Luxembourg Has Spoken: Polish and Dutch Judges' Satisfaction With Rule of Law Judgements of the Court of Justice of the EU

Abstract The last decade has witnessed a substantial increase in case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (hereafter: ECJ or Court) concerning the rule of law. This expansion in case law reflects the significant challenges to the rule of law that have arisen in recent years. Several EU member states have implemented measures that severely undermine judicial independence and the protection of fundamental rights. The relative inaction of EU institutions in addressing violations of EU values has positioned national courts as the primary defenders of the rule of law and fundamental EU values. These courts have sought assistance from the ECJ according to the preliminary ruling procedure in Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU when challenging the compatibility of national judicial reforms with EU law. Judges from other states have also referred questions regarding the deteriorating quality of the rule of law in particular member states. However, we have little knowledge of how national courts have received and dealt with the requested ECJ judgments. This article is based on an empirical study and includes semi‐structured interviews with Polish and Dutch judges; it fills this empirical gap by examining how national judges perceive the ECJ's approach to the referred preliminary questions concerning the rule of law (backsliding) and the protection of fundamental rights. We conclude that national judges exhibit greater satisfaction with ECJ judgments than we had anticipated based on our legal analysis. This finding demonstrates a high level of pragmatism with limited room for emotional and subjective considerations.