Between Informal Dialogue and Official Criticism The Bundesverfassungsgericht, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the European Court of Human Rights concerning the Protection of Human Rights and Mutual Recognition of Judgments

• Published in: International community law review Vol. 21; no. 5; pp. 409 - 420
• Main Author: Podolska, Anna
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: 12.11.2019
• ISSN: 1871-9740; 1871-9732
• DOI: 10.1163/18719732-12341410

Abstract There are various forms of jurisdictional dialogue. In addition to drawing from the case law of another court or seeking direct assistance of such another court in passing the judgment, we can notice in practice situations when by issuing a verdict the courts are communicating with each other. The rulings of the Bundesverfassungsgericht, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the European Court of Human Rights regarding the free movement of judgments in the European Union and protection of fundamental rights are the example of such activities. Each of these bodies was interpreting separately the extent to which the mechanisms of recognising and executing the judgments may interfere with the level of protection of fundamental rights. A common conclusion concerns assigning the priority to protection of fundamental rights, while individual bodies were determining differently the standards of such protection. The analysed judgments can be construed as a communication between these bodies. Although no direct discussion takes place between these courts, this is still a form of interaction which affects the development of the case law and understanding of the boundaries of mutual recognition of judgments and protection of human rights within judicial proceedings.