Can we write the CJEU in favour of rulings?

@tal@lemmy.today

I haven’t looked, but would assume not. Normally, the idea is that courts are apolitical and interpret the law as written. The main body for the public to express their wishes is legislative, where they’re going to have elected representatives to deal with their concerns and such.

In some cases in the US, you have an amicus curiae, where an expert third party can provide input on a case.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amicus_curiae

An amicus curiae (lit. ‘friend of the court’; pl. amici curiae) is an individual or organization that is not a party to a legal case, but that is permitted to assist a court by offering information, expertise, or insight that has a bearing on the issues in the case. Whether an amicus brief will be considered is typically under the court’s discretion.

In American law, an amicus curiae typically refers to what in some other jurisdictions is known as an intervenor: a person or organization who requests to provide legal submissions so as to offer a relevant alternative or additional perspective regarding the matters in dispute. In the American courts, the amicus may be referred to as an amicus brief.

The CJEU may have some sort of analog, but that’s probably not what you’re wanting if what you just want a particular outcome rather than having some kind of special domain expertise.

If you want a particular set of rules in the EU, you probably want to talk to a MEP.

Can we write the CJEU in favour of rulings?

comments