More and more judges and prosecutors are turning to the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) for the protection of judicial independence and rule of law standards. These Courts have developed a robust framework of rule of law standards during the last decade, which impact all aspects of national judges’ activities from institutional issues related to judicial organisation (e.g. composition of judicial councils, judicial liability mechanisms, appointment of judges, and status of justices of peace) to individual aspects related to the exercise of activities outside the judicial function and freedom of expression. Furthermore, in an interconnected European legal order based on the principle of mutual trust, undermining judicial independence in one member state is of outmost relevance for other member states.
Rule of law developments in other member states impact even the countries where rule of law is most deeply entrenched. As mutual trust cannot be blind trust, national judges are in fact called on to act as guardians of European rule of law by ascertaining whether a person sought under a European arrest warrant will be granted effective judicial protection in the requesting state, and whether an asylum seeker can be transferred to a member state with rule of law issues. Within a context of national constitutional courts diverging from the jurisprudence of the ECtHR and CJEU, domestic judges have been faced with the difficult task of reconciling the constitutional jurisprudence with the evolving CJEU and ECtHR jurisprudence on rule of law.
This cross-border workshop aims to provide legal practitioners with an update of the EU and ECHR standards on rule of law and discuss concrete examples of how judicial dialogue can help judges address conflicts between EU and national constitutional norms on the rule of law, judicial independence, impartiality, accountability and freedom of expression of legal professionals.