Mobilising Judicial Voices
How and Why National Courts Express Their Opinions in the Preliminary Reference Procedure – A Case Study of Czechia
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 10070385 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Marek Pivoda (0000-0001-8334-7920, Masaryk University Brno, corresponding author), Filip Vlček (0000-0001-8875-7339, Masaryk University Brno) |
| Year | 2026 |
| Publication date | 2026-02-05 |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | JCMS Journal of Common Market Studies (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0021-9886 • E-ISSN: 1468-5965 |
| Publisher | Wiley (PUBLISHER • GB) |
| DOI | 10.1111/jcms.70082 |
| OpenAlex | W7127945122 |
| Language | EN |
| References cited | 59 |
This article interrogates the national courts' pre‐emptive opinions expressed in the Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union preliminary reference procedure from both theoretical and analytical angles. First, we theorise about the variety of factors influencing national courts' decision to supply the Court of Justice of the European Union with their views on EU law issues, categorising them into four groups: legalist , strategic , personal and institutional . In that way, we construct a sound theoretical framework for a more systemic study of the mobilisation of judicial voices in the process of European integration. Subsequently, we conduct a case study of Czechia. Utilising a new dataset of all preliminary references submitted by Czech courts (2004–2024, n = 131), we demonstrate that Czech judges openly articulate their positions more frequently than some of their colleagues from older member states. Dissimilar to existing research, our evidence also indicates that Czech supreme court judges frequently express their opinions explicitly, more so than lower level court judges, and that at some instances, such praxis is steady in time
Construct (python library · Czech · European union · Subpoena · Supreme court · Treaty · Variety (cybernetics · European Union Policy and Governance · Judicial and Constitutional Studies · Legal Language and Interpretation
The Judicial Construction of Europe
The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited
The Politics of Precedent on the U.S. Supreme Court
The Politics of Constitutional Review in Germany
What Do Judges and Justices Maximize? (The Same Thing Everybody Else Does)
Professional vs. non-professional labour judges
US Supreme Court Law Clerks as Information Sources
The Strategic Analysis of Judicial Decisions
Diplomats in Robes
National courts as regulatory agencies and the application of EU law
Can International Courts Enhance Domestic Judicial Review? Separation of Powers and the European Court of Justice
A Matter of Prescriptive Clarity? Analysing How Swedish Judges' Motives for Action Vary in the Preliminary Ruling Procedure
The Europeanization of national judiciaries
The decentralized enforcement of European law
Legal Integration and Use of the Preliminary Ruling Process in the European Union
Revisiting the European Court of Justice
National courts and preliminary references
The Life of the Law
Ideological Influences on Decision Making in the Federal Judicial Hierarchy
Creating EU law judges
Who refers most? Institutional incentives and judicial participation in the preliminary ruling system
The Preliminary Reference Process
Strategic interaction among courts within the preliminary reference process – Stage 1
A Quiet Revolution
Reconsidering Judicial Preferences
Measuring Political Preferences
Supreme Court Precedent in a Judicial Hierarchy
Rule Creation in a Political Hierarchy
| Highly cited | No |
|---|