JUDICIAL ACTIVISM WITHIN THE COURT OF JUSTICE OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: A USEFUL CRITICS OR OVERATED CONCEPT

Abstract

In recent years, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) was

criticized for judicial activism and such critics are far from new. This

criticism is gaining momentum when the role of the European Union

(EU) and its judicial system is examined in member-states. More and

more national supreme courts and constitutional courts have criticized the

CJEU not only for its activity, but also for its poor technical competence

in some judgments. The paper aims to elaborate this issue, to identify the

reasons and to give its own perspective on the future of the EU judicial

system, which under the Lisbon Treaty has undergone several reforms,

especially in the way the judges are elected, the number of judges in the

General Court, the dissolve of specialized courts, etc. Although there is

little ground for criticism of judicial activism, the CJEU itself is careful

not to be involved in such a thing. Furthermore, the criticism that the

CJEU has a deficiency of technical competence gives greater importance

to activism, having in mind some national judgments or the opinions of

General Advocates. This issue is related to the reform of the organization

and the management of the CJEU to better meet the needs of the parties,

national courts and citizens. The paper concludes that the CJEU needs to

focus more on its core function by concentrating on substantive issues

and possibly returning to the three-tiered judicial system.