The onset of the 2004 EU enlargement witnessed a number of predictions being made about the approaches, capacity and ability of Central European judges who were soon to join the Union. Optimistic voices, foreshadowing the deep transformative power that Europe was bound to exercise with respect to the judicial mentality and practice in the new Member States, were intertwined with gloomy pictures of post-Communist limited formalism and mechanical jurisprudence that could not be reformed, which were likely to undermine the very foundations of mutual trust and recognition the judicial system of the Union is built upon. Ten years later, this volume revisits these predictions and critically assesses the evolution of Central European judicial mentality, institutions and constitutionality under the influence of the EU membership. Comparatively evaluating the situation in a number of Central European Member States in their socio-legal contexts, notably Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania, the volume offers unique insights into the process of (non) Europeanisation of national legal systems and cultures.

The past decade has witnessed change in the ways judges for the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights are selected. The leitmotif has been securing greater professional quality of the judicial candidates, and, for this purpose, both European systems have put in place various advisory panels or selection committees that are called to evaluate the aptitude of the candidates put forward by the national governments. Are these institutional reforms successful in guaranteeing greater quality of the judicial candidates? Do they increase the legitimacy of the European courts? Has the creation of these advisory panels in any way altered the institutional balance, either horizontally within the international organisations, or vertically, between the respective organisation and its Member States? Above all, has the spree of 'judicial comitology' as currently practised a good way for selecting Europe's judges? These and a number of other questions are addressed in this topical volume in a comparative and interdisciplinary prospective. The book is structured into two elements: first, how the operation of the new selection mechanisms is captured and analyzed from different vantage points, and secondly, having mapped the ground, the book critically and comparatively engages with selected common themes, examining the new mechanisms with respect to values and principles such as democracy, judicial independence, transparency, representativeness, and legitimacy.

Ten years after the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union became part of binding primary law, and twenty years since its adoption, this volume assess the application of the EU Charter in the Member States. How often, and in particular by which actors, is the EU Charter invoked at the national level? In what type of situations is it used? Has the approach of national courts in general, and of constitutional courts in particular, to EU law to EU fundamental rights law changed following the entry into force of the Charter? What sort of interplay does the Charter generate with the national bill of rights and the European Convention? Is the life with the Charter on the national level a harmonious 'praktische Konkordanz' or rather a messy 'menage a trois'? These and other questions are discussed in the four parts that form the book. Part I is dedicated to the normative foundations. Part II sets out Member States' Perspectives, providing a structured, in-depth account of the Charter's operation in 16 different Member States. Part III provides a detailed evaluation of selected rights contained within the Charter. Part IV synthesises the materials presented up to that point to develop a series of broader perspectives, looking to discover underlying lessons about the relationship between EU fundamental rights law and national legal systems.

Regulation 261/2004 on Air Passengers' Rights has been amongst the most high-profile pieces of EU secondary legislation of the past years, generating controversial judgments of the Court of Justice, from C-344/04 ex parte IATA to C-402/07 Sturgeon. The Regulation has led to equally challenging decisions across the Member States, ranging from judicial enthusiasm for passenger rights to domestic courts holding that a Regulation could not be relied upon by an individual claimant or even threatening outright to refuse to apply its provisions. The economic stakes are significant for passengers and airlines alike, and despite the European Commission's recent publication of reform proposals, controversies appear far from settled. At the same time the Regulation should, according to the Treaty, have uniform, direct and general application in all the Member States of the Union. How, then, can this diversity be explained? What implications do the diverging national interpretations have for the EU's regulatory strategy at large? This book brings together leading experts in the field to present a series of case studies from 15 different Member States as well as the extra-territorial application of Regulation 261, combined with high-level analysis from the perspectives of Aviation law and EU law.

The last two decades have witnessed an exponential growth in debates on the use of foreign law by courts. Different labels have been attached to the same phenomenon: judges drawing inspiration from outside of their national legal systems for solving purely domestic disputes. By doing so, the judges are said to engage in cross-border judicial dialogues. They are creating a larger, transnational community of judges. This book puts similar claims to test in relation to highest national jurisdictions (supreme and constitutional courts) in Europe today. How often and why do judges choose to draw inspiration from foreign materials in solving domestic cases? The book addresses these questions from both an empirical and a theoretical angle. Empirically, the genuine use of comparative arguments by national highest courts in five European jurisdictions is examined: England and Wales, France, Germany, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. On the basis of comparative discussion of the practice and its national theoretical underpinning in these and partially also in other European systems, an overreaching theoretical framework for the current judicial use of comparative arguments is developed. Drawing on the author's own past judicial experience in a national supreme court, this book is a critical account of judicial engagement with foreign authority in Europe today. The sober middle ground inductively conceptualized and presented in this book provides solid jurisprudential foundations for the ongoing use of comparative arguments by courts as well as its further scholarly discussion.

Regulation 261/2004 on Air Passengers' Rights has been amongst the most high-profile pieces of EU secondary legislation of the past years, generating controversial judgments of the Court of Justice, from C-344/04 ex parte IATA to C-402/07 Sturgeon. The Regulation has led to equally challenging decisions across the Member States, ranging from judicial enthusiasm for passenger rights to domestic courts holding that a Regulation could not be relied upon by an individual claimant or even threatening outright to refuse to apply its provisions. The economic stakes are significant for passengers and airlines alike, and despite the European Commission's recent publication of reform proposals, controversies appear far from settled. At the same time the Regulation should, according to the Treaty, have uniform, direct and general application in all the Member States of the Union. How, then, can this diversity be explained? What implications do the diverging national interpretations have for the EU's regulatory strategy at large? This book brings together leading experts in the field to present a series of case studies from 15 different Member States as well as the extra-territorial application of Regulation 261, combined with high-level analysis from the perspectives of Aviation law and EU law.

The onset of the 2004 EU enlargement witnessed a number of predictions being made about the approaches, capacity and ability of Central European judges who were soon to join the Union. Optimistic voices, foreshadowing the deep transformative power that Europe was bound to exercise with respect to the judicial mentality and practice in the new Member States, were intertwined with gloomy pictures of post-Communist limited formalism and mechanical jurisprudence that could not be reformed, which were likely to undermine the very foundations of mutual trust and recognition the judicial system of the Union is built upon. Ten years later, this volume revisits these predictions and critically assesses the evolution of Central European judicial mentality, institutions and constitutionality under the influence of the EU membership. Comparatively evaluating the situation in a number of Central European Member States in their socio-legal contexts, notably Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Slovenia, Bulgaria and Romania, the volume offers unique insights into the process of (non) Europeanisation of national legal systems and cultures.

Ten years after the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union became part of binding primary law, and twenty years since its adoption, this volume assess the application of the EU Charter in the Member States. How often, and in particular by which actors, is the EU Charter invoked at the national level? In what type of situations is it used? Has the approach of national courts in general, and of constitutional courts in particular, to EU law to EU fundamental rights law changed following the entry into force of the Charter? What sort of interplay does the Charter generate with the national bill of rights and the European Convention? Is the life with the Charter on the national level a harmonious 'praktische Konkordanz' or rather a messy 'menage a trois'? These and other questions are discussed in the four parts that form the book. Part I is dedicated to the normative foundations. Part II sets out Member States' Perspectives, providing a structured, in-depth account of the Charter's operation in 16 different Member States. Part III provides a detailed evaluation of selected rights contained within the Charter. Part IV synthesises the materials presented up to that point to develop a series of broader perspectives, looking to discover underlying lessons about the relationship between EU fundamental rights law and national legal systems.