- Liverpool Law School,
Rendall Building Room 2.17
University of Liverpool,
L69 7WW
www.liv.ac.uk/law/staff/thomas-horsley/ - +44 (0)151 794 2289
Thomas Horsley
University of Liverpool, School of Law, Faculty Member
- European Union Law, European Court of Justice, European Law, free movement & competition law, Law, Subsidiarity, EU Competition Law, and 14 moreRule of Law, European Law, EU Law, Internal market, Free Movement of Goods, Free Movement of Services, Theory of Law, Comparative Law, Political Economy, EU internal market, European/EU Politics, European Union Citizenship, European Studies, and Public Policyedit
- Senior Lecturer, Liverpool Law School Thomas Horsley LL.B (Hons) LL.M (Edin.) PhD (Edin.) www.liv.ac.uk/law/staff/th... moreSenior Lecturer,
Liverpool Law School
Thomas Horsley LL.B (Hons) LL.M (Edin.) PhD (Edin.)
www.liv.ac.uk/law/staff/thomas-horsley/
Thomas joined the Law School in September 2011. He was appointed Senior Lecturer in 2015. He is presently on research leave (2018).
His key areas of expertise include: (1) the Court of Justice of the European Union; (2) EU internal market law - in particular: the free movement of capital and goods; (3) Union citizenship and UK implementation of EU citizenship rights; and (4) general principles of EU law - in particular: subsidiarity and EU fundamental rights.
Thomas has published widely in leading international journals and edited collections on EU law and European integration. His new monograph, The Court of Justice of the European Union as an Institutional Actor: Judicial Lawmaking and its Limits, will be published with Cambridge University Press in June 2018. It interrogates the function of the EU Treaty framework as a source of normative restraint on the Court of Justice and, more specifically, its interpretative choices as an institutional actor within the Union legal order.
His most recent work, and future research agenda, is focussed on analysing the impact of the UK's withdrawal from the EU on key aspects of the UK constitution and, in particular, the institutional roles of Parliament and UK courts. He has already authored a book chapter and several blog posts offering an initial legal assessment of the impact of Brexit on UK courts. He is presently preparing an article on the function of the doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty as an institutional instruction.
Thomas engages proactively with key stakeholders. He regularly submits evidence to parliamentary inquiries. His research has been cited in UK Government reports and he also previously given evidence to the House of Lords EU Select Committee. In 2017, Thomas was invited to present to members of the European Parliament's EPP Group on the challenges of Brexit for the UK constitution. In 2014, he was also appointed UK rapporteur at the XXVI FIDE Congress hosted by the University of Copenhagen for the topic "Union Citizenship: Development, Impact and Challenges." Thomas regularly contributes expert reaction to the media (incl. BBC News and BBC Radio Merseyside) on major legal developments in EU law and Brexit. In addition, he has delivered public presentations on Brexit at a range of public engagement events, both individually and together with his colleagues within the EU law@Liverpool research cluster.
Thomas completed his PhD thesis at the University of Edinburgh (2009-2011), funded by the UK Arts & Humanities Research Council. He also holds undergraduate (2006, 1st class) and postgraduate (2008, with distinction) degrees awarded by the same institution.
He currently supervises PhD projects on the hierarchy of norms in EU integration and the constitutional position of national parliaments in the EU legal order post-Lisbon. He welcomes enquires from prospective students with proposals within his areas of expertise.edit
This article develops the comparative law framework on legal transplantation to theorise the impact of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (UKIMA) on the UK constitution across three registers of analysis-the territorial, the... more
This article develops the comparative law framework on legal transplantation to theorise the impact of the United Kingdom Internal Market Act 2020 (UKIMA) on the UK constitution across three registers of analysis-the territorial, the material and the conceptual. It arrives at three conclusions. First, in relation to the territorial constitution, this article argues that the UKIMA introduces something transformative: the concept of an internal market as a shared regulatory space that cuts across the respective competences of the UK and devolved legislatures. Secondly, the legal transplant framework points to the introduction of a powerful commitment to the principles of a liberal market economy as the basis of the UK's material constitution. Finally, regarding the conceptual constitution, this article concludes that the UKIMA effects a qualitative change to established patterns of judicial review through its co-opting of courts as agents to secure the foundations of the newly recast material constitution.
Research Interests:
Essay reviewing Great Judgments of the European Court of Justice: Rethinking the Landmark Decisions of the Foundational Period by William Phelan (Cambridge: CUP, 2019)
Research Interests:
This paper advances a functional analysis of the UK constitution. It explores how the UK constitution discharges three minimum 'constituting', 'legitimating' and 'limiting' functions that citizens living in modern liberal democracies may... more
This paper advances a functional analysis of the UK constitution. It explores how the UK constitution discharges three minimum 'constituting', 'legitimating' and 'limiting' functions that citizens living in modern liberal democracies may legitimately expect all constitutionsirrespective of formto perform. This functional enquiry breaks with dominant trends in the legal scholarship that remain focused on theorising the constitution's underlying political or legal nature or, likewise, identifying its ultimate source of authority. In addition to offering a richer descriptive account of constitutional practice, this paper identifies, normatively, an institutional responsibility for Parliament to discharge the UK constitution's three minimum functions. Recognising that institutional responsibility unlocks fresh insights into two constitutional conundrums: the legitimacy of judicial review and the status of 'constitutional statutes'. At the same time, it also exposes deficiencies and tensions in relation to the quality of Parliament's institutional performance on matters of minimum constitutional functioning.
Research Interests:
Eurozone Crisis Management, Citizenship Rights and the Global Reach of EU Data Protection Law: EU Legal Developments in 2015
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
This article argues for a new approach to the assessment of the Court of Justice's contribution to EU integration. Responding to weaknesses identified with the classic "activism" versus "restraint" scholarship on the Court, it constructs... more
This article argues for a new approach to the assessment of the Court of Justice's contribution to EU integration. Responding to weaknesses identified with the classic "activism" versus "restraint" scholarship on the Court, it constructs a more robust theoretical framework to critique the legitimacy of judicial lawmaking. This framework, inspired by political science scholarship on the Court, positions the ECJ as an institutional actor, engaged alongside the EU legislature in the development of EU law through judicial interpretation. The institutional actor thesis is employed to explore the restraining impact of Treaty provisions on the ECJ's freedom to act as lawmaker. The article identifies a range of Treaty provisions that were conceived as limits on the pace and depth of EU integration and reframes these as "legal limits" to ECJ lawmaking. It then reflects on the challenges, opportunities and broader implications associated with operationalizing these provisions as sources of normative restraint on the ECJ's interpretative competence.
Research Interests:
This article examines the substance, function and interaction of three key judicial devices developed by the Court of Justice in order to manage the scope of Art 34 TFEU on the free movement of goods within the internal market. It argues... more
This article examines the substance, function and interaction of three key judicial devices developed by the Court of Justice in order to manage the scope of Art 34 TFEU on the free movement of goods within the internal market. It argues that, viewed collectively, these 'exclusionary rules' can be read as a consistent and normatively sound attempt on the Court’s part to exclude from the scope of that provision non-discriminatory national rules that simply define the conditions for economic activity within individual States. At a time when the Court is again demonstrating its willingness to scrutinise such rules as obstacles to intra-EU movement, it is argued that it should change course and rationalise and reassert its exclusionary rules jurisprudence.""
Research Interests:
Research Interests:
Short comment on Case C-483/12 Pelckmans Turnhout NV v Walter Van Gastel Balen NV and Others, Judgment of the Court (First Chamber) of 8 May 2014 (nyr).
Research Interests:
This article reviews the evolution of subsidiarity as a constitutional principle within the case law of the European Court of Justice. It argues that, to date, discussion of subsidiarity as a judicial principle remains narrowly focused on... more
This article reviews the evolution of subsidiarity as a constitutional principle within the case law of the European Court of Justice. It argues that, to date, discussion of subsidiarity as a judicial principle remains narrowly focused on its impact as a restraint on the Union legislature. In an effort to steer debate in another direction, this article revisits and supports arguments in favour of applying subsidiarity as a brake on the Court’s own interpretative functions. Thereafter, it isolates the Court’s interpretation of the Treaty free movement provisions as an empirical example to test this underdeveloped dimension of subsidiarity.
Research Interests:
This extended case note offers a critique of the Court's recent jurisprudence on prohibitions/restrictions on the use of goods within the internal market. Case C-110/05, Commission v. Italy, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10... more
This extended case note offers a critique of the Court's recent jurisprudence on prohibitions/restrictions on the use of goods within the internal market.
Case C-110/05, Commission v. Italy, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 February 2009; Case C-142/05, Aklagaren v. Percy Mickelsson and Joakim Roos, …
Case C-110/05, Commission v. Italy, Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 10 February 2009; Case C-142/05, Aklagaren v. Percy Mickelsson and Joakim Roos, …
Research Interests:
Abstract: This chapter surveys the Court of Justice’s approach to defining what constitutes an obstacle to intra-EU capital movement. As is true across the Treaty provisions on intra-EU movement, the scope attributed to this term has a... more
Abstract:
This chapter surveys the Court of Justice’s approach to defining what constitutes an obstacle to intra-EU capital movement. As is true across the Treaty provisions on intra-EU movement, the scope attributed to this term has a direct impact on the distribution of competence between the Member States and Union for the regulation of the internal market. This chapter argues that the case law on obstacles to intra-EU capital movement is remarkable largely only for its similarity with the other Treaty freedoms. However, this does not mean that the jurisprudence is problem-free. On the contrary, this chapter argues that aspects of the case law on capital movements can be located within a broader, more controversial trend that is emerging across the Treaty freedoms.
This chapter surveys the Court of Justice’s approach to defining what constitutes an obstacle to intra-EU capital movement. As is true across the Treaty provisions on intra-EU movement, the scope attributed to this term has a direct impact on the distribution of competence between the Member States and Union for the regulation of the internal market. This chapter argues that the case law on obstacles to intra-EU capital movement is remarkable largely only for its similarity with the other Treaty freedoms. However, this does not mean that the jurisprudence is problem-free. On the contrary, this chapter argues that aspects of the case law on capital movements can be located within a broader, more controversial trend that is emerging across the Treaty freedoms.
Research Interests:
Summary of oral evidence by Dr Thomas Horsley, Prof. Michael Dougan, and Dr Samantha Currie of the Liverpool European Law Unit (10 Feb 2015)
Research Interests:
With Prof. Michael Dougan and Dr Samantha Currie, Liverpool European Law Unit
Research Interests:
The EU Treaties bind the Court of Justice of the European Union as an institution of the Union. But what does that mean for judicial lawmaking within the EU legal order? And how might any limits set out in the EU Treaties be effectively... more
The EU Treaties bind the Court of Justice of the European Union as an institution of the Union. But what does that mean for judicial lawmaking within the EU legal order? And how might any limits set out in the EU Treaties be effectively applied to the Court of Justice as lawmaker? This book interrogates these fundamental and underexplored questions at a critical juncture in European integration. It argues that the EU Treaties should be considered to function as the principal touchstones for assessing the internal constitutionality, and hence legitimacy, of all Union institutional activity - including the work of the Court. It then examines how far the Court of Justice complies with the EU Treaty framework in the exercise of its interpretative functions. The results of that analysis are striking and offer scholars powerful new insights into the nature and limits of the Court's role within the EU legal order.