The Nordics, the EU and the Reluctance Towards Supranational Judicial Review

Abstract

The Nordic countries have no tradition of judicial review by courts and have generally been hesitant to make use of the preliminary ruling procedure in the European Union. New data indicate that Nordic courts prefer to solve as many EU-related judicial disputes as possible without involving a supranational organ such as the ECJ. Building on two comprehensive surveys of Danish and Swedish courts and judges, this study challenges the theory of judicial empowerment when explaining judicial integration in the EU. The article argues that in order to explain when and why Member State courts make use of the preliminary ruling procedure, a much deeper understanding of the prevalent legal/political culture and concept of democracy in each Member State is required. In particular, the distinction between majoritarian versus constitutional democracies may help us understand why majoritarian democracies express greater scepticism towards supranational judicial review. Copyright (c) 2010 The Author(s). Journal compilation (c) 2010 Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

Finnish Exceptionalism at Play? The Effectiveness of the Recommendations of UN Human Rights Treaty Bodies in Finland

“…52. The Danish scholar Wind noted that "controversial and dynamic legal interpretations of vague European treaties and legislation by foreign judges are bound to fan the flames of the debate" (Wind 2010(Wind , 1060. 53.…”

A Judicialisation of Healthcare Policies in Denmark and Spain? The Universalist Healthcare Model Meets the European Union

“…Parliamentary majorities represent the 'will of the people', and in principle, such majorities should not be subject to judicial review (Wind, Martinsen, and Rotger 2009;Dworkin 1996;Ginsburg 2003;Wind 2010). A judicial review in which courts can strike down legislation adopted by the political majority is considered counter-majoritarian and an unacceptable limit on democracy.…”

“…A judicial review in which courts can strike down legislation adopted by the political majority is considered counter-majoritarian and an unacceptable limit on democracy. It has been argued that belonging to the tradition of majoritarian democracy has made Danish courts more reluctant in sending preliminary references to the CJEU in the attempt to avoid supranational judicial review (Wind 2010;Wind, Martinsen, and Rotger 2009). Furthermore, Denmark has no social courts; instead, complaints for the violations of rights can be submitted to quasijudicial court bodies: the Social Appeals Board and since 2011 the National Agency for Patients' Rights and Complaints.…”

National Courts in the Frontline: Abuse of Rights under the Citizens’ Rights Directive

“…Fourth, a national judge can deem himself competent to decide the case in acte claire and acte éclairé situations. 118 The improving experience and skill of national judges in EU law may contribute to the increase in the number of cases relating to the application of the Directive where they decide not to refer a case. 119 This may happen where the correct application of EU law seems to be so obvious to them that they can apply EU law without a preliminary ruling reference 120 or when they recognise that the CJEU has already settled the issue.…”