Judicial dialogue in three silences
| Date | 01 March 2018 |
| DOI | 10.1177/2032284418761062 |
| Author | Valsamis Mitsilegas |
| Published date | 01 March 2018 |
| Subject Matter | Opinions |
Opinion
Judicial dialogue in three
silences: Unpacking Taricco
Valsamis Mitsilegas
Queen Mary University of London, UK
Abstract
The Tariccolitigation before the Courtof Justice and the Italian Constitutional Courthas generated a
number of fundamental questions about the relationship between EU law and national c onstitutional
lawand about the impact of EU law on domesticcriminaljustice systems. Theensuing dialoguebetween
the two Courts has resulted in a considerable degree of mutual accommodation, while leaving a
number of issues unresolved. The aim of this comment is to contextualize the Taricco litigation by
focusing not on what the Courts have said, but on what the Courts have actually chosen to omit or
sideline in their direct conversation, focusing thus on judicial dialogue via the two Courts’ silences.
Three silenceswill be analysed here, one for each of the rulings in the Taricco litigation in sequence.
Keywords
Judicial dialogue, fundamental rights, principle of legality, primacy of EU law, constitutional identity,
fraud against the EU budget
The Taricco litigation beforethe Court of Justice and the ItalianConstitutional Court hasgenerated a
number of fundamental questions about the relationship between EU law andnational constitutional
law and about the impact of EU law on domestic criminal justice systems. The ensuing dialogue
betweenthe two Courts has resultedin a considerable degreeof mutual accommodation,while leaving
a number of issues unresolved. The aim of this commentis to contextualize the Taricco litigation by
focusing not on what the Courts have said, but on what the Courts have actually chosen to omit or
sideline in their directconversation: focusing thus on judicial dialogue via the two Courts’ silences.
Three silences willbe analysed here, one for each of the rulings in the Taricco litigationin sequence.
Let’s begin with the source of the judicial dialogue: the Court of Justice in the Taricco case (or
Taricco I for the purposes of this commentary)
1
sent a strong signal upholding the principle of
Corresponding author:
Valsamis Mitsilegas, Queen Mary University of London, UK.
E-mail: v.mitsilegas@qmul.ac.uk
1. CJEU in Taricco. Case C-105/14, judgment of 8 September 2015.
New Journal of European Criminal Law
2018, Vol. 9(1) 38–42
ªThe Author(s) 2018
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/2032284418761062
njecl.sagepub.com
NJECL
NJECL
To continue reading
Request your trial