Opening speech in the ACA-Europe seminar in Inari

Dear colleagues from the Court of Justice of the European Union and national supreme administrative jurisdictions, chers amis, I am really enthusiastic and grateful to be able to welcome you to Inari, Finnish Lapland! Wonderful to see so many friends from all over Europe here as our guests!

This is the first seminar during the ongoing Finnish presidency, carried out in close co-operation with our Swedish neighbours and friends, which is organised on the Finnish territory. When planning the venue for this event, already at the outset our idea was to invite you, dear colleagues, somewhere else than the capital city Helsinki, to show you Finnish nature and the vast, sparsely populated areas, including wilderness (at least present in the name of the hotel), in the northernmost part of Finland. Yesterday we had the opportunity to discuss issues linked to climate, environment, and land use with the representatives of the local indigenous Sámi people.

This seminar will continue exploring the vertical interactions between national supreme administrative jurisdictions and both the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). Many of you may remember that the President of the CJEU, Koen Lenaerts, emphasised in the Stockholm seminar last October that the preliminary ruling procedure should not be viewed as a purely vertical dialogue between the CJEU and the national courts of last instance, but rather as a horizontal network between colleagues. He highlighted that the national courts, when referring a question for a preliminary ruling, have the possibility to set the basis for the quality of the European debate by the very formulation of the questions and by indicating the answer that the national court itself believes should be given.

Of course, I completely agree with President Lenaerts. The relationship between the CJEU and national (supreme administrative) courts is based on a dialogue between peers. Both instances have their own roles and responsibilities. CJEU alone judges on the correct interpretation and validity of EU Law, while national courts alone decide how national law shall be interpreted and applied on the basis of EU Law and eventual preliminary ruling by the CJEU. That said, I understand the word “vertical” as a terminus technicus, depicting the difference from the horizontal dialogue between the supreme national administrative jurisdictions, based on comparative analyses. Hence, the word vertical does not reflect any connotation of inferiority of the national courts in relation to the CJEU or the European Court of Human rights, but different roles in the vital cooperative relationship in harmonizing European law. As a national judge, I have always thought it rewarding, if not flattering, that all the judges from the CJEU remember to emphasize that national judges are also European judges, because European law is ultimately implemented and enforced, made true, at the national level.

Nous y approfondirons les enseignements du séminaire de l’ACA-Europe de Stockholm, á octobre 2023, au cours duquel la relation entre les juridictions nationales et la procédure préjudicielle de la CJUE a été examinée, et de celui de Zagreb, á février 2024, au cours duquel les conflits entre diverses décisions judiciaires nationales et européennes ont été abordés.

The seminar here in Inari will aim to outline national and European legal frameworks of multilevel protection of fundamental rights from the perspective of European supreme administrative jurisdictions. Viewed through the lens of domestic adjudication, it is understood that individual rights recognized as fundamental by the respective legal orders derive from various sources that may apply concurrently. Individual rights enshrined in national constitutions may intersect with analogous rights established by the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), UN human rights conventions, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU).

Ce chevauchement entre différents systèmes juridiques est intensifié par leurs structures institutionnelles distinctes: le pouvoir d’interpréter la constitution nationale est généralement confié à une entité nationale spécifique ou à une cour, par exemple constitutionnelle, tandis que la CourEDH et la CJUE jouent des rôles analogues au sein de leurs propres systèmes juridiques.

The increasing interconnectedness between national courts, the ECtHR, and the CJEU reflects the complexity of legal integration in Europe. Given the absence of an ultimate constitutional hierarchy among these jurisdictions, the protection of fundamental rights in Europe is often described as a system of multilevel constitutionalism. A central part of variation between states stems from constitutional differences especially with regard to the questions about constitutional control of parliamentary legislation and the doctrines involving the applicability of fundamental rights norms in national courts.

Cette architecture constitutionnelle n’implique pas nécessairement que la protection des droits individuels, telle que stipulée par la CEDH et la CDFUE, adhère à des principes similaires. En fait, le rôle des cours administratives suprêmes dans ce domaine peut différer considérablement de celui qu’elles jouent dans le cadre de l’application de la constitution nationale.

During the seminar it will be clarified how the dialogue operates in the context of national administrative jurisdictions and multilevel protection of fundamental rights. For this purpose, the questionnaire for the seminar was designed to help us understand both the constitutional boundaries within which national administrative jurisdictions function, as well as the specific legal mechanisms and principles that support the vertical dialogue between national and European courts.

The general report which will be presented later consists of two main parts. The first part focuses on the outline of different systems for constitutional control as well as the legal framework addressing the general applicability of fundamental rights norms in the national legal systems, whereas the second one addresses more closely the mechanisms of interplay of national and European fundamental rights and international human rights norms.

The programme after the keynote speech by Judge Niilo Jääskinen and the presentation of the general report by my colleagues Kaisa Pärssinen-Knight and Jenny Rebold, will be divided into two panels, accordingly. The traditional ACA-Europe model organising panels has been based on some presentations moderated by a chair. In the Stockholm seminar, however, a new approach was used, based on an introduction by a panel chair and free (and lively!) discussion by the participants. Here, we have adopted a hybrid model, where the panel chair will give a brief outline and three panellists present their opinions to three pre-determined topics one by one.

One of the key objectives of ACA-Europe is to promote and strengthen the rule of law in Europe. The rule of law presupposes democracy, defending of fundamental rights and human rights, division of societal powers, and independent courts. In open democracies with freedom of expression and freedom of opinion deeds like the assassination attempt on the Slovak Prime minister Robert Fico must be resolutely condemned. Political violence is against all the values and principles of democracy. When coming together at this seminar, we understand that our co-operation has a profound objective to enhance mutual understanding and mutual trust between colleagues all over Europe and give our support to the democratic rule of law.

I wish you all warmly welcome, bienvenue cordialement, let us have an interesting seminar! Thank you!