Abstract

The Court’s decisions in van Gend en Loos, Costa, Internationale Handelsgescllschaft and Simmenthal have established a rule of recognition that stipulates validity and effectiveness criteria for what is to be deemed the law of the Union and its lands and have, thus, created an autonomous jurisdiction of a federal nature. The efficacy of claims for supremacy, primacy and direct effect of Union law advanced therein depend on the uniform effectiveness of this law in the Union’s constituent jurisdictions. Only when enforced as supreme law by all Member States’ national courts may Union law be deemed effective. The definition of a court of last instance that the Court provided in Lyckeskog and confirmed in Cartesio falls short of guaranteeing the effectiveness and foreseeability of the individual litigants’ access to the proper standard of judicial protection in each of the Union’s varied constituent jurisdictions. Consequently, the scope and the quality of enforcement of Union law varies from one Member State to another, thereby undermining uniform effectiveness as a crucial element of Union’s law supremacy over national laws. The Court should reconsider its case-law in Lyckeskog and Cartesio so as to make it more attentive to the differences between Member States relating to their high courts’ willingness and capacity to let Union law penetrate their juridical orders enough to make it supremely effective.

Keywords

Sovereignty Rule of recognition Supremacy Uniform effectiveness Preliminary reference procedure Court of last instance Enforcement deficit 

References

  1. Bellamy R, Castiglione D (1997) Building the Union: the nature of sovereignty in the political architecture of Europe. Law Philos 16:421–445Google Scholar
  2. Bobek M (2004) Porušení povinnosti zahájit řízení o předběžné otázce podle článku 234 (3) SES. C.H. Beck, PrahaGoogle Scholar
  3. Bobek M (2010) Cartesio—appeals against an order to refer under Article 234 (2) of the EC Treaty revisited. Civil Justice Q 3:307–316Google Scholar
  4. Bobek M (2011) Why there is no principle of “Procedural Autonomy” of Member States. In: de Witte B, Micklitz H (eds) The European Court of Justice and the autonomy of the Member States. Intersentia, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  5. Craig P, de Búrca G (2003) EU Law. Texts, cases, and materials, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  6. Dougan M (2004) National remedies before the Court of Justice. Issues of harmonisation and differentiation. Hart Publishing, PortlandGoogle Scholar
  7. Dworkin R (1986) Law’s Empire. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  8. Eliantonio M (2009) The future of National Procedural Law in Europe. Harmonisation vs. judge-made standards in the field of administrative justice. Electron J Comp Law 13.3. http://www.ecjl.org/133/art133-4.pdf
  9. Hart HLA (1994) The concept of law, 2nd edn. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Hartley TC (1998) The foundations of European Community law, 4th edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Kahn P (1997) The reign of law. Marbury v. Madison and the construction of America. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  12. Kahn P (2011) Political theology. Four new chapters on the concept of sovereignty. Columbia University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  13. Lenaerts K, Corthaut T (2004) Judicial review as a contribution to the development of European constitutionalism. In: Tridimas T (ed) European Union law for the twenty-first century, vol 1. Hart Publishing, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  14. Pattaro E (2005) The law and the right. A treatise of legal philosophy and general jurisprudence, vol 1. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  15. Schmitt C (2005) Political theology: four chapters on the concept of sovereignty (trans Schwab G). Chicago University Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  16. Shiner RA (2005) Legal institutions and the sources of law. A treatise of legal philosophy and general jurisprudence, vol 3. Springer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  17. Van Gerven W (2000) Of rights, remedies and procedures. Common Mark Law Rev 37:501–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Zetterquist O (2008) The judicial deficit in the EC—knocking on heaven’s door? In: Bernitz U et al (eds) General principles of EC law in a process of development. Kluwer Law International, The HagueGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Instituut 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Trnava University School of LawTrnavaSlovak Republic

Personalised recommendations