ABSTRACT
French higher courts have engaged in productive judicial dialogue with both the CJEU and the ECtHR. Nonetheless, the way that this dialogue happens is not always obvious to the untrained observer. This uniqueness is due to the traditional concise adjudication style of French courts and compartmentalisation among three different courts of the task of overseeing the compatibility of laws with higher-ranking domestic and international sources of fundamental rights. The Constitutional Court has traditionally taken into account the reasoning of the ECtHR and incorporated it in its decisions, although without directly mentioning it in the decisions. This influence is particularly evident in free speech and social media matters. The State Council often directly mentions the ECtHR and EU law and also incorporates the reasoning of the European supranational courts in its decisions. The Criminal and Civil High Court (Cour de Cassation) has a longer way to go to make fundamental rights reasoning apparent in its decisions, although recent reforms have been undertaken in this direction. Regarding direct judicial dialogue through the preliminary reference procedure, both the State Council and the Cour de Cassation generally engage with the CJEU quite often.
