Hybrid methodology for the EU principle of consistent interpretation

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

This article examines the legal methodology that courts have to employ when they construe domestic law in accordance with European Union directives. It demonstrates that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has set up autonomous ‘European methodological rules’. These rules apply together with national legal methods. The relationship between both regimes can be described with the concepts of overlapping, intervention, and Europeanization from the inside. The article thus holds that the doctrine of consistent interpretation possesses a hybrid methodology. The reanalysis of the CJEU’s case law offers answers to some unresolved questions. The article shows how consistent interpretation affects national principles of interpretation. It demonstrates the extent to which domestic judges are required to depart from traditional methods of construction and to what extent European methodological rules broaden the limits of the judicial function as accepted under national law. The contra legem limit is defined, and some of its misinterpretations in legal scholarship are highlighted.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)134-154
JournalStatute Law Review
Volume39
Issue number2
Early online date10 Jan 2017
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 6 Jun 2018

Fingerprint

EU
interpretation
methodology
court of justice
Law
Europeanization
case law
doctrine
regime

Bibliographical note

This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article accepted for publication in Statute Law Review following peer review. The version of record Brenncke, M. (2017). Hybrid methodology for the EU principle of consistent interpretation. Statute Law Review, in press, is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmw048

Cite this

Brenncke, Martin. / Hybrid methodology for the EU principle of consistent interpretation. In: Statute Law Review. 2018 ; Vol. 39, No. 2. pp. 134-154.
@article{a08df5b476104561b6f69df8d9fab2b4,
title = "Hybrid methodology for the EU principle of consistent interpretation",
abstract = "This article examines the legal methodology that courts have to employ when they construe domestic law in accordance with European Union directives. It demonstrates that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has set up autonomous ‘European methodological rules’. These rules apply together with national legal methods. The relationship between both regimes can be described with the concepts of overlapping, intervention, and Europeanization from the inside. The article thus holds that the doctrine of consistent interpretation possesses a hybrid methodology. The reanalysis of the CJEU’s case law offers answers to some unresolved questions. The article shows how consistent interpretation affects national principles of interpretation. It demonstrates the extent to which domestic judges are required to depart from traditional methods of construction and to what extent European methodological rules broaden the limits of the judicial function as accepted under national law. The contra legem limit is defined, and some of its misinterpretations in legal scholarship are highlighted.",
author = "Martin Brenncke",
note = "This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article accepted for publication in Statute Law Review following peer review. The version of record Brenncke, M. (2017). Hybrid methodology for the EU principle of consistent interpretation. Statute Law Review, in press, is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmw048",
year = "2018",
month = "6",
day = "6",
doi = "10.1093/slr/hmw048",
language = "English",
volume = "39",
pages = "134--154",
number = "2",

}

Hybrid methodology for the EU principle of consistent interpretation. / Brenncke, Martin.

In: Statute Law Review, Vol. 39, No. 2, 06.06.2018, p. 134-154.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Hybrid methodology for the EU principle of consistent interpretation

AU - Brenncke, Martin

N1 - This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced version of an article accepted for publication in Statute Law Review following peer review. The version of record Brenncke, M. (2017). Hybrid methodology for the EU principle of consistent interpretation. Statute Law Review, in press, is available online at: https://doi.org/10.1093/slr/hmw048

PY - 2018/6/6

Y1 - 2018/6/6

N2 - This article examines the legal methodology that courts have to employ when they construe domestic law in accordance with European Union directives. It demonstrates that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has set up autonomous ‘European methodological rules’. These rules apply together with national legal methods. The relationship between both regimes can be described with the concepts of overlapping, intervention, and Europeanization from the inside. The article thus holds that the doctrine of consistent interpretation possesses a hybrid methodology. The reanalysis of the CJEU’s case law offers answers to some unresolved questions. The article shows how consistent interpretation affects national principles of interpretation. It demonstrates the extent to which domestic judges are required to depart from traditional methods of construction and to what extent European methodological rules broaden the limits of the judicial function as accepted under national law. The contra legem limit is defined, and some of its misinterpretations in legal scholarship are highlighted.

AB - This article examines the legal methodology that courts have to employ when they construe domestic law in accordance with European Union directives. It demonstrates that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has set up autonomous ‘European methodological rules’. These rules apply together with national legal methods. The relationship between both regimes can be described with the concepts of overlapping, intervention, and Europeanization from the inside. The article thus holds that the doctrine of consistent interpretation possesses a hybrid methodology. The reanalysis of the CJEU’s case law offers answers to some unresolved questions. The article shows how consistent interpretation affects national principles of interpretation. It demonstrates the extent to which domestic judges are required to depart from traditional methods of construction and to what extent European methodological rules broaden the limits of the judicial function as accepted under national law. The contra legem limit is defined, and some of its misinterpretations in legal scholarship are highlighted.

UR - https://academic.oup.com/slr/article/39/2/134/2884279

U2 - 10.1093/slr/hmw048

DO - 10.1093/slr/hmw048

M3 - Article

VL - 39

SP - 134

EP - 154

IS - 2

ER -