7. Doctrines of European Union law: direct effect, supremacy, state liability for breach of Union law and other remedies

2014 ◽  
pp. 147-201
Author(s):  
Margot Horspool ◽  
Matthew Humphreys
Author(s):  
Margot Horspool ◽  
Matthew Humphreys ◽  
Michael Wells-Greco

This chapter reviews the main doctrines or principles of EU law. It is divided into three sections: direct effect and indirect effect; supremacy or primacy; state liability for breach of Union law and other remedies.


2021 ◽  
pp. 186-248
Author(s):  
Margot Horspool ◽  
Matthew Humphreys ◽  
Michael Wells-Greco

This chapter examines the main doctrines or principles of EU law. It is divided into three sections. It starts with a discussion on the principle of direct effect and indirect effect, with reference to regulations, directives and international agreements. It then considers the doctrine of supremacy or primacy of EU law with reference to a selection of Member States and the UK. The chapter also considers state liability for breach of EU law, and other remedies.


2016 ◽  
pp. 156-212
Author(s):  
Margot Horspool ◽  
Matthew Humphreys ◽  
Michael Wells-Greco ◽  
Siri Harris ◽  
Noreen O’Meara

2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (31) ◽  
pp. 64-76 ◽  
Author(s):  
Valentin Paul Neamt

Abstract This paper presents the remedies available to persons whose European law rights have been infringed by judgments given by national Courts. The paper firsts presents the concept of state liability for judicial errors in relation to European law, as it stems from the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, then goes on to show how the European Court of Human Rights may give redress to such aggrieved parties. Finally, it discusses the differences in the possibility of redress given by the two courts and the compatibility between their approaches, finally leading to a discussion on the possible convergence of the two.


2012 ◽  
Vol 61 (3) ◽  
pp. 585-611
Author(s):  
Arwel Davies

AbstractAs a consequence of the state unity theory, the conduct of all state organs is attributed to the state in an undifferentiated manner. It follows that, in both international and European Union law, state liability can be based on the substance of judicial decisions despite the independence of the judicial branch. However, beyond the matter of attribution, there is a significant divergence between the two legal systems. In international law, the judicial origin of challenged decisions does not influence the application of liability criteria, whereas, in EU law, the liability criteria can be applied to judicial decisions in a tightened manner. This article has the twofold aim of establishing and explaining this difference.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document