Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-59b7f5684b-frvt8 Total loading time: 0.711 Render date: 2022-09-24T15:39:20.719Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

7 - Impact through Trust: The CJEU as a Trust-enhancing Institution

from Part I

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 June 2018

Marlene Wind
University of Copenhagen
Get access


This chapter gives an original response to one of the central questions asked in this book: to what extent does the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) impact domestic political and legal systems and what are its implications? More specifically, how might the CJEU increase the impact of its rulings and legal mandates in national judiciaries and legal systems? This question is crucial if we understand that national courts are the key decentralised enforcers of the European Union (EU) law responsible for ensuring the effectiveness of EU law and the rulings and mandates imposed by the Court. EU scholars have already offered several legalist and institutionalist responses to why national courts participate in this process of legal integration in the EU and, most importantly, why they follow the mandates and rulings from the CJEU. This chapter innovates in this regard by introducing trust between judges as a new mechanism for enhancing the cooperation and compliance by national courts with the CJEU jurisprudence and EU legal mandates. The chapter describes the conditions under which national judges trust the CJEU to identify how the Court can promote trust in its role as a supreme adjudicator in the EU law system.

Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2018

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)


Alter, K. J. (2001). Establishing the Supremacy of European Law: The Making of an International Rule of Law in Europe, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Arnold, C., Sapir, E. V. & Zapryanova, G. (2012). Trust in the Institutions of the European Union: A Cross-Country Examination. European Integration Online Papers, 16(2), 139. Published online: Scholar
Benvenuti, S. (2014). Access to Justice in Environmental Matters. Which Role for the European Networks of Judges? Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law, 11(2), 163–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benvenuti, S. (2015). The European Judicial Training Network and Its Role in the Strategy for the Europeanization of National Judges. International Journal for Court Administration, 7(1), 5967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Börzel, T. & Risse, T. (2015). Dysfunctional States Institutions, Trust, and Governance in Areas of Limited Statehood. Regulation and Governance, 29(2), 135–51.Google Scholar
Caldeira, G. A & Gibson, J. L. (1995). The Legitimacy of the Court of Justice in the European Union: Models of Institutional Support. American Political Science Review, 89(2), 356–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carrubba, C. J. & Murrah, L. (2005). Legal Integration and Use of the Preliminary Ruling Process in the European Union. International Organization, 59(2), 399418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ceka, B. & Sojka, A. (2016). Loving It but Not Feeling It Yet? The State of European Identity after the Eastern Enlargement. European Union Politics, 17(3), 482503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Claes, M. & De Visser, M. (2012). Are You Networked Yet? On Dialogues in European Judicial Networks. Utrecht Law Review, 8(2), 100–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gambetta, D. (2000). Can We Trust Trust? In Gambetta, D., ed., Trust: Making and Breaking Cooperative Relations, Oxford: Blackwell, pp. 213–37.Google Scholar
Gibson, J. L. & Caldeira, G. A. (1995). The Legitimacy of Transnational Legal Institutions: Compliance, Support, and the European Court of Justice. American Journal of Political Science, 39(2), 459–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. L. & Caldeira, G. A. (1998). Changes in the Legitimacy of the European Court of Justice: A Post-Maastricht Analysis. British Journal of Political Science, 28(1), 6391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. L., Caldeira, G. A. & Baird, V. A. (1998). On the Legitimacy of National High Courts. The American Political Science Review, 92(2), 343–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, J. L., Caldeira, G. A. & Spence, L. K. (2003). Measuring Attitudes toward the United States Supreme Court. American Journal of Political Science, 47(2), 354–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosskopf, A. (2005). ‘Learning to Trust the European Court of Justice – Lessons from the German Case’. In EUSA Ninth Biennial International Conference, March 31–April 2. Published online:
Helfer, L. R. (2013). The Effectiveness of International Adjudicators. In Romano, C. P. R., Alter, K. J. & Avgerou, C., eds., The Oxford Handbook of International Adjudication, Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 464–82.Google Scholar
Helfer, L. R. & Slaughter, A. (1997). Toward a Theory of Effective Supranational Adjudication. Yale Law Journal, 107, 273392.Google Scholar
Hinarejos, A. (2009). Judicial Control in the European Union: Reforming Jurisdiction in the Intergovernmental Pillars, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Kuha, J., Stares, S., Widdop, S., Fitzgerald, R., Yordanova, M. & Galev, T. (2011). Developing European Indicators of Trust in Justice. European Journal of Criminology, 8(4), 267–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keck, S. & Karelaia, N. (2012). Does Competition Foster Trust? The Role of Tournament Incentives. Experimental Economics, 15(1), 204–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lenaerts, K. (2004). ‘In the Union We Trust’: Trust-enhancing Principles of Community Law. Common Market Law Review, 41, 317–43.Google Scholar
Leron, N. (2014). ‘The Constitutional Governance of Judges in the EU: The invention of a communicative mode of regulation of constitutional conflict risks’, ECPR General Conference. Conference paper:
Maduro, M. P. (2003). Contrapunctual Law: Europe’s Constitutional Pluralism in Action. In Walker, N., ed., Sovereignty in Transition, Oxford: Hart Publishing, pp. 501–37.Google Scholar
Maduro, M. P. (2007). Interpreting European Law: Judicial Adjudication in a Context of Constitutional Pluralism. European Journal of Legal Studies, 1(2), 121.Google Scholar
Mattli, W. & Slaughter, A. (1998). Revisiting the European Court of Justice. International Organization, 52(1), 177209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H. & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An Integrative Model of Organizational Trust. The Academy of Management Review, (3), 709–34.Google Scholar
Mayoral, J. A. (2015). The Politics of Judging EU Law: A New Approach to National Courts in the Legal Integration of Europe, Madrid: Instituto Juan March de Estudios e Investigaciones.Google Scholar
Mayoral, J. A. (2016a). In the CJEU Judges Trust: A New Approach in the Judicial Construction of Europe. Journal of Common Market Studies, 55(3), 551–68.Google Scholar
Mayoral, J. A. (2016b). ‘Does Trust Enhance National Courts’ Cooperation with the CJEU?’ iCourts Workshop: Trust, Social Capital and Networks: A Different Perspective on International Courts. Copenhagen.
Mayoral, J. A., Jaremba, U. & Nowak, T. (2014). Creating EU Law Judges: The Role of Generational Differences, Legal Education and Judicial Career Paths in National Judges’ Assessment Regarding EU Law Knowledge. Journal of European Public Policy, 21(8), 1120–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Montinola, G. R. (2009). Proxies and Experience as Bases of Trust in Courts. In K. Cook, S., Levi, M. & Hardin, R., eds., Whom Can We Trust? How Groups, Networks and Institutions Make Trust Possible, New York: Russell Sage Foundation, pp. 286307.Google Scholar
Nowak, T., Amtenbrink, F., Hertogh, M. & Wissink, M. (2011). National Judges as European Union Judges: Knowledge, Experiences and Attitudes of Lower Court Judges in Germany and the Netherlands. National Law in a Global Society, The Hague: Eleven International Publishing.Google Scholar
Nyikos, S. A. (2003). The Preliminary Reference Process: National Court Implementation, Changing Opportunity Structures and Litigant Desistment. European Union Politics, 4, 397419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paunio, E. (2010). Conflict, Power, and Understanding – Judicial Dialogue between the CJEU and National Courts. No Foundations: Journal of Extreme Legal Positivism, 4, 524.Google Scholar
Posner, R. A. (2012). The Rise and Fall of Judicial Self-Restraint. California Law Review, 100(3), 519–56.Google Scholar
Quintelier, E., Verhaegen, S. & Hooghe, M. (2014). The Intergenerational Transmission of European Identity: The Role of Gender and Discussion within Families. Journal of Common Market Studies, 52(5), 1103–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramos Romeu, F. (2002). Judicial Cooperation in the European Courts. Testing Three Models of Judicial Behavior. Global Jurist Frontiers, 2(1), 152.Google Scholar
Ramos Romeu, F. (2006). Law and Politics in the Application of EC Law: Spanish Courts and the CJEU 1986–2000. Common Market Law Review, 43, 395421.Google Scholar
Rompf, S. A. (2014). Trust and Rationality: An Integrative Framework for Trust Research, Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden.Google Scholar
Shany, Y. (2014). Assessing the Effectiveness of International Courts, Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone Sweet, A. & Brunell, T. L. (1998). The European Court and the National Courts: A Statistical Analysis of Preliminary References, 1961–95. Journal of European Public Policy, 5(1), 6697.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sunshine, J. & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Shaping Public Support for Policing. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 513–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, T. R. & Huo, Y. (2002). Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Voeten, E. (2013). Public Opinion and the Legitimacy of International Courts. Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 14(2), 411–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, N. (2002). The Idea of Constitutional Pluralism. The Modern Law Review, 65, 317–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weiler, J. H. H. (1994). A Quiet Revolution: The European Court of Justice and Its Interlocutors. Comparative Political Studies, 26(4), 510–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wind, M., Sindbjerg Martinsen, D. & Pons Rotger, G. (2009). The Uneven Legal Push for Europe: Questioning Variation When National Courts Go to Europe. European Union Politics, 10(1), 6388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats