nam 22 uu 4500 10.17176/20221117-215635-0 DE-Verfassungsblog cr||||| 221117s2022||||xx#|||||o|||| ||| 0|eng|| 10.17176/20221117-215635-0 doi eng 342 23 Krommendijk, Jasper Author aut (orcid)0000-0002-3371-7580 Picking Primacy over Procedural Autonomy Krommendijk, Jasper Verfassungsblog 2022-11-17 Text txt rdacontent Computermedien c rdamedia Online-Ressource cr rdacarrier On 8 November, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘the Court’) decided that national courts are required to ascertain of their own motion whether detention of an illegally staying foreign national or asylum seeker is lawful. This judgment is an example of the ever-growing impact of EU law on national procedural rules, especially in the migration law area. The judgment is also noteworthy because of the difference in approach between, on the one hand, the Court and, on the other hand, the Dutch referring courts and AG Richard de la Tour. CC BY-SA 4.0 Migration migration law primacy primacy of EU law Max Steinbeis Verfassungsblog gGmbH Verfassungsblog 2366-7044 https://verfassungsblog.de/picking-primacy-over-procedural-autonomy/ raw object