English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In the  LM  case, the CJEU was called to decide on whether systemic rule of law deficiencies in Poland could lead to the suspension of EU cooperation based on mutual trust, in particular under the European Arrest Warrant system. Building on its earlier decision in  Aranyosi , the Court concluded that EAWs may be suspended only after the executing authority conducts a general analysis of the situation in the country concerned  and  an individual assessment of the specific situation of the applicant. For some, the decision was a disappointing one, as the Court failed to take a clear stance on the Polish constitutional crisis. This chapter argues, on the other hand, that the Court reached a balanced decision: while it is true that it confirmed the strict  Aranyosi  test, it also sent some key messages on the crucial importance of the rule of law and judicial independence for the EU and underlined the red lines of European constitutionalism. Furthermore, a different line of cases that originated from the groundbreaking decision of the Court in the ‘Portuguese judges’ case seems much more promising for the protection of EU values. Thus, rather than a constitutional moment for the Union,  LM  was ultimately an intermezzo between the two main acts of the rule of law play before the Court of Justice.

Intermezzo in the Rule of Law Play: The Court of Justice’s LM Case