Palabras clave
Tribunal de Justicia
Estado de Derecho
independencia judicial
asuntos de primera generación
asuntos de segunda generación
unidad y diversidad.
Resumen
El presente artículo tiene por cometido estudiar la evolución de la protección del Estado de derecho en el ordenamiento jurídico de la Unión. A la luz de la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea, podemos distinguir dos fases distintas. Una primera fase que tendría como objetivo garantizar vías de recurso efectivas tanto a nivel de los Estados miembros como a nivel de la Unión Europea. Ahora bien, ¿qué sucede cuando medidas o prácticas nacionales ponen en tela de juicio el principio de independencia judicial? La premisa en la que se sustenta esta primera fase resulta entonces insostenible, ya que solo un juez independiente puede garantizar una tutela judicial efectiva. En la segunda fase, se trata pues de defender al juez nacional (o «defender al defensor») frente a medidas que afecten a su independencia, de tal forma que este pueda seguir tutelando con efectividad los derechos que el derecho de la Unión confiere a los justiciables. A su vez, la jurisprudencia del Tribunal de Justicia relativa a esta segunda fase también ha sido objeto de evolución. Podemos distinguir independencia judicial y, por otra, aquellas de «segunda generación» en las que el Tribunal de Justicia desarrolla y precisa las características fundamentales de dicho principio, aplicándolo a casos concretos. En dichos asuntos de segunda generación, el reto al que debe enfrentarse el Tribunal de Justicia consiste en identificar la vía intermedia que permita conciliar dos extremos opuestos: uno maximalista, que no da cabida a la diversidad nacional, y otro minimalista, que deja sin contenido normativo al valor del respeto al Estado de derecho.
Keywords
Court of Justice; Rule of Law; judicial independence; first-generation cases; second-generation cases; unity and diversity.
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to examine the evolution of the protection of the rule of law within the European Union legal order. Based on the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the Court of Justice), one may identify two distinct phases. The first phase focuses on ensuring the availability of effective remedies both at national and EU levels. However, what happens when national measures or practices undermine the principle of judicial independence? The premise underlying this first phase then becomes untenable, as only an independent judiciary can guarantee effective judicial protection.
The second phase therefore centres on safeguarding the national judiciary—«defending the defender»—against measures that threaten its independence, thereby enabling judges to continue protecting the rights conferred on individuals by EU law. The case law of the Court of Justice concerning this second phase has itself evolved. It is possible to distinguish, on the one hand, the pioneering judgments that established the foundations of the principle of judicial independence and, on the other, the «second-generation» judgments through which the Court has refined and elaborated its essential features, applying them to concrete situations. In these second-generation cases, the key challenge for the Court of Justice lies in striking a delicate balance between two opposing extremes: a maximalist approach that leaves no room for national diversity, and a minimalist one that deprives the rule of law of its normative substance.
The second phase therefore centres on safeguarding the national judiciary—«defending the defender»—against measures that threaten its independence, thereby enabling judges to continue protecting the rights conferred on individuals by EU law. The case law of the Court of Justice concerning this second phase has itself evolved. It is possible to distinguish, on the one hand, the pioneering judgments that established the foundations of the principle of judicial independence and, on the other, the «second-generation» judgments through which the Court has refined and elaborated its essential features, applying them to concrete situations. In these second-generation cases, the key challenge for the Court of Justice lies in striking a delicate balance between two opposing extremes: a maximalist approach that leaves no room for national diversity, and a minimalist one that deprives the rule of law of its normative substance.