European Union Court of Justice Series: Interview with Judge Lucia Serena Rossi

Episode #7 February 18, 2025
Listen on:
Borderlines podcast cover CJEU episode #7

Show Notes

CJEU Episode #7: Court of Justice of the European Union Series

Interview with Judge Lucia Serena Rossi

Berkeley Law’s Borderlines podcast host, Professor Katerina Linos, and guest co-host, Professor Mark Pollack (Temple University), conduct a special interview series profiling Judges and Advocates General serving at the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Luxembourg.

Episode #7 of the Borderlines CJEU Series features Judge Lucia Serena Rossi in conversation with Professor Katerina Linos. Upon her nomination by Italy, Judge Rossi served at the CJEU from October 2018 until October 2024, and brought extensive expertise in EU law to the role. She notably served as President of the 8th Chamber from 2020 to 2021 and the 9th Chamber from 2022 to 2023.

In this episode, Judge Rossi shares her experience of transition from academia to the CJEU, offering insights into judges’ collective mindset in upholding legal traditions. Viewers will hear about the Court’s commitment to maintaining coherence in EU law, emphasizing the importance of continuity over abrupt change, particularly in evolving areas like the GDPR and digital regulations. Judge Rossi also addresses the challenges of balancing EU unity with the diverse identities of member states, particularly in complex cases involving state surveillance and privacy rights. She outlines the structural relationship between EU institutions and the Court and illuminates how decisions are made via deliberation procedures, including the role of the reporting judge (Judge-Rapporteur).

In addition to her judicial role, Judge Rossi is a full professor at the University of Bologna, where she has taught courses in European Union Law, International Law, and Private International Law since 2000. She previously served as the Director of the International Research Centre on European Law of the University of Bologna (1998-2018) and frequently lectures as a visiting professor at distinguished institutions worldwide. Her prolific academic contributions include over 150 publications on EU legal integration, constitutional law, the rule of law, data protection (GDPR), and fundamental rights.

Some of the cases and sources mentioned in the podcast:

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=169195&mode=req&pageIndex=1&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=EN&cid=2695604
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2017-11/cp170119en.pdf

  • Links to Schrems II case

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=228677&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2695604
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=221826&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=49748

  • Links to European Commission v Hungary

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=235703&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2695604
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62018CC0808

  • Links to Taricco I case

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=167061&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2695604
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:62014CC0105

  • Links to Taricco II case

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=197423&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2708527
https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=192922&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1196412

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=165057&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2708527
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:62014CC0062

  • Links to the Euro Box cases

https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=251504&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=2715006
https://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2021-03/cp210033en.pdf

Select Speeches by Judge Rossi for further research:

Citation: Linos, Katerina and Pollack, Mark. Episode #7: Interview with Judge Lucia Serena Rossi. Borderlines podcast, European Union Court of Justice Series (Feb. 14, 2025).
https://www.law.berkeley.edu/podcast-episode/european-union-court-of-justice-series-interview-with-judge-lucia-serena-rossi/


Episode Transcript

Interview with Judge Lucia Serena Rossi

Katerina Linos: Welcome to Borderlines. I’m Katerina Linos, Tragen Professor of Law at the University of California at Berkeley. In this special session of the Borderlines Court of Justice of the European Union series, we feature Judge Lucia Serena Rossi. Nominated by Italy, she served on the Court from October 2018 until October 2024. She’s a full professor at the University of Bologna, where she’s taught courses in EU law, international law, and private international law since 2000, and where she also served as the Director of the Centre on European Law.

In this interview, we get to discuss evolving areas of EU law, including privacy and digital regulations, we get to talk about dialogue between the Italian and the European Court, and more generally, the challenges of balancing EU unity with the diverse identities of the Member States. We also talk about how decisions are made on the Court of Justice, including the special role of the reporting Judge.

Katerina Linos: [00:00:00] Judge Rossi, it is such a pleasure to be here with you today. You have a long career before joining the Court of Justice in 2018. You were a researcher in Italy, a respected professor of international and European law at Bologna. You also built collaborations with universities in the United States, and Japan, and China, and then you joined the Court as the Italian judge.

My question is about the relationship between EU law, as you taught it and as we teach it, and European law as you understand it as a Judge. What surprised you most, given that you already had such extensive training? And, how would you teach European Union law differently now that you know everything about how the Court works from the [00:01:00] inside?

Judge Rossi: Well, I think that the most surprising thing to me is when, the first time in the Grand Chamber I heard President Lenaerts say – speaking of Van Gend & Loos, that is one of the first milestones of our case law – speaking, “We. We said. We.” And now, me too. [Laughter]

Now when I speak of the Court, I say, “We.” And this “we” encompasses also the older judgments, when we were children, or maybe one of us was not even born. So, this idea: the continuity of the Court as a body. The Judges pass, the General Advocates pass, but the Court remains, the institution remains, and the coherence must be granted. So, this is the thing that I learned working here.

As far as my previous experience, I must say that it’s very useful. The Court [00:02:00] is composed of Judges that, before, some of them were professors. Professors not necessarily in EU law, professors, maybe in law, in other branches of law.There are some Judges that were judges before. So, the composition is different.

The geographic and cultural background is also very different, but this is an enrichment of the Court. When we reason together, you see the different approaches and I think that is really an enrichment tool to combine different cultures.

Also different –we have some Judges that were young under the communism in the eastern countries. And when we speak of [00:03:00] something that for us is very normal, we see that they miss some points. For instance, if I make a joke about Donald Duck. [Laughter] They don’t know who is Donald Duck. So, but this is also very interesting because they are so committed and so deeply interested in EU law, because for them it was something totally new and totally different from their national experience as lawyers, as judges, or as professors. So this is an enrichment.

And I always say if you want to know the Court of Justice – really know the Court of Justice – the only way is to know the case law of the Court. You know the Court by the case law– I mean, it’s nice to interview people-. But there are many scholars that [00:04:00] think that they know well the Court because they know maybe all the gossip about the judges. No, this is not – because really, what remains here, and what counts very much, is the coherence of our case law. Also, when developing, I mean, there can be developments in our case law, in our jurisprudence, but we have really to respect the past and not to create confusion. So when we make an evolution, the evolution must be clear. Or maybe it’s a step-by-step piecemeal – but also in this case, we are very, very prudent.

Katerina Linos: So can I ask you a question about evolution of EU law, which is new? Because you spoke about continuity. In the United States, and in many other judiciaries, reversing your [00:05:00] prior decisions is a really big deal.

So we in the U.S. reversed the Roe decision on abortion through Dobbs, and this is huge. We have a couple of very famous reversals, but usually when Courts see that time has changed, they don’t reverse themselves, they try to distinguish the precedents. They make these more gradual moves.

In your experience here, is there some movement, or as you study EU law, that would come close to a reversal? That would come close to a sharp distinction? Are there some pairs of cases that you would say, go back, read these closely, and you tell me as an academic, is it continuous or is it a radical shift?

Judge Rossi: It is a continuous evolution. This is continuity. Because, for instance, last Friday I was invited in Palermo, speaking about the freedom of media. [00:06:00] And I had to study a lot, because I had a lot of cases on GDPR, but the freedom of the media is something different.

But my method is always the same. You find all the judgments. You put them in order and then you read them, from the most ancient to the newest one. And you see the evolution. The continuity you see as well, because the idea is that, as you said, we change little things, but with an idea of evolution. So we know the direction.

And of course our Court can only answer questions. Questions may be raised by the [national] judges. We cannot raise the questions ourselves. This is also the explanation why sometimes our case law employs a lot of time in order to [00:07:00] evolve. But the idea is a slow evolution that doesn’t seem an evolution, many times, but it is continuous. I think this is for all the judges, also for constitutional judges. You can compare us to a constitutional court more than a court of instance.

Katerina Linos: So let me ask you about evolution of the GDPR context. One of the cases I want to ask about is a case where you were Judge Rapporteur, where you decided that one of the key issues is who can bring proceedings. But before I get to that specific question, the GDPR case law is extensive. It has evolved. There will be more GDPR cases. There will be more cases under the new statutes, under [00:08:00] the Digital Markets Act, under the Digital Services Act, under the AI Act.

Some of the very famous GDPR cases, at least in California, and I think in the U.S., are the Schrems series of cases, where initially the agreement between the American and the European parties is struck down. It’s renegotiated. It’s struck down again. It’s renegotiated. Maybe it will be struck down again.

As the world changes – in the 1990’s, we are very, very positive about China and Russia becoming part of Western democracy and economic spheres. “End of history.” Then, we get very, very worried about Snowden, all the revelations about how much spying there is. Now we see that American spying maybe helps in the war in Ukraine.

As the world [00:09:00] changes, and as the agreements change, does the jurisprudence on privacy need to change? Or is the GDPR the GDPR – you interpret the text the same way over time?

Judge Rossi: GDPR is just one of the pieces of the mosaic. Because there is now new, as you perfectly know, new Acts. Artificial Intelligence Act, and then Digital Markets Act, Digital Services Act. So it is a jungle, if you want. But yes, the GDPR is very important. We have a lot of cases pending. I’m the Rapporteur of all these cases of GDPR (the most important, at least; not all of them), while there is another Judge that is the reporting judge for all the “Big Brother,” which is another problem. GDPR, it concerns, above all, the relations between private subjects, while the “Big Brother” is the states [00:10:00] or the public power against individual using data. So, different. But I sat in some of these cases; most of them. GDPR – we have, for instance, a tennis club asking about the treatment of data. So, everything is GDPR, even too much.

GDPR is a regulation that is applicable in all its element and not as a directive. At the beginning, it seemed that it was complete. A world apart. But then, we understood that there were many, many points that were not clear. And then we started clarifying. We started clarifying them because national judges asked that.

And this is quite normal in the EU [00:11:00] legislation. The institutions adopt a piece of legislation. Then the Court clarifies, interprets, and then the legislators take the judgments of the Court and change the existing rules. So this is what is happening also, in my opinion, with data protection.

Katerina Linos: Can I ask about this question of procedure where judges send questions to the Court? The preliminary reference procedure is something we teach in EU law. We say it’s different from appeals in other courts in which every issue of fact and law is established before the court case moves ahead. I know that the volume of preliminary appeals has increased dramatically, but how would you explain the procedure, now that you’ve needed to respond to questions from national judges? How does [00:12:00] this procedure work? What is your goal in answering those questions?

Judge Rossi: We also have appeals against the General Court. And this is, I would say, the “boring” part of our job. You just have to say, “the General Court is wrong, the General Court is right.” So, we are not enthusiastic to receive appeals.

But the preliminary rulings procedure is very, very important, it’s the core of the unity of EU law. Because it is a sort of glue, if you want. There would be no preliminary references then [you]would have many  national interpretations of EU law.And so that would be the end of the unity of law, uniform application. Also, the end of the equality of citizens, of the equality of the Member States. So that’s very, very important.

How it works [00:13:00] well, it’s not so difficult as it can seem. Because we just receive questions – we have not to solve all the case – we receive targeted question on EU law. Then sometimes, we see that the judge – the national judge, the referring judge – ask us the solution of the case. [Laughter] Sometimes it’s easier to give the solution than to explain.

But what we want to do is to give general principles. Also, to avoid many other judges raising the same questions. We cannot afford that. We are only 27 judges. So, we try to give principles.

Katerina Linos: So I’ll come back on this question of judicial dialogue, but I was fascinated by what you said about appeals being less interesting. Again, coming from California, a lot of [00:14:00] the companies that have interactions with the EU law are big tech companies. They know they will appeal. They know the process will take a long time. The stakes in some of these cases, have a lot of zeros, one of them being, I don’t know, in the billions rather than the millions. How do these appeals work? Are you happy with the process in terms of the time it takes? Are you more fascinated by these preliminary references because there are specific and fascinating legal questions?

Judge Rossi: I didn’t say that it was less interesting. I said that it’s less challenging. Because, you know, when you have a preliminary reference, you have to deal with the national judges and the national law. So, you have problems of competencies, of primacy. Not all of them, of course, but most of the cases that come from the General Court are against institutions. So, the [00:15:00] national law is not involved. This is just EU law, how the institution behaved, if they were wrong, so it’s less challenging. Of course, they’re also very important, the judgments of the General Court. As you said, they involve billions because they have competition cases. A lot of cases of the General Court are really important in absolute terms.

What I say is that it’s a different way of reasoning when you judge in appeal against an institution or when you have to interpret the EU law as it has been applied by the Member States. It’s very challenging because Member States can say you are ultra vires.

So, it’s different. Maybe there are some colleagues that are perfectly happy with the pourvoi, the appeal. [00:16:00] I’m speaking my personal opinion as a professor.

Katerina Linos: I’ll come back to ultra vires in just a second, but I wanted to come back to what you said earlier, where you said there is data collection by private parties and then there are “Big Brother” cases when you’re worried about the State.

Could you talk more about why you see these two as different? Are you more worried about surveillance by the NSA in the U.S. rather than by Facebook? Are you more worried about surveillance by American authorities? Some say the jurisprudence gives a bit more leeway to the French government, to European governments, to do some surveillance. I’d love to hear more about the private versus public and of course, who’s doing the surveillance?

Judge Rossi: There is a difference. You know, all the cases on platforms, on GDPR, they started as economic cases. That is, there is an economic interest of the [00:17:00] platforms to exploit the data, and there is of course an asymmetry, opposition between the platform and individuals.

There are principal fundamental rights involved, of course. But it is always a quite clear situation, because the GDPR is very rich. When you have the “Big Brother” cases, this is much more sensitive because it’s very difficult for us to find a solution that is good for all the situations. Because you have, from one side, the States where the rule of law is worrying, is an issue. So, when we think to “Big Brother” cases in States where maybe democracy is challenged – and you have to recognize that the police can ask the providers to store the data, to make them available to the police in that [00:18:00] State – in this perspective, it can be very dangerous. But on the other side, you have most States, where this is just the only way to combat crime. So, it’s very difficult to strike a balance. Very, very difficult.

Katerina Linos: And in terms of what the Court does when assigning a reporting judge?

Judge Rossi: It is the President deciding who is the reporting judge. But this is true that when you have experience as a reporting judge in some matters, then it is easy that you receive other cases. Because this is also a way to grant coherence. You are interested, in not contradicting yourself. [Laughter]

Katerina Linos: Let me come back to the ultra vires point. I was fascinated to see that you have published an article on checking central banks. Because to me, the most famous ultra vires case is the German Constitutional Court saying that the European Court [00:19:00] of Justice, but also the European Central Bank, had exceeded its authority in the PSPP case, as part of a dialogue with this Court where the preliminary references were treated in a way that the Karlsruhe Court thought was not appropriate, and then the Karlsruhe Court made this big move. And all the German press criticized them; infringement proceedings were begun. That judicial dialogue, to me, is fascinating. Could you talk about who should be allowed to see whether a European institution has, in fact, exceeded its authority and how that works in the financial and other cases?

Judge Rossi: Only the Court of Justice can do that.

Katerina Linos: Okay.

Judge Rossi: Because the powers of institution are written in the Treaty, and we are the sole interpreters of the Treaty. Then, of course, there is a sort of peer pressure, because the constitutional courts are, in a certain sense, [00:20:00] our peers. We cannot ignore what the constitutional courts say.

But we have also to keep the line. I mean, we cannot be forced by one constitutional court. The idea is that Member States accepted some limitation to their competence. And then once they accepted the EU’s competence, the law must be applied everywhere in the same way.

So, while you are the constitutional court of a very strong and powerful Member State, you cannot ask to be treated or to be considered in a different way from the other courts. When there is a principle, the principle must be the same for everybody. Then exceptions are always present. Any rule has its exception. The exceptions must be evaluated by the Court. [00:21:00] Our Court.

Katerina Linos: So there’s the German saga, and there’s also the Italian Taricco saga. How would you characterize that dialogue?

Judge Rossi: My impression is that, for some constitutional courts, it’s also a matter of pride. Who has the last word? The Italian saga was a happy ending. At the beginning there were some doubts. Taricco is an example. But the constitutional court was able to clarify much better than the national judges of the first Taricco. They clarified much better what the Italian constitution says.

And then the Court of Justice was able to accept this principle in the light of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. And from that moment, the relations are very good and of mutual respect. The relations, not just in person, because we have bilateral meetings with the courts, “courtesy [00:22:00] visits”. But above all is the case law that speaks for the Court. Also, for the constitutional courts.

Katerina Linos: So it seems that the dialogue with the German Constitutional Court has been smoothed over. The dialogue with the Italian Court was always quite good. And that leaves us with the Hungarian and the Polish.

Judge Rossi: “Always” is not the correct word. And the first was the Italian Constitutional Court with Costa v ENEL, and they employed 20 years until the Granital judgment in order to align to the Court of Justice. Now, in this moment, they are very respectful, but also very available in making preliminary rulings, raising themselves preliminary questions to the Court. And this helps a lot.

The German Court, there was a time when they were the most progressive. And then when economies, banks, and the stakes they revealed, they say “this is our [00:23:00] national identity.”

So, there are crises. There [have] always been crises. But then, luckily, there are always solutions. For instance, the Romanian Court. They issued some judgments that were very, very similar to the judgment that the Italian Constitutional Court issued in 1973. The same idea. That the national constitutional court, as it is written in the constitution, that the State respects the EU law. It is up to the constitutional court to decide whether a national legislation is respectful or not of EU law. So, that was the position in 1973 of the Italian Constitutional Court.

And then, there was these judgments of the Romanian Court. We issued the three judgements. We [00:24:00] explain very clearly, and now they release press communication saying that they respect the primacy. And also with the German Constitutional Court, you see, the end of the story was that the European Central Bank clarified. And then they say, “okay, we are happy.” The parliament and the government in Germany were on the side of the Court of Justice, not on the side of their national Constitutional Court. And the same happened now in Romania.

Katerina Linos: In fact, to me, the end of the German saga is not so much the acceptance of the reasoning that the ECB, in fact, gave as a remedy for the potential violation, but the fact that the NextGenerationEU, that stimulus program, was accepted by the Karlsruhe Court as consistent with the Treaties without a preliminary reference as to the legality of that.

Judge Rossi: I would not be [00:25:00] surprised if the German Constitutional Court raises new cases in preliminary rulings in the economic field.

But sometimes what is very interesting is that the government itself doesn’t support the constitutional court. [Laughter] But it’s normal. And of course, you know the principle of international law, superiorem non recognoscentes. That is, the EU Court of Justice is at the top of the EU legal judicial system, but the constitutional courts are at the top of their constitutional system. And they have to preserve their identity, they’re proud. So the idea is not to clash, it’s just to find a meeting point.

Katerina Linos: It’s fascinating that, it seems, that the Polish and the Hungarian went for a direct [00:26:00] clash, and then there’s elections in Poland, so maybe the government will no longer pursue some of those cases. But how do you deal with a system like Hungary, where both the judiciary and the elected branches seem to be engaged in direct clashes on issues of finances, on issues of refugees, on issues of supremacy, on a broad range of fundamental judicial independence?

Judge Rossi: Some days ago, we were releasing a judgment where we impose to Hungary a fine of one million Euro per day. Plus 200 million sanction for their practice and legislation on migration. But of course, as I said, we can only give answers to questions. We had many, many questions from Polish judges. Fewer questions from Hungarian [00:27:00] judges. I don’t know the reason. I don’t know if there is a less problematic situation, or maybe if they are more scared. Of course, when we have to face these problems, we can answer it and to make the EU legislation equally respected by all the Member States.

Katerina Linos: So my understanding was that that 200 million fine was unprecedented. Is that right?

Judge Rossi: No, that was not unprecedented. And also, one million per day – but you must consider that the smaller the State is, the more expensive is the fine. And Hungary is not that big a State. So I think that this is an impressive fine.

Katerina Linos: Yes. And was it a difficult decision to reach? Or it seemed, “Look, the Hungarians have been flagrantly ignoring the jurisprudence. This makes sense as a remedy”?

Judge Rossi: Of course we cannot speak of the [00:28:00] délibéré. We never say, “It was easy, it was difficult.” We speak by judgments. So, it was an infringement procedure. I must say that the Commission – that was the prosecutor – asked a very smaller fine.

Katerina Linos: Great. What I wanted to also ask about, because it’s procedurally fascinating, is the role of the reporting judge. What I’ve understood from your colleagues is that the reporting judge gets chosen very, very early on and then might need to write an opinion in which they are in the minority. They would want to come down on a different side but need to faithfully work for the Court. How has that experience been?

Judge Rossi: Well, the steps are the following. The first step is the reporting judgment and the rapport préalable, the preliminary report. In this report, the Judge explains what is the legislation, what are the facts, [00:29:00] what are the opinions of the parties in the written procedure. And then, what the Judge must propose is the treatment: in Grand Chambre, Chamber of Five, Chamber of Three; opinion of the General Advocate, yes or no; hearings, yes or no; questions for the hearing. And then we meet all together, all the Judges, and all the Advocates General, and we decide whether this is the appropriate treatment of the case.

And then we have, if any, the hearings, and then we raise questions. Everybody can raise questions, all the sitting Judges, and the Advocate General, competent for that case. Then there are, not always, but normally, the opinion of the Advocate General. And after the opinion, the reporting judge must take a position and say, “I agree, I don’t agree, I partially agree, I agree almost in everything, apart from that. . .” And then sends only [00:30:00] to the Members of the Chamber of this case. It’s a note, and if there are no strong reactions, the Judge starts writing the project. And if there is a reaction and someone doesn’t agree, or maybe the same Judge is not certain, they can ask it tour de table before writing the project.

Then they distribute the draft [to] the Chamber. There are notes and exchange of notes. Study; study is a great part of the work of the Judges. Not only to work as the reporting judge of a case, but to work on the cases of the colleagues. And then, of course, you go to the délibéré. It’s difficult that the délibéré says exactly the opposite, because when you take a position on the opinion of the Advocate General, this is the first moment when the others can already react. And if there are strong objections, there is a tour de table, and when there is a [00:31:00] tour de table, then you can measure the majority. So, at the end is not very surprising. Of course, we work a lot on the points, and sometimes there are some points that are very strong and they’re not an idea of the reporting judge. It can happen.

Katerina Linos: And when I read opinions, some of them, when the Court follows the Advocate General, they say, “and as the Advocate General said in this paragraph, the following,” and there’s a lot of quotation of the Advocate General. And in other opinions, I see the name of the Advocate General, and basically nothing. Is there a different process for how those opinions are written?

Judge Rossi: Well, first of all, it is true that the Court follows the Advocate General. But it’s also true that the Advocate General has already read the report, the preliminary report, of the reporting judge. So, sometimes, the ideas of the Advocate General are already the ideas of the reporting judge. So, there is a continuity. [00:32:00] Sometimes, not always. Well, it depends on the contribution. And then sometimes, I think (I must verify), there are some cases where we mentioned  [the name of] the Advocate General in the judgment, even if they didn’t present the opinion. So, you have no opinion to Court.

Katerina Linos: Interesting. The concluding question is about the legal issues that the Court has faced in the last decade or so. So when we teach EU law, we focus on direct effect and primacy, economic law; those issues are settled. There’s treaty amendment. You said there’s a huge number of GDPR cases, a huge number of immigration cases.

How has the work of the Court evolved in the last decade, and how do you see some big challenges in the future years, both for the Court and for European law writ large?

Judge Rossi: [00:33:00] When you say “the evolution of the Court,” you say the evolution of the case law?

Katerina Linos: Yes.

Judge Rossi: Okay. So, the evolution is the evolution of the case law that mirrors the evolution of the system. A system that was born as an economic organization: so, liberties. And then fundamental rights with the Maastricht Treaty, because before Maastricht, it was just case law of the Court. So, liberties, freedoms, fundamental rights, and now, in the last years, values. Fundamental values; identity; rule of law. This is the evolution of the system.

Katerina Linos: So, Article 4 [TEU], some say, is equivalent to the margin of appreciation when you want to give some leeway to national [00:34:00] States, to respect their constitutional traditions, to deviate. An Article 4 reference is something we would find in your case law. How do you think about Article 4?

Judge Rossi: Well, there are three principles in Article 4, which are all the principles on the structural relations between the Member States and the EU. The first is conferral; competence. The second is equality of Member States and national identity, and you have to balance the two of them. They are in the same paragraph. And the third one is loyal cooperation, sincere cooperation, in the two senses: loyal cooperation of the EU with the States, loyal cooperation of the States with the EU.

This Article, really, is a summa of all the principles that govern the relations. [00:35:00] We have some judgments, about, for instance national identity, you can look for them, they are interesting. This is probably, together with Article 2, the pillar of the EU law, the EU system.

Katerina Linos: Thank you so much.

Judge Rossi: Thank you!