Search results

International audience ; This paper deals with case-based reasoning and proportionality analysis in the CJEU case-law. The case, constructed by the Court, functions as a framework in which proportionality analysis takes place. The justification of national measures restricting free movement is a subversive process for national governments : it implies an entirely different way of speaking and thinking. This becomes clear when one considers the role of the case in the reasoning of the Court. The objectives of national measures must be reconstructed within a specific intellectual framework and in the context of a specific case. In this process of conceptual translation, accomodating the diversity of cases in the application of a rule is often a proportionality requirement. Nevertheless, and quite paradoxically, it could also make the proportionality of a rule more difficult to establish.

International audience ; This contribution investigates the concept of rule of law in the discourse of EU law: When is the concept used? What does it mean? What does it allow doing? The expression first appears in the Treaty of Maastricht and is classically used to affirm a value that is common to the EU and to the Member States. In the current context of crisis of the rule of law, the debate mainly deals with the enforcement of the rule of law by the Member States: scholars typically highlight the weaknesses of article 7 TEU and seek alternative enforcement mechanisms. In the Court's case law, the concept has been used to state that the EU is "a Union based on the rule of law". In some famous cases, this sentence has served to justify the recognition of new remedies and procedures for the Court to review the legality of EU measures. Quite paradoxically, in other cases, it has also served to justify the affirmation that this recognition was not necessary. Interestingly, in a series of rulings in 2008, the Court established a connection between the enforcement of the rule of law by the Member States and the affirmation of a Union based on the rule of law. This case law has led to a Europeanization of the concept of rule of law, which goes hand in hand with a process of judicialization: national and European courts acquire a central role in supervising the respect of rule of law by the Member States.

International audience ; This paper deals with case-based reasoning and proportionality analysis in the CJEU case-law. The case, constructed by the Court, functions as a framework in which proportionality analysis takes place. The justification of national measures restricting free movement is a subversive process for national governments : it implies an entirely different way of speaking and thinking. This becomes clear when one considers the role of the case in the reasoning of the Court. The objectives of national measures must be reconstructed within a specific intellectual framework and in the context of a specific case. In this process of conceptual translation, accomodating the diversity of cases in the application of a rule is often a proportionality requirement. Nevertheless, and quite paradoxically, it could also make the proportionality of a rule more difficult to establish.

International audience ; This contribution investigates the concept of rule of law in the discourse of EU law: When is the concept used? What does it mean? What does it allow doing? The expression first appears in the Treaty of Maastricht and is classically used to affirm a value that is common to the EU and to the Member States. In the current context of crisis of the rule of law, the debate mainly deals with the enforcement of the rule of law by the Member States: scholars typically highlight the weaknesses of article 7 TEU and seek alternative enforcement mechanisms. In the Court's case law, the concept has been used to state that the EU is "a Union based on the rule of law". In some famous cases, this sentence has served to justify the recognition of new remedies and procedures for the Court to review the legality of EU measures. Quite paradoxically, in other cases, it has also served to justify the affirmation that this recognition was not necessary. Interestingly, in a series of rulings in 2008, the Court established a connection between the enforcement of the rule of law by the Member States and the affirmation of a Union based on the rule of law. This case law has led to a Europeanization of the concept of rule of law, which goes hand in hand with a process of judicialization: national and European courts acquire a central role in supervising the respect of rule of law by the Member States.

By introducing the terms "citizens of the Union", the drafters of the Maastricht Treaty inscribed a new concept in European Union law. The denomination of the new concept coincides with that of national legal concepts and of a concept widely discussed in political theory. More than twenty years later, the legal concept of citizenship of the Union has been widely constructed by the case law of the European Court of Justice. This case law then offers a particularly rich field of study for the development of a new perspective on judicial activity. My thesis proposes an investigation on the judge and the work of legal concepts; that is, an investigation on the practice of the judge – the work on concepts – and on the role of concepts in legal reasoning – the concepts at work. This inquiry should be distinguished from classical studies on the judge, mainly dealing with interpretation, as well as from works focusing on power relations between legal actors. In this thesis, I argue that EU law must be understood in its own terms, through an inquiry on the conceptual practices of the judge and I propose a non-formalist account of legal forms. ; Avec les termes « citoyens de l'Union », les rédacteurs du Traité de Maastricht inscrivent dans le droit de l'Union européenne un concept dont la dénomination reprend celle de concepts juridiques nationaux et d'un concept discuté en théorie politique. Plus de vingt années après son introduction, la citoyenneté de l'Union a en grande partie été construite par la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne. Elle offre un terrain d'enquête particulièrement fécond pour développer une nouvelle perspective sur l'activité du juge. Il est proposé de s'interroger sur le juge et le travail des concepts juridiques ; c'est-à-dire sur l'activité du juge – les concepts travaillés – et sur le rôle des concepts dans le raisonnement juridique – les concepts au travail. Cette recherche se distingue tant des études classiques sur le juge, focalisées sur l'interprétation, que des ...

Defence data: 28 November 2017; Examining Board: Professor Loïc Azoulai, University of Paris (Supervisor); Professor Myriam Benlolo Carabot, Paris Nanterre University; Professor Jean-Yves Chérot, Aix-Marseille University; Professor Urška Šadl, European University Institute ; The thesis is awarded the Pierre-Henri Teitgen Prize 2018 ; By introducing the terms "citizens of the Union", the drafters of the Maastricht Treaty inscribed a new concept in European Union law. The denomination of the new concept coincides with that of national legal concepts and of a concept widely discussed in political theory. More than twenty years later, the legal concept of citizenship of the Union has been widely constructed by the case law of the European Court of Justice. This case law then offers a particularly rich field of study for the development of a new perspective on judicial activity. My thesis proposes an investigation on the judge and the work of legal concepts; that is, an investigation on the practice of the judge – the work on concepts – and on the role of concepts in legal reasoning – the concepts at work. This inquiry should be distinguished from classical studies on the judge, mainly dealing with interpretation, as well as from works focusing on power relations between legal actors. In this thesis, I argue that EU law must be understood in its own terms, through an inquiry on the conceptual practices of the judge and I propose a non-formalist account of legal forms.

By introducing the terms "citizens of the Union", the drafters of the Maastricht Treaty inscribed a new concept in European Union law. The denomination of the new concept coincides with that of national legal concepts and of a concept widely discussed in political theory. More than twenty years later, the legal concept of citizenship of the Union has been widely constructed by the case law of the European Court of Justice. This case law then offers a particularly rich field of study for the development of a new perspective on judicial activity. My thesis proposes an investigation on the judge and the work of legal concepts; that is, an investigation on the practice of the judge – the work on concepts – and on the role of concepts in legal reasoning – the concepts at work. This inquiry should be distinguished from classical studies on the judge, mainly dealing with interpretation, as well as from works focusing on power relations between legal actors. In this thesis, I argue that EU law must be understood in its own terms, through an inquiry on the conceptual practices of the judge and I propose a non-formalist account of legal forms. ; Avec les termes « citoyens de l'Union », les rédacteurs du Traité de Maastricht inscrivent dans le droit de l'Union européenne un concept dont la dénomination reprend celle de concepts juridiques nationaux et d'un concept discuté en théorie politique. Plus de vingt années après son introduction, la citoyenneté de l'Union a en grande partie été construite par la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice de l'Union européenne. Elle offre un terrain d'enquête particulièrement fécond pour développer une nouvelle perspective sur l'activité du juge. Il est proposé de s'interroger sur le juge et le travail des concepts juridiques ; c'est-à-dire sur l'activité du juge – les concepts travaillés – et sur le rôle des concepts dans le raisonnement juridique – les concepts au travail. Cette recherche se distingue tant des études classiques sur le juge, focalisées sur l'interprétation, que des travaux qui se concentrent sur les rapports de pouvoir entre les acteurs. Le droit de l'Union doit être compris dans ses propres termes afin d'entreprendre une enquête sur les pratiques conceptuelles du juge. Ce faisant, la thèse propose une approche non-formaliste des formes juridiques.

Ce Liber Amicorum dédié à Jean-Yves CHEROT rend hommage à un universitaire engagé et passionné qui a exploré le droit sous de multiples facettes, qu'elles soient politiques, économiques, pratiques ou théoriques, au national comme à l'international. Jean-Yves CHEROT n'a eu de cesse de chercher le droit au-delà de sa pratique, au prisme de toutes les théories qui le prennent pour objet, dans cet espace intermédiaire mystérieux, mais non moins réel, où le droit se déploie entre théories et pratique, à la fois comme discours, norme et interprétation. Les contributions reflètent cette diversité et portent ainsi autant sur le droit privé et les acteurs du droit que sur le droit public dans ses dimensions de droit constitutionnel, administratif et européen. Elles font une part notable à la théorie du droit, conjuguée ici au pluriel des thèmes du positivisme, de la normativité, de la science du droit, du réalisme juridique ou du droit global. Ce Liber Amicorum est donc aussi celui des amis d'un droit qui ne peut se dire de façon univoque et qui fait écho à la richesse et à la multiplicité des centres d'intérêts de Jean-Yves CHEROT, chercheur en droit mais plus encore des droits et du droit.