Our paper focuses on the impact of populism on the functioning of constitutional democracy in Europe. To analyse such a complex issue, a survey has been elaborated, which tries to outline how the current populist tendencies influence the institutional framework of constitutional democracy and to what extent such parties aim and are able to undermine the long-term prevalence of rule of law. To achieve this goal, the survey monitors, amongst others, the use of referenda in European countries; the presence of instruments of participatory and direct democracy; which are the political programme of populist parties, and in particular what are their ambitions concerning institutional reforms; whether the status, the independence, the competence and the composition of the constitutional court and the judiciary are contested. The survey also examines whether the protection standard of the most important fundamental rights are relativized, or are intended to be relativized by the populist parties of the different countries. We approached young constitutional scholars from certain member states, at the initial stage of their academic career, and asked them to fill the survey.
The article assesses the extent of protection of the right to an independent tribunal in the European Arrest Warrant mechanism. It focuses on the ruling of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Minister for Justice and Equality v. LM (C-216/18 PPU) and its first national applications. Its main claim is that, by imposing on national judges to carry out an individual assessment of the requested person’s situation, the ‘LM test’ has rendered nugatory the right to an independent judge. As the first national applications are indeed showing, a violation of this right, considered as such, is not sufficient to halt the surrender. However, the High Court for England and Wales, according protection to the right to an independent tribunal at least in marginal situations, that is, in presence of a political interest in the prosecution or punishment, managed to faithfully interpreted the ECJ’s judgment.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.