Whereas individual Member State governments of the European Union occasionally complain about judgments of the European Court of Justice (ECJ), especially when those judgments curtail that State's policy autonomy in a sensitive domain, the collectivity of the Member State governments have agreed in each treaty revision so far to confirm and extend the far-reaching powers which the ECJ possesses for enforcing EU law. The explanation of the paradox can only be that, deep down, the Member States of the EU remain convinced that an effective ECJ with strong enforcement powers is one of the salient features of EU law which have stood the test of time and feel no inclination to clip the wings of the ECJ for fear that this would affect the effectiveness of the European integration process. Nevertheless, the grumblings about single judgments, or about the consistency and direction of the ECJ in particular policy fields, have never ceased and indeed have become more audible in recent years. This book - now available in paperback - deals with the perception that the ECJ quite often does not leave sufficient autonomy to the Member States in developing their own legal and policy choices in areas where European and national competences overlap.

The book takes stock of the on-going 'methodological turn' in the field of EU law scholarship. Introducing a new generation of scholars of the European Court of Justice from law, history, sociology, political science and linguistics, it provides a set of novel interdisciplinary research strategies and empirical materials for the study of the Court of Justice of the European Union. The twelve case studies included challenge the usual top-down approach to EU law and the CJEU and instead suggest a more localized and fine-grained observation of the socio-legal actors and practices involved in the making of CJEU case-law. Moving beyond mainstream legal scholarship and the established 'grand narratives' of legal integration, the volume provides a more historically-informed and sociologically-grounded account of the EU law's uneven embeddedness in Europe's economies and societies.

Presents a new approach to prominent judgments of the European Court of Justice drawing on the writings of Judge Robert Lecourt.

How should judges of the European Court of Justice be selected, who should participate in the Court's proceedings and how should judgments be drafted? These questions have remained blind spots in the normative literature on the Court. This book aims to address them. It describes a vast, yet incomplete transformation: Originally, the Court was based on a classic international law model of court organisation and decision-making. Gradually, the concern for the effectiveness of EU law led to the reinvention of its procedural and organisational design. The role of the judge was reconceived as that of a neutral expert, an inner circle of participants emerged and the Court became more hierarchical. While these developments have enabled the Court to make EU law uniquely effective, they have also created problems from a democratic perspective. The book argues that it is time to democratise the Court and shows ways to do this.

Recoge: 1. The judicial organisation of the European Union - 2. Enforcement of community law - 3. protection against acts of the institutions - 4. Special forms of procedure.

This book provides precious insight into the dynamics of this new approach to consolidating European Civil Justice, clearly outlining the motivations of the various national and institutional players involved and examining potential obstacles likely to be encountered along the way. The book represents a work of reference for anyone involved in academia, practice or law reform in this subject area.

Investigates the struggle between governments, parliaments, the people and courts over who participates in EU treaty making.