an opinion in defence of the challenged national law. Based on interviews with Swedish judges, this Article shows that the respondents express opinions to provide the Court with information and to influence the development of EU law. The Article also uncovers what motivates national judges not to express opinions. These three previously untheorised motivations are: 1) protecting one’s reputation, 2) respecting the division of competences between the Court and national courts and 3) upholding the impartiality of the courts. Furthermore, the findings indicate that high court judges in particular are opposed to the inclusion of opinions in a request. In contrast, most of the interviewed lower court judges view the inclusion of opinions in the requests as practically mandatory. This Article proposes that this difference in attitudes towards opinions between high and low court judges originate from variations in professional norms regarding what constitutes appropriate behaviour.

Con la STC 145/2015, de 25 de junio, se dio un paso más respecto a la configuración del alcance general del derecho a la objeción de conciencia. Sin embargo, podemos hacer una lectura positiva y otra negativa de la misma. En este trabajo pretendo sostener: 1) que las consecuencias negativas tienen mayor relevancia porque circunscriben su ejercicio a un supuesto; y 2) que los precedentes de derecho extranjero e internacional hubieran contribuido a asentar las razones de la decisión del TC que ya se desprenden del derecho español. Para ofrecer una explicación teórica del segundo punto, debemos acudir a la propuesta del diálogo judicial como equilibrio reflexivo amplio., SCCD 145/2015 offered a new step towards setting the general scope of the right to conscientious objection and it is possible to highlight positive and negative consequences. In this essay I try to show that: 1) negative consequences have a broader significance as confine its exercise to one assumption; 2) judicial precedents, from foreign and international law, would have contributed to solidify the SCC decision based only on Spanish law. In order to show a theoretical explanation to point two, we must draw on reflexive equilibrium as judicial dialogue proposal.

In the juridical discourses the references to the global constitutionalism are multiplying themselves, in particular since the arrival of the Covid 19. This concept, in the middle of construction, appears as a solution as well as a problem, confronted to the development of the globalization and the interaction between the juridical actors. This study is prioritizing the second aspect. The playwright Jean Giraudoux used this formula: «the law is the most powerful of schools for the imagination. No poet ever interpreted nature as freely as a lawyer interprets the truth». Beyond the utopias, I’d rather underline three points: the perspective of a new type of oligarchy behind the global constitutionalism; the threats of a combination of the devaluation of the political power and the centrality of the individual; and eventually the discourse to the convergence of the human rights, which hides the presence of a cultural imperialism. To conclude, inside this reflexion about the global constitutionalism, how to consider the European constitutional law: as a role model to follow, or as a model to reject?, En los discursos jurídicos se multiplican las referencias al «constitucionalismo global», sobre todo desde que brotó la pandemia del covid19. El concepto en fase de construcción aparece a la vez como una solución y como un problema ante el desarrollo de la globalización y de la interacción entre los actores jurídicos. Nuestro estudio privilegia el segundo aspecto. El dramaturgo Jean Giraudoux planteó que «El derecho es la más poderosa escuela de la imaginación. Nunca poeta ninguno ha interpretado la naturaleza tan libremente como un jurista la realidad». Más allá de los sueños, preferimos poner de relieve tres puntos: la perspectiva de un nuevo tipo de oligarquía tras el constitucionalismo global, las amenazas de una combinación entre la depreciación del «político» y la centralidad del individuo, el discurso de la convergencia de los derechos humanos que desenmascara la presencia de un imperialismo cultural. Enfocado al constitucionalismo global, ¿qué hacer del derecho constitucional europeo: un modelo sugestivo o perturbador?

What motivates national judges to be either active in the preliminary reference procedure by expressing opinions in the requests they send to the Court of Justice or passive by not voicing their views? This Article sheds light on how national judges perceive the possibility of framing the cases they refer to the Court, for instance, by expressing an opinion in defence of the challenged national law. Based on interviews with Swedish judges, this Article shows that the respondents express opinions to provide the Court with information and to influence the development of EU law. The Article also uncovers what motivates national judges not to express opinions. These three previously untheorised motivations are: 1) protecting one’s reputation, 2) respecting the division of competences between the Court and national courts and 3) upholding the impartiality of the courts. Furthermore, the findings indicate that high court judges in particular are opposed to the inclusion of opinions in a request. In contrast, most of the interviewed lower court judges view the inclusion of opinions in the requests as practically mandatory. This Article proposes that this difference in attitudes towards opinions between high and low court judges originate from variations in professional norms regarding what constitutes appropriate behaviour.

This paper aims to critically examine the theoretical and practical consequences of determining with more or less precision the scope of application of European Union law. Some key effects of the Luxembourg Court’s case law in Åkerberg Fransson and Melloni are analysed, in particular from the Spanish judge perspective and with regard to the procedural safeguards of the suspect and accused persons, since several Directives have been approved with a high expansive effect on what may be considered European Union law. Several guidelines are offered to the national legal practitioners to be able to determine in which cases they must opt for requesting a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the European Union or before the Constitutional Court., Se realiza en este trabajo un estudio crítico de las consecuencias teóricas y prácticas de determinar con mayor o menor precisión el ámbito de aplicación del Derecho de la Unión Europea. Se analizan algunos importantes efectos de las sentencias del Tribunal de Luxemburgo en los asuntos Åkerberg Fransson y Melloni, en particular desde la perspectiva del juez español y en materia de garantías procesales de investigados y acusados, ya que se han aprobado diversas Directivas con un fuerte efecto expansivo de lo que pueda considerarse Derecho de la Unión. Se ofrecen algunas pautas al operador jurídico nacional para poder determinar en qué supuestos se ha de optar por el reenvío prejudicial ante el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea o ante el Tribunal Constitucional.

This research presents an example of transformative case law from the Inter- American Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court of Colombia. Due to the fact that these Courts had seriously contemplated the right to free, prior and informed consultation of indigenous peoples and afro-descendants, this study explains the standards and statistics produced for 25 years on the topic. It focuses on the principal outcomes of the interamerican case Saramaka v. Suriname (2007) and the Colombian Decision T-129 of 2011, which nowadays encompass the most plausible and balanced standard of protection on the matter. However, the progressive outcomes are at risk of being regressively changed. For that reason, this study analyses the relevance of “binding consent” as an alternative to the problematic category or wrongly so-called “veto power”, En esta investigación se expone un ejemplo de diálogo judicial y transformador entre la Corte Interamericana de Derechos Humanos y la Corte Constitucional de Colombia. En la medida en que estos dos tribunales se han tomado en serio los derechos a la consulta previa, libre e informada de los pueblos indígenas y afrodescendientes, se presentan detalladas tablas con los casos y las estadísticas producidas durante 25 años sobre el tema. La investigación se centra en el histórico precedente de la Corte Interamericana Saramaka v. Suriname (2007) y la sentencia T-129 de 2011 de la Corte Constitucional de Colombia por medio de la cual se profundizó el diálogo judicial y de donde quizá ha surgido el estándar de protección más plausible y equilibrado en la materia, aunque en riesgo de ser modificado regresivamente. De ahí que se puntualice la relevancia del “consentimiento vinculante” como alternativa al mal denominado “poder de veto”.

This paper examines the foundations of the Italian Constitutional Court’s authority by comparing it with that of the German Federal Constitutional Court. In comparison to the German Court, the Italian Court had to build its authority on a particularly weak legal basis. However, it succeeded in developing a dynamic of “power in weakness” which explains important features of the Italian Court: its exceptionally cooperative relationship with the ordinary courts, its terse style of reasoning, its deliberate low profile in public opinion, its activist interaction with the legislature, and its tactical dialogue with the Court of Justice of the European Union., Este artículo examina los fundamentos de la autoridad de la Corte Constitucional italiana comparándola con la del Tribunal Constitucional Federal alemán. En comparación con el Tribunal alemán, la Corte italiana ha construido su autoridad sobre una base particularmente débil. Sin embargo, ha tenido éxito en desarrollar una dinámica de “poder en la debilidad”, que explica importantes características de la Corte Constitucional italiana: su relación excepcionalmente cooperativa con los tribunales ordinarios, su estilo conciso de razonamiento, su deliberado bajo perfil frente a la opinión pública, su interacción activista con el legislador y su diálogo táctico con el Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea.

The aim of this article is to better understand the conditions outlined in the CILFIT judgment and their role in creating a meaningful dialogue about European Union law. For these purposes two distinct views on the relation between language and meaning are utilised, as has been argued for by Ludwig Wittgenstein in his Philosophical Investigations. In the CILFIT judgment both of these views surface, which imply different challenges to the participants of the EU dialogue. In the conclusion, we suggest how these challenges can be met in order to facilitate a mutually meaningful dialogue about EU law.

El proceso de cross-fertilization entre tribunales de derechos humanos se ha convertido en una pieza fundamental en torno a la cual se sustenta la unidad del sistema universal de protección. Dicho proceso se ha hecho especialmente evidente en las relaciones entre el TEDH y la Corte IDH, en dónde en los últimos tiempos se observa una creciente interacción e influencia recíproca entre ambos tribunales en diversos ámbitos temáticos, entre los que destaca en particular el relacionado con las leyes de amnistía. En este sentido, el objeto del trabajo es analizar el proceso de cross- fertilization jurisprudencial entre estos dos tribunales en relación con dicha temática, mostrando cómo en este caso concreto ha sido la jurisprudencia interamericana la que ha ejercido una influencia notable sobre la actual configuración del case law europeo en esta materia., The process of “cross-fertilization” among human rights courts has become a fundamental element around which the unity of the universal system of protection of human rights is based. This process has become especially evident in the relations between the ECtHR and the ICHR, considering that in recent times there has been increasing interaction and reciprocal influence between these two courts in various thematic areas. Among these areas, the one related to amnesty laws stands out. In this sense, the purpose of the paper is to analyze the cross-fertilization jurisprudential process between these two human rights courts in relation to this topic, showing how in this case it has been inter-American jurisprudence that has exerted a remarkable influence on the current configuration of the European case law in this matter.

El proceso de cross-fertilization entre tribunales de derechos humanos se ha convertido en una pieza fundamental en torno a la cual se sustenta la unidad del sistema universal de protección. Dicho proceso se ha hecho especialmente evidente en las relaciones entre el TEDH y la Corte IDH, en dónde en los últimos tiempos se observa una creciente interacción e influencia recíproca entre ambos tribunales en diversos ámbitos temáticos, entre los que destaca en particular el relacionado con las leyes de amnistía. En este sentido, el objeto del trabajo es analizar el proceso de cross- fertilization jurisprudencial entre estos dos tribunales en relación con dicha temática, mostrando cómo en este caso concreto ha sido la jurisprudencia interamericana la que ha ejercido una influencia notable sobre la actual configuración del case law europeo en esta materia., The process of “cross-fertilization” among human rights courts has become a fundamental element around which the unity of the universal system of protection of human rights is based. This process has become especially evident in the relations between the ECtHR and the ICHR, considering that in recent times there has been increasing interaction and reciprocal influence between these two courts in various thematic areas. Among these areas, the one related to amnesty laws stands out. In this sense, the purpose of the paper is to analyze the cross-fertilization jurisprudential process between these two human rights courts in relation to this topic, showing how in this case it has been inter-American jurisprudence that has exerted a remarkable influence on the current configuration of the European case law in this matter.

Dialogue between different jurisdictional levels within complex constitutional systems is constantly on-going. Within the EU, this dialogue is an indispensable condition for the functioning of the Rule of Law, described as the tension between gubernaculum (the body of positive law) and jurisdictio (the principles of law beyond the sovereign’s reach). Unlike other constitutional systems where the dialogue between the legislature and the judiciary plays the crucial role, the interaction between national courts and the Court of Justice of the EU is the only way through which the EU can be precluded from becoming a self-defining, tyrannical, constitutional order. As national courts seek to protect their constitutional values, they supply an important source of jurisdictio. Although the EU system offers a wider understanding of dialogical frameworks, it is under threat of dissolution. Where the Court of Justice feigns to cherish this inter-judicial dialogue, in reality it relies on its own supremacy to construct the EU.

Dialogue between different jurisdictional levels within complex constitutional systems is constantly on-going. Within the EU, this dialogue is an indispensable condition for the functioning of the Rule of Law, described as the tension between gubernaculum (the body of positive law) and jurisdictio (the principles of law beyond the sovereign’s reach). Unlike other constitutional systems where the dialogue between the legislature and the judiciary plays the crucial role, the interaction between national courts and the Court of Justice of the EU is the only way through which the EU can be precluded from becoming a self-defining, tyrannical, constitutional order. As national courts seek to protect their constitutional values, they supply an important source of jurisdictio. Although the EU system offers a wider understanding of dialogical frameworks, it is under threat of dissolution. Where the Court of Justice feigns to cherish this inter-judicial dialogue, in reality it relies on its own supremacy to construct the EU.

El proceso de cross-fertilization entre tribunales de derechos humanos se ha convertido en una pieza fundamental en torno a la cual se sustenta la unidad del sistema universal de protección. Dicho proceso se ha hecho especialmente evidente en las relaciones entre el TEDH y la Corte IDH, en dónde en los últimos tiempos se observa una creciente interacción e influencia recíproca entre ambos tribunales en diversos ámbitos temáticos, entre los que destaca en particular el relacionado con las leyes de amnistía. En este sentido, el objeto del trabajo es analizar el proceso de cross- fertilization jurisprudencial entre estos dos tribunales en relación con dicha temática, mostrando cómo en este caso concreto ha sido la jurisprudencia interamericana la que ha ejercido una influencia notable sobre la actual configuración del case law europeo en esta materia., The process of “cross-fertilization” among human rights courts has become a fundamental element around which the unity of the universal system of protection of human rights is based. This process has become especially evident in the relations between the ECtHR and the ICHR, considering that in recent times there has been increasing interaction and reciprocal influence between these two courts in various thematic areas. Among these areas, the one related to amnesty laws stands out. In this sense, the purpose of the paper is to analyze the cross-fertilization jurisprudential process between these two human rights courts in relation to this topic, showing how in this case it has been inter-American jurisprudence that has exerted a remarkable influence on the current configuration of the European case law in this matter.

The process of cross-fertilization among human rights courts has become a fundamental element around which the unity of the universal system of protection of human rights is based. This process has become especially evident in the relations between the ECtHR and the ICHR, considering that in recent times there has been increasing interaction and reciprocal influence between these two courts in various thematic areas. Among these areas, the one related to amnesty laws stands out. In this sense, the purpose of the paper is to analyze the cross-fertilization jurisprudential process between these two human rights courts in relation to this topic, showing how in this case it has been inter- American jurisprudence that has exerted a remarkable influence on the current configuration of the European case law in this matter., El proceso de cross-fertilization entre tribunales de derechos humanos se ha convertido en una pieza fundamental en torno a la cual se sustenta la unidad del sistema universal de protección. Dicho proceso se ha hecho especialmente evidente en las relaciones entre el TEDH y la Corte IDH, en dónde en los últimos tiempos se observa una creciente interacción e influencia recíproca entre ambos tribunales en diversos ámbitos temáticos, entre los que destaca en particular el relacionado con las leyes de amnistía. En este sentido, el objeto del trabajo es analizar el proceso de cross-fertilization jurisprudencial entre estos dos tribunales en relación con dicha temática, mostrando cómo en este caso concreto ha sido la jurisprudencia interamericana la que ha ejercido una influencia notable sobre la actual configuración del case law europeo en esta materia.

The process of cross-fertilization among human rights courts has become a fundamental element around which the unity of the universal system of protection of human rights is based. This process has become especially evident in the relations between the ECtHR and the ICHR, considering that in recent times there has been increasing interaction and reciprocal influence between these two courts in various thematic areas. Among these areas, the one related to amnesty laws stands out. In this sense, the purpose of the paper is to analyze the cross-fertilization jurisprudential process between these two human rights courts in relation to this topic, showing how in this case it has been inter- American jurisprudence that has exerted a remarkable influence on the current configuration of the European case law in this matter., El proceso de cross-fertilization entre tribunales de derechos humanos se ha convertido en una pieza fundamental en torno a la cual se sustenta la unidad del sistema universal de protección. Dicho proceso se ha hecho especialmente evidente en las relaciones entre el TEDH y la Corte IDH, en dónde en los últimos tiempos se observa una creciente interacción e influencia recíproca entre ambos tribunales en diversos ámbitos temáticos, entre los que destaca en particular el relacionado con las leyes de amnistía. En este sentido, el objeto del trabajo es analizar el proceso de cross-fertilization jurisprudencial entre estos dos tribunales en relación con dicha temática, mostrando cómo en este caso concreto ha sido la jurisprudencia interamericana la que ha ejercido una influencia notable sobre la actual configuración del case law europeo en esta materia.

El proceso de cross-fertilization entre tribunales de derechos humanos se ha convertido en una pieza fundamental en torno a la cual se sustenta la unidad del sistema universal de protección. Dicho proceso se ha hecho especialmente evidente en las relaciones entre el TEDH y la Corte IDH, en dónde en los últimos tiempos se observa una creciente interacción e influencia recíproca entre ambos tribunales en diversos ámbitos temáticos, entre los que destaca en particular el relacionado con las leyes de amnistía. En este sentido, el objeto del trabajo es analizar el proceso de cross- fertilization jurisprudencial entre estos dos tribunales en relación con dicha temática, mostrando cómo en este caso concreto ha sido la jurisprudencia interamericana la que ha ejercido una influencia notable sobre la actual configuración del case law europeo en esta materia., The process of “cross-fertilization” among human rights courts has become a fundamental element around which the unity of the universal system of protection of human rights is based. This process has become especially evident in the relations between the ECtHR and the ICHR, considering that in recent times there has been increasing interaction and reciprocal influence between these two courts in various thematic areas. Among these areas, the one related to amnesty laws stands out. In this sense, the purpose of the paper is to analyze the cross-fertilization jurisprudential process between these two human rights courts in relation to this topic, showing how in this case it has been inter-American jurisprudence that has exerted a remarkable influence on the current configuration of the European case law in this matter.

The process of cross-fertilization among human rights courts has become a fundamental element around which the unity of the universal system of protection of human rights is based. This process has become especially evident in the relations between the ECtHR and the ICHR, considering that in recent times there has been increasing interaction and reciprocal influence between these two courts in various thematic areas. Among these areas, the one related to amnesty laws stands out. In this sense, the purpose of the paper is to analyze the cross-fertilization jurisprudential process between these two human rights courts in relation to this topic, showing how in this case it has been inter- American jurisprudence that has exerted a remarkable influence on the current configuration of the European case law in this matter., El proceso de cross-fertilization entre tribunales de derechos humanos se ha convertido en una pieza fundamental en torno a la cual se sustenta la unidad del sistema universal de protección. Dicho proceso se ha hecho especialmente evidente en las relaciones entre el TEDH y la Corte IDH, en dónde en los últimos tiempos se observa una creciente interacción e influencia recíproca entre ambos tribunales en diversos ámbitos temáticos, entre los que destaca en particular el relacionado con las leyes de amnistía. En este sentido, el objeto del trabajo es analizar el proceso de cross-fertilization jurisprudencial entre estos dos tribunales en relación con dicha temática, mostrando cómo en este caso concreto ha sido la jurisprudencia interamericana la que ha ejercido una influencia notable sobre la actual configuración del case law europeo en esta materia.

El proceso de cross-fertilization entre tribunales de derechos humanos se ha convertido en una pieza fundamental en torno a la cual se sustenta la unidad del sistema universal de protección. Dicho proceso se ha hecho especialmente evidente en las relaciones entre el TEDH y la Corte IDH, en dónde en los últimos tiempos se observa una creciente interacción e influencia recíproca entre ambos tribunales en diversos ámbitos temáticos, entre los que destaca en particular el relacionado con las leyes de amnistía. En este sentido, el objeto del trabajo es analizar el proceso de cross- fertilization jurisprudencial entre estos dos tribunales en relación con dicha temática, mostrando cómo en este caso concreto ha sido la jurisprudencia interamericana la que ha ejercido una influencia notable sobre la actual configuración del case law europeo en esta materia., The process of “cross-fertilization” among human rights courts has become a fundamental element around which the unity of the universal system of protection of human rights is based. This process has become especially evident in the relations between the ECtHR and the ICHR, considering that in recent times there has been increasing interaction and reciprocal influence between these two courts in various thematic areas. Among these areas, the one related to amnesty laws stands out. In this sense, the purpose of the paper is to analyze the cross-fertilization jurisprudential process between these two human rights courts in relation to this topic, showing how in this case it has been inter-American jurisprudence that has exerted a remarkable influence on the current configuration of the European case law in this matter.

El proceso de cross-fertilization entre tribunales de derechos humanos se ha convertido en una pieza fundamental en torno a la cual se sustenta la unidad del sistema universal de protección. Dicho proceso se ha hecho especialmente evidente en las relaciones entre el TEDH y la Corte IDH, en dónde en los últimos tiempos se observa una creciente interacción e influencia recíproca entre ambos tribunales en diversos ámbitos temáticos, entre los que destaca en particular el relacionado con las leyes de amnistía. En este sentido, el objeto del trabajo es analizar el proceso de cross- fertilization jurisprudencial entre estos dos tribunales en relación con dicha temática, mostrando cómo en este caso concreto ha sido la jurisprudencia interamericana la que ha ejercido una influencia notable sobre la actual configuración del case law europeo en esta materia., The process of “cross-fertilization” among human rights courts has become a fundamental element around which the unity of the universal system of protection of human rights is based. This process has become especially evident in the relations between the ECtHR and the ICHR, considering that in recent times there has been increasing interaction and reciprocal influence between these two courts in various thematic areas. Among these areas, the one related to amnesty laws stands out. In this sense, the purpose of the paper is to analyze the cross-fertilization jurisprudential process between these two human rights courts in relation to this topic, showing how in this case it has been inter-American jurisprudence that has exerted a remarkable influence on the current configuration of the European case law in this matter.

El proceso de cross-fertilization entre tribunales de derechos humanos se ha convertido en una pieza fundamental en torno a la cual se sustenta la unidad del sistema universal de protección. Dicho proceso se ha hecho especialmente evidente en las relaciones entre el TEDH y la Corte IDH, en dónde en los últimos tiempos se observa una creciente interacción e influencia recíproca entre ambos tribunales en diversos ámbitos temáticos, entre los que destaca en particular el relacionado con las leyes de amnistía. En este sentido, el objeto del trabajo es analizar el proceso de cross-fertilization jurisprudencial entre estos dos tribunales en relación con dicha temática, mostrando cómo en este caso concreto ha sido la jurisprudencia interamericana la que ha ejercido una influencia notable sobre la actual configuración del case law europeo en esta materia., The process of “cross-fertilization” among human rights courts has become a fundamental element around which the unity of the universal system of protection of human rights is based. This process has become especially evident in the relations between the ECtHR and the ICHR, considering that in recent times there has been increasing interaction and reciprocal influence between these two courts in various thematic areas. Among these areas, the one related to amnesty laws stands out. In this sense, the purpose of the paper is to analyze the cross-fertilization jurisprudential process between these two human rights courts in relation to this topic, showing how in this case it has been interAmerican jurisprudence that has exerted a remarkable influence on the current configuration of the European case law in this matter.