The Governance of EU Justice Reforms

Dr. Adriani Dori LL.M.

doi:10.5771/9783748945529

Summary

This book explores how EU soft law tools reshape national justice systems. Combining legal analysis, empirical data, policy critique, and insights from political science and law & economics, it reveals the missing links between EU governance, national policies, and the politics of procedural law. Its groundbreaking, cross-disciplinary approach challenges conventional beliefs and invites readers to rethink how justice reforms are governed in today’s Europe. This critical examination provides a fresh framework for understanding the impact of EU-driven reforms on reshaping domestic procedural laws. Adriani Dori is a legal scholar in civil procedure, EU law, and justice policies, based in Italy and affiliated to Erasmus University Rotterdam.

Keywords

Search publication

Bibliographic data

Copyright year: 2025
Publication date: 11.06.2025
ISBN-Print: 978-3-7560-1569-6
ISBN-Online: 978-3-7489-4552-9
Publisher: Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series: Successful Dispute Resolution
Volume: 14
Language: English
Pages: 625
Product type: Book Titles

Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis No access Pages 1 - 34
1. 1. Procedural Law in Context No access
2. 2. Towards a Game-Changer in Procedural Legal Science No access
3. 3. The Thesis’s Contribution No access
1. 1.1 Introductory remarks No access
2. 1. 1.2.1 The rule of law and the “Copenhagen dilemma” No access
  2. 1. 1.2.2.1 The political procedure of Article 7 TEU No access
    2. 1. 1.2.2.2.1 Limitations No access
      2. 1.2.2.2.2 The CJEU’s contribution No access
    3. 1.2.2.3 The Cooperation and Verification Mechanism (CVM) No access
    4. 1.2.2.4 Interim conclusions No access
  3. 1.2.3 Three rule-of-law crises as catalysers for developments No access
  4. 1.2.4 Towards new rule-of-law protection mechanisms No access
  5. 1.2.5 The role of the Justice Scoreboard within the rule-of-law debate No access
3. 1. 1.3.1 The European Semester No access
  2. 1.3.2 Timetable and key elements No access
4. 1. 1.4.1 The “Justice for Growth” agenda No access
  2. 1.4.2 Judicial reforms within the context of the EU economic governance No access
  3. 1.4.3 The role of the Justice Scoreboard in fostering judicial reforms No access
5. 1.5 Conclusions No access
1. 2.1 Introductory remarks No access
2. 1. 2.2.1 Justice reforms and legislative activities No access
  2. 1. 2.2.2.1 Caseload No access
    2. 2.2.2.2 Disposition time No access
    3. 2.2.2.3 Clearance rate No access
    4. 2.2.2.4 Average length of proceedings (in specific areas of EU law) No access
    5. 2.2.2.5 Over-time developments No access
  3. 1. 1. 2.2.3.1.1 Financial parameters for litigants No access
      2. 2.2.3.1.2 Courts’ communication policies No access
      3. 2.2.3.1.3 Promotion and use of ADR No access
    2. 1. 2.2.3.2.1 Human resources No access
      2. 2.2.3.2.2 Financial resources No access
    3. 2.2.3.3 Assessment tools No access
    4. 2.2.3.4 Training No access
    5. 2.2.3.5 Standards No access
    6. 2.2.3.6 Over-time developments No access
  4. 1. 2.2.4.1 Perceived (de facto) judicial independence No access
    2. 2.2.4.2 Structural (de jure) judicial independence No access
    3. 2.2.4.3 Over-time developments No access
3. 1. 1. 2.3.1.1 Aim No access
    2. 2.3.1.2 Limitations: The soft-law nature of the Justice Scoreboard No access
  2. 1. 2.3.2.1 Aim No access
    2. 2.3.2.2 Limitations No access
  3. 1. 2.3.3.1 Aim No access
    2. 2.3.3.2 Limitations: The heterogeneity of national judicial statistics No access
4. 2.4 Conclusions No access
1. 3.1 Introductory remarks No access
2. 1. 3.2.1 The involvement in the creation process No access
  2. 3.2.2 The tense cooperation with DG Justice No access
  3. 3.2.3 Data contribution No access
  4. 3.2.4 Methodology No access
  5. 3.2.5 Data limitations No access
  6. 3.2.6 Added value No access
  7. 1. 3.2.7.1 The political dimension No access
    2. 3.2.7.2 The lack of neutrality No access
    3. 3.2.7.3 The political use of the CEPEJ findings No access
3. 1. 3.3.1 Involvement No access
  2. 3.3.2 Data contribution No access
  3. 3.3.3 Methodology No access
  4. 3.3.4 Data limitations No access
  5. 3.3.5 Added value No access
4. 1. 3.4.1 Involvement No access
  2. 3.4.2 Operation No access
  3. 3.4.3 Data contribution No access
  4. 3.4.4 Methodology No access
  5. 3.4.5 Data limitations No access
  6. 3.4.6 Added value No access
5. 1. 3.5.1 Background information No access
  2. 3.5.2 Involvement No access
  3. 3.5.3 Data contribution No access
  4. 3.5.4 Methodology No access
  5. 1. 3.5.5.1 The importance of the appearance of independence No access
    2. 3.5.5.2 The formation of perceptions No access
    3. 3.5.5.3 The importance of comparisons No access
    4. 3.5.5.4 Understanding and using the data No access
  6. 3.5.6 Added value No access
  7. 1. 3.5.7.1 The reasons behind the politicisation of the Scoreboard data No access
    2. 3.5.7.2 Perceived judicial independence in domestic and EU politics No access
    3. 3.5.7.3 Perceived judicial independence and the monopoly of State’s judicial services No access
6. 1. 1. 3.6.1.1 Eurostat No access
    2. 3.6.1.2 The “Expert Group on Money Laundering and Terrorist Financing” No access
    3. 3.6.1.3 Others No access
  2. 1. 3.6.2.1 The Global Competitiveness Report (GCR) No access
    2. 3.6.2.2 The Doing Business Report No access
    3. 3.6.2.3 Field studies No access
7. 3.7 Main trends in the data providers No access
8. 3.8 Conclusions No access
1. 4.1 Introductory remarks No access
2. 1. 4.2.1 Before the first Scoreboard publication No access
  2. 1. 4.2.2.1 The resolution of 3 July 2013 on the situation of fundamental rights: standards and practices in Hungary No access
    2. 4.2.2.2 The annual report on the situation of fundamental rights in the EU for 2012 No access
    3. 4.2.2.3 The resolution of 4 February 2014 on the EU Justice Scoreboard – civil and administrative justice in the Member States No access
    4. 4.2.2.4 The resolution of 12 March 2014 on evaluation of justice in relation to criminal justice and the rule of law No access
    5. 4.2.2.5 MEPs Parliamentary Questions (PQs) No access
    6. 4.2.2.6 Interim conclusions No access
  3. 4.2.3 The shift in the Commission’s narrative of 2014 No access
  4. 1. 4.2.4.1 The situation in Hungary No access
    2. 4.2.4.2 The situation in Poland No access
    3. 4.2.4.3 The situation in Bulgaria and Romania No access
    4. 4.2.4.4 Interim conclusions No access
  5. 1. 4.2.5.1 The Commission’s judicial and political actions against Poland No access
    2. 4.2.5.2 The CJEU’s involvement via the preliminary reference procedure No access
    3. 4.2.5.3 The Scoreboard’s contribution No access
  6. 4.2.6 The European Parliament’s resolution of 29 May 2018 No access
  7. 4.2.7 The post-2018 Scoreboard formation and the road ahead No access
3. 1. 4.3.1 Legislative activities No access
  2. 4.3.2 The lack of contextualisation of efficiency trends No access
  3. 4.3.3 Judicial and economic efficiency No access
  4. 4.3.4 The input of judicial systems as a question of quality No access
  5. 4.3.5 The prices for accessing national judicial markets: between efficiency and rule-of-law protection No access
  6. 4.3.6 Indexing, scoring and ranking in selected areas No access
  7. 4.3.7 Measuring judicial independence and capturing drifts to illiberalism No access
  8. 4.3.8 Missing links No access
4. 4.4 Conclusions No access
1. 5.1 Introductory remarks No access
2. 1. 5.2.1 The Scoreboard input for the rule of law No access
  2. 5.2.2 The Scoreboard input for instigating judicial reforms No access
  3. 5.2.3 The subtle Europeanisation of judicial policies within and outside of the European AFSJ No access
  4. 5.2.4 The (de-)politicisation and proceduralisation of the Scoreboard findings No access
3. 5.3 What can be measured? No access
4. 1. 5.4.1 Timetable No access
  2. 5.4.2 The Country Reports No access
  3. 5.4.3 The assessment of national justice systems in the Country Reports No access
  4. 5.4.4 The production of Justice-CSRs No access
  5. 5.4.5 The monitoring instruments to measure the CSRs’ implementation progress No access
5. 5.5 Conclusions No access
1. 6.1 Introductory remarks No access
2. 1. 6.2.1 Country-Specific Recommendations No access
  2. 6.2.2 Country Reports No access
  3. 6.2.3 Secondary sources No access
  4. 6.2.4 Interim conclusions No access
3. 6.3 The legal basis and non-binding (?) character of CSRs No access
4. 6.4 The policy directions of CSRs No access
5. 6.5 The phrasing of CSRs No access
6. 1. 6.6.1 The Commission’s narrative No access
  2. 6.6.2 Questioning the official narrative No access
  3. 6.6.3 Interim conclusions No access
7. 6.7 The inner structure of CSRs No access
8. 1. 6.8.1 The Commission’s distinction between reform actions and reform outcomes No access
  2. 6.8.2 The Commission’s qualitative measurements No access
  3. 6.8.3 The Commission’s standard aggregated method No access
  4. 6.8.4 The problems of data aggregation No access
  5. 6.8.5 The inefficiencies of the implemented changes No access
  6. 6.8.6 Interim conclusions No access
9. 6.9 The Effectiveness of CSRs No access
10. 6.10 Conclusions No access
1. 7.1 Introductory remarks No access
2. 7.2 The cross-sectoral linkages of Justice-CSRs No access
3. 1. 1. 7.3.1.1 Type A Justice-CSRs No access
    2. 7.3.1.2 Type B Justice-CSRs No access
    3. 7.3.1.3 Type C Justice-CSRs No access
  2. 7.3.2 Using the subject matter as a criterion No access
  3. 7.3.2 Quantifying recommendations: A granular approach and its implications No access
  4. 7.3.4 Interim conclusions: CSRs addressing Justice in a narrow and broad sense No access
4. 1. 7.4.1 The “addressees” of Justice-CSRs No access
  2. 7.4.2 The “monitored” Member States No access
  3. 7.4.3 Reporting challenges and playing with numbers No access
  4. 7.4.4 Interim conclusions No access
5. 1. 7.5.1 Justice-CSRs for “addressees” No access
  2. 7.5.2 Justice-CSRs for the “monitored” Member States No access
  3. 7.5.3 Interim conclusions No access
6. 7.6 Questioning the Commission’s narrative No access
7. 7.7 Conclusions No access
1. 8.1 Introductory remarks No access
2. 8.2 The legal basis of Justice-CSRs No access
3. 8.3 The subject matters of Justice-CSRs No access
4. 1. 8.4.1 General data No access
  2. 8.4.2 Distribution by country and subject matter No access
  3. 1. 1. 8.4.3.1.1 EMU membership No access
      2. 8.4.3.1.2 EU 15 membership No access
    2. 1. 8.4.3.2.1 The Justice Scoreboard’s unsuitability to test correlations No access
      2. 8.4.3.2.2 The length for enforcing contracts No access
      3. 8.4.3.2.3 Violations of Article 6 ECHR No access
    3. 8.4.3.3 Economic factors No access
5. 1. 8.5.1 Understanding and measuring effectiveness of Justice-CSRs No access
  2. 8.5.2 General data No access
  3. 8.5.3 The accuracy of the Commission’s assessment No access
  4. 8.5.4 Implementation by legal basis No access
  5. 1. 8.5.5.1 EMU membership No access
    2. 8.5.5.2 EU 15 membership No access
  6. 8.5.6 Implementation by subject matter No access
  7. 1. 8.5.7.1 Implementation progress No access
    2. 8.5.7.2 Implementation points and rate No access
    3. 8.5.7.3 Implementation by country and legal basis No access
    4. 8.5.7.4 Implementation by budget spending for the judiciary No access
  8. 8.5.8 The naming-and-shaming effect No access
6. 8.6 Conclusions No access
1. 9.1 Introductory remarks No access
2. 9.2 Why do Justice-CSRs neglect some subject matters? No access
3. 9.3 How badly should countries perform to receive a Justice-CSR? No access
4. 9.4 Recommendations and state sovereignty: How intrusive are Justice-CSRs? No access
5. 9.5 The low-profile approach behind recommendations: Justice-CSRs under the radar No access
6. 1. 9.6.1 Tackling issues of judicial independence through Justice-CSRs No access
  2. 9.6.2 Improving Justice after accession: CSRs and new EU members No access
  3. 9.6.3 The example of Hungary No access
  4. 9.6.4 The example of Poland No access
  5. 9.6.5 The use of Justice-CSRs as a policy tool: Main takeaways No access
7. 9.7 Conclusions No access
Summary Conclusions No access Pages 551 - 558
Bibliography No access Pages 559 - 625