There is no such thing as a precedent in EU law. Any court can in general disagree with any other court. Appeals still exist, but they are only valid for that one case.
The EU in general uses civil law, not common law. Courts in general don’t establish precedents, so it does not matter what a court rules beyond that specific case, laws are wrtitten to be super specific, and you generally can’t challenge laws in court like in the US.
The EU works through a double process of lawmaking.
It can create directives that are like how US laws work as they need specific interpretation, except it’s national legislatures, not courts doing the interpretation.
And there are regulations - like the GDPR - that have to be adapted and enforced verbatim.
This is a cornerstone of the ongoing Big Tech dispute, they thought they can forum shop by buying the Irish judiciary, but they can still get indicted, even for the same violation, in any other EU court if that court also has jurisdiction.
Each country may still have the equivalent of a constitution, and the majority of EU laws are directives which the country may translate to fit their local law, also there’s various negotiated exceptions to EU laws. But the general idea is that the treaties establishing EU are meant to require full cooperation
I’m not familiar with EU law, but wouldn’t this set a precidence across the whole EU?
There is no such thing as a precedent in EU law. Any court can in general disagree with any other court. Appeals still exist, but they are only valid for that one case.
Judges don’t make laws here.
Not unless turned into EU law, or a lawsuit over it reaches EU court. Individual countries can’t change the rules of the union on their own.
There’s already EU court precedence against mandatory backdoors
https://cdt.org/insights/the-european-court-of-human-rights-concludes-encryption-backdoor-mandates-violate-the-right-to-private-life-of-all-users-online/
Is there a supremacy clause like what the US has? Like, if the EU court has a ruling, does a member country get to override that?
The EU in general uses civil law, not common law. Courts in general don’t establish precedents, so it does not matter what a court rules beyond that specific case, laws are wrtitten to be super specific, and you generally can’t challenge laws in court like in the US.
The EU works through a double process of lawmaking.
It can create directives that are like how US laws work as they need specific interpretation, except it’s national legislatures, not courts doing the interpretation.
And there are regulations - like the GDPR - that have to be adapted and enforced verbatim.
This is a cornerstone of the ongoing Big Tech dispute, they thought they can forum shop by buying the Irish judiciary, but they can still get indicted, even for the same violation, in any other EU court if that court also has jurisdiction.
https://commission.europa.eu/law/law-making-process/types-eu-law_en
Each country may still have the equivalent of a constitution, and the majority of EU laws are directives which the country may translate to fit their local law, also there’s various negotiated exceptions to EU laws. But the general idea is that the treaties establishing EU are meant to require full cooperation
no.