Daniel Sarmiento, Professor of EU Law at the University Complutense of Madrid*
Last week I published a post on Schipani v Italy, where I suggested that the Strasbourg court (the European Court of Human Rights) was becoming much stricter with national supreme courts’ duties to make preliminary references to the Luxembourg court (the CJEU) than the CJEU itself. I pointed at this paradox with a reference to CILFIT, hinting that this judgment had probably been a source of judicial rebelliousness and that the Court of Justice was not doing much about it.
Barnard & Peers: chapter 10
*This post previously appeared on the Despite our Differences blog
Photo credit: www.lapsi-project.eu