Abstract
The interpretation given by the Court of Justice of the European Union (Court of Justice) in the Gauweiler case is mostly in line with the proposal submitted by Advocate General Cruz Villalón in his Opinion. However, the difference in the Court and the Advocate General's perspectives, and the silence of the Court on some matters in contrast with the vocal position of the Advocate General, prove that the Gauweiler case could have been ruled quite differently. This paper will analyse how the Opinion and the judgment of the Court of Justice undergo parallel levels of analysis, and how, despite their apparent differences, each document plays a similar but autonomous role.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
