Effective Judicial Protection. Landmarks of Recent Case Law of the Court of Justice of the European Union

Constanta MATUSESCU; Steluta IONESCU

doi:10.18662/lumproc.16

Constanta MATUSESCU Associate Professor PhD, Faculty of Law and Administrative Sciences, ”Valahia” University of Târgoviste, Romania
Steluta IONESCU Lecturer PhD, Faculty of Law and Administrative Sciences, ”Valahia” University of Târgoviste, Romania

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18662/lumproc.16

Keywords: E.U. law, remedies, procedural autonomy, effectiveness, effective judicial protection

Abstract

The principle of effective judicial protection, established by jurisprudence as one of the constitutive elements of a rule of law at the level of the European Union, is now enshrined in the primary law of the Union both as an obligation for the Member States (Article 19(1) paragraph 2 of the Treaty of the European Union), and as a right guaranteed to individuals (Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights). The article will mainly analyze the obligation for Member States to ”provide remedies sufficient to ensure effective legal protection in the fields covered by Union law”, trying to identify, on the basis of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the content of this obligation and its main implications in the internal legal systems of the Member States. The analysis of the various meanings of effective judicial protection requires the analysis of its relationship with other principles of Union law, as well as with the right to an effective remedy enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights. Will be highlighted the autonomous dimension recognized by the case-law to the obligation laid down in Article 19(1) paragraph 2 TEU to guarantee the functioning of the decentralized system for the protection of EU rights via the preliminary reference procedure and it is assessed that it may impose certain obligations on Member States even if they do not implement or act within the scope of EU law in the strict sense.

References

[1] Adinolfi A. The Procedural Autonomy of Member States and the Constraints Stemming from the ECJ’s case Law: Is Judicial Activism Still Necessary? In: Micklitz H. W. & De Witte B. (eds.), The European Court of Justice and the Autonomy of the Member States. Cambridge, Antwerp, Portland: Intersentia. 2012. pp. 15-23
[2] Ravo L. M. The role of the Principle of Effective Judicial Protection in the EU and its Impact on National Jurisdictions. Sources of Law and Legal Protection. Triestine Lecture. EUT Edizioni Università di Trieste. 2012 (1). pp. 101-125
[3] Prechal S. & Widdershoven R. Redefining the Relationship between Rewe-effectiveness and Effective Judicial Protection. Review of European Administrative Law. 2011 (4). pp. 31-50
[4] Giubboni S. & Robin-Olivier S. Analytical report 2016. Effective judicial protection in the framework of Directive 2014/54/EU. Brussels: Publications Office of the European Union; November 2016. 77 pages. Report for European Commission, Directorate-General for Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion
[5] Prechal S. The Court of Justice and Effective Judicial Protection: What Has the Charte Changed? In: Paulussen C., Takács T., Lazic, V., Van Rompuy B. (eds.), Fundamental Rights in International and European Law. Public and Private Law Perspective. The Hague: Springer; 2016. pp. 143-157
[6] Heukels T. & Tib J. Towards Homogeneity in the Field of Legal Remedies: Convergence and Divergence. In: Beaumont, P., Lyons, S., Walker, N. (eds), Convergence and Divergence in European Public Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing. 2002. pp. 111-128
[7] Safjan M. & Düsterhaus D. A Union of Effective Judicial Protection: Addressing a Multi-level Challenge through the Lens of Article 47 CFREU. Yearbook of European Law. 2014. Vol. 33 (1). pp. 3–40
[8] Lenaerts, K. Effective Judicial Protection in the EU. [Internet]. 2014. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/ justice/events/assises-justice-2013/fi les/interventions/koenlenarts.pdf
[9] Arnull A. The Principle of effective Judicial Protection in the EU Law: An Unruly Horse? European Law Review. 2011; Vol. 36 (1); pp. 51-70.
[10] Rhimes, M. The EU Courts stand their ground: why are the standing rules for direct actions still so restrictive? European journal of legal studies. 2016. Vol. 9 (1). pp. 103-172
[11] Klamert M. The Principle of Loyalty in EU Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2014. pp. 125-140
[12] Neframi E. Judicial implementation of EU law. [Internet]. September 2016. Paper EPLO Academy. Available from: http://hdl.handle.net/10993/31572
[13] Weatherill S. Cases & Materials on EU Law. 12th edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2016. p. 720
[14] Lacchi C. Multilevel judicial protection in the EU and preliminary references. Common Market Law Review. 2016; 53 (3). pp. 679–707
[15] Peers S. & Costa M. Court of Justice of the European Union (General Chamber) Judicial Review of EU Acts after the Treaty of Lisbon; Order of 6 September 2011, Case T-18/10 Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami and Others v. Commission & Judgment of 25 October 2011, Case T-262/10 Microban v. Commission. European Constitutional Law Review. 2012 8(1). pp. 82-104
[16] Hofmann H. Ch. Article 47 – Right to an Effective Remedy and to a Fair Trial. In: Peers St., Hervey T., Kenner J., Ward A. (eds.), The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights – A commentary. Oxford and Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2014. pp. 1197-1275
[17] Schutze R. From Dual to Cooperative Federalism: The Changing Structure of European Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 2009