{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015350877192982455, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.7421383647798745, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The role of national courts between EU obligations and national standards of protection of fundamental rights

This article focuses on the role of national courts in the implementation of the EU legal system. Since Simmenthal and Costa v. E.N.E.L., these courts are called upon, as part of their duty of sincere cooperation, to ensure the full application of EU law in all Member States and to protect the rights which that law confers on individuals. The duty to set aside conflicting provisions may be problematic in criminal cases. The issue has recently been put in the spotlight again by the Taricco case, which shows how the removal of an inconsistency between domestic legislation and EU law could sometimes lead to an infringement of constitutional criminal law principles. The Taricco case also calls into question the relationship between the primacy of EU law and the protection of fundamental rights.