Conference “United in Diversity?” Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Mutual Recognition in European Law and Governance - Part I

The United in Diversity conference brought together scholars, judges, and practitioners to critically reassess the role and mechanisms of mutual recognition via a series of lenses ranging from constitutional theory, legislative design, judicial practice, and a wide range of policy fields. Over two days, the conference offered a comprehensive and timely reappraisal of concepts that sit at the heart of the European project, which will culminate in the publication of the first ever comprehensive overview of mutual recognitions role in the European order today:  A “Research Handbook of Mutual Recognition in EU Law” which will be published with Edward Elgar, organised by conference conveners Rónán Riordan and Mariolina Eliantonio.  

The conference opened by challenging conventional narratives that locate the origins of mutual recognition solely in Cassis de Dijon. Instead, its roots were traced back to the Treaty of Rome, with its rapid expansion in the post-Cassisperiod highlighted. This rapid expansion was driven not by the Court, but by the Union’s political institutions, in particular the Commission, which utilised the underlying legal reasoning of the Court’s jurisprudence in Cassis to advance European integration via its ‘New Approach’ to regulation outlined in its infamous White Paper on Completing the Internal Market published in 1985 by the Delors Commission. Today, hundreds of EU instruments now invoke mutual recognition in their text or preambles.

Yet this expansion has exposed conceptual ambiguities. Mutual recognition is increasingly relied upon in areas marked by deep political, social, economic, and cultural sensitivity, fundamental rights concerns, and rule-of-law tensions. The latter issues are most clearly visible in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. Against this backdrop, the conference asked whether mutual recognition is being stretched beyond its limits, and whether greater political and legislative responsibility is needed alongside judicial governance.

During the first day of the conference, we had the pleasure of hearing multiple fascinating presentations on mutual recognition:

• Regulatory Practice: Imelda Maher examined mutual recognition as a regulatory practice rather than a constitutional principle. Drawing on Cassis de Dijon, she showed how mutual recognition privileges free movement through a deregulatory logic, shifting enforcement away from executives and towards courts. Over time, this dynamic produces cycles of deregulation and re-regulation: reduced harmonisation fosters uncertainty, prompting renewed EU intervention. Today, hybrid forms combining mutual recognition with notification procedures, EU standards, and administrative cooperation mechanisms remain central to EU governance.

• Mutual Trust: Sacha Prechal disentangled mutual trust from mutual recognition, framing trust as a structural legal principle underpinning governance. Mutual trust imposes a presumption that Member States comply with EU law, fundamental rights, and rule-of-law obligations. Trust is rebuttable, relying on functioning judicial and administrative systems. Prechal highlighted the persistent gap between legally imposed trust and social reality, pointing to trust-building measures such as judicial dialogue, administrative cooperation, transparency, and professional exchange.

• Criminal Justice: Aileen Donnelly addressed mutual recognition in the European Arrest Warrant, showing how criminal justice acts as a stress test for mutual trust. Divergent national approaches to judicial authority, trials in absentia, and prosecutorial independence complicate cooperation, particularly where fundamental rights are implicated. Rule-of-law backsliding in some Member States further challenges mutual recognition, forcing courts to balance uniformity with individualised rights protection.

• Legislative Strategy: Ton van den Brink presented mutual recognition as a legislative and constitutional strategy rather than a purely legal technique. Examining pesticides, biocides, and veterinary medicines, he mapped “pure” and “managed” models, redistributing authority between national and EU actors and raising questions of accountability and pluralism. Legislative mutual recognition shapes both market access and the broader constitutional balance of the Union.

• Democratic Interdependence: Kalypso Nicolaides examined the democratic implications of mutual recognition. While it can act as a tool of discipline and create democratic incongruence, it can also foster interdependence, anchored in shared responsibility, horizontal connections between citizens, and transnational democratic remedies. The discussion extended beyond internal EU law to explore implications for the Union’s external relations.

• Horizontal Administrative Procedures: Olivier Dubos analysed mutual recognition as a component of horizontal composite administrative procedures. He distinguished between mere consideration of foreign acts and full recognition, highlighting the complexities of attributing legal responsibility across multiple legal systems. This approach underscores the operational and accountability challenges when decisions traverse borders without harmonised oversight.

• Limits of Transnational Judicial Review: Mariolina Eliantonio and Louis-Pierre Delhalle focused on the constraints that mutual recognition imposes on judicial review. Mutual trust and equal sovereignty often limit courts’ ability to scrutinise foreign decisions, yet the right to an effective remedy exerts countervailing pressure. Case law such as Altun and Berliozillustrates both the potential of mutual recognition to facilitate cross-border cooperation and the unresolved tensions between trust, sovereignty, and rights protection.

• European Court of Human Rights Perspective: Šejla Imamović explored Strasbourg’s approach to mutual recognition via the lens of the European Arrest Warrant. While the European Court of Human Rights accepts the legitimacy of mutual recognition mechanisms such as the EAW under the Convention, it has insisted that the presumption of equivalent protections between States remains rebuttable. While systemic deficiencies may be relevant to rebutting such a presumption, Strasbourg ultimately requires a concrete and individualised assessment to ensure meaningful judicial protection of individual rights guaranteed by the Convention. Illustrating a tension between the ECtHR and CJEU’s jurisprudence in this area.