Introduction
The European Union is a rules-based transnational community. This is confirmed by the European Union’s judicial system, which is responsible for compliance with the legislation. The Court consists of one judge from each member of the European Union. The Court is responsible for ensuring the uniform application of European Union legislation in all EU Member States. The Court of Justice of the European Union also interprets the European Union’s legislation. Since the Court of Justice of the European Union plays a specific role in the political life of the European Union, it is a political institution.
Political Roles of the European Court
Establishing Legal Supremacy
The European Court makes decisions that are significant at the state level, which proves that it belongs to the political sphere. The European Court established the supremacy of European law when it decided the Van Gen den Louis and Costa v. ENEL decisions, which effectively de facto constitutionalized European law (Schmidt, 2018). In contrast to nation-states, the significance of the judgment led to the formation of constitutional law under which European nations operate. The constitutions of the nation-states describe the state entities and their duties, as well as the fundamental rights of their citizens (Schmidt, 2018). The decision of the European Union Court of Justice transfers the emphasis to the state bodies that define the rights of the Council of Ministers and European Commissioners.
Judicial Authority and Political Involvement: Lessons from U.S. Precedents
The involvement of courts in the political arena generates the conventional presumption that disputes should be resolved based on laws with which the legislature vests the courts. When laws are viewed as incomplete contracts that do not specify daily operations but require interpretation, they are deemed devoid of political significance; hence, the independence of the judiciary is bolstered (Schmidt, 2018).
The United States Supreme Court provided an example of how courts can serve as political actors. The judgment was based on the 1803 case of Marbury v. Madison, in which the Court exercised its absolute authority to declare laws unlawful (Miekowska-Norkiene, 2021). Therefore, his authority permits the Court to invalidate unlawful statutes.
In Roe v. Wade, for instance, the Supreme Court threw down a state statute that made abortion illegal, and Brown v. Board of Education affirmed a federal law that compelled schools to be desegregated. Therefore, the Court can utilize this authority to determine public policy following its own interpretation of the Constitution (Miekowska-Norkiene, 2021). Thus, it is evident that if judges may intervene in such a way as to overturn the legislation, this makes them political actors.
The Court’s Independence, Public Influence, and Human Rights Participation
The legislation grants the courts their mission and authority, granting them the authority to act. The legislation may restrict the types of cases a court can hear or give the Court the power to consider any case (Schmidt, 2020). The legislature may also grant the Court the authority to decide matters at its discretion, or it may provide the Court with particular decision-making criteria and establish the appointment of judges. In political realism, courts are depicted as reactive actors who rely on aid from several other sources (Schmidt, 2020). The Court cannot compel the implementation of its judgments; therefore, the government and legislature are required to do so (Schmidt, 2020). The courts can only intervene in political matters.
The political effect and context under which courts operate, which determine how courts rule and interpret the law, determine the independence of the courts. The political environment in which the Constitution and specific statutes operate can be determined by how the Court interprets them. For instance, the Supreme Court determined in 2015’s Obergefell v. Hodges case that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry (Schmidt, 2018). Additionally, courts require societal backing to interpret their laws. The Court depends on the public’s ability to comprehend and respect its judgments (Schmidt, 2018). Instead, the Court relies on the other organs of government and the people to implement its judgments.
The Court depends on the public for information that can assist justices in making informed decisions. Human rights law also recognizes the possibility of public participation in court procedures (Terpan & Saurugger, 2020). The human rights system provides multiple avenues for public participation, such as the human rights treaty system, the human rights reporting system, and the human rights complaints system (Terpan & Saurugger, 2020). International law also allows public participation in judicial proceedings. Consequently, public engagement can assist in addressing obstacles a court may confront.
Political Implications of Landmark European Cases
The form of the Court has sparked controversy, particularly in foreign relations. Through their independence, courts uphold the notion of changing anarchical nations into ones that respect and operate under the rule of law (Schmidt, 2020). However, the jurisdiction of international courts influences whether governments prefer to bind or not tie themselves to international authority (Schmidt, 2020). Subscription to an international authority by powerful governments is decided by the government’s prioritization of its interests.
The European Court is always involved in political issues, as the judiciary is one of the branches of government. However, there is anxiety that the national government may obey a court judgment that does not respect and contradicts their choices (Pavone & Kelemen, 2019). Unified techniques for national and international courts determine the judicial authorities.
Judicialization Theory
The courts utilize the approach of Stone Sweet’s judicialization idea. According to the judicialization theory of Stone Sweet and political actors, the steady erosion of the traditional distinction between the judicial and political arms of government has resulted from the increasing participation of courts in the political process (Pavone & Kelemen, 2019). A growing amount of literature supports this idea, which demonstrates that the judiciary has been called upon to resolve political disagreements and to serve as a check on the other arms of government (Pavone & Kelemen, 2019). While the judicialization of politics is frequently viewed as a beneficial trend, it has been criticized for blurring the distinctions between the arms of government and for politicizing the Court.
The Runevi-Vardyn Case
The Runevi-Vardyn case has also been politically significant. It was used against the present Prime Minister and the Attorney General at the time. Those wishing to disrupt the current government have employed it for political purposes (Schmidt, 2018). The European Court of Human Rights has decided that while investigating the matter, the Lithuanian government did not breach human rights and freedom. The defendant filed an appeal after being sentenced in the initial trial (Lenaerts, 2020).
In August 2014, the European Court of Human Rights concluded that when investigating the Runevi-Vardyn case, the Lithuanian government did not violate human rights and freedom (Schmidt, 2018). According to the European Court of Human Rights, an investigation was launched, the suspect was held and searched, and multiple witnesses were examined (Schmidt, 2018). The Court determined that the Lithuanian authorities conducted an adequate investigation of the case; hence, the defendant’s human rights were not violated (Schmidt, 2018). The Court further highlighted that the Lithuanian authorities had adequate grounds to think that the defendant was involved in the murder and emphasized that the Lithuanian courts likewise had sufficient grounds to suspect the defendant.
The European Court of Human Rights further highlighted that, contrary to the defendant’s claims, the media coverage of the case was not biased and that the defendant did not object to the investigation before the Lithuanian courts. The European Court of Human Rights ruling is definitive (MieĹ„kowska-Norkiene, 2021). Moreover, the Runevi-Vardyn issue was considered in the Lithuanian parliament.
The Committee on National Security and Defense of the parliament reviewed the investigation into the case. In its findings, the Committee did not uncover any anomalies in the investigation’s conduct, but it did recommend reforms to the Lithuanian legal system (Schmidt, 2018). The report also recommended that the Lithuanian parliament consider changing the Lithuanian Criminal Code to protect defendants’ rights further.
Poland’s Reforms
In September 2018, the European Commission brought Poland’s controversial judicial reforms before the European Court of Justice. The Commission contended that the reforms breached the separation of powers and the rule of law and placed political pressure on the judiciary (Schmidt, 2020). Additionally, the Commission accused the Polish government of political involvement in the judiciary and exerting pressure on prosecutors and judges (Schmidt, 2020). The European Commission initiated an “infringement procedure” against the Polish government in December 2018 over the country’s new Supreme Court law (Schmidt, 2020). Consequently, this resulted in unconstitutional judicial viewpoints that molded constitutionalism.
In the case of C-192/18, the most significant problems were democratic political systems, such as the rule of law and the independence, predictability, and effectiveness of the Court. The case pertains to influential democratic political systems such as Charles Montesquieu’s tripartite powers (Mako, 2020).
The lawsuit is also about gender equality, which the rule of law upholds. This instance exemplifies the fundamental conflict between despotism and democracy. The key antagonism from the policy sphere emerges, so that the case confronts social and equality budgetary policies, resulting in hostility between the authorities in power and social policy as a tool for political formation. A further example of antagonism is the gender balance, where there is a fight between maintaining the conventional model in which males have more power than women and the new model in which the dynamics of men and women are equal, particularly in the field of pension legislation (Mako, 2020). The European Court of Justice interpreted the case by emphasizing that sectoral strategy must address the issue of gender parity and exist within the state’s political constraints.
The Court of Justice stated that the retirement age of judges and the appointment method for judicial office were founded on the principle of equality. The Court noted that the European Union had ratified the European Convention on Human Rights. Per Article 21 of the European Union’s Charter of Fundamental Rights, equality prohibits sex-based discrimination (Terpan & Saurugger, 2020). In its decision, the Court of Justice highlighted that the age restriction for judges in national civil service had been raised in several Member States and that the retirement age of judges was thus being matched with that of other categories of national civil service officials (Terpan & Saurugger, 2020). Consequently, this resulted in substantial modifications to the constitutional amendments that molded the political landscape.
Gender Equality, Constitutional Change, and the European Court as a Political Actor
The Court of Justice’s role as a political actor is seen not just by attorneys but also by politicians, professionals, and members of the general public who offer their opinions when political remarks are made. Mouffe, for instance, contends that the tension between these two types of interests leads to the establishment of political alliances. She argues that when individuals with diverse interests band together to create an alliance, they do so to prevent the class’s interests from dominating their own (Miekowska-Norkiene, 2021). In other words, the development of an alliance prevents the class’s goals from becoming hegemonic.
Mouffe’s hypothesis has also been used to explain the Affordable Care Act Supreme Court decision. In this decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the individual mandate, which obliged individuals to obtain health insurance, was unconstitutional (Miekowska-Norkiene, 2021). Moreover, the mandate violated the diverse interests of those who did not want health insurance, and the Court ruled against it.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Court functions in numerous ways as a political actor. The Court of Justice of the EU is the main body monitoring the correct, lawful application and interpretation of European Union law. The EU Member States, in turn, must provide sufficient remedies in those industries and areas regulated by European law. By itself, the role and competence of the EU Court were initially much more limited than that of national courts.
However, over time, the EU Court has significantly expanded its powers. The European Court has grown into a very important factor, the role of which is now assessed not only as judicial but also as political. Therefore, the Court may exercise this power to shape public policy based on its interpretation of the Constitution.
References
Mieńkowska-Norkiene, R. (2021). The Political impact of the Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union. European Constitutional Law Review, 17(1), 1-25. Web.
Lenaerts, K. (2020). New Horizons for the Rule of Law within the EU. German Law Journal, 21(1), 29-34.
Pavone, T., & Kelemen, R. D. (2019). The evolving judicial politics of European Integration: The European Court of Justice and national courts revisited. European Law Journal, 25(4), 352-373. Web.
Schmidt, S. K. (2018). The European Court of Justice and the policy process: The shadow of case law. Oxford University Press. Web.
Schmidt, V. A. (2020). Politicization in the EU: between national politics and EU political dynamics. In The European Union Beyond the Polycrisis? (pp. 56-74). Routledge. Web.
Terpan, F., & Saurugger, S. (2020). The politics of the Court of Justice of the European Union. In Research Handbook on the Politics of EU Law (pp. 31-49). Edward Elgar Publishing. Web.