Why is the Köbler Principle Not Applied in Practice?

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 984-1008
Author(s):  
Zsó;fia Varga
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Supreme Courts ◽  
Effective Application ◽  
Actual Role ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
State Liability ◽  
The Impact

Since the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in Köbler, there has been speculation that state liability for violation of EU law by national supreme courts might remain mere theory. However, more than a decade after the CJEU judgment, there is no study available to confirm or disprove this assumption. This article seeks to fill this gap by providing an analysis on the practice and the impact of the liability principle. According to the research conducted, only about 35 Köbler actions have been reported over the last 13 years from all of the 28 Member States, of which only four have been successful. This article investigates why this enforcement deficit of the liability principle can be observed. Therefore, the article examines the main limitations to the effective application of the Köbler doctrine in order to understand their actual role in hindering the establishment of liability and the allocation of damages. In this context, it also examines whether, and to what extent, the liability principle has contributed to the protection of individual rights and the effective application of EU law over the last thirteen years.

8. Enforcing EU law

2020 ◽  
pp. 205-239
Author(s):  
Sylvia de Mars
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Indirect Effect ◽  
Similar Process ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Enforcement Action ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
State Liability ◽  
The Impact

This chapter addresses the Treaty's provisions on the enforcement of EU law, particularly looking at Articles 258–260 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). The European Commission's enforcement action, known as ‘infringement proceedings’, is set out in Article 258 TFEU. If the Commission proves an infringement has occurred, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will issue a binding verdict that requires the Member State to rectify the breach: in other words, to amend its domestic laws until they are compliant with EU law. Article 260 TFEU makes clear, however, that the CJEU can only order ‘compliance’. Article 259 sets out a very similar process, rarely used, for Member State v Member State infringement proceedings. The chapter then considers the CJEU's development of the principles of direct and indirect effect and state liability, and explores the remedies for breaches of EU law. It also assesses the impact of Brexit on the enforcement of EU law.

The Impact of the Court of Justice of the European Union on Neighbouring Countries

2020 ◽  
pp. 349-396
Author(s):  
Arie Reich ◽  
Hans-W. Micklitz
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
A Priori ◽  
Policy Recommendations ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
The Third ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Many ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Legal Integration

The concluding chapter sums up the overall findings of the project through three different strands of analysis: the first breaks down the eleven jurisdictions into three groups based on the relative quantity and impact of Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) citations found in these jurisdictions. By drawing conclusions from all the country reports through a comparative and macro-perspective, the goal is to distil the insights of the entire project and formulate policy recommendations in the light of EU external policy and legal integration objectives vis-à-vis its neighbourhood; the second examines the many factors that a priori could have an impact on whether judges are likely to cite the CJEU in their judgments, and then discusses what the research has found in relation to the actual role played by these factors; the third tries to place the current project into the context of overall research on the global reach of EU law, which can be ‘exported’ to non-members of the EU through various mechanisms, such as mutual and formal agreement or through more unilateral and spontaneous forms. They include modes of extraterritorial application of EU law, territorial extension, and the so-called ‘Brussels Effect’. The chapter concludes with some general observations and thoughts and formulates possible policy recommendations.

The Impact of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the Russian Legal System

2020 ◽  
pp. 143-172
Author(s):  
Paul Kalinichenko
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Final Section ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
System P ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Russian Model

This chapter presents the findings of the author on the impact of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on the Russian legal system. To start with, this chapter includes a brief description of the background to the modern Russian legal system and, in particular, the structure of the Russian judiciary. The contribution goes on to describe the Russian model for approximating its legal order with EU rules and standards, as well as adding some remarks on the application of EU law by the Russian courts. Then follows an explanation of the specifics of the database used, together with a description and analysis of citation of CJEU decisions by Russian courts in the period 2006–18. Conclusions and recommendations are presented in the final section of the chapter.

The Impact of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the Turkish Legal System

2020 ◽  
pp. 115-140
Author(s):  
Ulaş Karan
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Government Procurement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
System P ◽  
Underlying Causes ◽  
Accession Process ◽  
The Impact

This chapter explores whether the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) produces any impact on the Turkish legal system and, if so, its possible underlying causes. Protection of intellectual, industrial, and commercial property rights, competition, trade defence instruments, government procurement, direct and indirect taxation have been regarded as the main areas of ‘approximation of legislation’. Accordingly, laws adopted mostly in the past three decades show that the influence of EU law is valid only in certain fields of law, such as intellectual property law, labour law, and competition law, and this is also where we find most CJEU citations. This influence forms part of the EU accession process, which requires Turkey to harmonize its laws with the acquis. According to the research, despite the existence of a long-standing accession process and legislation based on the acquis in certain fields of law, on the whole, the Turkish judiciary does not seem committed to follow EU law in general or CJEU jurisprudence in particular.

Addressing Issues of Protective Scope within the Francovich Right to Reparation

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-165 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael Dougan
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Free Movement ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Environmental Legislation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
State Liability ◽  
Employment Legislation ◽  
Public Bodies

EU Law – Member State liability in damages – Issues of protective scope about exactly which individuals/interests are protected – Conditions for Member State liability – Intention to confer rights criterion – Tendency towards a ‘checklist’ approach by the Court of Justice of the European Union – Potential implications for scope of Member State liability – Finding appropriate balance between protecting individuals and punishing public bodies – Example of free movement rights – Example of environmental legislation – Example of employment legislation

EU Law Concentrate

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Homewood
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Competition Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods ◽  
State Liability ◽  
The Eu

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. EU Law Concentrate provides essential information on all aspects of EU law, starting with the origins, institutions, and sources of law in the EU. It then moves on to consider supremacy, direct and indirect effect, and state liability. Chapter 4 looks at direct actions in the Court of Justice of the European Union. Articles 258–260, 263, 265, 277, and 340 are examined in detail. The next couple of chapters describe the free movement of goods and persons. The book ends with a consideration of EU Competition law, in particular Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

EU Law Concentrate

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Homewood
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Freedom Of Establishment ◽  
Essential Information ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Eu Competition Law ◽  
Free Movement Of Goods ◽  
State Liability ◽  
The Eu

Each Concentrate revision guide is packed with essential information, key cases, revision tips, exam Q&As, and more. Concentrates show you what to expect in a law exam, what examiners are looking for, and how to achieve extra marks. EU Law Concentrate provides essential information on all aspects of EU law, starting with the origins, institutions, and sources of law in the EU. It then moves on to consider supremacy, direct and indirect effect, and state liability. Chapter 4 looks at direct actions in the Court of Justice of the European Union. Articles 258–260, 263, 265, 277, and 340 are examined in detail. The next few chapters describe the free movement of goods, persons, and the freedom of establishment and freedom to provide (and receive) services. The book ends with a consideration of EU competition law, in particular Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU).

5. The Supremacy of EU Law

2021 ◽  
pp. 141-165
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Individual Rights ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
Member States ◽  
Rights Protection ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Individual

This chapter examines the supremacy of EU law from both the point of view of the Union, as understood by the Court of Justice of the European Union, and the point of view of member states. A consensus seems to be emerging from the national and constitutional courts that EU law supremacy is accepted only in so far as it does not infringe the individual rights protection of the national constitutions, in which case the constitutional courts will exercise their reserved rights over national constitutions to uphold them over inconsistent EU law or to review EU law in light of their own constitutions.

16. The Court of Justice of the European Union

2020 ◽  
pp. 298-315
Author(s):  
Simon Bulmer ◽  
Owen Parker ◽  
Ian Bache ◽  
Stephen George ◽  
Charlotte Burns
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Policy ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Judgments ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Structure And Functions ◽  
Made In

This chapter focuses on the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), which comprises two courts: the CJEU and the General Court. It first provides an overview of the CJEU’s structure and functions, and then discusses some of its main rulings and their significance. It further considers rulings on the powers of the institutions, some key legal judgments made in response to questions referred to the CJEU by national courts, the impact of CJEU rulings on EU policy, and post-Maastricht trends in the CJEU and EU law. It also assesses the evolving political reactions towards the judgments of the Court, along with the debate over whether the member states have been able to effectively curb the CJEU’s radical jurisprudence.

5. Limits to EU legislative powers

2020 ◽  
pp. 123-153
Author(s):  
Sylvia de Mars
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

This chapter investigates the EU's competences and the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality, assessing if the limits set out in the Treaties actually work as concrete limits on EU legislative powers in practice. It begins by considering whether competences are genuinely clear and finite in how they set out limits to areas in which the EU can make laws. There are three aspects of EU law that have been deemed responsible for the EU's competence creep: the flexible provisions of Article 114 TFEU (Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) and Article 352 TFEU, and the so-called doctrine of ‘implied powers’. Underpinning all three of these areas of ‘flexibility’ is criticism of the manner in which the Court of Justice has interpreted the relevant treaty provisions or doctrines. The chapter then evaluates the effectivity of the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality. It also looks at the impact of Brexit on the limits to EU legislative powers.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document