Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Right to Effective Judicial Protection and Remedies in the EU

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
The Court of Justice and the Construction of Europe: Analyses and Perspectives on Sixty Years of Case-law - La Cour de Justice et la Construction de l'Europe: Analyses et Perspectives de Soixante Ans de Jurisprudence

Abstract

Given some important amendments of the European Treaties and recent case-law of the courts at the European and national levels this article seeks to establish to what extent the fundamental right to an effective remedy and judicial protection of rights and freedoms guaranteed by Union law (Article 47 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights) is given effect. It honours the jurisprudence of the ECJ for the 60 years of its existence, and it pleads for a broad interpretation to be given to Article 263 (4) TFEU as a new opportunity to ensure access to justice for the individual being directly affected by the provisions of a Union regulation. Looking at the national level, note is taken of the achievements, but also of the difficulties of the German Federal Constitutional Court to ensure that German courts refer cases to the ECJ when the rights or freedoms of individuals are at stake. Yet, a comparative study would be needed in order to assess the situation in other Member States in implementing their respective duties under Article 19 (1) TEU.

Professor Dr., Doctor Honoris Causa, Walter Hallstein-Institute for European Constitutional Law. The author expresses his deep gratitude to Mattias Wendel for having so promptly revised the draft and helped to complete it.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    ECJ case 294/83, Les Verts, 23. For the concept see Hallstein 1973, p. 31.

  2. 2.

    ECJ case 222/84, Johnston, 18, 19; case 222/86, Heylens, 14–15; with more references in case C-432/05, Unibet, para 37.

  3. 3.

    ECJ case C-402/05, Kadi, 335.

  4. 4.

    ECJ case C-385/07, Der Grüne Punkt, 177–179.

  5. 5.

    See the contribution of Nial Fennelly, Le juge national en tant que juge de l’Union, in this volume supra I.4. For a theoretical foundation with implications, see Pernice 1996, pp. 27–28.

  6. 6.

    ECJ case 314/85, Foto Frost, 15.

  7. 7.

    ECJ case 26/62, Van Gend & Loos.

  8. 8.

    ECJ case 41/74, Van Duyn, 9–15.

  9. 9.

    ECJ case C-6/90, Francovich, 31–37.

  10. 10.

    ECJ case C-46/93, Brasserie du Pêcheur.

  11. 11.

    ECJ case C-224/01, Köbler, 30–50.

  12. 12.

    ECJ case 6/64, Costa v ENEL; with regard to national guarantees of fundamental rights as well as “principles of a national constitutional structure”; see also case 11/70, Internationale Handelsgesellschaft, 3.

  13. 13.

    Beginning with ECJ case 29/69, Stauder, 7. See also Cunha Rodrigues 2010, p. 89.

  14. 14.

    ECJ case C-5/88, Wachauf, 17–19; case C-260/89, ERT, 41–44. For the widening of the "projection of fundamental rights over Community law itself by extending it to the law of Member States", see Cruz Villalón 2010, p. 163.

  15. 15.

    BVerfGE 37, 271—Solange I.

  16. 16.

    Bryde 2010, p. 119.

  17. 17.

    For an overview, classification and analysis at the stage after the Charter was proclaimed see Kühling 2006, p. 501.

  18. 18.

    ECJ case C-402/05, Kadi, 342–353.

  19. 19.

    ECJ case 294/83, Les Verts, 24–25.

  20. 20.

    ECJ case C-70/88—Chernobyl, 23: "The Court, which under the Treaties has the task of ensuring that in the interpretation and application of the Treaties the law is observed, must therefore be able to maintain the institutional balance and, consequently, review the observance of the Parliament' s prerogatives when called upon to do so by the Parliament, by means of a legal remedy which is suited to the purpose which the Parliament seeks to achieve."

  21. 21.

    ECJ case 25/62, Plaumann, 4.

  22. 22.

    Opinion of Advocate General Jacobs in case C-50/00, Unión des Pequenos Agricultores, 35–49, 59–105.

  23. 23.

    CFI case T–177/01, JégoQuéré, 47–54.

  24. 24.

    ECJ case C-50/00, Unión des Pequenos Agricultores, 44; case C-263/02, JégoQuéré, 36.

  25. 25.

    ECJ case C-50/00, Unión des Pequenos Agricultores, 41, 45.

  26. 26.

    See also Everling 2010, p. 575: "unvertretbar" (not arguable).

  27. 27.

    This term is used by Everling 2010, p. 574: "Hochstufung".

  28. 28.

    GC case T-262/10, Microban, 20–25, regarding Commission Decision 2010/169/EU of 19 March 2010 concerning the non-inclusion of 2,4,4′-trichloro-2′-hydroxydiphenyl ether in the Union list of additives which may be used in the manufacture of plastic materials and articles intended to come into contact with foodstuffs under Directive 2002/72/EC (OJ 2010 L 75, p. 25).

  29. 29.

    GC case T-14/10, Inuit, regarding Regulation (EC) No 1007/2009 on trade in seal products (OJ 2009 L 286, p. 36).

  30. 30.

    GC case T-14/10, Inuit, 38–56. This result was confirmed in case T-262/10, Microban, 22.

  31. 31.

    GC case T-14/10, Inuit, 51.

  32. 32.

    Ibid. 39.

  33. 33.

    Ibid. 51: "According to settled case-law, the Courts of the European Union may not, without exceeding their jurisdiction, interpret the conditions under which an individual may institute proceedings against a regulation in a way which has the effect of setting aside those conditions, expressly laid down in the Treaty, even in the light of the principle of effective judicial protection".

  34. 34.

    Ibid. 46. For critics on this argument: Everling 2012, 378.

  35. 35.

    The former President of the ECJ, Rogdríguez Iglesias 2003, p. 3, understood it as a "policy choice" which could be changed.

  36. 36.

    See also Kottmann 2010, pp. 561–562, referring to the "higher dignity" of legislative acts in this sense.

  37. 37.

    ECJ case T-262/10, Microban, 32, with reference to case T-14/10, Inuit, 50. See also Görlitz and Kubicki 2011, p. 250 who detect only one aim of the new provision being to fill the gap of legal protection in specific cases as dealt with by in the recent jurisprudence.

  38. 38.

    Ibid. 56. For this interpretation, see Pech 2010, pp. 391–392; Herrmann 2011, pp. 1352, 1354–1356; Schwensfeier 2009, p. 330, who states that there is unanimity on this interpretation. For the opposite: Everling 2010, p. 575; Kottmann 2010, p. 559, with more references.

  39. 39.

    ECJ case C-583/11 P, Inuit (pending). Recommending a revision of the General Court’s judgment in favour of an opening for complete legal protection: Everling 2012, 379–380.

  40. 40.

    Voßkuhle 2010, p. 175.

  41. 41.

    Pernice 2006, p. 54.

  42. 42.

    ECJ case C-50/00, Unión des Pequenos Agricultores, 41, 45 (see footnote 25 above). See also ECJ case C-432/05, Unibet, 38–45.

  43. 43.

    For the application of Article 10 EC see, in particular, ECJ case C-432/05, Unibet, 38.

  44. 44.

    For the correlation between the second indent of Article 19 (1) and Article 47 CFR, see Barents 2010, pp. 709, 717.

  45. 45.

    ECJ case 222/86, Heylens, 14–17.

  46. 46.

    ECJ case C-188/10, Melki, 52.

  47. 47.

    Ibid., 57.

  48. 48.

    See BVerfGE 73, 399, Solange II, pp. 366–369, confirmed in case 1 BvR 1036/99 judgment of 9 January 2001 - Teilzeitarbeit, para 18 with more references.

  49. 49.

    Ibid., para 24.

  50. 50.

    Czech Constitutional Court, decision of 8 January2009. US 1009/08. Para. 21 et sequ.

  51. 51.

    Austrian Constitutional Court, decisions Nos 14.390/1995, 14.889/1997, 15.139/1998, 15.657/1999, 15.810/2000, 16.391/2001 and 16.757/2002.

  52. 52.

    Schröder 2011, pp. 815–819. See also Wendel 2011, pp. 423–424 and 466 in a comparative perspective.

  53. 53.

    See BVerfG, 1 BvR 3461/08 of 21 December 2010, para 8. ECJ case 283/81, CILFIT.

  54. 54.

    BVerfG, 2 BvR 2661/06 of 6 July 2010, Honeywell, note 88.

  55. 55.

    Ibid., 89.

  56. 56.

    Schröder 2011, pp. 820–824, 826.

  57. 57.

    For these terms, see BVerfG, 2 BvR 2661/06 of 6 July 2010, Honeywell, note 88.

  58. 58.

    BVerfG, 1 BvL 3/08 of 4 October 2011, Investitionszulagengesetz, 45–56.

  59. 59.

    On that, see Wendel 2012, p. 217.

  60. 60.

    ECJ case C-224/01, Köbler.

  61. 61.

    See Lenski and Mayer, EuZW 2005, p. 225. See also Schröder 2011, p. 824, with reference to the Bosphorus decision of the ECHR where the CILFIT jurisprudence is mentioned as a relevant criterion; see Judgment of 30 June 2005, Application no. 45036/98 case of Bosphorus Hava Yolları Turizm veTicaret Anonim Şirketi v. Ireland, para 147.

  62. 62.

    ECHR, judgment of 20 September 2011, Nos 3989/07 and 38353/07, Ullens et al., paras 55–67.

  63. 63.

    Ibid, para 62.

References

  • Barents R (2010) The Court of Justice after the Treaty of Lisbon. CMLR 47:709–728

    Google Scholar 

  • Bryde B-O (2010) The ECJ’s fundamental rights jurisprudence—a milestone in transnational constitutionalism. In: Maduro MP, Azoulai L (eds) The past and future of EU law. The classics of EU law revisited on the 50th anniversary of the Rome Treaty. Hart, Oxford, pp 119–129

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunha Rodrigues JN (2010) The incorporation of fundamental rights in the community legal order. In: Maduro MP, Azoulai L (eds) The past and future of EU law. The classics of EU law revisited on the 50th anniversary of the Rome Treaty. Hart, Oxford, pp 89–97

    Google Scholar 

  • Cruz Villalón (2010) ‘All the guidance’, ERT and Wachauf. In: Maduro MP, Azoulai L (ed) The Past and Future of EU Law. The Classics of EU Law Revisited on the 50th Anniversary of the Rome Treaty, Hart, Oxford, pp 162–169

    Google Scholar 

  • Everling U (2010) Lissabon-Vertrag regelt Dauerstreit über Nichtigkeitsklage Privater. EuZW:572–576

    Google Scholar 

  • Everling U (2012) Klagerecht Privater gegen Rechtsakte der EU mit allgemeiner Geltung. EuZW:376–380

    Google Scholar 

  • Görlitz N, Kubicki P (2011) Rechtsakte "mit schwierigem Charakter". EuZW:248–254

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallstein W (1973) Die Europäische Gemeinschaft. Econ-Verlag, Düsseldorf

    Google Scholar 

  • Herrmann C (2011) Individualrechtsschutz gegen Rechtsankte der EU “mit Verordnungscharakter” nach dem Vertrag von Lissabon. NVwZ:1352–1357

    Google Scholar 

  • Kottmann M (2010) PlaumannsEnde: Ein Vorschlag zu Art. 263 Abs. AEUV. ZaöRV 70:547–566

    Google Scholar 

  • Kühling J (2006) Fundamental rigths. In: von Bogdandy A, Bast J (eds) Principles of European Constitutional Law. Hart, Oxford, pp 501–547

    Google Scholar 

  • Lenski E, Mayer FC (2005) Vertragsverletzung wegen Nichtvorlage durch oberste Gerichte? EuZW:225

    Google Scholar 

  • Pech L (2010) “A union founded on the rule of law”: meaning and reality of the rule of law as a constitutional principle of EU law. ECLR 6:359–396

    Google Scholar 

  • Pernice I (1996) Die Dritte Gewalt im europäischen Verfassungsverbund. Europarecht 31:27–43

    Google Scholar 

  • Pernice I (2006) Das Verhältnis europäischer zu nationalen Gerichten im europäischen Verfassungsverbund. De Gruyter, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rogdríguez Iglesias GC (2003) Oral presentation to the “discussion circle” on the Court of Justice on 17 February 2003 CONV 573/03

    Google Scholar 

  • Schröder M (2011) Die Vorlagepflicht zum EuGH aus europarechtlicher und nationaler Perspektive. Europarecht 46:808–827

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwensfeier R (2009) Individual’s access to justice under Community Law. Diss Groningen. http://irs.ub.rug.nl/ppn/322732727. Accessed 19 May 2012

  • Voßkuhle A (2010) Multilevel cooperation of the European Constitutional Courts: Der EuropäischeVerfassungsgerichtsverbund. Eur Const Law Rev 6:175–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wendel M (2011) Permeabilität im europäischen Verfassungsrecht. Mohr, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Wendel M (2012) Neue Akzente im europäischen Grundrechtsverbund. Die fachgerichtliche Vorlage an den EuGH als Prozessvoraussetzung der konkreten Normenkontrolle. EuZW 23:213–218

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Humboldt-University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany

    Ingolf Pernice

Authors
  1. Ingolf Pernice
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ingolf Pernice .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

    Rights and permissions

    Reprints and permissions

    Copyright information

    © 2013 T.M.C. Asser Instituut

    About this chapter

    Cite this chapter

    Pernice, I. (2013). The Right to Effective Judicial Protection and Remedies in the EU. In: The Court of Justice and the Construction of Europe: Analyses and Perspectives on Sixty Years of Case-law - La Cour de Justice et la Construction de l'Europe: Analyses et Perspectives de Soixante Ans de Jurisprudence. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-90-6704-897-2_21

    Download citation

    Publish with us

    Policies and ethics

    Societies and partnerships

    Search

    Navigation