Abstract
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title> <jats:p>This edited volume aims to enrich the study of the Court of Justice of the EU by providing normative—as opposed to descriptive—assessments of its legal reasoning. Taking as a starting point a descriptive account of the Court’s adjudicative practice, which informs a shared conceptual basis from which the various contributions move, the volume offers a diverse collection of normative assessments of the CJEU’s reasoning. Specifically, it offers contributions looking both at the Court through an abstract, horizontal lens, that is, by focusing on techniques of adjudication across various policy-areas, and at specific areas of case law, proposing alternative interpretations based on different theoretical frameworks. While scholars have assessed the reasoning of the Court from specific perspectives (constitutional, democratic, social) or have endorsed the approach the Court follows, no conclusive work has ever combined both an abstract theoretical lens and an in-depth dive into specific areas of EU law, while at the same time maintaining strong conceptual unity. The various contributions highlight how complex, and necessarily pluralistic, a normative assessment of the Court must be. While the volume does not claim to provide a final answer to the question of what a ‘good’ judgment is, it develops assessments that rigorously engage with the text of a judicial decision based on openly acknowledged normative assumptions and theoretical grounding, specific criteria, and a shared understanding of the constraints under which the Court operates.</jats:p>