Appraisal of the Current Situation and Future Prospects

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Caroline Naômé
Keyword(s):  
Current Situation ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Future Prospects ◽  
The Creation ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
Court Of First Instance ◽  
Judicial Remedies ◽  
National Systems ◽  
The Eu

This chapter describes the characteristics of the ECJ appeal system, distinguishing it from comparable judicial remedies in national legal systems. One distinguishing feature is that it is a new remedy, created with a few rules that were not always clear. Lawyers working for the Court or pleading before it are not specialised in appeals and are influenced by national laws. Referral of a case back to the same judges as those who decided the quashed judgment is a possibility absent in many national systems. Judgments of the EU Courts have a specific style and content. The interpretation of EU law seems sometimes more important than a limited resolution of a dispute. The second section recalls the objectives underlying the creation of the Court of First Instance (General Court/GCEU) and assesses whether those objectives have been met as regards the ECJ’s caseload and the judicial protection of individuals.

scholarly journals Divergence of romano-germanic and anglo-american legal systems on the example of brexit

2020 ◽  
pp. 144-153
Author(s):  
Tetjana Humeniuk
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Integration ◽  
Practical Importance ◽  
Mutual Transformation ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Political Processes ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
The Eu

Purpose. The purpose of the article is to analyze topical issues of divergence of the Romano-Germanic and Anglo-American legal systems on the example of Brexit. Methodology. The methodology involves a comprehensive study of theoretical and practical material on this subject, as well as formulation of relevant conclusions and recommendations. The following methods of scientific cognition were used in the research process: dialectical, terminological, formal and logical, comparative and legal, system and functional methods. Results. The study found that an important role in resolving conflicts between EU law and UK national law was played by the Court of Justice of the European Union which declared British legislation invalid since it was not in line with EU law. Thanks to the case law of the CJEU and the national courts of the United Kingdom, it has been possible to adjust and harmonize the interaction between EU law and the national law of this country. As European integration is formed on the basis of a supreme legal force created by external (supranational) bodies, the national bodies that form the national rules of British law inevitably give up part of their powers in favor of EU law. Brexit is just the beginning of a long series of problematic issues that will arise in the EU as a result of member states’ more or less serious objections to a radical course to deepen European integration. And under such conditions, there is a widespread understanding that finding clear and effective answers to new challenges requires finding new conceptual (and most importantly, effective) approaches to the future functioning of the EU, as old mechanisms and methods no longer work properly and do not resolve contradictions spreading and becoming more acute. Scientific novelty. The study shows that the withdrawal of Britain from the European Union initiates a large-scale process of mutual transformation of the legal systems of both parties, the effectiveness of which will be determined by the realities of European geopolitical environment as well as domestic political processes within Great Britain itself. Practical importance. Research materials can be used for comparative law studies.

Article 50 TEU: The Quest for an Orderly Withdrawal and the Possibility of Alternative Denouements

2021 ◽  
pp. 21-47
Author(s):  
Michael Dougan
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Article 50 ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Eu

This chapter sets out the basic constitutional framework, under EU law, governing the withdrawal of a Member State. Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union recognizes the sovereign right of any State to leave the EU and sets out a process for agreeing the terms of an orderly departure. But Brexit also required the EU and the UK to undertake extensive internal preparations, to ensure their own legal systems were ready for the UK’s departure. Moreover, Article 50 itself is drafted in only brief and sketchy terms, leaving many important decisions about Brexit to be worked out in practice. And EU law allows for other final outcomes to the withdrawal process—including a ‘no deal Brexit’; or the UK’s right to ‘revoke and remain’ under the Wightman ruling.

scholarly journals La tutela judicial de los derechos fundamentales en el ámbito de aplicación nacional del derecho de la Unión Europea : recientes acotaciones del Tribunal de Justicia y del Tribunal ConstitucionalEspañol = The judicial protection of fundamental rights in the sphere of the national application of EU law : recent remarks by the Court of Justice and by the Spanish Constitutional Court

2013 ◽  
pp. 391
Author(s):  
Juan Ignacio Ugartemendia Eceizabarrena
Keyword(s):  
National Level ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
National Standards ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
El Sistema ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
The Eu

Este artículo es un estudio relativo a la tutela judicial de los Derechos Fundamentales cuando se aplica Derecho de la Unión en el ámbito interno, y a cuáles son los principales problemas con los que se topa el Juez nacional que aplica el Derecho de la Unión al llevar a cabo dicha función protectora. El trabajo, dicho de forma más concreta, se centra en el examen de una serie de recientes y decisivas resoluciones jurisdiccionales, dictadas tanto por parte del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea como por parte del Tribunal Constitucional Español, que analizan problemas y señalan soluciones relativas a esas cuestiones, además de mostrar cuál es la evolución y el estado de la situación al respecto. Se trata de resoluciones que abordan cuestiones de fondo, como, por ejemplo: ¿hasta qué punto es posible utilizar estándares nacionales de protección de los Derechos Fundamentales en situaciones conectadas con el Derecho de la Unión o con su aplicación, en lugar de utilizar el sistema de protección de los Derechos Fundamentales de la Unión Europea? Y asimismo, resoluciones que atienden a cuestiones de dimensión más procesal como la de dirimir hasta qué punto tiene autonomía el Juez nacional a la hora de plantear una petición prejudicial (se entiende a la hora de tutelar derechos reconocidos por normas de la Unión) en relación a las normas procesales nacionales.This article deals with the judicial protection of fundamental rights when EU Law is applied at national level and the main problems national judges have to deal with when applying EU Law as protectors of rights. More precisely, the work is focused on the examination of some recent and decisive judicial decisions, both by the European Court of Justice and by the Spanish Constitutional Court which analyze the problems and address the solutions to those questions besides showing the evolution and current situation in that regard. They are decisions that deal with the merits as for example to which extent it might be possible to use national standards of protection of fundamental rights in situations connected to EU Law or to its application instead of using the system of protection of EU human rights. Likewise, they are decisions which handle with more procedural questions as for example to what extent national judges are autonomous to file a preliminary question (it is understood that when it comes time to protect rights acknowledged by the EU) relative to national procedural rules.

scholarly journals Joined Cases A. K. v. Krajowa Rada Sądownictwa (C-585/18) and CP (C-624/18), DO (C-625/18) v. Sąd Najwyższy (C.J.E.U.)

2020 ◽  
Vol 59 (3) ◽  
pp. 459-486
Author(s):  
Joelle Grogan
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Independence ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
European Standard ◽  
Current Case ◽  
Member States ◽  
Eu Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
National Measure ◽  
The Eu

Joined Cases C-585/18, C-624/18, and C-625/18 concerning the independence of the Disciplinary Chamber of the Sąd Najwyższy (Polish Supreme Court) is the latest in a series of European Union (EU) Member States requesting the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) to rule on the independence of their judicial systems. While the organization of justice systems within Member States is a competence of Member States (and thus not for the EU to determine or decide), the CJEU has held that Member States are nevertheless required to comply with obligations under EU law to ensure effective judicial protection and, as a necessary corollary, judicial independence. The significance of the current case lies in the formulation by the CJEU of a “European” standard of judicial independence, and its finding that national judges may set aside the jurisdiction of courts found not to be independent against that standard and to disapply any national measure (in accordance with the principle of the primacy of EU law over national law) that gives jurisdiction to a non-independent court.

National Procedural Autonomy and General EU Law Limits

2019 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-34
Author(s):  
Rob Widdershoven
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Recent Approach ◽  
Procedural Autonomy ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
The Eu

This article examines the recent approach of the European Court of Justice of the EU towards the applicability of procedural national law in cases falling within the scope of Union law. It argues that the Court increasingly assesses such rules within the framework of the principle of effective judicial protection, as bindingly codified in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Right of the EU since December 2009. This test is gradually replacing the rather deferential test on the Rewe principles of equivalence and effectiveness and implies a further limitation of procedural autonomy of the Member States. The reason for the shift seems to be the necessity to coordinate the Court's case law on Article 47 CFR with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights on Article 6 ECHR, because this coordination requires the application of a similar standard by both European Courts. As a result, the importance of, in particular, the Rewe principle of effectiveness, has already decreased to a considerable extent and might decrease further in future. Nevertheless, it is not to be expected that this standard will be abolished completely. First, because it may provide an adequate standard for assessing procedural issues that are not related to effective judicial protection or Article 47 CFR. Secondly, because incidentally it may be used by the Court for modifying national procedural law with a view to the effective application of substantive EU rules.

Future Prospects for Climate Engineering within the EU Legal Order

2016 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 60-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Floor Fleurke
Keyword(s):  
Legal Order ◽  
Climate Mitigation ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Future Prospects ◽  
Climate Engineering ◽  
Eu Policy ◽  
Mitigation And Adaptation ◽  
Different Response ◽  
Rule Out ◽  
The Eu

This article explores the prospects for the EU to develop a coherent policy regarding climate engineering (CE). To this end, we explore the most significant legal parameters derived from EU law from which such a future EU policy would have to arise. Obviously, in view of the principle of conferral, it must first be established if the EU enjoys competences to initiate a discrete policy on climate engineering. The mere fact that the EU presides over a plethora of climate mitigation and adaptation instruments is not sufficient to conclude that it likewise has competence to initiate a policy of intentional environmental change. Rather, precisely because climate engineering is such a different response to climate change than anything undertaken before, we must establish whether that difference is of a nature so as to rule out a future EU policy on climate engineering.

scholarly journals The Randstad Case: Melki Reloaded? The Fundamental Right to Effective Judicial Protection as Battleground for Judicial Supremacy in European Law

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 53-68
Author(s):  
Orlando Scarcello
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Constitutional Court ◽  
European Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Supremacy ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
The Eu

This paper will examine the recent preliminary reference to the European Court of Justice issued by the Italian Court of Cassation in the Randstad case, aimed at rearranging the internal constitutional separation between ordinary and administrative courts (article 111(8) of the Constitution). I will first provide some context on both the relations between Italian and EU courts (2.1) and on the confrontation between the Court of Cassation and the Constitutional Court in interpreting article 111 (2.2). I will then specifically examine the referring order to the Court of Justice of the EU (3), focusing on the role of general clauses of EU law as articles 4(3) and 19 TEU and 47 of the Charter in it. Finally, I will consider the instrumental use of EU law made by the Cassation to overcome an unpleasant constitutional arrangement. This aligns Randstad with previous cases such as Melki or A v. B and may foster constitutional conflict in the future. 

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 Competences of the Union

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodore Konstadinides
Keyword(s):  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Active Part ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
Member States ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Salient Features ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Vertical Level ◽  
The Eu

The object of this chapter is to examine the way in which competences are designed and delineated in EU law at the vertical level between the EU and the Member States and discuss their salient features. Over the years, EU competences have expanded, although not as meteorically as one may think. To alleviate concerns among Member States about the impact of EU competence enlargement upon national legal systems, a number of principles were designed to limit the powers of the EU. Having said that, there is hardly today an area of regulation in which the EU does not play an active part—from trade and energy to sport and fundamental rights protection.

Is specific jurisdiction dead and did we murder it? An appraisal of the Brussels Ia Regulation in the globalizing context of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michiel Poesen
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Subject Matter ◽  
Theoretical Foundation ◽  
Explanatory Model ◽  
Close Connection ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Current State ◽  
The Eu

Abstract Specific jurisdiction in the European Union (EU) is in a state of flux. While its theoretical foundation varies among legal systems, the explanatory model in EU law—established by the Brussels Ia Regulation—is the close geographical connection between a dispute’s subject matter and a court. It is believed that the court with such a connection is best positioned to judge the matter. Therefore, Article 7 of the Brussels Ia Regulation allocates jurisdiction over subject matters as broadly defined as contracts and torts to the court of an array of predetermined locations. However, in reality the courts so identified will not always have a close connection to the dispute. Nonetheless, the court of that place has jurisdiction. This article will evaluate the legitimacy of denying a more concrete role to the linkage between a forum and a dispute. It will also contrast the current state of play in the EU with the approach taken in the jurisdictional filters featuring in the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document