Vol. 13 (2024)
Precedent in EU Law: The Linguistic Aspect

Special Issues

Path Dependency or Dynamic Consistency in EU Anti-Discrimination Law?

Published 15.07.2024

  • Amalie Frese
    • ,
  • Enys Mones

Abstract

Has EU anti-discrimination law developed in a straight line through the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)? According to studies relying on path dependency theories, the answer would be yes. Studies relying on path dependence build on the premise that jurisprudence continues in a line of reasoning from the earliest to the latest judgments, and in different areas of the law, as a result of a lock-in process of analogical reasoning. In this article we show why the theoretical framework of path dependency cannot account for court driven legal development, specifically in the area of EU anti-discrimination law, and how difficult it is to empirically substantiate the argument of path dependency. We conduct an empirical test of the path dependency theory in CJEU’s case law within the area of anti-discrimination law. In order to do so, we build a case law citation network from where we can detect precedents as the most cited paragraphs of the cases. We explore the ways in which these precedents travel through the entire jurisprudence in flows of information and on this basis test for path dependency as similarity between citing and cited paragraphs. We find no signs of path dependency. The objective of this paper is to supplement the scholarship on path dependency by pointing to its limitations and methodological constraints. On the basis of our study, we propose to adjust the theory of case law development away from that of path dependency and towards what we choose to call case law which is dynamically consistent.

Cite as: Frese & Mones, JLL 13 (2024), 71–96, DOI: 10.14762/jll.2024.071

Keywords

path dependency, EU anti-discrimination law, CJEU, precedent, empirical test, dynamic consistency

PDF

References

  1. Alter, Karen J. (1998). Who Are the “Masters of the Treaty”? European Governments and the European Court of Justice. International Organization, 52(1), 121–147.
  2. Baaij, Cornelis J. W. (2012). Fifty Years of Multilingual Interpretation in the European Union. In Solan & Tiersma (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Language and Law (pp. 217–234). New York: Oxford University Press.
  3. Bag, Sujoy, Kumar, Sri Krishna, Tiwari, Manoj Kumar (2019). An Efficient Recommendation Generation Using Relevant Jaccard Similarity. Information Sciences, 483, 53–64. DOI: 10.1016/j.ins.2019.01.023.
  4. Broberg, Morten & Fenger, Niels (2014). Preliminary References to the European Court of Justice. Oxford: University Press.
  5. Cichowski, Rachel A. (2013). Legal Mobilization, Transnational Activism, and Gender Equality in the EU. Canadian Journal of Law and Society/La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société, 28(2), 209–227. DOI: 10.1017/cls.2013.22.
  6. David, Paul A. (1994). Why Are Institutions the ‘Carriers of History’? Path Dependence and the Evolution of Conventions, Organizations and Institutions. Structural Change and Economic Dynamics, 5(2), 205–220. DOI: 10.1016/0954-349X(94)90002-7.
  7. David, Paul A. & Greenstein, Shane (1990). The Economics of Compatibility Standards: An Introduction to Recent Research. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 1(1/2), 3–41. DOI: 10.1080/10438599000000002.
  8. de Búrca, Gráinne (2016). The Decline of the EU Anti-Discrimination Law? Available at: law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/upload_documents/The%20Decline%20of%20the%20EU%20Anti-Discrimination%20Law.pdf (accessed 4 March 2024).
  9. Derlén, Mattias & Lindholm, Johan (2015). Characteristics of Precedent: The Case law of the European Court of Justice in three dimensions. German Law Journal, 16(5), 1073–1098. DOI: 10.1017/S2071832200021040.
  10. Derlén, Mattias & Lindholm, Johan (2014). Goodbye van Gend en Loos, Hello Bosman? Using Network Analysis to Measure the Importance of Individual CJEU Judgments. European Law Journal, 20(5), 667–687.
  11. Derlén, Mattias & Lindholm, Johan (2017). Peek-A-Boo, It’s a Case Law System! Comparing the European Court of Justice and the United States Supreme Court from a Network Perspective. German Law Journal, 18(3), 647–686. DOI: 10.1017/S2071832200022100.
  12. Fowler, James H., Johnson, Timothy R., Spriggs II, James F., Jeon, Sangick & Wahlbeck, Paul J. (2007). Network Analysis and the Law: Measuring the Legal Importance of Precedents at the US Supreme Court. Political Analysis, 15(3), 324–346.
  13. Fowler, James H. & Jeon, Sangick (2008). The Authority of Supreme Court Precedent. Social Networks, 30(1), 16–30. DOI: 10.1016/j.socnet.2007.05.001.
  14. Frese, Amalie (2022). How to Nail Down a Cloud: CJEU’s Construction of Jurisprudential Authority from a Network Perspective. In Madsen, Nicola & Vauchez (Eds.), Researching the European Court of Justice: Methodological Shifts and Law’s Embeddedness (pp. 49–81). Cambridge: University Press. DOI: 10.1017/9781009049818.004.
  15. Frese, Amalie & Palmer Olsen, Henrik (2019). Citing Case Law: A Comparative Study of Legal Textbooks on European Human Rights Law. European Journal of Legal Studies, 11, 91–131. DOI: 10.1017/9781009049818.004.
  16. Hathaway, Oona A. (2001). Path Dependence in the Law: The Course and Pattern of Legal Change in a Common Law System. Iowa Law Review, 86(2), 601–666.
  17. Howard, Erica (2018). EU Anti-discrimination Law: Has the CJEU Stopped Moving Forward? International Journal of Discrimination and the Law, 18(2/3), 60–81.
  18. Howard, Erica (2006). The Case for a Considered Hierarchy of Discrimination Grounds in EU Law. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 13(4), 445–470.
  19. Jacob, Marc (2014). Precedent Application by the ECJ. In Jacob (Ed.), Precedents and Case-Based Reasoning in the European Court of Justice: Unfinished Business (pp. 87–126). Cambridge: University Press.
  20. Kay, Adrian (2005). A Critique of the Use of Path Dependency in Policy Studies. Public Administration, 83(3), 553–571. DOI: 10.1111/j.0033-3298.2005.00462.x.
  21. Komárek, Jan (2013). Reasoning with Previous Decisions: Beyond the Doctrine of Precedent. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 61(1), 149–172. DOI: 10.5131/AJCL.2012.0013.
  22. Linos, Katerina (2010). Path Dependence in Discrimination Law: Employment Cases in the United States and the European Union. The Yale Journal of International Law, 35(1), 115–169.
  23. Lupu, Yonatan & Voeten, Erik (2012). Precedent in International Courts: A Network Analysis of Case Citations by the European Court of Human Rights. British Journal of Political Science, 42(2), 413–439. DOI: 10.1017/S0007123411000433.
  24. McAuliffe, Karen & Trklja, Aleksandar (2018). Superdiversity and the Relationship Between Law, Language and Translation in a Supranational Legal Order. In Creese & Blackledge (Eds.), The Routledge Handbook of Language and Superdiversity (pp. 426–441). London: Routledge.
  25. Panagis, Yannis & Šadl, Urska (2015). The Force of EU Case Law: A Multi-Dimensional Study of Case Citations. In Rotolo (Ed.), Legal Knowledge and Information Systems (pp. 71–80). Frontiers in Artificial Intelligence and Applications, 279. Amsterdam: IOS Press.
  26. Paunio, Elina (2021). Reasoning with Past Cases at the CJEU: Linguistic, Institutional and Systemic Constraints. In Frese & Schumann (Eds.), Precedents as Rules and Practice: New Approaches and Methodologies in Studies of Legal Precedents (pp. 129–155). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
  27. Pierson, Paul (2000). Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and the Study of Politics. American Political Science Review, 94(2), 251–267, DOI: 10.2307/2586011.
  28. Rixen, Thomas & Viola, Lora A. (2009). Uses and Abuses of the Concept of Path Dependence: Notes Toward a Clearer Theory of Institutional Change. Available at: wiwiss.fu-berlin.de/forschung/pfadkolleg/downloads/summer_school_2009/Paper_Rixen_Viola.pdf (accessed 04 March 2024).
  29. Schmidt, Susanne K. (2012). Who Cares about Nationality? The Path-dependent Case Law of the ECJ from Goods to Citizens. Journal of European Public Policy, 19(1), 8–24. DOI: 10.1080/13501763.2012.632122.
  30. Suk, Julie C. (2008). Procedural Path Dependence: Discrimination and the Civil-Criminal Divide. Washington University Law Review, 85(6), 1315–1371. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.1006759.
  31. Stone Sweet, Alec (2002). Path Dependence, Precedent and Judicial Power. In Shapiro & Stone Sweet (Eds.), On Law, Politics, and Judicialization (pp. 112–135). Oxford: University Press.