A Dialectic of Effective Judicial Protection and Mutual Trust in the European Administrative Space: Towards the Transnational Judicial Review of Manifest Error?

2021 ◽  
Vol 13 (4) ◽  
pp. 7-31
Author(s):  
Catherine Warin

The courts of the EU's Member States have a duty to ensure the effective protection of individuals who are confronted with administrative decisions potentially infringing their rights. However, the principle of mutual trust is often understood as a limit to this protection. This is in so far as it requires domestic courts to abstain from reviewing decisions made by administrations of other Member States, even though such decisions may have effects beyond national boundaries. As transnational administrative procedures become increasingly frequent, this article analyses the implications of the principles of effective judicial protection and of mutual trust on the review of such procedures by domestic courts. It shows how, by gradually allowing domestic courts to review certain types of manifest errors committed beyond their national jurisdiction, the CJEU is moving past the apparent opposition of these principles. It finally argues that developing the transnational judicial review of manifest error may help improve the effective judicial protection of individuals.

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-90
Author(s):  
Filipe Brito Bastos

Composite administrative procedures – Exclusive jurisdiction of Union courts to review non-binding national preparatory acts – No jurisdiction of Union courts to enforce national law – Autonomy and uniformity of EU law – No judicial control possible of violation of domestic law by national authorities – National rule of law gap – Judicial review, effective judicial protection, and principle of administrative legality


2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 141-165
Author(s):  
Ulrich Stelkens

The history of German public procurement law is a history of attempts by the German legislator to implement the EU public procurement directives on judicial protection, namely Directive 89/665/EEC of 21 December 1989, as minimally as possible. Paradoxically, the history of German procurement law is also the history of an increased spreading of the model of judicial review in 'competitive award procedures' underlying Directive 89/665/EEC to other administrative procedures. Here, one can discern mutual fertilization of the discussions on the minimal standards for judicial protection foreseen in Directive 89/665/EEC, as well as a parallel discussion on minimal standards (directly derived from the German constitution) for judicial review in competitive award procedures concerning the recruitment of public officials. On this basis, one may discern trends in German case law, administrative practice, and scholarship towards developing judicial review systems in competitive award procedures for public procurement beyond the thresholds set by the EU directives. This is relevant for privatizations, gambling licences, and procedures to grant the right to use public spaces, to name only a few. However, these trends encounter difficulties because the German General Administrative Court Procedure Act and other relevant legislation are not tailored to competitive award procedures. This article will analyse these different trends and suggest explanations for them.


2021 ◽  
pp. 203228442110276
Author(s):  
Tricia Harkin

The case law of the Court of Justice from 2016 to 2019 on the interpretation of ‘judicial authority’ in Article 6(1) FD-EAW essentially examines whether a public prosecutor can be an issuing judicial authority and if so, how Member States’ systems for issuing EAWs ensure effective judicial protection for the person concerned. For the Advocate General, applying the Court’s ‘rule of law’ jurisprudence, effective judicial protection when deprivation of liberty is involved can only be assured by a body with the highest level of judicial independence, being a court. The Court’s broader approach of including public prosecutors with sufficiency of independence from the executive and requiring their decisions to be amenable to review by a court, when applied in practice arguably falls short of the requisite standard of effective judicial protection. There is also a lack of clarity about access to the interpretative jurisdiction of the Court by public prosecutors acting as judicial authorities. Effective judicial protection and EU cooperation in criminal matters would now be better served by the designation in all Member States of a court as the issuing judicial authority for the FD-EAW. This is against the background of the uniquely coercive nature of the EAW in terms of deprivation of liberty; the differences in Member States’ institutional arrangements for public prosecutors and the post-Lisbon effective constitutionalisation of judicial protection of rights of individuals.


Author(s):  
Aida TORRES PÉREZ

Abstract This contribution will tackle a central question for the architecture of fundamental rights protection in the EU: can we envision a Charter that fully applies to the Member States, even beyond the limits of its scope of application? To improve our understanding of the boundaries of the Charter and the potential for further expansion, I will examine the legal avenues through which the CJEU has extended the scope of application of EU fundamental rights in fields of state powers. While the latent pull of citizenship towards a more expansive application of the Charter has not been fully realized, the principle of effective judicial protection (Article 19(1) TEU) has recently shown potential for protection under EU law beyond the boundaries of the Charter. As will be argued, effective judicial protection may well become a doorway for full application of the Charter to the Member States. While such an outcome might currently seem politically unsound, I contend that a progressive case-by-case expansion of the applicability of the Charter to the Member States would be welcome from the standpoint of a robust notion of the rule of law in the EU.


Author(s):  
Valsamis Mitsilegas

The article will examine the challenges that the establishment of the European Public Prosecutor’s Office poses for the rule of law – a question which has been underexplored in the policy and academic debate on the establishment of the EPPO, which focused largely on questions of structure and powers of the EPPO and the battle between intergovernmental and supranational visions of European prosecution. The implications of the finally adopted legal framework on the EPPO on the rule of law will be analysed primarily from the perspective of the rule of law as related to EPPO investigations and prosecutions and their consequences for affected individuals – in terms of legal certainty and foreseeability, protection from executive arbitrariness, effective judicial protection and defence rights. The article will undertake a rule of law audit of the EPPO by focusing on three key elements of its legal architecture – the competence of the EPPO, applicable law and judicial review – and the interaction between EU and national levels of investigation and prosecution that the EPPO Regulation envisages. The analysis will aim to cast light on the current rule of law deficit in a hybrid system of European prosecution located somewhere between co-operation and integration.


2021 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-28
Author(s):  
Kathrin Hamenstädt

Mutual trust constitutes the foundation of the principle of mutual recognition, which in turn embodies a cornerstone of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ). This contribution explores the development of the relationship between trust and distrust in two mutual recognition regimes of the AFSJ. It bases on the premise that trust and distrust are inextricably linked, and that their relationship should not be perceived as one of mutual exclusivity or contradiction. The analysis addresses exceptions to mutual recognition, which are often perceived as manifestations of distrust, and examines their potential impact on mutual trust. It is submitted that exceptions to mutual recognition are necessary requirements for building and maintaining trust in the AFSJ and that they constitute an adaptation of the principle of mutual recognition to the particularities of the AFSJ. Next to the horizontal dimension of trust (i.e., trust among Member States) the analysis adds a new perspective by highlighting the importance of the vertical dimension of trust.


2002 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 39-60 ◽  
Author(s):  
Graham Taylor ◽  
Andy Mathers

This paper explores the logical and historical determinants of European integration and reflects on the potential and dangers this presents for labour movement renewal. Through the principle of ‘subsidiarity’ a regulatory gap has been established between political mobilisation at the national level and neo-liberal regulation at the European level. The historical determination of this form is traced through an exploration of the social struggles against neo-liberalism that have developed within member states and transnational mobilizations that bridge this regulatory gap by linking resistance across national boundaries.


2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (16) ◽  
pp. 191-203
Author(s):  
Karolis Kačerauskas

The Slovak hybrid mail services case (or Slovenska posta case) is truly unique in EU jurisprudence. Within the last decade, the European Commission rarely applied Article 106(1) in conjunction with Article 102 TFEU to challenge competition distortions in individual cases. Thus Slovenska posta constitutes one of the rare examples of such enforcement. Slovenska posta also constitutes a very rare example of a judicial review of Commission decisions based on Article 106(1) and 102 TFEU. Slovenska posta is only the second case when European courts were called upon to review the application of Article 106(1) and 102 TFEU by the Commission and the first when the judicial review was conducted over a Commission decision regarding “failure to meet the demand”. Indeed, since 1989–1990 (when the Commission commenced to apply Article 106(1) and 102 TFEU to challenge competition distortions introduced by the Member States) and until 2014, when the Court of Justice adopted its decision in Greek lignite (DEI) case, none of the Commission decisions was reviewed by EU courts. Such lack of appeals resulted in a rather strange situation under which the Commission and CJEU developed their own jurisprudence on the application of Article 106(1) and 102 TFEU and occasionally interpreted the same legal criteria differently. In this regard, a court review in Slovenska posta was eagerly awaited in the hope it would reconcile these diverging positions and provide more clarity on the application of Article 106(1) and 102 TFEU.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document