| Author (Person) | Klinge, Sune |
|---|---|
| Series Title | EU Law Analysis |
| Series Details | 13.12.16 |
| Publication Date | 13/12/2016 |
| Content Type | Journal | Series | Blog |
|
Following the Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C-441/14 in the Ajos-case earlier in 2016, the Supreme Court of Denmark has handed down its judgment in the main proceedings. Despite the fact that the preliminary ruling left the Supreme Court with only two options; (1) apply national law in a manner that is consistent with the directive or (2) disapply any provision of national law that is contrary to EU law the Danish Supreme Court did neither. The Danish Supreme Court found that an interpretation consistent with EU law was not possible nor could the Supreme Court set aside national law since the Danish EU Accession Act did not confer sovereignty to the extent required for the unwritten EU principle prohibiting discrimination on the grounds of age to take precedence over national law. If the courts were to set aside national law they would be acting outside their constitutional limits to their competences as judicial power. Thereby the Supreme Court chose a third option and set aside the judgement from the CJEU. The judgement from The Danish Supreme Court can definitely be seen as disobedience as the CJEU’s guidance in the Ajos-case was very precise and gave the Supreme Court only two options, but the Supreme Court choose a third. Or it can be seen as contributing to the debate about the dialogue between the courts; it depends on the eyes of the beholder. |
|
| Source Link | Link to Main Source http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/dialogue-or-disobedience-between.html |
| Related Links |
|
| Subject Categories | Law |
| Countries / Regions | Denmark, Europe |
