“The interpretation of law does not happen in a vacuum; it always takes place in a societal context and amid changing landscapes. To balance legal interpretation with the evolving realities of European society, one has to respect the limits of the application of the law, as well as democratic values and processes,” Stéphanie Laulhé Shaelou, Advocate General at the Court of Justice of the European Union said.
In an interview with GOLD magazine, Shaelou shares her views on the evolving landscape of EU law and how it will affect the future of the Union.
What is the precise role of the Court of Justice of the European Union?
There exist in the EU Treaties mechanisms dedicated to the development and to the enforcement of EU law at the supranational and national level. Over the past 70 years, the Court of Justice has interpreted and applied such legal provisions and mechanisms and developed a panoply of principles enhancing the ‘effet utile’ (practical effect) of EU law at all levels. It remains that its main task is to interpret the law of the EU, review the validity of EU acts and resolve the disputes that are brought before it. Compliance with EU law is also the task of other EU institutions, especially the Commission, which can step in and take necessary action, such as bringing infringement proceedings against a Member State when it observes challenges to the rule of law in that Member State or an action under Article 260(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU in case of non-compliance with a judgment of the Court.
With the rise of new technologies, including AI, creating a regulatory minefield, how do you expect EU law to be affected over the next few years at it tries to adapt to these new technologies?
The rise of new technologies, especially the extremely fast and complex development of AI, has already been addressed at the EU level via the EU AI Act, as it affects all actors, sectors and factors across the Union and beyond. The challenge for EU Member States and Institutions lies in striking a balance between providing a legal framework – in which these technologies can develop and operate responsibly and safely – and ensuring the protection of rights granted under EU law, including copyright, data protection and other fundamental rights. This is already evident in cases concerning the use of automated technologies. In the Court’s decision in Ligue des droits humains (C-817/19), for instance, (concerning the automated analysis of airline passenger data for the prevention of terrorism and serious crime), the Court required strict limits, objective and reviewable criteria, and human verification before an individual could be adversely affected.
Do you believe that EU law is entering a new era, where the Court will play an even greater role in shaping policy through its judgments? How do you see the relationship between national constitutional courts and the Court of Justice evolving?
The Court’s role itself – interpreting EU law and/or reviewing the validity of EU acts in disputes brought before it – remains unchanged. Through the procedure of preliminary rulings and the questions asked in that context, the Court engages in a continuous dialogue with national courts, which is essential to the shaping of European legal order and also policy. The EU legal order is also shaped via direct legal actions but also infringement proceedings, such as in the recent judgment in Commission v Hungary (values of the EU) (C-769/22) in which the Full Court ruled that Article 2 Treaty on the EU, which enshrines the values on which the Union is founded, is not only declaratory but also enforceable, thereby articulating legally binding obligations in a Union of common values. Within the construct of the EU legal order, national constitutional courts and the Court of Justice have acquired a deep practice of harmonious dialogue. Judicial harmony, however, requires constant mutual trust, continuous nurturing of this relationship and a deep understanding of, and respect for, each other’s authority and fundamental roles, including in changing landscapes, which is what the European construct is also about.
The Court of Justice is often asked to rule on politically sensitive issues. How do you balance legal interpretation with the evolving realities of European society?
The interpretation of law does not happen in a vacuum; it always takes place in a societal context and amid changing landscapes. To balance legal interpretation with the evolving realities of European society, one has to respect the limits of the application of the law, as well as democratic values and processes. The Court’s task is, as I have already mentioned, to interpret and apply the law, not to create it. In the EU’s democratic society, this is a task that is reserved for the European legislator.
In your capacity as Advocate General, how do you view the state of the legal landscape in Cyprus, given that the public perception of the judicial system continues to remain low?
Public trust in justice and the upholding of the rule of law by public institutions is a main concern in any democratic society, including the Republic of Cyprus. Much has been achieved in the past 80 years in the European public legal order founded on the triangular relationship between the rule of law, democracy and fundamental rights. Challenges remain in most European democracies, including Cyprus. The delivery of justice is seen as one of the main indicators of the robustness of the rule of law in any given jurisdiction. So are the principles of open justice and transparency in public administration and institutions. As outlined in the latest European Commission’s 2026 Rule of Law report on Cyprus, efforts are ongoing in these directions.
This interview first appeared in the August edition of GOLD magazine. Click here to view it.
