Article 260(2) TFEU: An Effective Judicial Procedure for the Enforcement of Judgments?

Article 260(2) TFEU (ex 228(2) EC) enables the European Court of Justice to enforce compliance with its judgements. This article analyses its use in doing so and questions whether it could be applied more effectively. It commences by highlighting the principally economic and environmental context of the case-law, and by examining the initiatives taken to tackle delays in bringing these cases before the Court. The article then critically evaluates the effectiveness of the financial sanctions available to the Court. In doing so, it aims to fill a gap in present research by looking beyond the procedural measures through which the Court and the Commission operate to examine the practical impact of Article 260(2) itself.

The Rank of Queen's Counsel: Judicial Perspectives

The rank of queen's counsel, granted under the royal prerogative, has been part of the architecture of the legal profession and legal system since 1594 but has undergone many changes in that time, including most recently the adoption of new selection procedures. Recent cases in Northern Ireland have raised the question - what is the legal position of queen's counsel? By examining decided cases in context, this paper aims to explain judicial perspectives on what it means to be a QC.

Rewarding Merit in Judicial Appointments?: A research project undertaken by the School of Law, Queen’s University Belfast for the Northern Ireland Judicial Appointments Commission

This research involved carrying out an online survey using a number of vignettes/scenarios to explore understandings and attitudes to judicial appointments. This sort of survey is relatively novel in this context and provided a useful way of understanding how a range of factors such as merit and seniority, career paths and connections, as well as gender and visibility, are perceived as operating within the appointments system. The research also involved a series of focus group interviews with a number of individuals with various professional backgrounds and at different levels of seniority. These, and a limited number of individual interviews, afforded an opportunity to explore more closely some of the themes arising from the scenarios as well as a chance to look in some depth at some of the views and concerns of a range of members of the legal professions.

Building upon the previous research project, this work was less concerned with revisiting earlier themes and more interested in exploring how the idea of “merit” as a governing factor in judicial appointment is seen as working in practice, and whether it is perceived as being most likely to be found within particular career profiles. We also investigated issues such as the possible development of formal and informal pathways to a judicial career and practical problems such as how an applicant might become known to the senior judiciary, and the importance of this. Overall our interest was primarily in developing an understanding of how gender is perceived to operate in the appointments process and how any barriers to recruiting women, particularly to the senior judiciary, could be further broken down.

Reasoning Rights: Comparative judicial engagement

This edited book is about comparative reasoning in human rights cases, exploring the questions: How is it that notionally universal norms are reasoned by courts in such dramatically different ways? What is the shape of this reasoning? What techniques are common across the transnational jurisprudence? What techniques are diverse? With contributions by a team of world-leading human rights scholars, the book moves beyond simply addressing the institutional questions concerning courts and human rights, which too often dominate discussions of this kind. Instead, it seeks a deeper examination of the similarities and divergence in the content of reasons being developed by different courts when addressing comparable human rights questions. These differences, while partly influenced by institutional issues, cannot be attributable to them alone. The book explores the diverse and rich underlying spectrum of human rights reasoning, as a distinctive and particular form of legal reasoning, evident in the case studies across the selected jurisdictions. It is a fascinating study for all those interested in human rights law and legal reasoning.

Finding Merit in Judicial Appointments: NIJAC and the Search for a New Judiciary in Northern Ireland

The post-Agreement constitutional architecture has produced a new legal space in Northern Ireland. While the court structure has largely endured in a recognisable format there are perhaps now new expectations of how it will function in the next stage of Northern Ireland’s transition from a society in conflict. These expectations come into focus around the nature and role of the judiciary that is to oversee this new legal space. At the same time there are other, wider forces pressing upon the judiciary across the United Kingdom and these are being acted out in the various appointment commissions and regimes that have been created to modernise the judiciary. This all contributes to establishing a dynamic context for considering whether and/or how the judiciary in Northern Ireland is changing, and the forces that may be conditioning any change. This chapter looks at some of the expectations that might arise for the judiciary. It focuses both on some ideas about what might be the role of a judge in a transitional context, and the debate about how judges generally should be appointed across the United Kingdom where the idea of “merit” emerges as governing concept. Next consideration is given to how this idea of merit plays out in the Northern Ireland context and, in particular, how it impacts on the appointment of women to senior judicial roles which has emerged as the central concern in the new dispensation. Here the chapter draws on two pieces of research: the first looking at the issues surrounding judicial appointments and attitudes towards seeking such posts in the Northern Ireland context, and a second project where the idea of “merit” as a governing factor in judicial appointment was further explored in focus groups and interviews. Finally the chapter looks ahead at the challenges around judicial appointment that remain and suggests that notion of ‘merit’ has not provided the robust foundation which its proponents imagined it would.