The Central and Eastern European Law Initiative (CEELI) has published a practice-oriented guide, entitled 'Navigating the Jurisdiction and Landmark Rulings of the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the EU: A Guide to Protecting the Rule of Law in the European Courts Amid Backsliding'. It was co-authored by Laurent Pech and Benedetta Lobina. The guide explores the crucial role of European courts in safeguarding the rule of law. It provides analysis of recent rulings and offers advice on obtaining legal redress related to rule of law cases. It covers both ECtHR and EU rule of law requirements and judgments. From the foreword:
'Democratic backsliding in Central and Eastern Europe in the past decade has created unexpected institutional threats across the region.
This is particularly true for the judiciary, where autocratic leaders have moved quickly to undermine judicial independence in an effort to silence judges who stand up for the rule of law. Without significant resources, a tradition of engagement with political actors, or a practice of making their case for support directly to the public – outside of rendering court decisions that are often not well understood by the non-legal community – the judiciary has a far smaller base of support to protect itself from domestic pressure.
Fortunately, at the European Union level, there is a slowly emerging jurisprudence at both the European Court of Human Rights and the Court of Justice of the European Union, which are taking important new steps toward protecting the rule of law as a fundamental EU principle. While still facing jurisdictional and remedial challenges, judges and judicial associations are helping to build a body of court decisions that are beginning to secure greater judicial independence through recognition and enforcement of rule of law norms. The impact of these developments can be directly seen in Poland, where they contributed to the restoration of the rule of law, and elsewhere, where they serve as a warning to deter political leaders from undermining the courts. But the threat remains ever-present.'