ABSTRACT
The empirical evidence drawn from abstract judicial review tested against the influences on judicial decision-making as identified by the literature. From this four distinct trends can be observed:
The format and style of decisions have become more and more similar. The level of interpretation, use of precedent, and formal legal arguments are harmonising across country lines. However, there is no evidence that this change of style has any effect on the way decisions are taken.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that the political attitudes of the judges affect the decision-making patterns; though there is a correlation between the educational background, especially in regards to connections to international institutions, and the decision-making pattern of the judges.
There are no overt pressures by the political institutions on the courts to decide one way or the other, though the government in power at the time is marginally less likely to have one of its laws overturned before the court under abstract judicial review.
Most interesting is that there is a correlation between the way arguments are used, namely the way a reference to Europe, the European Union, or the international community occurs. There is no change or correlation between the use of formal European Union mechanisms, such as regulations and directives, and decision-making patterns in abstract judicial review, but what can be observed is an increase in the use of informal arguments, such as a reference to European obligations, and the division of decision into clearer paths.
