Consistent interpretation

Typically, national judges must strive to interpret national law in compliance with their constitution. In addition, they are under the obligation to interpret domestic laws in such manner so as not to breach EU and ECHR law obligations. This duty results from the principle of primacy of EU law over national law, and from the obligation of the High Contracting Parties to ensure that the Convention is implemented within the domestic legal order. According to the doctrine of consistent interpretation, a national judge has to choose among the different possible interpretations of a domestic norm one that does not lead to a conflict with EU norms or the ECHR. In particular, as far as EU law is concerned, consistent interpretation is a technique through which national judges can sometimes overcame the lack of implementation of EU legislation by the domestic legislator, eventually limiting the implications of the lack of horizontal effect of certain EU secondary sources (notably, directives). In order to perform conform interpretation with EU law, national judges must use the room available under national law (as a whole) in order to achieve the purpose of the EU act.

European Union, CJEU, DEB, judgement of 22 December 2010

Conflict: Conflict of interpretation -

Judicial interaction techniques: Interpretative techniques - Consistent interpretation - Interaction between courts - Preliminary ruling -

Judicial interaction type: Vertical interaction - External -

Categories: Germany - Court of Justice of European Union - Effective judicial protection - Art. 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial - Art. 6 - Right to a fair trial -

Sweden, Supreme Court, Nytt Juridiskt Arkiv Avdelning I, NJA 2013 s 502, decision 11 June 2013

Conflict: Conflict of interpretation -

Judicial interaction techniques: Interpretative techniques - Consistent interpretation - Interaction between courts - Preliminary ruling -

Judicial interaction type: Vertical interaction - External - Internal -

Categories: Sweden - National Courts - Supreme Court - Criminal law - Art. 8 - Protection of personal data -

Austria, Austrian Constitutional Court, Case B166/2013, 13 March 2014

Conflict: Conflict of interpretation -

Judicial interaction techniques: Interpretative techniques - Consistent interpretation -

Judicial interaction type: Horizontal interaction - External - National level -

Categories: Austria - Court of Justice of European Union - European Court of Human Rights - National Courts - Constitutional Court - Non-discrimination - Art. 21 - Non-discrimination - Art. 51 - Field of application - Art. 52 - Scope and interpretation of rights and principles -

Austria, Constitutional Court, U466/11 and others

Conflict: Conflict of competence - Conflict of interpretation -

Judicial interaction techniques: Interpretative techniques - Consistent interpretation - Interaction between courts - Mutual recognition - Mutual adaptation of jurisprudence -

Judicial interaction type: Horizontal interaction - External - Supra-national level - Vertical interaction - External -

Categories: Austria - Constitutional Court - Migration and asylum - Art. 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial - Art. 51 - Field of application - Art. 53 - Level of protection - Art. 13 - Right to an effective remedy -

Croatia, Constitutional Court, legal aid, Judgement of 6 April 2011

Conflict: Conflict of interpretation -

Judicial interaction techniques: Interpretative techniques - Consistent interpretation - Comparative reasoning - Interaction between provisions - Disapplication - Interaction between courts - Mutual adaptation of jurisprudence -

Judicial interaction type: Horizontal interaction - External - National level - Vertical interaction - External - Spill-over dimension -

Categories: Croatia - Constitutional Court - Consumer protection - Art. 6 - Right to a fair trial -

Croatia, Supreme Court of the Republic of Croatia, Case no. I Kz 52/14-6, Judgement of 17 February 2014

Conflict: Conflict of interpretation -

Judicial interaction techniques: Interpretative techniques - Consistent interpretation -

Judicial interaction type: Vertical interaction - External -

Categories: Croatia - Supreme Court - Migration and asylum - Art. 18 - Right to asylum - Art. 19 - Protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition - Art. 3 - Prohibition of torture - Art. 6 - Right to a fair trial -

Croatia, Supreme Court of the Republic, Judgement of 17 February 2014

Conflict: Conflict of interpretation -

Judicial interaction techniques: Interpretative techniques - Consistent interpretation - Interaction between provisions - Interaction between rights -

Judicial interaction type: Vertical interaction - External -

Categories: Croatia - National Courts - Supreme Court - Consumer protection - Migration and asylum - Art. 18 - Right to asylum - Art. 19 - Protection in the event of removal, expulsion or extradition - Art. 3 - Prohibition of torture - Art. 6 - Right to a fair trial -

Czech Republic, Constitutional Court, case no ÚS 860/15

Conflict: Conflict of interpretation -

Judicial interaction techniques: Interpretative techniques - Consistent interpretation - Interaction between courts - Mutual adaptation of jurisprudence -

Judicial interaction type: Vertical interaction - External -

Categories: Czech Republic - Constitutional Court - Migration and asylum - Art. 4 - Prohibition of torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment - Art. 3 - Prohibition of torture -

ECtHR, Avotins v. Latvia, judgment of 23 May 2016

Conflict: Conflict of interpretation -

Judicial interaction techniques: Interpretative techniques - Consistent interpretation - Comparative reasoning - Interaction between courts - Mutual recognition -

Judicial interaction type: Horizontal interaction - External -

Categories: European Court of Human Rights - Effective judicial protection - Art. 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial - Art. 6 - Right to a fair trial -

Estonia, Riigikohus Supreme Court, Case no 3-3-1-14-16, Judgement of 3 March 2016

Conflict: Conflict of interpretation -

Judicial interaction techniques: Interpretative techniques - Consistent interpretation - Interaction between courts - Mutual adaptation of jurisprudence -

Judicial interaction type: Vertical interaction - External -

Categories: Supreme Court - Migration and asylum - Art. 6 - Right to liberty and security - Art. 47 - Right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial -

1-10 of 92 total results - Page: 1 > ... 8 9 10