The Implementation of Charter Rights in the Austrian System of Fundamental Rights Protection

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 14 March 2012, U 466/11, U 1836/11, VfSlg. 19.632/2012.

Most of the arguments pro and contra have been demonstrated in academic literature: see for instance Pöschl (2012), the comments on the Charter decision by Grabenwarter and Pesendorfer (2020), p. 85, and the references in Holoubek and Oswald (2019), Art. 51 GRC, para. 157. The discussion is still going on; see recently the finding that Charter rights as a standard of review do not play a decisive role concerning the proceeding’s outcome nor can be regarded as indispensable vis-à-vis national rights: Merli (2023), pp. 878 et seq. 

In 2014, the administrative bodies (“Berufungsbehörden”) that had decided on appeals against administrative decisions of first instance were replaced to a large extent by administrative courts of first instance.

E.g., Verfassungsgerichtshof, 14 March 2012, U 466/11, U 1836/11, VfSlg. 19.632/2012, para. 19.

E.g., Verfassungsgerichtshof, 26 June 1997, B 877/96, VfSlg. 14.886/1997.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 26 June 1997, B 877/96, VfSlg. 14.886/1997.

E.g., Verfassungsgerichtshof, 16 June 1998, V 6/98 et al., VfSlg. 15.189/1998.

See Verfassungsgerichtshof, 15 March 2000, G 46/98, VfSlg. 15.771/2000, and 4 December 2007, G 133/06, VfSlg. 18.298/2007, concerning the admissibility of an individual application for a review of a general norm (“Individualantrag”); a different approach was chosen in concerning the applicability (“prejudiciality”) of norms: e.g., Verfassungsgerichtshof, 24 June 1998, G 2/97, VfSlg. 15.215/1998; Verfassungsgerichtshof, 1 March 2014, G 110/03 et al., VfSlg. 17.150/2014.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 24 September 2011, G 107/10, VfSlg. 19.496/2011 (concerning the rules on regional elections; the complainants invoked a violation in rights pursuant to Art. 20 TFEU and Art. 40 CFR).

See Verfassungsgerichtshof, 28 June 2011, B 254/11, VfSlg. 19.425/2011: The Constitutional Court considered the Supreme Administrative Court (“Verwaltungsgerichtshof”) as a tribunal in the meaning of Art. 47 CFR.

Bobek and Adams-Prassl (2020), p. 2 with reference to CJEU, judgment of 27 June 2006, European Parliament/Council, C-540/03, ECLI:EU:C:2006:429.

Before the implementation of the Federal Asylum Tribunal (“Asylgerichtshof”) a party could file a complaint both to the Constitutional Court and to the Supreme Administrative Court against last-instance asylum decisions. Then—from 1 July 2008 to 31 December 2013—the Federal Asylum Tribunal decided in second instance about administrative asylum decisions, followed only by the complaint to the Constitutional Court. Since January 2014, the decisions of the Federal Administrative Court (“Bundesverwaltungsgericht”) can be contested both by complaint (“Beschwerde”) to the Constitutional Court and by appeal (“Revision”) to the Supreme Administrative Court. The legal setup (deviating from both the former and from today’s standard of judicial protection) setup might have played a significant role considering Charter rights as a possible standard of review, as it was assumed in academic literature; see for instance Balthasar (2018), p. 196.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 14 March 2012, U 466/11, U 1836/11, VfSlg. 19.632/2012, para. 25 with reference to Art. 6 para. 1 TEU: “the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the Treaties” (italics used here for emphasis, not included in the original). The quote is taken from the English translation of the Charter decision that is available on the Constitutional Court’s website: https://​www.​vfgh.​gv.​at/​downloads/​VfGH_​U_​466-11_​_​U_​1836-11_​Grundrechtechart​a_​english_​2.​pdf. Accessed 1 Oct 2023.

Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Official Journal of the European Union, 14 December 2007, C 303/17, Explanation on Article 47.

See Grabenwarter (2012), p. 301.

See mainly CJEU, judgment of 1 December 1998, Levez, C-326/96, ECLI:EU:C:1998:577, para. 18; CJEU, judgment, of 19 June 2003, Pasquini, C-34/02, ECLI:EU:C:2003:366, para. 57 to 59; CJEU, judgment, of 29 October 2009, Pontin, C-63/08, ECLI:EU:C:2009:666, para. 45 and 46. The quotation of the last judgment has, however, led to criticism, based on the CJEU’s statement that Member States are not obliged to “extend their most favourable rules”; see for instance Orator (2015), p. 1439. In later decisions, the Constitutional Court has already emphasized that the principle of equivalence does not oblige (on its own) to apply Charter rights as constitutionally guaranteed rights but gives rise to such an interpretation of Art 144 Federal Constitutional Act: see e.g., Verfassungsgerichtshof, 12 March 2014, B 166/2013, VfSlg. 19.865/2014, para. 22; by all means a modification of the wording in the Charter decision.

With regard to the difference between rights and principles see Holoubek and Oswald (2019), Art. 51 GRC, para. 60 et seq.

A notion that is referred to as “functional equivalence” by Grabenwarter (2012), p. 301.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 14 March 2012, U 466/11, U 1836/11, VfSlg. 19.632/2012, para. 35 and 36.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 14 March 2012, U 466/11, U 1836/11, VfSlg. 19.632/2012, para. 37 and 38 with reference to Art. 6 para. 3 TEU. See further Grabenwarter (2012), p. 302, pointing out that the existence of a binding catalogue of rights and obligations is not comparable to deducing rights from the coherence of European Law, International Law and national constitutions as this deduction involves a wider margin of interpretation.

As well as to adopt any measure to ensure provisional judicial protection, and to disapply the national legislative provision at issue if it is considered to be contrary to EU law: CJEU, judgment of 22 June 2010, Melki and Abdeli, C-188/10 and C-189/10, ECLI:EU:C:2010:363, para. 57. This is only one judgment in the established case law with regard to Art. 267 TFEU. In its judgment of 15 January 2013, Križan et al., C-416/10, the CJEU specified that a national court is obliged to request a preliminary ruling even though its first decision was set aside by the constitutional court of the Member State concerned and even though a national rule obliges it to resolve the dispute by following the legal opinion of that latter court.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 14 March 2012, U 466/11, U 1836/11, VfSlg. 19.632/2012, para. 40 and 43.

See Art. 51 para 1 CFR.

Directives 2004/83/EC and 2005/85/EC.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 14 March 2012, U 466/11, U 1836/11, VfSlg. 19.632/2012, para. 55–64.

E.g., Verfassungsgerichtshof, 29 September 2012, B 54/12 et al., VfSlg. 19.673/2012 (concerning data protection).

E.g., Verfassungsgerichtshof, 16 March 2013, G 82/12 et al., VfSlg. 19.749/2013, and Verfassungsgerichtshof, 3 March 2015, G 205/2014 et al., VfSlg. 19.972/2015, though not explicitly as the applicability of the CFR has not been determined. In particular regarding these fundamental rights, the conclusion of the Constitutional Court was criticized for not taking into account the different wording of both the Charter right and the national right: Kieber and Klaushofer (2017), pp. 223 et seq.

E.g., Verfassungsgerichtshof, 3 July 2015, G 239/2014 et al., V 14/2015 et al., VfSlg. 20.000/2015.

E.g., Verfassungsgerichtshof, 5 March 2015, B 533/2013, VfSlg. 19.955/2015.

E.g., Verfassungsgerichtshof, 23 June 2020, G 368/2020 et al.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 29 June 2017, E 875/2017, VfSlg. 20.185/2017, para. 232.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 9 October 2014, G 95/2013, VfSlg. 19.909/2015, para. 101; Verfassungsgerichtshof, 29 September 2017, G 44/2017 et al., VfSlg. 20.202/2017, para. 24 (“der gleiche Schutzumfang”).

Grabenwarter and Pesendorfer (2020), p. 80, with further references.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 14 March 2012, U 466/11, U 1836/11, VfSlg. 19.632/2012, para. 44; Verfassungsgerichtshof, 3 July 2015, G 239/2014 et al., V 14/2015 et al., VfSlg. 20.000/2015, para. 273; Verfassungsgerichtshof, 14 March 2018, G 248/2017 et al., VfSlg 20.250/2018, para 128; Verfassungsgerichtshof, 29 September 2017, G 44/2017 et al., VfSlg. 20.202/2017, para. 24; also VfSlg. 20.129/2016 concerning rules on paternity (the Constitutional Court examined the rules on the standard of review of Art. 8 ECHR and stated finally that for the same reasons there was no violation in Charter rights). See, however, differently Verfassungsgerichtshof, 27 February 2014, G 86/2013, VfSlg. 19.845/2014, para. 17, where the Constitutional Court based its removal of a provision equally on Art. 47 para. CFR, rule of law and the right to equal treatment among non-citizens.

Similarly: Merli (2023), p. 875; regarding the first 5 years after the Charter decision: Kieber and Klaushofer (2017), p. 222.

See e.g., Verfassungsgerichtshof, 26 June 2020, G 302/2019, VfSlg. 20.394/2020.

See among many other decisions Verfassungsgerichtshof, 19 September 2014, U 634/2013 et al. and—from the same date—U 610/2013; Verfassungsgerichtshof, 12 June 2015, U 1099/2013 et al.; Verfassungsgerichtshof, 19 November 2015, E 1600/2014; Verfassungsgerichtshof, 27 November 2019, E 2522/2018; Verfassungsgerichtshof, 29 November 2021, E 3127/2021.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 17 March 2022, E 4359/2021 and—from the same date—E 4490/2021.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 29 June 2013, U 2465/2012, VfSlg. 19.878/2014, para. 15; Verfassungsgerichtshof, 26 February 2014, U 770/2013, para. 21.

See Verfassungsgerichtshof, 2 October 2013, U 1815/2013 et al. (the Court decided not to deal with the complaint for lack of prospects of success).

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 29 September 2012, B 54/12 et al., VfSlg. 19.673/2012.

See for instance Verfassungsgerichtshof, 29 September 2017, G 44/2017 et al., VfSlg. 20.202/2017, without further explanations; and Verfassungsgerichtshof, 10 October 2018, G 144/2018, VfSlg. 20.291/2018.

See for instance Verfassungsgerichtshof, 29 June 2013, B 938/2010, VfSlg. 19.773/2013, para. 59.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 14 March 2013, B 1326/12, VfSlg. 19.744/2013.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 25 September 2013, U 1937/2012 et al., VfSlg. 19.790/2013.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 19 September 2014, B 828/2012.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 27 February 2014, G 86/2013, VfSlg. 19.845/2014.

According to the Federal Constitutional Law Implementing the International Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Racial Discrimination (United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 660, p. 195.).

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 5 March 2015, B 533/2013, VfSlg. 19.955/2015.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 26 June 2020, G 302/2019, VfSlg. 20.394/2019. One must turn the attention to the passage in para. 24 where the Court infers the conformity with the “constitutional requirements” after having carried out the assessment mainly with regard to Art. 47 CFR.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 24 June 2021, V 87/2021, VfSlg. 20.477/2021, para. 74 et seq., and—from the same date—V 90/2021 et al.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 5 December 2022, E 992/2022 et al.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 14 December 2023, G 328/2022 et al.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 10 October 2018, G 144/2018, VfSlg. 20.291/2018; see in this context Eberhard (2022), p. 762.

CJEU, judgment of 26 February 2013, Åkerberg Fransson, C-617/10, ECLI:EU:C:2013:105, para. 19 et seq. The CJEU left the possibility, however, to apply national standards of protection of fundamental rights to national provisions or measures in a situation not entirely determined by European Union law, provided that the level of protection provided for by the Charter, as interpreted by the Court, and the primacy, unity and effectiveness of European Union law are not thereby compromised (see para. 29 with reference to CJEU, judgment of 26 February 2013, Melloni, C-399/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:107, para. 60).

Ultimately, the CJEU has equated the Charter’s scope of application with the scope of application of Union Law: John (2017), p. 50; Bohnert et al. (2020), p. 163.

CJEU, judgment of 6 March 2014, Siragusa, C-206/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:126, para. 24 et seq.; judgment of 10 July 2014, Hernandez et al., C-198/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2055, para. 37; both judgments with further references to CJEU case law.

See, e.g., VfSlg. 20.000/2015 concerning a Bank Reorganisation Act and Art. 17 CFR.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 5 March 2015, B 533/2013, VfSlg. 19.955/2015, para. 24 (concerning limitations on the access to an Austrian university for non-national EU-citizens).

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 3 March 2015, G 107/2013, VfSlg. 19.950/2015, para. 55.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 27 June 2014, G 47/2012 et al., VfSlg. 19.892/2014, para. 144 (concerning the Data Retention Directive); Verfassungsgerichtshof, 3 July 2015, G 239/2014 et al., VfSlg. 20.000/2015, para. 273; Verfassungsgerichtshof, 10 October 2018, G 144/2018, VfSlg. 20.291/2018, para. 88 (concerning the margin of discretion conceded by the directive on energy efficiency).

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 3 July 2015, G 239/2014 et al., VfSlg. 20.000/2015, para. 273.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 3 March 2015, G 107/2013, VfSlg. 19.950/2015, para. 55 concerning shop opening hours.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 12 October 2016, G 478/2015 et al., VfSlg. 20.088/2016, para. 81 concerning national rules on the limits of remunerations of public officials.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 12 March 2014, B 166/2013, VfSlg. 19.865/2014: The complainants, Dutch citizens, made use of their freedom of movement and settled down in Austria. The applicable provisions of civil law, however, were not considered to contain any limitations of the fundamental freedom in question; therefore, the relevant provisions did not implement Union Law in the meaning of Art. 51 para. 1 CFR.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 3 March 2015, G 107/2013, VfSlg. 19.950/2015, para. 55.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 10 October 2018, G 144/2018, VfSlg. 20.291/2018, para. 80; Holoubek and Oswald (2019), Art. 51 GRC, para. 45. An effect that does not turn up in the case of leaving norms unapplied due to the primacy of application of Union law; concerning the differences between the model of removal of norms in contrast to the primacy of application see Balthasar (2018), pp. 215 et seq.; Bohnert et al. (2020), p. 165 with further references.

E.g., Verfassungsgerichtshof, 4 October 2018, G 132/2018, VfSlg. 20.281/2018, para. 44; Verfassungsgerichtshof, 24 June 2021, V 90/2021, para. 71.

See Grabenwarter and Pesendorfer (2020), p. 79: The Charter decision, accepting and partly adopting the Charter as constitutionally guaranteed rights, already shows the attempt to achieve a consistent or harmonious interpretation of the Charter and other fundamental rights.

Grabenwarter (2022), p. 207.

Explanations relating to the Charter of Fundamental Rights, Official Journal of the European Union, 14 December 2007, C 303/17, Explanation on Article 53.

See in particular the decision to refer questions for a preliminary ruling, Verfassungsgerichtshof, 28 November 2012, G 47/12 et al., VfSlg. 19.702/2012, para. IV.1.2.

Opinion of Advocate General Bot, 2 October 2012, C-399/11, Melloni, para. 96 et seq. In its following judgment in the case Melloni, the CJEU explicitly restricted the possibility of Member States to draw on national fundamental rights instead of Charter rights in areas where European law did not leave a margin of discretion or deviation from European law to the Member States. It reiterated, though, that, where an EU legal act calls for national implementing measures, according to Art. 53 CFR national authorities and courts remain free to apply national standards of fundamental rights protection, provided that the level of protection of the Charter and the primacy, unity and effectiveness of EU law are not thereby compromised: CJEU, judgment of 26 February 2013, Melloni, C-399/11, ECLI:EU:C:2013:107, para. 60 et seq.; see Holoubek and Oswald (2019), Art. 51 GRC, para. 34.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 27 June 2014, G 47/2012 et al., VfSlg. 19.892/2014, para. III.2.2: “This level of protection remains unaffected by the Charter also in those cases in which the legislator has discretion in the implementation of Union law […]. Against this backdrop, the challenged provisions must be assessed using Federal constitutional law, i.e., section 1 DSG 2000 and Article 8 ECHR, as a standard of review.” An English translation is available at the website of the Constitutional Court, https://​www.​vfgh.​gv.​at/​downloads/​VfGH_​G_​47-2012_​ua_​Erk_​VRDspeicherung_​EN_​2.​pdf. Accessed 1 Oct 2023.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 27 June 2014, G 47/2012 et al., VfSlg. 19.892/2014, para. 144 et seq.; the Constitutional Court based its conclusion also on the explanations relating to the Charter and on Art. 52 para. 3 CFR.

Grabenwarter and Pesendorfer (2020), p. 75.

In this respect, the review of legality of first instance decisions of administrative courts is shared between the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Administrative Court: Grabenwarter and Pesendorfer (2020), p. 84.

Such as tax offices, district authorities and the Federal Office for Immigration and Asylum.

E.g., the free movement of labour, Verwaltungsgerichtshof, 6 September 2012, 2012/09/0105 (though without specific reasoning concerning the scope of application); Verwaltungsgerichtshof, 3 February 2022, Ra 2021/09/0101, para. 14 (concerning the freedom of services).

E.g., Verwaltungsgerichtshof, 23 January 2013, 2010/15/0196, and 3 September 2015, Ro 2015/21/0032.

E.g., Verwaltungsgerichtshof, 24 February 2022, Ra 2020/21/0492, para. 11.

E.g., Verwaltungsgerichtshof, 12 December 2013, 2013/06/0078, VwSlg. 18.757 A/2013; Verwaltungsgerichtshof, 28 January 2016, Ra 2015/07/0146.

See the references in Grabenwarter and Pesendorfer (2020), p. 84. It would go beyond the scope of this contribution to give a detailed overview about the decisions dealing with the CFR; see - apart from the decisions concerning Art 47 para 2 CFR and the right to an oral hearing - for instance Verwaltungsgerichtshof, 19 October 2016, Ro 2014/15/0019 (concerning doubts on a judge being unbiased), and more recently Verwaltungsgerichtshof, 23 June 2021, Ra 2019/13/0111 (concerning Art 47 CFR and legal aid).

E.g., Verwaltungsgerichtshof, 14 June 2012, 2011/21/0278.

Verwaltungsgerichtshof, 22 October 2019, Ra 2019/02/0222 (no legal question of essential importance); 4 June 2021, Ra 2021/01/0178 referring to the Charter decision; 7 February 2023, Ra 2023/01/0015.

See recently CJEU, judgment of 20 April 2023, Landespolizeidirektion Niederösterreich et al., C-650/21, ECLI:EU:C:2023:300; prior to that already CJEU, judgment of 14 October 2021, Landespolizeidirektion Steiermark et al., C-231/20, ECLI:EU:C:2021:845; CJEU, judgment of 11 October 2014, Schmitzer, C-530/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2359.

Verwaltungsgerichtshof, 23 February 2013, 2010/15/0196, VwSlg. 8780 F/2013.

Verwaltungsgerichtshof, 13 December 2018, Ra 2018/11/0057: Art. 6 ECHR and Art. 47 CFR.

Verwaltungsgerichtshof, 27 June 2017, Ra 2015/13/0005.

See, e.g., Oberster Gerichtshof, 18 July 2011, 6 Ob 246/10k, concerning the alleged discrimination of physicians on grounds of age.

See Oberster Gerichtshof, 16 December 2014, 10 ObS 44/14i; further Oberster Gerichtshof, 13 December 2020, 10 ObS 26/20a, and Oberster Gerichtshof, 26 February 2021, 10 ObS 161/20d.

See Oberster Gerichtshof, 12 August 2020, 5 Ob 118/20v.

E.g., Oberster Gerichtshof, 17 February 2022, 9 ObA 147/21i; 13 February 2013, 8 Ob 7/13g.

See, e.g., Oberster Gerichtshof, 6 December 2022, 24 Ds 1/22i.

CJEU, judgment of 22 January 2019, Cresco Investigation GmbH, C-193/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:43. With regard to Art. 27 CFR, though, the CJEU had precluded a horizontal direct effect: CJEU, judgment of 15 January 2014, Association de médiation sociale, C-176/12, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2.

Oberster Gerichtshof, 27 February 2019, 9 ObA 11/19m.

CJEU, judgment of 11 September 2014, A/B, C-112/13, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2195, with further references; see also more recently CJEU, judgment of 24 October 2018, XC et al., C-234/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:853, para. 44.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 14 March 2012, U 466/11, U 1836/11, VfSlg. 19.632/2012, para. 42.

With regard to the CJEU’s autonomy see Eberhard (2021), p. 401.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 14 March 2012, U 466/11, U 1836/11, VfSlg. 19.632/2012, para. 33 with reference to Art. 133 para. 1 Federal Constitutional Act.

Verfassungsgerichtshof, 4 October 2023, G 192/2023, concerning—inter alia—the compatibility of rules on salary scales to Art 20 CFR; see for other ordinary courts that have claimed the judicial review bringing up—besides national constitutional provisions—Charter rights: see, e.g., Verfassungsgerichtshof, 3 July 2015, G 239/2014 et al., V 14/2015 et al., VfSlg. 20.000/2015; Verfassungsgerichtshof, 10 October 2018, G 32/2018, VfSlg. 20.289/2018; Verfassungsgerichtshof, 2 December 2016, G 497/2015 et al., VfSlg. 20.112/2016.

Mainly the European Convention of Human Rights as well as the Basic Law on the General Rights of Nationals in the Kingdoms and Länder represented in the Council of the Realm 1967, but also various other fundamental rights enshrined in the Federal Constitutional Act (at the head: equality of all citizens), in other national provisions (e.g., Data Protection Act) and in international treaties (e.g., minorities’ rights).

Grabenwarter and Pesendorfer (2020), p. 82; Verfassungsgerichtshof, 14 March 2012, U 466/11, U 1836/11, VfSlg. 19.632/2012, para. 45 et seq.

Grabenwarter (2012), p. 299.

Starting with Verfassungsgerichtshof, 10 June 2010, B 887/09, VfSlg. 19.077/2010, para. III.1.2.; Verfassungsgerichtshof, 24 June 2010, B 538/09, VfSlg. 19.118/2010, para. III.2.2.1.

See in this context the questions raised by Bobek and Adams-Prassl (2020), p. 3.

That requires the fulfilment of formal criteria as the decision of a two-third’s majority in parliament; Art. 44 Federal Constitutional Act (“Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz”): “Constitutional laws or constitutional provisions contained in simple laws can be passed by the National Council only in the presence of at least half the members and by a majority of two thirds of the votes cast”. The quote is taken from the English translation of the “Bundes-Verfassungsgesetz” that is available in the Legal Information System of the Republic of Austria: https://​www.​ris.​bka.​gv.​at/​Dokumente/​Erv/​ERV_​1930_​1/​ERV_​1930_​1.​pdf. Accessed 21 January 2024.

Grabenwarter and Pesendorfer (2020), p. 69.

See, e.g., the phrase “at any rate” in Verfassungsgerichtshof, 14 March 2012, U 466/11, U 1836/11, VfSlg. 19.632/2012, para. 35.

See with regard to the competences and the differences between the CJEU and the ECtHR O’Leary (2020), pp. 37 et seq.

As the Constitutional Court reiterates in its jurisdiction, see Eberhard (2021), p. 402. See also Griller (2018), p. 21, concerning the Supreme Administrative Court and the Supreme Court as guardians of European fundamental rights.

Which is already due to the ECHR’s constitutional rank in Austria.

O’Leary (2020), pp. 39 et seq. and 42.

See for instance Grabenwarter (2022), pp. 219 et seq. and with regard to CJEU and national courts Lenaerts (2020), p. 11.