There are various forms of jurisdictional dialogue. In addition to drawing from the case law of another court or seeking direct assistance of such another court in passing the judgment, we can notice in practice situations when by issuing a verdict the courts are communicating with each other. The rulings of the Bundesverfassungsgericht, the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the European Court of Human Rights regarding the free movement of judgments in the European Union and protection of fundamental rights are the example of such activities. Each of these bodies was interpreting separately the extent to which the mechanisms of recognising and executing the judgments may interfere with the level of protection of fundamental rights. A common conclusion concerns assigning the priority to protection of fundamental rights, while individual bodies were determining differently the standards of such protection. The analysed judgments can be construed as a communication between these bodies. Although no direct discussion takes place between these courts, this is still a form of interaction which affects the development of the case law and understanding of the boundaries of mutual recognition of judgments and protection of human rights within judicial proceedings.

管辖权对话有多种形式。除了通过其他法院的判例法或寻求其他法院的直接裁决帮助之外，我们还可以在实践中注意到法院通过发布判决相互进行沟通时的情况。欧洲联邦法院，欧洲联盟法院和欧洲人权法院关于欧洲联盟内法官自由流动和保护基本权利的裁决就是此类活动的例子。这些机构中的每一个都分别解释承认和执行判决的机制可能在多大程度上干扰基本权利的保护水平。一个共同的结论涉及将优先权分配给基本权利的保护，而各个机构对这种保护的标准有不同的决定。分析的判断可以解释为这些机构之间的交流。尽管这些法院之间未进行直接讨论，但这仍然是一种相互作用的形式，会影响判例法的发展以及对司法程序中相互承认判决和保护人权的界限的理解。