Talk:European Court of Justice/Archive 1

Archive 1

Improvement

Hi, it would be good to get this up to GA like where the other institution articles are heading, but I am terrible with law. If anyone has expertise in this and can bring this up to scratch with full citations, I'll work on anything else I can. - J Logan ^t/_c: 21:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Interesting and simple source: [1]- _JLogan^t: 10:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Notable judgments and criticism

This may be a questionable move but I have to say I don't agree that there should be such a section. How on earth do you realistically define notable judgments - it is impossible with any court, just because the ECJ is relatively young compared to other courts is not a sufficient reason. A lawyer working in a particular area might say one case, another would say this case etc etc.

I've removed the section because I don't feel it adds anything worthwhile - on the criticism issue, if there is no criticism section on the main EU page then it is difficult to justify a criticism section here, even moreso perhaps since its on the judiciary. Once again, criticisms of the ECJ are numerous and widespread, you'd need your own page to cover them all. At least! There are several articles per month disecting ECJ judgments and thus its impossible to cram all of them into one article. --Simonski (talk) 15:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism is a good point to include. As for "notable judgements", I think something along that line might be useful, something that could give the biggest examples of judicial impact upon European and national law.- _J.Logan`^t: 18:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I was not very happy with the title of that section, and I don't like special sections on criticism, but I do think we need a discussion of things like the role of the Court, its methodology in interpreting and developing the law (possibly also mentioning criticism of the Court's "teleological" approach), "judicial legislation", etc. In particular, I think we need to mention the the role of the Court in developing the principle of supremacy and direct effect, the interpretation of provisions that were apparently formulated for an economic purpose in the light of wider issues of citizens' rights, its role in enforcing Community law vis-à-vis institutions and member states, etc.). Reference could be made to other articles (or sub-articles) for more details.--Boson (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I return to my point though - how can you keep the criticism under wraps (trust me there are so many different points to be made) particularly since it differs from legal system to legal system, and how can you define notable judgments? An EU law textbook will tell you alone that there are over 300 such notable judgments, and even then there will be dispute over the notability of some over others. This section, particularly the way it was written, was poor I felt. What you could perhaps do is mention 3 main ones in making a point, like Van Gend en Loos, but to have an entire section devoted to them is a mistake as there are numerous cases that have impacted national law and it is near impossible to provide an exhaustive list, or anything near it.

On supremacy and direct effect, I believe those issues are best dealt with in their own page, as thats what you'd need to address them correctly. The level of disagreement/divergent views on these issues makes it unwise to try and deal with them fully on the ECJ page. Also, most textbooks (rightly) address French/UK/German/Italian/Polish etc views on supremacy individually, further complicating things. What might be worth covering instead is probably yeh what you're referring to Boson, the unique way in which the court works, its methods of interpretation and its relationship with member state courts. I'll have a think about this and maybe we can work together on some new text to put in but I dont think thats an excuse for having both misleading and flawed text remain in the page in the meantime. --Simonski (talk) 10:50, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Logan, just as a side point btw, why would you say criticism sections are ok here but not for the EU page? In effect its the exact same problem - a great number of the standard criticisms against the EU flow from the behaviour of the ECJ! --Simonski (talk) 11:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Are notable cases mentioned in this article or related EU courts articles the subject of individual articles? For instance, the Margin of appreciation article mentions three specific cases, but those cases do not have links. Perhaps they are not particularly notable, but there must be some that are quite important. Many United States Supreme Court cases have individual articles here. EU courts are far newer, but precedent must become important over time. --DThomsen8 (talk) 13:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That isnt a bad point on the US comparison, but it is difficult to draw direct comparisons between the two courts - the ECJ is not strictly a "supreme court" after all. This is emphasised every now and again by the German Constitutional Court in particular! There are a handful of ECJ cases though that may merit an individual page but I would still argue that choosing which cases were "notable" would be a subjective exercise which could lead to endless debate, or indeed, an endless list. --Simonski (talk) 17:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Its actually very easy to say which cases are notable following the general notability guidelines in my view, and indeed as has been pointed out there are a great many such cases. How and in what detail those cases are covered is really a matter for those individual articles if and when they are created, but there are some VERY notable cases ( like Van Gend or Factortame for example which a good argument could be made for some mention or reference here, a possible title for such a section could be "case law" or something similar, and would only need to be a paragraph with a main article / see also link to List of notable European Court of Justice rulings at the top. Ajbpearce (talk) 18:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The identity of the President

> The court is led by a President who has been Vassilios Skouris since 2003.[1]

And what did he call himself before that?Blaise (talk) 17:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Re recent rename

While I realise Lisbon renamed this court, it was never officially called the European Court of Justice to begin with. I think the common name will continue to be the European Court of Justice and that it would be preferable to keep that name whilst mentioning the new official name for the court. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 16:08, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

In my experience the ECJ has only generally been used as a common name by those in the UK/Ireland. The Lisbon changes could be a good opportunity to reassert the Court's correct and official title, as per what appears to be the trend in all the other language versions of this page. Lamberhurst (talk) 17:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure Wikipedia policy would say that usage in English speaking countries is determinative of common names and that a common name beats official names. Other EU states use different languages so I'm not sure if that helps. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 17:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was page moved.  Ronhjones  ^(Talk) 18:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

---

Court of Justice (European Union) → European Court of Justice — I believe this the commonest name for this court in both the media and academia. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 00:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose for reasons stated in the section above. No serious academic refers to this Court as the ECJ. Lamberhurst (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

A quick look up Google's scholar and book searches, tells a different story. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support Most common name, both popularly and in academic usage. Per data provided by Blue-Haired Lawyer. 84.92.117.93 (talk) 23:47, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
• Support: Per WP policy of using common titles. Putting EU in brackets is hardly an ideal way of distinguishing it from CoJ's in other countries. Adding European to the front does the job better. If it wasn't in common usage, Court of Justice of the European Union would work better, but as I just said it is practice here to use the common name. After all, the only abbreviation is ECJ.- _J.Logan`^t: 12:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose Under Lisbon, this court has become a sub-court of the Court of Justice of the European Union (one of the seven post-Lisbon EU institutions). It's extremely confusing! Introducing this de facto name from the Nice period will only add to the confusion I think. Google hit numbers that include pre-Lisbon webpages are irrelevant IMO. "European Court of Justice" sounds like something more important than "Court of Justice of the European Union", when in fact it's the opposite. Before Lisbon, this would have been an easy and straight-forward move, but now we need to pay extreme attention to the EU's court structure.

If we were do this move; when news sites say the "ECJ" will do something, how could we be sure whether they refer to the post-Lisbon institution or the court that was called "Court of Justice of the European Community" under Nice? - SSJ ☎ 13:17, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

It is confusing, though there is not distinct name really is there. Perhaps we could include it in the main article as a section as it isn't that big, or an alternative way to distinguish it rather than referring to the EU?- _J.Logan`^t: 17:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the bodies have distinct names, but who on earth will manage to keep the "Court of Justice of the European Union" separated from the EU's "Court of Justice"? What were the people at the Convention on the Future of Europe thinking!? The trouble of "Council" versus "European Council" is nothing in comparison. A solid clarification is clearly needed in the introductions of all related articles. I have no idea what alternative there is. - SSJ ☎ 23:30, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Support I don't think the naming issue is the fault of wikipedia but rather how the EU chose to name its court institutions. Some confusion is going to exist on this one and I think that just needs to be accepted. Removing the qualifier makes things clearer. One suggestion I have is that an effort be made to describe the hierarchy in the European Court of Justice article.--Labattblueboy (talk) 02:42, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment "Fault" is irrelevant; Wikipedia has to adapt to reality with as little confusion as possible. With Lisbon's new structure, calling this article by the pre-Lisbon "European Court of Justice" name will only confuse people IMO. What article are you thinking about when you write the ECJ wikilink which now redirects to Court of Justice of the European Union? Stating that there will be a certain amount of confusion anyway is not an argument if favour of moving this article IMO. - SSJ ☎ 03:43, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

The only confusion created is not having an article on the European Court of Justice when it is still a name that has considerable currency. The UK Law Society explain the changes introduced by Lisbon in the following way:

"There are two European courts in the EU system: the Court of Justice of the European Communities (called the European Court of Justice, or ECJ) and the Court of First Instance. These are renamed the Court of Justice of the EU and the General Court by the Treaty of Lisbon. The Court of First Instance deals in particular with direct actions against EU institutions (including those brought by individuals). The ECJ deals, among other things, with appeals from such decisions and ‘preliminary references’ from a national court. Preliminary references are made where a national judge requires a ruling from the ECJ on a specific point of EU law, which is essential to deciding the case in the national court. The General Court shall also have jurisdiction to hear preliminary rulings in specific areas." [2]

The House of Lords report on Lisbon stated the position as follows:

"Title and membership

4.141. The Lisbon Treaty calls the EU Courts collectively the “Court of Justice of the European Union” (CJEU). This continues to cover three entities: the Court of Justice itself (colloquially the ECJ), the General Court (currently named the Court of First Instance), and specialised courts (currently named “judicial panels”) (Article 19 of the amended TEU).

4.142. The membership of the ECJ is unchanged. However, an IGC Declaration (Declaration on Article 222 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union regarding the number of Advocates-General in the Court of Justice) states that if the ECJ requested..." [3]

I think this is fairly indicative of how things will proceed post Lisbon. — Blue-Haired Lawyer 19:23, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Ssolbergj moved the page from European Court of Justice to Court of Justice (European Union) 3 weeks ago, without discussion or notice. In the same action European Court of Justice was redirected to Court of Justice of the European Union, changing the previous link direction dynamic. Confusion is caused because the presentation scheme was changed without discussion. The proposed action is simply returning the article to the previous status quo, until everything can be figured out and presented in a fashion that removes any potential ambiguity. Seems like a rather reasonable action.--Labattblueboy (talk) 20:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support It's helped me to make sense of this argument by attempting to set out logically the factual position & my own thoughts, to many more educated editors this may be superfluous but i include it in the hope it is helpful to others and that any flaws in my reasoning may be exposed

First, In the bizzare & illogical world of the language of the European Union there has never been a body officially called the "European Court of Justice". This court, which was pre-lisbon officially called the "Court of Justice" "of the European Communities" in that it was THE court of justice FOR European Community law. The Effect of the lisbon treaty is that the competencies of the "european Comunity" ( whatever that was, a discussion for another day) have become competencies of the "European Union". I think that I am also correct in saying that pre-lisbon there was never a clear "judicial instiution" because of the way the civil service tribunal and the CFI were bolted on the the original court. We now clearly cannot refer to this court as the "Court of Justice of the European Union" - because that now clearly refers to the collective judicial instiution. Equally we cannot refer to the court as it does itself as simply the "Court of Justice" - because unlike the EU we have to acknowledge the existence of the rest of the world.

The two most "correct" names in European terms are unavailable - per Lamberhurst in other languages it may not be common to speak of the European Court of Justice or ECJ. In such a circumstance the name given is understandable as the best compromise in that situation.

However, In English the use of the term "European Court of Justice" is in common parlance and without doubt per Blue-Haired Lawyer the commonest name for this court in both the media and academia" and Per WP:NAME we look for a name that "The choice of article names should put the interests of readers before those of editors, and those of a general audience before those of specialists." The common usage undoubtedly adopts this name to destinguish this specfic court from the CFI ( now general court) and now from the collective ""Court of Justice of the European Union". As it was always an english "unofficial" name for the court lisbon does not change this position in my view. At the very least European Court of Justice should redirect here because as has been shown this is a phase used in english to refer to this specific court and not the collective Court of Justice of the European Union, Ajbpearce (talk) 15:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

The official name of this court is clearly just "Court of Justice", therefore, the current name of the article is the technically most correct. However to differentiate "Court of Justice of the European Union" from "Court of Justice (European Union)" is obviously a very problematic thing to do. Therefore; if it is beyond doubt a fact that serious parts of the media, along with academics (those with insight who consciously separate the EU institution from this body), based on consensus, call this sub-court "European Court of Justice" (even after Lisbon's new and confusing elements), then I'm OK with this move. - SSJ ☎ 16:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

History

The part: It became an institution of two additional Communities in 1967 when the European Coal and Steel Community, the European Economic Community (EEC), and the European Atomic Energy Community (Euratom) merged. Seems to be incorrect/inconsistent with History_of_the_European_Union(referring to treaty of Rome) The two new communities were created separately from ECSC, although they shared the same courts and the Common Assembly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mythicism (talk • contribs) 19:26, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

File:EUCoJ.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:EUCoJ.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

File:P2052781.JPG Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:P2052781.JPG, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 14:06, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Curia / CVRIA

There should be something on why the ECJ calls itself CVRIA. --Gerdami (talk) 08:57, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Probably for the same reason that the Council uses the Latin "consilium", presumably using a Latin word to avoid using a single official language form. All we need is a reliable source that says so; otherwise it is pure speculation --Boson (talk) 09:06, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

• http://www.designbuild-network.com/projects/ecj/

  Triggered by \bdesignbuild-network\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 12:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

 Done Removed link, which was superfluous and dead. --Boson (talk) 23:39, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Address?

-Ignacio Agulló — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.220.199.26 (talk) 12:37, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

EU Commission ignoring the violation of EU law

If the EU commission does not get active against a violation of EU law it seems nothing can be done.

Options would be:

1. Article 258 Violation (only the EU Commission can start proceedings)

2. Article 265 Maladministration of the EU Commission in not sending a 'Formal Letter of Notice' to the violating Member State

3. Petition at the Petition Committe of the European Commission, but if the EU Commission ignores the Requests nothing will happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klaus zinser (talk • contribs) 20:36, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Is European Court in Strasbourg CD a game - Justice?

On its webpage's not specify the exestierende email's for a contact?  :

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address failed:

"loukis.loucaides@ehr.coe.int": non-existent domain

--- The header of the original message is following. ---

Received: from [195.244.180.59] by 3capp-mailcom-bs05.server.lan (via HTTP); Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:34:20 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <trinity-b3ce8b83-f4fe-49de-b936-ad7d4e476691-1438958060667@3capp-mailcom-bs05> From: "xxxxx" <xxxx@xxxxx.com> To: loukis.loucaides@ehr.coe.int Subject: xxxxxxxxx/BEL Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 ... ... ///////////////////////////////////////////////

--- The header of the original message is following. ---

Received: from [195.244.180.59] by 3capp-mailcom-bs05.server.lan (via HTTP); Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:15:35 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <trinity-e6bccaa2-73f9-4f59-b0c8-34a1a68ff6a9-1438956935238@3capp-mailcom-bs05> From: "xxxxx" <xxxxxx@xxx.com> To: infopoint@coe.int Subject: xxxxxxxx/BEL Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 ... .... ////////////////////////////////////////

This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address failed:

"ekkehart.muller-rappard@coe.int": SMTP error from remote server after RCPT command: host: neon.coe.int 5.7.1 <ekkehart.muller-rappard@coe.int>: Recipient address rejected: Access denied

--- The header of the original message is following. ---

Received: from [195.244.180.59] by 3capp-mailcom-bs05.server.lan (via HTTP); Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:20:14 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <trinity-8e51f967-6cfe-4522-8306-af7c932a7ea9-1438957214453@3capp-mailcom-bs05> From: "xxxxxxx" <xxxx@xxxxx.com> To: ekkehart.muller-rappard@coe.int Subject: Mr.Ekkehart Mueller-Rappard (AZ: xxxxxxx/BEL) Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 ... ////////////////////////////////////////////// This message was created automatically by mail delivery software.

A message that you sent could not be delivered to one or more of its recipients. This is a permanent error. The following address failed:

"comissioner.humanrights@coe.int": SMTP error from remote server after RCPT command: host: cuivre.coe.int 5.7.1 <comissioner.humanrights@coe.int>: Recipient address rejected: Access denied

--- The header of the original message is following. ---

Received: from [195.244.180.59] by 3capp-mailcom-bs05.server.lan (via HTTP); Fri, 7 Aug 2015 16:32:47 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-ID: <trinity-0f1a54e2-ed59-4fa4-bb09-f0495f6d102b-1438957967446@3capp-mailcom-bs05> From: "xxxxxxxxxxx" <xxx@xxx.com> To: comissioner.humanrights@coe.int Subject: ECHR : xxxxx/BEL Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Date: Fri, 7 Aug 2015 ... //////////////////////////////////////////////////// — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joe bebe jeu (talk • contribs) 12:15, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

we should from this game make a Serial? What is it to explain? Discuss about it time? As in [Africa], right?

Oh, nonsense! Maybe that was a sending spam messages? Or a rough, unhoefflich turn to honored International - Justice officials, and that just did not want to respond to it? Possibly, your mail's block D.S. "International mafia"? Seems much more interesting to me the statistics. Statistics filed writs and decisions. Somewhere in a Wiki Tabell's seen. But find not . From this statistic - coming out this table: [France], [Germany] and [England] undergo his people torture and inhuman treatment more often than ..., allegedly.81.243.205.139 (talk) 11:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

New Kids - online game called "EU Justice":

to infopoint@coe.int > <Google tried to deliver your message, but it was rejected by the server for the recipient domain coe.int by neon.coe.int. [193.164.229.99].> <Le délai d'attente est dépassé

Le serveur à l'adresse 193.164.229.99 met trop de temps à répondre.>

Loukis loukakaide (talk) 13:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

ECJ has jurisdiction in trade disputes between DR + CARICOM nations

Something not currently mentioned is the Dominican Republic has said that the ECJ has jurisdiction to settle trade disputes between the Dominican Republic and E.U. but also the Dominican Republic and CARICOM.

CaribDigita (talk) 00:35, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Can you recommend a reliable source that explains the details? --Boson (talk) 01:03, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Proposed Paragraph Deletion

I propose to delete the single sentence paragraph, Impact on European integration, which states "The ECJ has been the subject of more empirical, social science research than any other court, other than the US Supreme Court.[29]" This statement is hard to prove or disprove, the citation doesn't help, and I'm not sure it adds usefully to the article. Any views? Arrivisto (talk) 12:57, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Appealing a national court decision to the European Court of Justice

It is not possible to appeal a national court decision to the European Court of Justice, see for instance page 4 here. --Glentamara (talk) 10:39, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

[4] "Only the versions of the documents published in the ‘Reports of Cases' or the ‘Official Journal of the European Union' are authentic. The other documents available on the Institution's website are given for the purposes of public information and are subject to amendment." So, basically, it can be legally-speaking false or factually misleading or incorrect! Nice legal disclaimer here (such as this one [5])! The original assertion was inserted by one editor [6], on 1 February 2009, completely unsourced anyway! You are just a (paid) EU civil servant public-relations (PR) spin doctor with NO background or education in law! Stop wasting MY time here, I am out! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 12:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

A legal disclaimer means that the document in question is not legally binding; you cannot refer to the document in, for instance, a court. It does not mean that the content itself is incorrect. The document that I was referring to, published on the website of the EU court, is very clear: You cannot appeal to the EU court from a national court.

Please keep the discussion to factual arguments. Your accusations about me are unfounded. I have nothing to do with the EU institutions. --Glentamara (talk) 12:38, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

So you are NOT actually denying that you are a civil servant of the EU institutions then?! "Accusation"...it is not a crime, you know! It is however dishonest not to declare that, however...and your editing history clearly shows a strong vested interest in everything EU-related. Anyway, not only you are insulting my intelligence by quoting some public-relations (PR) spin (which clearly does not constitute authoritative legal advice) contained in a 12-page LEAFLET, you are wrong anyway [7]! -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 13:56, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Please stop accusing other editors of nefarious or biased motives that you do not have evidence for. If you cannot calmly discuss the matter at hand with factual and policy-based points, you may want to take a break until you can do so. 331dot (talk) 13:58, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

87.102.116.36, your reference says nothing about appealing a decision to the EU court. I think you are mixing up different concepts. National courts can refer their cases to the EU court, but you cannot appeal a case to the EU court. And sure, the decisions of the EU court are legally binding, but that is another matter. It is not possible to appeal to the EU court from a national court.

You just ridicule yourself with your silly accusations. First, I am not talking about normative questions here (like how things should be or not be), so I am not presenting my personal opinions about things. I'm presenting positive statements (i.e., statements on how things are), also known as facts. Second, yes, I am indeed writing about EU related topics here on Wikipedia because I am interested in EU topics. It's also known as a hobby. It doesn't mean that I am working for or am related to any EU institution. I am a researcher in physics and I have never had anything to do with any EU institution. But even if I were an EU official, my positive statements would still be true. The validity of a positive statement does not depend on who is saying it. --Glentamara (talk) 14:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

"The Supreme Court must also refer to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Luxembourg any question on European Union law, where the answer is not clear and it is necessary for it to give judgment." (p. 7/52) [8] It may (usually) be called "reference" instead of "appeal" for sending anything to the ECJ, but it is really considered just another name for an appeal under UK law, as far as UK law is concerned. (Oh no, definitely not just a bias...he seems to want to (for some rather obvious pro-EU-integration political motives) pretend that the ECJ/CJEU somehow does not trump the supreme courts of the members states of the EU, when clearly the ECJ/CJEU does. Am I talking to Guy Verhofstadt here?!) -- 87.102.116.36 (talk) 14:14, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

ECJ ruling on civil unions (5/6/2018)

Hello, a discussion is currently underway here regarding an ECJ ruling from last week on spousal rights pertaining to same-sex unions performed in the EU. I wonder if anyone here is an expert on the application of ECJ case law who can help us clarify the meaning of last week's developments. The specific question at hand is whether, or to what extent, ECJ rulings are binding on member states. Many thanks. Jdcooper (talk) 14:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Remove the map

Personally I find the inclusion of the map in the infobox a bit strange: The article explains that this is an EU institution and the (geographic) jurisdiction is therefore rather obvious, the court also makes decisions on for example, certain decisions on the EEA, so the map is also incorrect. Thomasfowl (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Quality

I downgraded the assesment of the Article to C grade. My reasoning is as follows:

• Though plenty has been removed in the past 2 days, there was heavy evidence of politiking by critics of the court (mainly eurosceptics) using this article. This is an encylopedia, not your politics blog! I believe this played a heavy role in stagnating the article. I'm leaning more towards criticsm being dealt with in a seperate article in the future due to how it seems to have seeped into the articles quality.
• The readability is poor.
• Plenty of factual inaccuracies and out of date info - eg, references to "Community" in relation to present powers and instiutions rather than "Union", of which I have ammended. Some of these errors revealed the article to be almost a decade out of date.
• What this article really needs is volunteers to add comprehensive inline book citations and a decent bibliography to provide an overview of what the ECJ is, its history, how it fuctions, etc. You know - the stuff an encylopedia is meant to do. For this kind of article, an opinion piece from Roger McUKIPface on why he hates ECJ's judgement on x, y or z, or why he thinks the ECJ should make its judgments from a Portacabin, is not adequate, enclyopedic or suitable. Take it to your blog or create your own article on "Criticsm of the ECJ" and let the peer review process of wiki decide whether its content is encyclopedic. (directed as those editors who do that sort of thing, rather than the vast majority on here).
• "Link rot" of urls, and poor formatting of web citations also needs to be looked into/improved. I know ec.europa citations are annoying to format, but it needs to be done. More up to date urls should be found in place of using archived links from 2007, etc.

36.91.28.210 (talk) 13:04, 4 February 2020 (UTC)