7. European Directive 2019/1937: The Revolution in Jurisdiction. Single European Jurisdiction

CONCLUSIONS OF THE OPINION: European Directive 2019/1937 the revolution in the jurisdiction The visibility of the fact that Justice is a shared competence, and that judges are previously European rather than Spanish, with all that this implies.

FIRST.- Justice is a “shared competence”. In the exercise of this competence, the Member States are recognized as having sovereignty only for the “organization” of the same. It is always within the guarantee parameters of the Union, reflected in the numerous judgments of the TJEU.

SECOND.- The Union has full sovereignty over what it legislates, and in this case it has established, in order to regulate those powers that are already within its competence, its own new and different procedure, through channels of complaint, from which interpersonal conflict is excluded.

THIRD.- This Jurisdiction is unique, since the FOUR FREEDOMS are exercised without borders by the recognized treaties and the rights, such as the freedoms, can ALSO be exercised without borders, as stated in the Charter.

FOURTH.- There is a clear distinction between two different jurisdictions on the part of the Union: a European jurisdiction with a legislative pyramid in the Treaties and the Charter and in the provisions of Parliament and the Commission as secondary law, together with the functional jurisdiction derived from the judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union – where no distinction is made between civil, criminal, administrative, labour or military – and a subsidiary national jurisdiction, which would deal with matters which are not Union law.

FIFTH.- It follows from this Directive, therefore, that the European Union is establishing a new way of understanding jurisdiction. It establishes that Member States no longer have sovereignty in all cases or matters falling within the scope of the Directive. It creates a reserve of law for it, with the same characteristics as Union law, i.e. prevalence and primacy.

SIXTH.- When referring to the judiciary, the Directive does so in Article 22, which sets out the “Measures for the protection of the persons concerned”. It does not do so in Article 2, which defines the “Material scope”. This article 22 establishes the Charter (CFREU) as the supreme normative framework, and ignores the Constitutions or National Charters of Rights. The clear consequence of this position is to guarantee the right to report infringements of Union law as a right without borders – as referred to in Article 11 CFREU. As an inseparable consequence of this, the right to obtain justice without borders – is a protective measure – where the guarantee of independence and impartiality – and therefore full effective judicial protection, in accordance with art. 47 CFREU – prevails. The European citizen can not only denounce in any Member State an infringement of Union law. Any judge in a Member State may admit such a complaint, investigate it and judge it. The European Union’s first demonstration of this desire to have justice without frontiers in the field of offences against Union law was the establishment and operation of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office.