scholarly journals Prejudicinio sprendimo procedūros kaip alternatyvos privačių subjektų teikiamiems ieškiniams dėl ES teisės akto panaikinimo trūkumai

Teisė ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 79 ◽  
pp. 48-64
Author(s):  
Agnė Limantė
Keyword(s):  
Present Article ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Main Attention ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Judicial Protection

Atmesdamas privačių subjektų teikiamus tiesioginius ieškinius dėl ES teisės aktų panaikinimo (SESV 263 straipsnis), Europos Sąjungos Teisingumo Teismas dažnai atkreipia dėmesį į prejudicinio sprendimo procedūros (SESV 267 straipsnis) teikiamas galimybes. Straipsnyje vertinama prejudicinio sprendimo procedūra Europos Sąjungos Teisingumo Teisme kaip alternatyva tiesioginiams ieškiniams dėl ES teisės akto panaikinimo, daugiausia dėmesio skiriant prejudicinių sprendimų trūkumams, dėl kurių šis alternatyvus ES teisės aktų teisėtumo kontrolės instrumentas ne visada garantuoja teisę į teisminę gynybą arba kelia gynybos veiksmingumo klausimų.When dismissing direct actions for annulment (Article 267 TFEU) European Court of Justice often refers to preliminary ruling procedure (Article 267 TFEU) as an alternative way to seek judicial review of EU legal act. Taking this into account, the present article examines preliminary ruling procedure in the European Court of Justice as an alternative to direct actions for annulment, the main attention paying to the shortcomings which result in failure in some cases to provide judicial protection or to ensure effective judicial protection.

Ensuring Effective Judicial Review of EU Soft Law via the Action for Annulment before the EU Courts: a Plea for a Liberal-Constitutional Approach

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 466-492
Author(s):  
Giulia Gentile
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Liberal Constitutionalism ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
Constitutional Jurisprudence ◽  
The Eu

Judicial review of EU soft law – Liberal-constitutionalism – Principle of effective judicial protection – The liberal-constitutional jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice – Action for annulment – Formalistic understanding of the concept of ‘legally binding effects’ – Preliminary ruling procedure – Limitations of the preliminary ruling procedure in granting effective judicial protection in relation to EU soft law – A plea for a liberal-constitutional reading of Articles 263 and 288 TFEU in relation to direct review of EU soft law

6. The preliminary ruling (Article 267 TFEU)

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nigel Foster
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Member States ◽  
Reference Procedure ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

This chapter examines the procedural law of the European Union (EU), focusing on Article 267 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). It explains that Article 267 is the reference procedure by which courts in member states can endorse questions concerning EU law to the European Court of Justice (CoJ). Under this Article, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has the jurisdiction to provide preliminary rulings on the validity and interpretation of acts of the institutions, bodies, offices, or agencies of the Union and on the interpretation of the Treaties.

Constitutional Courts, Preliminary Rulings and the “New Form of Law”: The Adjudication of the European Stability Mechanism

2015 ◽  
Vol 16 (6) ◽  
pp. 1771-1790 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samo Bardutzky
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
The Other ◽  
Constitutional Courts ◽  
High Courts ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
European Stability Mechanism ◽  
New Form

In 2012 and 2013, we observed how the European Stability Mechanism (ESM) was adjudicated by “EU courts, plural”: a number of high courts of the Member States (among them “Kelsenian” constitutional courts as well as representatives of a more hybrid model of judicial review of constitutionality) and the European Court of Justice (CJEU) were seized by challenges to the mechanism. What attracted attention was the fact that only one court, the Supreme Court of Ireland, decided to submit a preliminary reference to the CJEU, while the other courts, as would appear from their judgments, did not even consider the option. This was a suboptimal example of judicial dialogue in the case of ESM adjudication.

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.

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 The Cogeco Case: The First Preliminary Ruling on the Private Enforcement Directive

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 81-106
Author(s):  
Catarina Vieira Peres
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Controversial Issue ◽  
Private Enforcement ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Major Interest

In March this year, the European Court of Justice (hereinafter “CJ”) answered the first preliminary question regarding the Private Enforcement Directive (“Directive”).1 One might expect this decision2 to remain relevant for the next few years, as it sheds some light on the rather intricate issue of the Directive’s temporal application. The CJ explains what rules are applicable to actions for damages regarding infringements which occurred prior either to the Directive’s adoption or to its implementation in the respective Member States. The case is also of major interest since it illustrates the role that the principle of effectiveness can play when applied alongside Articles 101 or 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (“TFEU”).3 Finally, albeit not expressly addressed, the case is also of interest regarding the controversial issue of parent company liability in private enforcement, where it represents a novelty in the Portuguese legal order.

The Principle of Non-discrimination in Respect of Age: Dimensions of the ECJ's Mangold Judgment

2006 ◽  
Vol 7 (5) ◽  
pp. 505-524 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marlene Schmidt
Keyword(s):  
General Framework ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Framework Agreement ◽  
Community Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Council Directive ◽  
European Court ◽  
Answering Questions

On 22 November 2005, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) delivered a judgement in a preliminary ruling procedure from the Arbeitsgericht München (Labour Court Munich), answering questions concerning the interpretation of Clauses 2, 5 and 8 of the Framework Agreement on fixed-term contracts, put into effect by Council Directive 1999/70/EC of 28 June 1999, and as regards the construction of Article 6 of Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000 establishing a general framework for equal treatment in employment and occupation. Essentially, the Arbeitsgericht wanted to know whether a statutory provision exempting employees of 52 years of age and older from limitations to the conclusion of fixed-term contracts was compatible with Community law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document