Understanding National Remedies and the Principle of National Procedural Autonomy: A Constitutional Approach

This article provides a constitutionally grounded understanding of the vexing principle of ‘national procedural autonomy’ that haunts the vindication of EU law in national court. After identifying tensions and confusion in the debate surrounding this purported principle of ‘autonomy’, the Article turns to the foundational text and structure of Union law to reconstruct the proper constitutional basis for deploying or supplanting national procedures and remedies. It further argues that much of the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union may be considered through the lens of ‘prudential avoidance’, ie the decision to avoid difficult constitutional questions surrounding the principle of conferral. As the last Part shows, a constitutional understanding of ‘national procedural authority’—not ‘autonomy’—helps clear up some persistent puzzles, and provides critical guidance for when deference to national procedures and remedies is appropriate, and when such deference is misplaced. Comparative references inform the argument along the way.

The Procedural Autonomy of Hungarian Administrative Justice as a Precondition of Effective Judicial Protection

<p>The article is aimed at showing the hesitant and slow developments whereby the Hungarian administrative justice should be approached to the dualistic model of administrative justice. After 40 years of almost total monism, and 25 years of transition, one decisive step was made with the promulgation of the Code of Administrative Court Procedure. The article investigates why its concept taking form in the declaration of the principle of autonomy of administrative court procedure rules is crucial for providing effective legal protection against administration in Hungary, and what safeguards the Code contains to foster this autonomy, and by this, the strengthening of a functional administrative justice.</p>

11. Judicial Powers II

This chapter discusses the ‘decentralized’ powers of the European Court of Justice. It looks at two specific constitutional principles that the Court has derived from the general duty of sincere cooperation: the principle of equivalence and the principle of effectiveness. Both principles have led to a significant judicial harmonization of national procedural laws. The chapter then turns to a third incursion into the procedural autonomy of national courts: the liability principle. While the previous two principles relied on the existence of national remedies for the enforcement of European law, this principle establishes a European remedy for proceedings in national courts. An individual can here, under certain conditions, claim compensatory damages resulting from a breach of European law. Importantly, the remedial competence of national courts is confined to national wrongs. They cannot give judgments on ‘European’ wrongs, as jurisdiction over the latter is—like the power to annul Union law—an exclusive power of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Finally, the chapter explores what happens in areas in which the Union has harmonized the remedial or jurisdictional competences of national courts.

11. Judicial Powers II

This chapter discusses the ‘decentralized’ powers of the European Court of Justice. It looks at two specific constitutional principles that the Court has derived from the general duty of sincere cooperation: the principle of equivalence and the principle of effectiveness. Both principles have led to a significant judicial harmonization of national procedural laws. The chapter then turns to a third incursion into the procedural autonomy of national courts: the liability principle. While the previous two principles relied on the existence of national remedies for the enforcement of European law, this principle establishes a European remedy for proceedings in national courts. An individual can here, under certain conditions, claim compensatory damages resulting from a breach of European law. Importantly, the remedial competence of national courts is confined to national wrongs. They cannot give judgments on ‘European’ wrongs, as jurisdiction over the latter is—like the power to annul Union law—an exclusive power of the Court of Justice of the European Union. Finally, the chapter explores what happens in areas in which the Union has harmonized the remedial or jurisdictional competences of national courts.

Procesuālās autonomijas princips un tā ietekme uz nacionālo tiesību sistēmu

The article begins with a general overview of the content of the principle of procedural autonomy, its development and basic criteria, focusing on the efficiency. The article also discusses some issues related to the findings of recent judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union that could have an impact on Latvian procedural law.

Age-based salaries of judges, discrimination, and time limitations

While a two-month limitation period applicable for claims on back payments, the regulation of which is left to the Member States following the principle of national procedural autonomy, is in accordance with EU law, there is clearly a risk that the civil servants and judges concerned may not be in a position to establish whether, and the extent to which, they have been discriminated against, within such a short period of time. Case: Joined Cases C-773/18 to 775/18 TK, UL, VM/Land Sachsen-Anhalt ECLI: EU: C:2020:125

The Interrelation between Public Participation and Access to Justice in the eia Context in the Face of the Increasing Use of Digital Technologies: Comment on the cjeu Judgment in the A.Flausch et al Case (C-280/18)

The article analyzes the cjeu Judgment in the A. Flausch et al case, which concerns the compatibility of the Greek procedural rules relating to specific aspects of the public participation in the eia context and to a specific aspect of access to justice (time limit) with the respective EU Law provisions in the face of the increasing use of digital technologies in the public participation procedures. This ruling is important, because it sets limits to the procedural autonomy of ms when it comes to the rules that are applied to the eia-related disputes and those that concern the public participation arrangements. It demonstrates, though, the lack of a steady line in the Court’s jurisprudence concerning the standards for assessing the national procedural rules and the role of Article 47 cfr. Moreover, the Court did not lay the ground for an interpretation of the ΕU public participation provisions in a way that an obligation for taking measures could be established, with the aim to ensure equal participation opportunities.

Police in the Hungarian criminal proceedings

The police play a key role in the Hungarian criminal justice system. In addition to the legality supervision and effective professional management of the prosecution, the police have performed investigative tasks, which has procedural autonomy in initiating differentiated procedural methods in the reconnaissance and examination phase. The investigation consists of reconnaissance and investigation. In contrast, in the examination phase, they work under the direction of the prosecution. In addition to the general police, there are special police bodies in the country that do not have investigative powers but can take part in the preparatory process at the initial stage of the investigation, in particular by collecting data to establish the suspicion of a crime. Such bodies are the National Defense Service for Internal Corruption and Terrorism and the Counter-Terrorism Center. In our article, we provide an overview of the role of the police in a state organization. In accordance with that, we analyze the police's law enforcement role, outline the investigative activities of the Hungarian police and their tasks in criminal proceedings.