Application of the EAEU law by national courts and development of judicial dialogue
https://doi.org/10.52468/2542-1514.2022.6(4).244-260
Abstract
The subject. This article examines the dialogue between the EAEU Court and national courts, on the one hand, as the application by national courts of the court of the integration organization, on the other hand, – as a recourse by the supranational court to the legal constructions that have been developed in the case law of the Member States’ courts.
The purpose of the article is to confirm or disprove hypothesis that judicial dialogue between the court of the integration association and the courts of its Member States is the key to the effective application of supranational law.
The methodological basis of the research is the doctrine of EU law, as well as the practice of Court of Justice of the European Union. The formal legal interpretation of the EAEU Court decisions and decisions of national Supreme Courts is also used.
The main results, scope of application. One of the characteristics that differentiates the law of an integration organization from universal international law is its active application not only by the judicial body of such an organization, but also by the national courts. The plurality of actors in charge of the application of the law raises the question which of them have the authority of interpreting the integration law and the modalities of such an interpretation. One of the instruments that could help overcome the lack of uniformity of approaches regarding the interpretation and application of supranational law by the courts of several member states is the preliminary reference procedure. In the absence of such a procedure the burden of interpretation of supranational law rests on the national courts. Such a situation has arisen in the Eurasian Economic Union where the EAEU Court is empowered to interpret the law of the Union while settling disputes regarding the respect of EAEU law by its Member States, the challenge of the Eurasian Economic Commission's actions (failure to act) and decisions as well as delivering advisory opinions. The courts of the Member States, in turn, interpret the law of the EAEU in various fields of relations, including the ones where regulatory powers have been transferred to the supranational level. The analysis of national case law shows that in their application of EAEU law they premise their judgments on the principle of its primacy over national legislation.
Conclusions. Judicial dialogue allows to prevent the non-uniform interpretation of the Union law by the court of the 5 Member States. It is a form of exchange of legal positions and concepts between the judicial bodies which, as a result, leads to a mutual enrichment of the legal orders by borrowing legal constructions and approaches.
About the Author
E. B. Diyachenko
Court of the Eurasian Economic Union;
Institute of State and Law of the Russian Academy of Sciences
Belarus
Belarus
PhD in Law; Advisor to the Judge, 5, Kirova ul., Minsk, 220006;
Senior Researcher of the International Law Sector, 10, Znamenka ul., Moscow, 119019
References
1. Jacobs F.G. Judicial dialogue and the cross-fertilization of legal systems: the European Court of Justice. Texas International Law Journal, 2003, vol. 38, pp. 547–556.
2. Rosas A. The European Court of Justice in context: forms and patterns of judicial dialogue. European Journal of Legal Studies, 2007, vol. 1, no. 2, pp. 1–16.
3. Boisson de Chazournes L. Plurality in the fabric of international courts and tribunals: the threads of managerial approach. The European Journal of International Law, 2017, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 13–72.
4. Eckes C. The Court of Justice’s participation in the judicial discourse: theory and practice, in: Cremona M., Thies A. (eds.). The European Court of Justice and External Relations – Constitutional Challenges. Oxford, Hart Publ., 2014, pp. 183-210.
5. Entin K. The role of international agreements and international customary law in the EU and EAEU legal orders. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, 2021, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 102–130. DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2021-1-102-130.
6. Gracheva S.A. Constitutional way for the doctrine of subsidiarity in international law. Zhurnal zarubezhnogo zakonodatel’stva I sravnitel’nogo pravovedeniya, 2020, no. 1, pp. 52–73. DOI: 10.12737/jflcl.2020.001. (In Russ.).
7. Ispolinov A.S. Pragmatics are required: the Constitutional Court of Russia and integration order. Sravnitel’noe konstitutsionnoe obozrenie, 2014, vol. 5, pp. 14–20. (In Russ.).
8. Taribo E.V. On interaction between the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation and the EAEU Court. Zhurnal sravnitel’nogo konstitucionnogo pravosudiya, 2019, no. 6, pp. 17–21. (In Russ.).
9. Chaika K.L. Courts of the integration unions and constitutional courts of their member-states: from denial to acceptance. Zhurnal zarubezhnogo zakonodatel’stva i sravnitel’nogo pravovedeniya, 2021, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 89– 103. (In Russ.).
10. Filatova M. Relations of legal orders and hierarchy of international and national norms: new issues and solutions in the Russian Constitutional Court’s case-law. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, 2016, no. 3, pp. 88–100. (In Russ.).
11. Gambaryan A.S. Conflicts between regulatory acts of the bodies of the Eurasian Economic Union and regulatory acts of the Republic of Armenia and their handling by the courts of the Republic of Armenia. Vektor nauki TGU. Seriya: Yuridicheskie nauki, 2021, no. 3, pp. 11–19. DOI: 10.18323/2220-7457-2021-3-11-19. (In Russ.).
12. Broberg M. Acte Clair Revisited: Adapting the Acte Clair Criteria to the Demands of the Times. Common Market Law Review, 2008, vol. 45, iss. 5, pp. 1383–1397.
13. Fenger N., Broberg M. Finding Light in the Darkness: On the Actual Application of the 258ct eclair Doctrine. Yearbook of European Law, 2011, vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 180–212. DOI: 10.1093/yel/yer014.
14. Kornezov A. The New Format of the Acte Clair Doctrine and Its Consequences. Common Market Law Review, 2016, vol. 53, pp. 1317–1342.
15. Diyachenko E. Methods of interpretation in the case-law of the Eurasian Economic Union Court. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, 2019, vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 77–92. DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2019-2-77-92. (In Russ.).
16. Diyachenko E., Entin K. Competence of the EAEU Court: Myths and Realities. 2017. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, 2017, no. 3, pp. 76–95. (In Russ.).
17. Entin K., Pirker B. Free movement of people in the EAEU: between Civis Eurasiaticus and Homo Oeconomicus. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, 2020, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 79–96. DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2020-1-79-96. (In Russ.).
18. Dyachenko E.B., Entin K.V. Properties of the EAEC law through the prism of the practice of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union. Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2019, no. 10, pp. 123–133. DOI: 10.12737/art_2018_10_12. (In Russ.).
19. Entin K.V. Impact of the case-law of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union to the law-enforcement practice of the Russian courts regarding custom disputes. Tamozhennye spory. Bankovskie i strakhovye spory, Proceedings of the all-Russian scientific and practical conferences (November 20, 2020, May 28, 2021), Moscow, Russian State University of Justice Publ., 2021, pp. 9–15. (In Russ.).
20. Walton D. Legal reasoning and argumentation, in: Bongiovanni G., Postema G., Rotolo A., Sartor A., Walton D. (eds.). Handbook of Legal Reasoning and Argumentation, Springer Publ., 2016, pp. 47–75.
21. Chaika K.L. Ensuring the primacy of constitutional rights and freedoms in the EAEU, in: Bugaeva A.S. et al. (eds.). Pyat' let Dogovoru o Evraziiskom ekonomicheskom soyuze: rol' Suda, International conference (September 19–20, 2019, Minsk), proceedings, Minsk, Medisont Publ., 2020, pp. 69–79. (In Russ.).
22. Diyachenko E.B., Entin K.V. The Role of the EAEU Court ‘s Advisory Opinions in Development of the Eurasian Economic Union’s Competition. Pravo. Zhurnal Vysshei shkoly ekonomiki = Law. Journal of the Higher School of Economics, 2021, vol. 13, no. 4, pp. 177–204. DOI: 10.17323/2072-8166.2021.4.177.204. (In Russ.).
23. Dyachenko E.B., Entin K.V. Interpretation Based on the Constitutional Traditions of Member States and the Protection of Fundamental Rights by the CJEU and the EAEU Court. Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava = Journal of Russian Law, 2021, vol. 25, no. 4, pp. 173–186. DOI: 10.12737/jrl.2021.054. (In Russ.).
24. Entin K., Diyachenko E. An overview of the case-law of the Eurasian Economic Union Court in 2018. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, 2019, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 3–22. (In Russ.).
25. Jacobs F.G. Recent Developments in the Principle of Proportionality in European Community Law, in: The Principle of Proportionality in the Laws of Europe, Oxford, 1999, pp. 1–21.
26. Pirker B. Proportionality Analysis and Models of Judicial Review: A Theoretical and Comparative Study, Europa Law Publishing, Netherlands. 434 p.
27. Ispolinov A. S. The first judgment of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union: a revision of legacy and a temptation challenge. Rossiiskii yuridicheskii zhurnal, 2016, no. 4, pp. 85–93. (In Russ.).
28. Steiner J., Woods L., Watson Ph. EU Law, 12th ed. Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2014. 738 p.
29. Due O. Legal Remedies for the Failure of European Community Institutions to Act in Conformity with EEC Treaty Provisions. Fordham International Law Journal, 1990, no. 14, iss. 2, pp. 341–358.
30. Daukšiene I., Budnikas A. Has the action for failure to act in the European Union lost its purpose? Baltic Journal of Law and Politics, 2014, no. 7, iss. 2, pp. 209–226.
31. Entin K., Pirker B. The early case-law of the Eurasian Economic Union: on the road to Luxemburg. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 2018, vol. 25, no. 3, pp. 266–287. DOI: 10.1177/1023263X18781193.
32. Chaika K.L. International legal approaches in the practice of the Court of the Eurasian Economic Union. Zhurnal rossiiskogo prava, 2018, no. 11, pp. 138–151. DOI: 10.12737/art_2018_11_14. (In Russ.).
33. Neshataeva T.N. International judge: nothing personal. Mezhdunarodnoe pravosudie, 2019, no. 1, pp. 23– 42. DOI: 10.21128/2226-2059-2019-1-23-42. (In Russ.).
Review
For citations:
Diyachenko E.B. Application of the EAEU law by national courts and development of judicial dialogue. Law Enforcement Review. 2022;6(4):244-260. https://doi.org/10.52468/2542-1514.2022.6(4).244-260
Views:
401
Email this article 