part vi • european legal integration • nina-louisa arold lorenz the narrative of how to discuss cases. Namely, a Germanic drafting style would discuss in a very detailed manner point for point, a Scandinavian style would be shorter to the point, a Mediterranean approach would explore the case more extensively, and the common law style would be more narrative and would distinguish between the present case and other cases.35 These different ways of exploring a case would not matter in terms of the legal substance. Legal families were generally expressed as being unproblematic in finally reaching the legal solution, but presented complications in how to get there and which argument to follow. Very exceptionally a clash of legal backgrounds may occur. If this happens, it is seen as positive, as expressed in this quote: ‘it is only exceptionally that I am confronted with a real discussion or a real clash between our legal backgrounds; on the contrary it is quite positive to see that.’36 Several judges and advocates general found the question of how the different legal backgrounds interact inside the deliberations so interesting that they had themselves written about the differences in approach. Judge Lenaerts has published about what he calls the ‘comparative method.’37 He describes the approach as a certain convergence between national legal solutions, sometimes ‘interlocking’ to the benefit of community law, sometimes leaving discretion to the member states.38 Another dimension of using differences of national legal background on the bench is to test reactions on the bench as a ‘pre-test’ (or ‘pulse-taking’) of potential clashes with national legal particularities. Lenaerts calls the deliberations an exercise in ‘psycho-diplomacy’ towards national courts, where the judges carefully ‘take the pulse’ of what an acceptable solution might be.39 Different nationalities at the bench are essential. The delicate role of the CJEU in judicial diplomacy, maintaining EU law yet not being too provocative for the implementation of national law, is summarized by one interviewee: 35 Ibid. 113. 36 Ibid. 114. 37 Koen Lenaerts, ‘Interlocking Legal Orders in the European Union and Comparative Law’, International Comparative Law Quarterly (2003), 876. 38 See Arold Lorenz et al. 2013, 116. 39 See Lenaerts 2003, 904. 308
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjYyNDk=