The application of the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the case of Yvonne van Duyn v. Home Office can be considered a peculiar phenomenon in the Ukrainian judicial system. In particular, the Unified State Register of Court Decisions contains more than 100,000 decisions of domestic courts with reference to this case. The earliest dates back to 2007, with the peak in 2009–2011 (more than 30,000 per year), and that is long before signing and ratification of the Association Agreement between Ukraine and the EU.

It is quite remarkable that the CJEU’s opinion regarding the principle of legal certainty, with reference to the case of Yvonne van Duyn v. Home Office, has been added by domestic courts to the chain “principle of the rule of law – taking into account the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case law”. This is despite the fact that the CJEU (in the texts of decisions of national courts – “the EU Court”) judgment has no relation to the ECtHR case law. As a result, the CJEU’s opinion became a connecting link between the principle of the rule of law, which guides the national courts with “consideration of the case law of the ECtHR”, and the subsequent courts’ conclusion that “the persons concerned should be able to rely on the obligations undertaken by the state”.

The case of Yvonne Van Duyn v. Home Office is only a specific, but quite indicative illustrative example of the domestic courts’ demand for “nice quotes”, in other words, the general tendency of judges to “strengthen” the justification of their decisions by reference to “fine art”, to reputable authority. It is obvious that such authority is, above all, the ECtHR case law. However, the judges either did not realize or ignored the fact that the CJEU judgments, unlike the ECtHR case law, were not sources of law in Ukraine at that time.

The judgment of the CJEU in the case of Yvonne van Duyn v. Home Office concerns the interpretation of one of the aspects of legal certainty in relation to the application of EU Council directives (as a source of EU law) and their direct effect on citizens of the EU member states, while such an issue just could not arise in Ukrainian courts. However, it was utilized by Ukrainian courts to interpret “legal certainty as the basis of legal relations arising in the process of exercising a certain right”, most often the right to receive pension supplements or other social payments. The analysis of the quote from the CJEU judgment, which became “viral”, allows to conclude that the demand for “nice quotes” does not necessarily mean getting acquainted with the source of quotation, since at least two phrases from the “viral” quote (on the lack of a mechanism for the realization of the right and on the state obligations “laid down in a legislative act that has no automatic direct effect in its entirety”) should raise questions for any lawyer. While the extent of quotations (over 100,000) indicates the prevalence of a phenomenon that can be characterized as the inability or reluctance to grasp the essence of things.

Given that Ukrainian judges will eventually have to apply not only the judgements of the CJEU, but also the case law of international criminal courts and tribunals, e. g. while handling war crimes cases, it is important to apply them duly and appropriately. In this regard, the role of the Supreme Court is crucial – since the demand for “nice quotes” exists, it will be satisfied one way or another. Therefore, the court of cassation should not blindly reproduce them in its decisions, thereby spreading as a model for imitation, but critically reflect on them, fulfilling the task of ensuring the uniformity of judicial case law by forming appropriate conclusions about the selection and application of legal norms to disputed legal relations.

Bibliography

Authored books

1. Komarova T, Sud Yevropeiskoho Soiuzu: rozvytok sudovoi systemy ta praktyky tlumachennia prava YeS (Pravo 2018).

Edited books

2. Pravo Yevropeiskoho Soiuzu: pidruchnyk (Petrov R A (red), Pravo 2019).

Journal articles

3. Badanova I, ‘EU Law in Non-EU Countries: Reflections on Ukrainian Supreme Court’s Jurisprudence on Energy Matters’ (2023) 9–10 Naukovi zapysky NaUKMA. Yurydychni nauky 12–7. https://doi.org/10.18523/2617-2607.2022.9-10.12-17.

4. Andriichuk O, ‘Protsedura preiudytsiinoho zapytu za st. 234 dohovoru pro YeS yak kvintesentsiia prava Yevropeiskoi Unii’ (2005) 8 Yurydychnyi zhurnal 21–6.

 5. Kostruba A, ‘Preiudytsialnyi zapyt yak instytut pokhidnoi yurysdyktsii u protsesualnomu pravi Frantsii: pytannia natsionalnoi retseptsii’ (2018) 3 Pravo Ukrainy 144–58.

 6. Moskal R, ‘Vymohy verkhovenstva prava stosovno dostupu do pravosuddia’ [2020] 115 (2) Naukovyi visnyk Natsionalnoi akademii vnutrishnikh sprav 36–49.

7. Popov O, ‘Preiudytsiinyi zapyt yak instrument zabezpechennia yednosti sudovoi praktyky: sutnist i mekhanizmy vprovadzhennia u tsyvilne sudochynstvo’ (2017) 136 Problemy zakonnosti 72–81.

8. Pylypenko P, Rym O, ‘Pro svobodu peremishchennia pratsivnykiv krainamy Yevropeiskoho Soiuzu’ (2018) 67 Visnyk Lvivskoho universytetu. Seriia yurydychna 189–98.

Conference papers

 9. Fuley T, ‘Pomylka derzhavnoho orhanu chy vidsutnist mekhanizmu: zastosuvannia praktyky YeSPL u spravi pro odyn vidsotok’ v Zakarpatski pravovi chytannia. Materialy ХI Mizhnarodnoi naukovo-praktychnoi konferentsii (O Rohach, Ya Lazur, M Savchyn (zah. red.). Uzhhorodskyi natsionalnyi universytet. RIK-U, 2019) 365-374.

Websites

10. Liudy profesii: suddia Arkadii Bushchenko <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v= xxKAMHymlOY> (accessed: 05.12.2023). 9:33-10:33.

11. Suddi VS rozpovily pro znachennia i zastosuvannia praktyky Sudu Yevropeiskoho Soiuzu v natsionalnii praktytsi z pytan mizhnarodnoho zakhystu sudamy Ukrainy (Sudova vlada Ukrainy, 13.10.2023) <https://supreme.court.gov.ua/supreme/pres-centr/news/1492553> (accessed: 05.12.2023).

12. Vzaiemodiia Sudu YeS i natsionalnykh sudiv: preiudytsiini provadzhennia. Lektor Oleksandr Vodiannikov <https://youtu.be/NmgCJTwddBA?si=omyjpMueKP0GObpU> (accessed: 05.12.2023).