Page 390 [390]
DIMITRY VLADIMIROVICH KOCHENOV
to enforce, going beyond the circularity of the definition offered in Les Verts
and focusing predominantly on judicial independence (III.).®
— The Court has moved on, thirdly, to ensure that its newly-found substance
of the rule of law cutting through the legal orders is actually effectively en¬
forceable and that this enforcement includes ample possibilities for interim
relief, including the interventions to reverse the structural changes made
by the member states in their systems of the judiciary and, crucially, the
empowerment of the national courts of the Member States, with the help of
EU law, to do the same (IV.).?
— As a consequence, lastly, the Court of Justice joined the emerging trend
observable around the world, where international bodies and courts play an
increasing role in the structuring and organization of the judiciaries at the
national level (V.).!°
All these changes could not but lead to a significant upgrade of rule of law
standards also at the supranational level, as the Court had to take into account the
recent significant advances in the area of understanding of the rule of law and apply
them to the well-tested areas of EU law, such as the guarantees of independence
of the bodies to meet the standards of ‘court or tribunal’ in the context of Article
267 TFEU as well as welcoming direct actions by the Commission against the
Member States whose courts fail to take a meaningful part in the dialogue with
the Court of Justice. The inter-court dialogue, which the Court is officially striving
to protect, is thus not a dialogue of equals any more, as Araceli Turmo has amply
demonstrated." This is notwithstanding the fact that a questionable judicial genre
of a press release is at times required to remind the national-level interlocutors
of such status quo.”
of the European Union, Jean Monnet Working Paper Series (28 April 2009). Cf. Ronald Janse,
De renaissance van de Rechtsstaat, Heerlen, Open Universiteit, 2018.
Koen Lenaerts, New Horizons for the Rule of Law within the EU, German Law Journal 21
(2020), 29-34.
Pal Wenneras, Saving a forest and the rule of law: Commission v Poland. Case C-441/17 R,
Commission v Poland, Order of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 20 November 2017, Common
Market Law Review 56 (2019), 541-558.
David Kosai — Jiti Baros — Pavel Dufek, The Twin Challenges to Separation of Powers in
Central Europe: Technocratic Governance and Populism, European Constitutional Law
Review 15 (2019), 427-461, 461.
Araceli Turmo, A Dialogue of Unequals — The European Court of Justice Reasserts National
Courts, Obligations under Article 267(3) TFEU, European Constitutional Law Review 15
(2019), 340-358.
2 Justin Lindeboom, In the Primacy of EU Law Based on the Equality of the Member States? A
Comment on the CJEU’s Press Release Following the PSPP Judgment, German Law Journal
21 (2020), 1032-1044.
+ 388 +