Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorSADL, Urska
dc.contributor.authorWALLERMAN GHAVANINI, Anna
dc.date.accessioned2021-03-23T09:01:30Z
dc.date.available2021-03-23T09:01:30Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.identifier.citationEuropean law journal, 2019, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 416-433en
dc.identifier.issn1351-5993
dc.identifier.issn1468-0386
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1814/70597
dc.descriptionFirst published online: 20 August 2019en
dc.description.abstractThe Court of Justice can rephrase or otherwise depart from the questions referred to it by national courts under Article 267 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union. It does so routinely: a practice known as reformulation. Legal literature often argues that reformulation is used to clarify national court questions and bring them within the scope of European Union law. The aim of the present article is to explore this claim systematically. To this end, it compiles a unique dataset consisting of the Orders for Reference, in which the referring courts embed the preliminary questions, and the judgments, in which the Court of Justice communicates the answers. The findings suggest that reformulation is a decision‐making approach rather than a fixture of decision writing. It's main function is to neutralize conflicts and Europeanise disputes. It underlines the Court's power to shape the preliminary ruling procedure and its outcomes.en
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherWileyen
dc.relation.ispartofEuropean law journalen
dc.title‘The referring court asks, in essence’ : is reformulation of preliminary questions by the Court of Justice a decision writing fixture or a decision-making approach?en
dc.typeArticleen
dc.identifier.doi10.1111/eulj.12335
dc.identifier.volume25en
dc.identifier.startpage416en
dc.identifier.endpage433en
dc.identifier.issue4en


Files associated with this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record