Open Access
Comparing the procedures and practice of judicial dialogue in the US and the EU : effects of US unconstitutionality and EU's preliminary interpretative rulings
Loading...
Files
EJLS_Special2023_Nicola_Fasone_Gallo.pdf (458.65 KB)
Full-text in Open Access, Published version
License
Access Rights
Cadmus Permanent Link
Full-text via DOI
ISBN
ISSN
1973-2937
Issue Date
Type of Publication
Keyword(s)
LC Subject Heading
Other Topic(s)
EUI Research Cluster(s)
Initial version
Published version
Succeeding version
Preceding version
Published version part
Earlier different version
Initial format
Citation
European journal of legal studies, 2023, Vol. 15, SI, pp. 147-188
Cite
NICOLA, Fernanda, FASONE, Cristina, GALLO, Daniele, Comparing the procedures and practice of judicial dialogue in the US and the EU : effects of US unconstitutionality and EU’s preliminary interpretative rulings, European journal of legal studies, 2023, Vol. 15, SI, pp. 147-188 - https://hdl.handle.net/1814/76143
Abstract
The article investigates the role and powers of the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) and the European Court of Justice (ECJ) when a conflict between 'federal'/EU and State law arises. It focuses on how it is solved and the procedure followed to assess, in particular, what is the added value of the European preliminary ruling procedure (PRP), and what the composite European Union (EU) judicial system can learn from the United States (US) experience and the other way around. While in the EU the PRP is the main test bench for the relationship between ECJ and State courts, such a structured mechanism is lacking in the US, though other avenues of cooperation have been established over the last two centuries. Against this background, the contribution first reviews and compares the effects of a declaration of unconstitutionality in the US with the interpretative preliminary rulings rendered by the ECJ in which incompatibility between EU and national norms is de facto asserted and the duty to disapply arises. Second, it considers, respectively, the power of SCOTUS to remand a case to the State courts, once the State law has been judged unconstitutional, and how disapplication of the national law in contrast with EU law works as a result of an ECJ's ruling. Third, in both systems, it reviews the strategies and the arguments for judicial dialogueused by State courts to react and resist the higher court's assessment. Fourth, it examines proposals to better integrate the views and determination of the State courts into the activity of the 'federal'/EU court and vice versa. In summary, the comparative analysis suggests that SCOTUS tends to prefer a more decentralized approach in enforcing its rulings, largely influenced by its distinct models of judicial review. In contrast, the ECJ appears more inclined to assert substantial control, reserving considerable discretion to dictate the specifics of if, when and how the duty to disapply should come into play.
Table of Contents
Additional Information
Special Issue on 'CJEU'
Published online: 19 December 2023
Published online: 19 December 2023