Reasoning, Interpretation, Authority, Pluralism, and the Weiss/PSPP Saga

(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2021 6(2), 1123-1150 | Article | (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. - II. National courts interpret EU law. - III. German Constitutional Court interprets EU law. - III.1. Surrendering. - III.2. Forgetting. - III.3. Rejecting....

Descripción completa

Guardado en:

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal:	Davor Petric
Formato:	article
Lenguaje:	EN ES FR IT
Publicado:	European Papers (www.europeanpapers.eu) 2021
Materias:	german federal constitutional court court of justice of the european union legal reasoning and interpretation institutional authority interpretive pluralism weiss and pspp Law K Law of Europe KJ-KKZ
Acceso en línea:	https://doaj.org/article/469c8520388e49f88aa256de1984a06a
Etiquetas:	Agregar Etiqueta Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!

id	oai:doaj.org-article:469c8520388e49f88aa256de1984a06a
record_format	dspace
spelling	oai:doaj.org-article:469c8520388e49f88aa256de1984a06a2021-11-22T14:34:26ZReasoning, Interpretation, Authority, Pluralism, and the Weiss/PSPP Saga2499-824910.15166/2499-8249/516https://doaj.org/article/469c8520388e49f88aa256de1984a06a2021-11-01T00:00:00Zhttps://www.europeanpapers.eu/en/e-journal/reasoning-interpretation-authority-pluralism-and-weiss-pspp-sagahttps://doaj.org/toc/2499-8249(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2021 6(2), 1123-1150 \| Article \| (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. - II. National courts interpret EU law. - III. German Constitutional Court interprets EU law. - III.1. Surrendering. - III.2. Forgetting. - III.3. Rejecting. - IV. Interpretation, contestation, pluralism. - IV.1. I hear, but I cannot understand. - IV.2. That's just the way it is. - IV.3. Enter interpretive pluralism. - V. Conclusion. \| (Abstract) This Article deals with the question of the quality of legal reasoning of the Court of Justice of the EU. It first introduces the German Constitutional Court's decision in PSPP (ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2020:rs20200505.2bvr085915), which brought an unprecedent challenge to the authority of the Court of Justice regarding interpretation of EU law. Then it discusses how national courts, when exercising the constitutionality review domestically, engage in interpretation of EU law. As an example, recent case law of the German Constitutional Court is analysed. Specific focus is placed on the PSPP decision, in which the German court took issue with the Court of Justice's interpretive reasoning in Weiss (case C-493/17 ECLI:EU:C:2018:1000), thereby contesting the latter's monopoly in saying definitively not only what the EU law is, but also how to determine what the EU law is. One of the key takeaways was that if a judgment of the Court of Justice suffers from gross "methodological" deficiencies, that makes it inapplicable in domestic legal system. However, this suggestion does not change much regarding judicial interpretations and dynamic development of EU law, as will be proposed in this Article, and for several reasons. First, what makes interpretive arguments admissible is in general widely shared among the courts in the EU. Second, national courts have already on several occasions provoked the Court of Justice to improve its reasoning. Finally, the concept of interpretive pluralism explains the national courts' evergreater engagement with the matters of interpretation of EU law.Davor PetricEuropean Papers (www.europeanpapers.eu)articlegerman federal constitutional courtcourt of justice of the european unionlegal reasoning and interpretationinstitutional authorityinterpretive pluralismweiss and psppLawKLaw of EuropeKJ-KKZENESFRITEuropean Papers, Vol 2021 6, Iss 2, Pp 1123-1150 (2021)
institution	DOAJ
collection	DOAJ
language	EN ES FR IT
topic	german federal constitutional court court of justice of the european union legal reasoning and interpretation institutional authority interpretive pluralism weiss and pspp Law K Law of Europe KJ-KKZ
spellingShingle	german federal constitutional court court of justice of the european union legal reasoning and interpretation institutional authority interpretive pluralism weiss and pspp Law K Law of Europe KJ-KKZ Davor Petric Reasoning, Interpretation, Authority, Pluralism, and the Weiss/PSPP Saga
description	(Series Information) European Papers - A Journal on Law and Integration, 2021 6(2), 1123-1150 \| Article \| (Table of Contents) I. Introduction. - II. National courts interpret EU law. - III. German Constitutional Court interprets EU law. - III.1. Surrendering. - III.2. Forgetting. - III.3. Rejecting. - IV. Interpretation, contestation, pluralism. - IV.1. I hear, but I cannot understand. - IV.2. That's just the way it is. - IV.3. Enter interpretive pluralism. - V. Conclusion. \| (Abstract) This Article deals with the question of the quality of legal reasoning of the Court of Justice of the EU. It first introduces the German Constitutional Court's decision in PSPP (ECLI:DE:BVerfG:2020:rs20200505.2bvr085915), which brought an unprecedent challenge to the authority of the Court of Justice regarding interpretation of EU law. Then it discusses how national courts, when exercising the constitutionality review domestically, engage in interpretation of EU law. As an example, recent case law of the German Constitutional Court is analysed. Specific focus is placed on the PSPP decision, in which the German court took issue with the Court of Justice's interpretive reasoning in Weiss (case C-493/17 ECLI:EU:C:2018:1000), thereby contesting the latter's monopoly in saying definitively not only what the EU law is, but also how to determine what the EU law is. One of the key takeaways was that if a judgment of the Court of Justice suffers from gross "methodological" deficiencies, that makes it inapplicable in domestic legal system. However, this suggestion does not change much regarding judicial interpretations and dynamic development of EU law, as will be proposed in this Article, and for several reasons. First, what makes interpretive arguments admissible is in general widely shared among the courts in the EU. Second, national courts have already on several occasions provoked the Court of Justice to improve its reasoning. Finally, the concept of interpretive pluralism explains the national courts' evergreater engagement with the matters of interpretation of EU law.
format	article
author	Davor Petric
author_facet	Davor Petric
author_sort	Davor Petric
title	Reasoning, Interpretation, Authority, Pluralism, and the Weiss/PSPP Saga
title_short	Reasoning, Interpretation, Authority, Pluralism, and the Weiss/PSPP Saga
title_full	Reasoning, Interpretation, Authority, Pluralism, and the Weiss/PSPP Saga
title_fullStr	Reasoning, Interpretation, Authority, Pluralism, and the Weiss/PSPP Saga
title_full_unstemmed	Reasoning, Interpretation, Authority, Pluralism, and the Weiss/PSPP Saga
title_sort	reasoning, interpretation, authority, pluralism, and the weiss/pspp saga
publisher	European Papers (www.europeanpapers.eu)
publishDate	2021
url	https://doaj.org/article/469c8520388e49f88aa256de1984a06a
work_keys_str_mv	AT davorpetric reasoninginterpretationauthoritypluralismandtheweisspsppsaga
_version_	1718417549806272512

Reasoning, Interpretation, Authority, Pluralism, and the Weiss/PSPP Saga

Ejemplares similares