Judicial review before national courts

2007 ◽  
pp. 75-170
Author(s):  
Pål Wennerås
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
National Courts

Judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy by the ECtHR and the (re)negotiation on the accession of the EU to the ECHR

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2198824
Author(s):  
Maria José Rangel de Mesquita
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Regional Level ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
Conclusion Section ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

The article addresses the issue of judicial control of the implementation of Common Foreign and Security Policy at international regional level within the framework of the relaunching of the negotiation in view of the accession of the EU to the ECHR. Considering the extent of jurisdiction of the CJEU in respect of Common Foreign and Security Policy field in the light of its case law (sections 1 and 2), it analyses the question of judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy within international regional justice by the ECtHR in the light of the ongoing negotiations (section 3), in the perspective of the relationship between non-national courts (section 3.A), having as background the (2013) Draft Agreement of accession (section 3.B.1). After addressing the relaunching of the negotiation procedure (section 3.B.2) and the issue of CFSP control by the ECtHR according to the recent (re)negotiation meetings (section 3.B.3), some concrete proposals, including for the redrafting of the accession agreement, will be put forward (section 3.B.4), as well as a conclusion (section 4).

Judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy by the ECtHR and the (re)negotiation on the accession of the EU to the ECHR

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 356-370
Author(s):  
Maria José Rangel de Mesquita
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Regional Level ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
Conclusion Section ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

The article addresses the issue of judicial control of the implementation of Common Foreign and Security Policy at international regional level within the framework of the relaunching of the negotiation in view of the accession of the EU to the ECHR. Considering the extent of jurisdiction of the CJEU in respect of Common Foreign and Security Policy field in the light of its case law (sections 1 and 2), it analyses the question of judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy within international regional justice by the ECtHR in the light of the ongoing negotiations (section 3), in the perspective of the relationship between non-national courts (section 3.A), having as background the (2013) Draft Agreement of accession (section 3.B.1). After addressing the relaunching of the negotiation procedure (section 3.B.2) and the issue of CFSP control by the ECtHR according to the recent (re)negotiation meetings (section 3.B.3), some concrete proposals, including for the redrafting of the accession agreement, will be put forward (section 3.B.4), as well as a conclusion (section 4).

Courts

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Craig
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Necessary Condition ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The Eu ◽  
The Way

The preceding chapter considered the foundations of judicial review in the EU. The discussion now turns to the EU Courts. The way in which the principles of review have developed has been affected by the jurisdictional divide between the CJEU and GC, and between these Courts and national courts. It will be argued that a necessary condition for an effective regime of judicial control is the existence of a rational judicial architecture, embracing the CJEU, GC, national courts, and agency boards of appeal.

Part V Judicial Review before the Court of Justice of the European Union, 3 Decentralized Judicial Review and Enforcement of EU State Aid Rules

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kreuschitz Viktor ◽  
Nehl Hanns Peter
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
State Aid ◽  
Common Market ◽  
Final Decision ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Common

This chapter assesses the enforcement of EU State aid rules. The Commission is not the only authority involved in the monitoring of State aid. As regards the supervision of Member States' compliance with their obligations under Articles 107 and 108 TFEU, the national courts also have an important role to play. The implementation of that system of control is a matter for both the Commission and the national courts, their respective roles being complementary but separate. Whilst assessment of the compatibility of aid measures with the common market falls within the exclusive competence of the Commission, subject to review by the Courts of the European Union, it is for national courts to ensure the safeguarding, until the final decision of the Commission, of the rights of individuals faced with a possible breach by State authorities of the prohibition laid down by Article 108(3) TFEU.

Application of the EU CFR by National Courts in Purely Domestic Cases

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
András Jakab
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Domestic Courts ◽  
Local Courts ◽  
Domestic Level ◽  
The Eu

This chapter argues that the most promising way to conceptualize the values of European constitutionalism in a judicially enforceable manner is through a creative reinterpretation of Article 51(1) EU CFR. It asserts that in order to create a fully fledged value community which benefits all its citizens equally, the CFR should become fully applicable in every case in its own right—even in purely domestic cases in domestic courts and even in the absence of a systemic failure of fundamental rights protection at the domestic level. This would mean that judicial review would be introduced across Europe via the supremacy of EU law. This judicial review would be decentralized in the sense that local courts could exercise it, but its unified application would be ensured by the preliminary procedure. The EU could thus become a ‘community of fundamental rights’ with nobody left behind.

Restricting Discretion: Judicial Review of Diplomatic Protection

2006 ◽  
Vol 75 (2) ◽  
pp. 279-307 ◽  
Author(s):  
Annemarieke Vermeer-Künzli
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Diplomatic Protection ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
National Governments

AbstractIn the last 30 years, individuals have increasingly filed complaints against their national governments for failure to exercise diplomatic protection on their behalf, in particular in cases of serious violations of international human rights law. Despite the fact that diplomatic protection has traditionally been regarded as a discretionary right of states, the national courts have invariably decided to enter into the merits of the case and to review the exercise of diplomatic protection by the executive. Initially, a draft article on this subject was not accepted by the International Law Commission in the Draft Articles on first reading, but an encouraging provision was included in the Draft Articles adopted on second reading. The development discussed in this article shows support for an obligation to exercise diplomatic protection in case of serious violations of human rights law.

Administrative Procedure and Judicial Review in the European Union

2021 ◽  
pp. 47-49
Author(s):  
Matteo Gnes
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Administrative Procedure ◽  
Administrative Action ◽  
National Courts ◽  
The Common ◽  
Procedural Requirement ◽  
The Eu

This chapter assesses administrative procedure and judicial review in the European Union. The requirement of judicial oversight of administrative action, which results from the common constitutional traditions of the Member States of the EU, is a general principle of EU law, and it is applicable both to proceedings before the Court of justice and before national courts, when EU law is invoked before them. The EU courts carry out a generalized review on any binding acts. Although there are certain differences between acts that may be challenged according to the different remedies provided by EU law, in order to be challengeable, the acts must fulfil several conditions. The most important are: they must be binding and produce legal effects, be definitive and be taken by EU institutions in the exercise of their competencies. Article 263 TFEU provides that the acts of EU institutions may be annulled on grounds of 'lack of competence, infringement of an essential procedural requirement, infringement of the Treaties or of any rule of law relating to their application, or misuse of powers'. Acts or failure to act may give rise to the liability of EU institutions.

Constitutionalism

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Transitional Justice ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Legal Theory ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Economic Rights ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Academic Conference ◽  
Global North ◽  
The Republic

This book is a compilation of twenty essays prepared for the occasion of the XIII Academic Conference of the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Colombia, held in Bogota in January of 2019. Gathering some of the most prominent authors in constitutionalism and legal theory, the chapters critically examine classical debates. These debates concern the role of judicial review in a democracy, the enforcement of socio-economic rights, the doctrine of unconstitutional amendments, the use of international and foreign precedents by national Courts, and the theory of transitional justice. The book opens a dialogue between philosophers and empirical researchers, building bridges between 'Global North' and 'Global South' approaches to constitutionalism. As such, it is an invitation to reengage with the classical debates on constitutionalism whilst also providing fresh insights into the future of this discipline.

scholarly journals NEWLY REFORMED PROCEEDINGS OF THE ARBITRATION AWARDS REVIEW AND INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL ARBITRATION AWARDS APPEAL IN CIVIL PROCEDURAL LEGISLATION OF UKRAINE

2019 ◽  
pp. 29-35
Author(s):  
Yu. Prytyka ◽  
D. Prytyka
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Arbitral Tribunal ◽  
Unified Approach ◽  
Interested Party ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
International Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Time Limits ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Initial Stage ◽  
Legal Nature

This article deals with the novelties of the reformed procedural legislation of Ukraine on appealing the decision of arbitration court and international commercial arbitration, as well as on new approaches to determining the legal nature of the proceedings in cases of appealing arbitration awards. At the same time, this study shows that the specific practical problems of a unified approach to terminology absence, in particular, "appeal" by arbitral tribunal or "challenge" by international commercial arbitration, still remain. In this article the problems of determining the objects of appeal and the expansion of the range of subjects of appeal against the decisions of arbitral tribunals, as well as the disputable issues, determining the jurisdiction of this category of cases are also considered. Special attention is paid to the examining the procedure for reviewing applications for annulment of decisions of the arbitral tribunal and international commercial arbitration, in particular the initial stage of production, time limits for challenging the arbitration award. Taking this into account, authors identify the ways to resolve the abovementioned practical problems, as well as the prospects for further reform of the judicial review institution over the enforcement of arbitral tribunals and international commercial arbitration decisions. In conclusion, authors prove, that the activity of national courts does not include the revision of the decisions of arbitration courts and international commercial arbitrations, since national courts do not check the legality and validity of the decisions; they do not review the substantive decision. In this case we consider a special mechanism for the control over the abuse of arbitrators' powers granted to them by law and by the parties to the arbitration agreement during the dispute resolution.The purpose of an appeal is to provide the interested party with the opportunity to apply limited judicial review of the arbitral award.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document