This paper poses an important challenge to the growing trend of strategic environmental litigation in the EU: when making strategic choices about bringing, framing, and litigating claims, what becomes more important—being heard through strategically critical procedural choices or being true through ensuring that rights holders and the environment remain at the forefront of decision-making? There are many legal hurdles to bringing environmental claims and it is possible that the voice of the environment and those most adversely affected by its degradation is lost in the strategic legal decision-making. This study uses a small number unstructured scoping interviews with practitioners active in bringing litigation to the CJEU to inductively analyse voice and representation in strategic environmental litigation. This initial research indicates that there are areas which should be further explored. First, all of the practitioners brought up the issue of access to resources. This raises concerns about potential elitism. Second, practitioners highlighted that there are numerous strategic choices made during case selection and framing which could affect how voices are heard. Finally, practitioners felt strongly that admissibility rules have a negative impact on claimants’ voices. Challenges in legal standing and establishing individual harm or direct concern have an enormous impact on what claims are heard and how they are heard.

The unfettered authority of sport-governing bodies (SGBs) has given rise to human rights claims and led to the distortion of EU free movement of persons and competition law. Following International Skating Union and European Super League Company, SBGs cannot exercise their right to achieve legitimate sporting aims like integrity and sporting fairness at the expense of competition rules. Nor are they allowed to prevent their member associations from organising/operating competitive leagues/events or to inflict sanctions on them for attempting to do so. These judgments will revolutionise the transnational sport law landscape, reshaping SGBs’ institutional rules and member relationships.

Despite the shock provoked by the Snowden revelations, mass surveillance is still a reality in the EU. However, over the past few years, it has been possible to observe a gradual constitutionalization of these practices. This Article maps the ongoing process of progressively defining the constitutional limits and societal affordances of mass surveillance in the EU by focusing on the three main actors who contribute to it. First, this Article presents civil society as the propeller of this trend. Civil society not only advocated for a ban on general surveillance systems in the aftermath of the Snowden revelations, but also promoted a series of strategic litigations to challenge state surveillance practices at national and EU levels. Second, it analyses CJEU case law as the main constitutionalizing engine of this process. The Court pragmatically ascertained that an absolute prohibition of mass surveillance did not appear to be a realistic solution and put significant effort into actively defining the legal boundaries of these practices by striving to find an equilibrium between Member State interests and citizens’ fundamental rights. Third, it considers the approaches taken by national legislators to be a slowing factor. States are still reluctant to incorporate the constitutional standards progressively developed by courts despite the now significant body of judicially created parameters in the field.

The application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights to the Member States has given rise both to a controversial phraseology and a controversial case-law. This paper offers a reconstruction of the constitutional intent and proposes a conceptualization in conformity with the structural function and the constitutional contemplation of the pouvoir constituent. As to the phraseological debate, it demonstrates that the Charter’s application to the Member States may occur by reason of either “implementation” or “interpretation” of EU law and the two strands are embraced but not synthetized by “scope” as a collective term. As to the substantive debate, it demonstrates that the CJEU’s case-law on “implementation” is not only amorphous but also inconsistent with the Charter’s constitutional mandate. The paper proposes a novel approach based on the notion that the application to the Member States is accessory to the supremacy of EU law. The paper’s argument is presented in the following steps. First, the paper presents the pristine rationale and constitutional function of the application to the Member State through its emergence and historical context. Second, it provides a taxonomy and critical overview of the CJEU’s amorphous case-law and presents the Court’s futile attempt to create a coherent doctrine that faithfully reproduces the constitutional contemplation behind the diagonal application and that reflects the division of competences between the EU and its Member States. Third, it sets out the proposed doctrine of “displacement.”

A wind of change is blowing through the European judicial landscape. During the past decade, the European Union (EU) judiciary has undergone its biggest institutional overhaul in generations, the rise of authoritarian populism in Central and Eastern Europe has prompted a Rule of Law crisis, several supreme and constitutional courts challenged the supremacy of EU law, while the Court of Justice re-articulated the scope of the duty to refer under Article 267 TFEU and, for the first time, found that domestic last-instance courts breaching it triggered state liability. This Article argues that these and similar developments, once looked at together, suggest that something fundamental has shifted in the EU’s judicial architecture. A new form of judicial federalism has emerged, which departs from the traditional way in which relations between EU and Member State courts used to be structured. Although this new federalism is multifaceted and is marked by both centripetal and centrifugal forces, its distinguishing feature is a stronger centralisation, which manifests itself in a considerably expanded federal judiciary, a greater emphasis on hierarchy, a more careful use of European judicial resources, as well as tighter supervision of national procedures and court structures.

The article draws lessons for EU non-discrimination law from the protected grounds of religion and belief through a discussion of the CJEU’s headscarf judgments. The article has two ambitions. First, the judgments are used to draw broader lessons for EU non-discrimination law, in relation to the distinction between and the justification of direct and indirect discrimination, as well as the purpose of protecting against (religious) discrimination. Second, these lessons are used to analyze the headscarf judgments and the criticism directed at them. While there is widespread agreement that the CJEU erred in these judgments, there is little agreement as to what mistakes were made. Through a discussion of these judgments, the article clarifies the difference between direct and indirect discrimination and the justification of both forms of discrimination. It is argued that the headscarf cases correctly distinguished between direct and indirect discrimination, and that the problem lies in the justificatory burden for indirect discriminatory measures, which was set too low by the CJEU.

As the UK left the European Union, a new body of UK law, labelled ‘retained EU law’, was introduced to save and convert certain parts of EU law into UK statutes. This paper explores the impact of Brexit on statutory interpretation in the UK in the context of VAT. In particular, it looks at whether, and the manner in which, UK courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will move in different directions when interpreting what is essentially the same law. The paper predicts the post-Brexit evolution of statutory interpretation in UK courts based on an empirical study of cases concerning VAT referred by UK courts to the CJEU between 1973 and 2020, augmented by a doctrinal analysis of selected cases. The methodology is built on the premise that past case decisions may provide an indication of the nature of possible future divergence. A case study of VAT may offer wider implications as to departure from the CJEU jurisprudence in other legal areas in the coming years.

This article revisits the present and future of the direct effect principle and submits solutions for its appropriate understanding and enforcement. Once the topic has been put into context and it has been shown why direct effect is an evolving notion whose scope goes beyond the Van Gend & Loos judgement and the doctrine originating from it, the study presents five intertwined arguments. First, direct effect has two facets since, aside from a subjective-substitutive form of direct effect, there exists an objective-oppositive manifestation of direct effect, whereby a directly effective European Union (EU) provision entails the disapplication of national law, without either conferring immediately an individual right or replacing the domestic norm in governing the case at hand. Second, the article claims that the obligation to disapply is triggered always by primacy and direct effect, never by primacy alone. In fact, justifying disapplication on the basis only of the primacy principle and not on primacy and direct effect is likely to undermine the logic implied in the relationship between the EU legal order and domestic legal systems. Third, there are legitimate derogations from the obligation to immediately disapply a conflicting domestic provision with EU law endowed with direct effect in so far as they are admitted by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the condition that the replacement of a national provision by an EU norm may harm individual rights and/or question the national identity clause enshrined in Article 4(2) Treaty on European Union (TEU). Fourth, the test on clarity, precision and unconditionality for assessing whether an EU norm is directly effective, as it was conceived by the CJEU, is no longer a pillar in the conceptualisation and practice of direct effect. As a matter of fact, only unconditionality, in practice, proves to be the core element of direct effect. Moreover, direct effect and direct applicability are equivalent concepts since unconditionality, as the condicio sine qua non of direct effect, coincides with direct applicability. Fifth, a distinctive quality of direct effect, along with unconditionality, is the creation of an advantage resulting from the application of EU law and the subsequent disapplication of national law. This implies that an EU directly effective provision can never be only in malam partem (ie, detrimental for the individual) and thus disapplication, lacking the existence of an advantage for the individual, shall never come into play. The article concludes that the duty to refine the doctrine of direct effect must be performed, ultimately, by the CJEU. Indeed, only the CJEU can offer guidance to national authorities, since it has an interpretive monopoly on the ifs, whens and hows of direct effect. To this end, it is vital that the EU judges, by rejecting argumentative minimalism brought to its extreme, come to reassert their constitutional role and re-establish the common core of the EU system, beginning with the principles that created and shaped it.

This article explores the role which Member State-led infringement proceedings can play in overcoming the EU’s rule of law crisis, and hypothesizes that it can prove helpful in breaking the current impasse. It begins by understanding why the EU’s “traditional” rule of law enforcement mechanisms—such as Article 7 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and the recent rule of law conditionality regulation—have failed (Section 2), before exploring how infringement proceedings operate, what their shortcomings are, and why Scheppele’s proposed “systemic infringement proceedings” are important (Section 3). It then seeks to apply said findings to the rule of law crisis, using two recent developments as an example: The oral proceedings of Commission v. Poland (Régime disciplinaire des juges) and a recent vote by the Dutch Parliament compelling its government to take Poland before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) (Section 4). Finally, it explores the broader constitutional implications of relying on Article 259 Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to overcome the rule of law crisis: It discusses Kochenov’s notion of “biting intergovernmentalism”, what Article 259 illustrates about the European Union’s (EU) hybrid constitution, and how intergovernmental legal instruments can facilitate further European integration (Section 5). It concludes by restating and summing up article’s hypothesis.