scholarly journals The Action for Damages as a Fundamental Rights Remedy: Holding Frontex Liable

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (3) ◽  
pp. 532-548
Author(s):  
Melanie Fink
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
International Courts ◽  
Liability Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Accountability ◽  
Accountability Gap ◽  
The Eu

AbstractFrontex has become one of the major players in European external border management. As its powers and resources have increased, so have the challenges surrounding its compliance with fundamental rights. A major concern continues to be how to ensure legal accountability for fundamental rights violations that occur in the context of its activities. While Member States can be held accountable before their own national courts and before international courts, neither of these options are available in relation to Frontex. But it can be brought before the Court of Justice of the European Union to account for the conformity of its conduct with EU law. This Article explores the potential of the EU action for damages to offer a remedy for fundamental rights violations committed by Frontex. It identifies where public liability law falls short of providing a remedy for fundamental rights violations committed by EU bodies, explores the possibilities to close that gap, and assesses the implications this has for Frontex’s liability. The Article argues that the action for damages may be the means to close the accountability gap in the specific case of Frontex, but also more generally in circumstances where EU administration is delivered in the form of informal or factual conduct. If it is to fulfill that role, the CJEU would have to lower the threshold for EU liability where fundamental rights are concerned.

Review by Constitutional Courts of the Obligation of National Courts of Last Instance to Refer a Preliminary Question to the Court of Justice of the EU

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1663-1700 ◽  
Author(s):  
Clelia Lacchi
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Member States ◽  
Constitutional Review ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Remedy ◽  
The Eu

The Constitutional Courts of a number of Member States exert a constitutional review on the obligation of national courts of last instance to make a reference for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).Pursuant to Article 267(3) TFEU, national courts of last instance, namely courts or tribunals against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law, are required to refer to the CJEU for a preliminary question related to the interpretation of the Treaties or the validity and interpretation of acts of European Union (EU) institutions. The CJEU specified the exceptions to this obligation inCILFIT. Indeed, national courts of last instance have a crucial role according to the devolution to national judges of the task of ensuring, in collaboration with the CJEU, the full application of EU law in all Member States and the judicial protection of individuals’ rights under EU law. With preliminary references as the keystone of the EU judicial system, the cooperation of national judges with the CJEU forms part of the EU constitutional structure in accordance with Article 19(1) TEU.

14. The European Union

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Berthold Rittberger
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Legal Rules ◽  
Constitutional Order ◽  
Constitutional Principle ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Eu

This chapter examines how the European Union acquired distinctive constitution-like features. It begins with a discussion of three routes to constitutionalization: the first is through changes in the EU's primary law; the second focuses on ‘in between’ constitutionalization; and the third leads directly to the European Court of Justice and its jurisprudence. The chapter proceeds by discussing two developments that have shaped the EU constitutional order almost since the beginning: the emergence of a body of EU law constituting a set of higher-order legal rules, and the consolidation of the constitutional principle of representative democracy. It explains how the supremacy and direct effect of EU law, as well as the EU court's concern with the protection of fundamental rights, helped transform the EU into a constitutional polity. It also considers how the extension of the legislative, budgetary, and other powers of the European Parliament animated the constitutional principle.

scholarly journals An approach to today’s EU constitutionality control – understanding this EU inter-jurisdictional phenomenon in light of effective judicial protection

2019 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 104-124
Author(s):  
Joana Covelo de Abreu
Keyword(s):  
National Level ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Control Mechanisms ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Constitutional Level ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
The Eu

Under today’s European constitutional demands, effective judicial protection sets the tone concerning potential jurisdictional instruments able to act as constitutionality control mechanisms. Inter-jurisdictionality stands for different and complementary jurisdictional systems living togetherin the same space and it aims to understand how their reflexive interactions can be maintained to promote effective judicial protection. Both the infringement procedure and the preliminary ruling act as constitutional controls. The first allows the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to evaluate the incompatibility of national solutions/omissions with EU law but, to meet its full effectiveness, widening legitimate parties needs to be considered as well. Also, validity preliminary rulings act as a constitutional control in proceedings relating to individuals – national judges should be aware of their referring obligations to the CJEU. There are voices amongst European academia that advocate a new constitutional procedure to promote fundamental rights’ protection. However, the main formulas highlighted rely on solutions tested on the national level which can compromise their efficacy. We perceive an inter-jurisdictional paradigm as the proper approach since it will allowthe promotion of effective judicial protection at a constitutional level as a new EU dogmatically thought phenomenon. This is to ensure judicial integration can be perceived as a reality, engaged in pursuing the future of the EU.

The Court Of Justice Of The European Union

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Takis Tridimas
Keyword(s):  
Early Stage ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Political Actors ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
History Of ◽  
New Institutions ◽  
Normative Foundations ◽  
The Eu

The influence of the Court of Justice in the development of EU law has been defining and, in some respects, unprecedented in the history of legal systems. The Court has shaped EU law by establishing the distinct constitutional features of the EU legal order, protecting fundamental rights, defining the internal market, and expanding EU competence. In short, it has had an overwhelming influence in shaping both the economic and the political constitution of the EU. The importance of the judiciary in the development of EU law is not accidental. It has been the result of treaty design, judicial behaviour, and the cooperation of political actors. From its inception, the project of European integration was based on grand objectives, the adoption of framework treaties, and the establishment of new institutions, including an independent court. Treaty design facilitated institutional empowerment and favoured ‘integration through law’ as the underlying narrative. From an early stage, the Court saw itself as the exponent of the normative foundations of integration as a process of catharsis emerging from the ideology of nationalism that led to the Second World War. By establishing direct effect, the Court essentially abolished the state monopoly to grant rights, thereby creating a nascent

Travauxto the EU Treaties: Preparatory Work as a Source of EU Law

2015 ◽  
Vol 17 ◽  
pp. 145-167 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuli MIETTINEN ◽  
Merita KETTUNEN
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Dynamic Interpretation ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Preparatory Work ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe Court of Justice of the European Union has historically rejected references to preparatory work in the interpretation of EU Treaties. However, the preparatory work for the EURATOM, Maastricht, and Constitutional Treaties have played a role in recent judgments. The ‘explanations’ to the Charter of Fundamental Rights are expressly approved in the current Treaties. We examine the emerging case law on preparatory work. Reference to the drafters’ intent does not necessarily support dynamic interpretation, and may potentially even ossify historical interpretations. Even if the consequence of their introduction is a conservative interpretation, their use raises questions of transparency and democracy, and complicates the already difficult task of interpreting the EU constitution.

scholarly journals Limits on Limitations: The Essence of Fundamental Rights in the EU

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (6) ◽  
pp. 779-793 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koen Lenaerts
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Present Contribution ◽  
Competing Interests ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Right ◽  
The Eu

AbstractThe concept of the essence of a fundamental right—set out in Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (the “Charter”)—operates as a constant reminder that our core values as Europeans are absolute. In other words, they are not up for balancing. As the seminal judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (the “CJEU”) in Schrems shows, where a measure imposes a limitation on the exercise of a fundamental right that is so intense and so comprehensive that it calls into question that right as such, that measure is incompatible with the Charter, as it deprives the right at issue of its essence. This is so without the need for a balancing exercise of competing interests, because a measure that compromises the very essence of a fundamental right is automatically disproportionate. Therefore, the present contribution supports the contention that in order for the concept of essence to function in a constitutionally meaningful way, both EU and national courts should apply the “respect-for-the-essence test” before undertaking a proportionality assessment.

scholarly journals Austerity on the loose in Portugal: European judicial restraint in times of crisis

2016 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. E-105-E-132 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francisco Pereira Coutinho
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Official Journal ◽  
Social Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Rule Of Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Lower Courts ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
The Eu

Abstract The international bailout granted to Portugal between 2011 and 2014 was conditional on the adoption by the Portuguese State of austerity measures included in a memorandum of understanding (MoU) signed by the European Commission on behalf of the European Union (EU) and the Member States. The MoU was never published in an official journal or even translated into the Portuguese language. Its implementation caused a significant decrease in the level of protection of social rights. The compatibility of the MoU with core principles of the rule of law and with the EU’s social Constitution was never tested in court. A systemic failure in the jurisdictional system of the EU immunized the MoU to any judicial challenge. At the apex of the system, the Court of Justice of the EU declined to answer preliminary references submitted by Portuguese lower courts that questioned the compatibility with the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU of national budgetary measures that implemented the MoU. At the bottom, Portuguese courts either failed to properly identify the EU law acts that were the source of national austerity measures or disregarded their role as common EU law courts of ordinary jurisdiction when they bypassed the opportunity to refer a question for a preliminary ruling of the Court of Justice challenging the validity of the MoU.

The preliminary ruling procedure at the court of justice of the European Union and transformation of European anti-discrimination law

2020 ◽  
Vol 2020 (3) ◽  
pp. 66-72
Author(s):  
Elena Sorokina
Keyword(s):  
Legal System ◽  
Essential Feature ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Protection Of Human Rights ◽  
The Eu

The preliminary ruling procedure is an essential feature of the EU legal system, which is a unique cooperation tool as part of the dialogue between the Court of Justice of the EU and national courts of the Member States. Its main purpose is to ensure uniform interpretation and application of the provisions of EU law with all Member States and to preserve the uniformity of the European legal system. The continuous use by national courts of the Member States of the mechanism of preliminary ruling and constructive inter-judicial cooperation, the Court of Justice has developed an extremely extensive case law on the prohibition of discrimination and with the result to introduce substantial changes in European anti-discrimination law.The preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice have shown its inclination to expand notions of what constitutes discrimination and in most cases the Court prompt by the desire to interpret the provisions of European law so as to ensure the full effectiveness of the law, as well as a willingness to promote and strengthen protection against discrimination in Europe. While the protection against discrimination on some grounds is stronger than others, however, the preliminary rulings of the Court of Justice are important contribution to the transformation of anti-discrimination law, promote change in the national legislation of the Member States and provide the more effective protection of human rights in general.

Article 51 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights from the Perspective of the National Judge

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 53-85
Author(s):  
Petr Mádr
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Track Record ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Relevant Case ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Scope Of Application ◽  
The Eu ◽  
Academic Debate

This article contributes to the growing scholarship on the national application of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights ('the Charter') by assessing what challenges national courts face when dealing with Article 51 of the Charter, which sets out the Charter's material scope of application. In keeping with this aim, the relevant case law of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) – with its general formulas, abstract guidance and implementation categories – is discussed strictly from the perspective of the national judge. The article then presents the findings of a thorough study of the case law of the Czech Supreme Administrative Court (SAC) and evaluates this Court's track record when assessing the Charter's applicability. National empirical data of that kind can provide valuable input into the CJEU-centred academic debate on the Charter's scope of application.

Legal conflict between the EU and the republic of Poland regarding polish judicial reform

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan Yakovyuk ◽  
Suzanna Asiryan ◽  
Anastasiya Lazurenko
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Reform ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Constitutional Tribunal ◽  
The Republic ◽  
The Eu

Problem setting. On October 7, 2021, the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland ruled in favor of Polish law over European Union law, which in the long run may violate the principles according to which the Union operates and the rights enjoyed by citizens of the state. Such a precedent can further serve as a basis for identical decisions of the bodies of constitutional jurisdiction of those states that have problems in fulfilling their obligations in the European community. Analysis of recent researches and publications. The problems of the functioning of the bodies of the European Union, the implementation of their decisions and the general status in EU law are widely studied in national science. In particular, many scholars have studied the legal nature of the EU, including: TM Anakina, VI Muravyov, NM Ushakov, A. Ya. Kapustina, NA Korolyova, Yu. Yumashev, BN Topornin, OYa Tragniuk, SS Seliverstov, IV Yakovyuk and others. Target of research is to establish the foundations of EU law in the functioning of Union bodies, especially the Court, as well as to determine the hierarchy of national law and EU law. Article’s main body. Over the years, the Court has, within its jurisdiction, issued a large number of judgments which have become the source of the Union’s Constituent Treaties and of EU law in general. Over the last two decades, the powers of the Court of Justice have changed significantly. In particular, this is due to the adoption of the Lisbon Treaty, which amended the EU’s founding treaties on the powers of the Court, then the reform of the European Court took place in 2015-2016, which concerned a change in the organizational structure of the Court. Despite the generally well-established case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the unification of the observance by the Member States of the basic principles of the European Union, the Constitutional Tribunal of the Republic of Poland adopted a decision on 7 October. Conclusions and prospects for the development. Following the decision of the Constitutional Court, the Polish authorities found themselves in a situation that significantly complicated its internal and external situation. The way out of which requires answers to fundamental questions about the legal nature of the EU. Undoubtedly, this is an issue not only between Poland and the EU, but also between other member states.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document