Autonomous but interdependent: constitutional traditions on judicial protection and the general principle of effective judicial protection

The EU general principle of effective judicial protection is the epitome of the EU liberal-constitutionalism. The creative force of this principle has emerged, among others, in connection with the protection of the rule of law and the introduction of procedural guarantees both at the national and EU level. It is well established that effective judicial protection stems from the ECHR and the constitutional traditions common to the Member States. While existing scholarship has explored the influence of the ECHR over the development of this principle, less attention was paid to the impact of constitutional traditions from the Member States. Yet, exploring the role of constitutional traditions in shaping effective judicial protection, the primus inter pares among the general principles of EU law, goes at the heart of the conundrum of the EU: the latter is an autonomous legal system, which is inevitably shaped by the legal concepts and traditions existing in the Member States. This exploration is particularly timely. Some Member States affected by the rule-of-law backsliding have recently invoked constitutional traditions on judicial protection to delimit the application of EU standards of effective judicial protection, thus questioning the relationship between the EU principle and national conceptions of judicial protection

Effective redress of grievance in data protection : an illusion?

This article questions whether the current data protection legislative framework in the EU to provide effective redress of grievance for those who are affected by a breach of data protection law. It considers the extent to which the principle of effective judicial protection is satisfied where judicial redress is sought and also considers whether supervisory authorities are able to grant adequate administrative redress. In undertaking this analysis the article seeks to demonstrate that there are a number of areas where judicial protection is uncertain. There is a lack of consistency in the award of compensation, particularly in cases of non-pecuniary loss and some uncertainty as to what an ‘effective remedy’ might be in some data protection cases. Furthermore, substantial procedural differences exist between Member States for those seeking to bring data protection cases before national courts resulting in a situation where the conditions of access to judicial remedy are uneven

Effective judicial protection at the national level: the current utopia of procedural hurdles

Preprint of an article by Dr Helen Xanthaki, Senior Lecturer in Legislative Studies and Academic Director, Sir William Dale Centre for Legislative Studies at the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies, published in European Journal of Law Reform

The Cost and Benefits of the Strict Protection of Creditor Rights: Theory and Evidence

We first review the existing theories on the implications of the various regulations that protect creditors. We then empirically investigate the cost and benefits of the strict protection of creditors` rights. Building on the sample of 49 countries developed by La Porta et al. (1998), we study the impact on debt volume, interest rates and default rates of both an aggregate measure of the degree of protection of creditor rights and efficiency of the judicial system. We confirm previous results showing that an effective judicial system is crucial for the development and optimal performance of the credit market. Yet, in contrast to previous studies, we find no conclusive evidence on the sign and magnitude of the effect of creditors` rights protection on credit market efficiency. Instead, macroeconomic stability appears to be crucial for the outgrowth of wide debt markets.

Effective judicial protection in consumer protection in the ECJ's case law

The aim of my paper is to examine the effective control that ECJ exercises on national law applying the right for citizens to benefit from effective judicial protection, particularly in the matter of consumer protection. As we know, when there is not a regulation in EU law, Member States possess a procedural autonomy. However, this called procedural autonomy must respect and guarantee the exercise of UE fundamental rights. ECJ developed a relevant jurisprudence in this matter that is very interesting. In this sense, I study the cases Unibet (C-432/05), Pannon GSM (243-08), Penzugyi (C-137/08), Domínguez (C-282/10), Banco Español de Crédito (C-618/10), and Aziz (415/11). And finally I highline the recent case Sánchez Morcillo (C-169/14). Thanks to this study we will be able to understand better actual perspectives of procedural autonomy and the right for citizens to benefit from effective judicial protection in the matter of consumer protection as a limit to this EU law principle.The aim of my paper is to examine the effective control that ECJ exercises on national law applying the right for citizens to benefit from effective judicial protection, particularly in the matter of consumer protection. As we know, when there is not a regulation in EU law, Member States possess a procedural autonomy. However, this called procedural autonomy must respect and guarantee the exercise of UE fundamental rights. ECJ developed a relevant jurisprudence in this matter that is very interesting. In this sense, I study the cases Unibet (C-432/05), Pannon GSM (243-08), Penzugyi (C-137/08), Domínguez (C-282/10), Banco Español de Crédito (C-618/10), and Aziz (415/11). And finally I highline the recent case Sánchez Morcillo (C-169/14). Thanks to this study we will be able to understand better actual perspectives of procedural autonomy and the right for citizens to benefit from effective judicial protection in the matter of consumer protection as a limit to this EU law principle

An approach to today’s EU constitutionality control – understanding this EU inter-jurisdictional phenomenon in light of effective judicial protection

Under today’s European constitutional demands, effective judicial protection sets the tone concerning potential jurisdictional instruments able to act as constitutionality control mechanisms. Inter-jurisdictionality stands for different and complementary jurisdictional systems living togetherin the same space and it aims to understand how their reflexive interactions can be maintained to promote effective judicial protection. Both the infringement procedure and the preliminary ruling act as constitutional controls. The first allows the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) to evaluate the incompatibility of national solutions/omissions with EU law but, to meet its full effectiveness, widening legitimate parties needs to be considered as well. Also, validity preliminary rulings act as a constitutional control in proceedings relating to individuals – national judges should be aware of their referring obligations to the CJEU. There are voices amongst European academia that advocate a new constitutional procedure to promote fundamental rights’ protection. However, the main formulas highlighted rely on solutions tested on the national level which can compromise their efficacy. We perceive an inter-jurisdictional paradigm as the proper approach since it will allowthe promotion of effective judicial protection at a constitutional level as a new EU dogmatically thought phenomenon. This is to ensure judicial integration can be perceived as a reality, engaged in pursuing the future of the EU

Integração judiciária e tutela jurisdicional dos interesses económicos e sociais

O presente texto procura analisar os principais desafios que se colocam atualmente em matéria de integração judiciária e proteção da tutela jurisdicional efetiva, particularmente no que diz respeito à competência judiciária, reconhecimento e execução de decisões em matéria civil e comercial, bem como à citação e notificação de atos judiciais e extrajudiciais. Assim, partindo da identificação prévia de alguns problemas que se colocam no domínio da proteção da segurança jurídica, serão apresentadas propostas de alterações legislativas no sentido de se garantir de forma plena a integração judiciária e a tutela jurisdicional efetiva na União Europeia.This text seeks to analyze the main challenges currently facing judicial integration and the effective judicial protection, in particular as regards jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, as well as citation and notification of judicial and extrajudicial acts. Therefore , starting from the preliminary identification of some problems regarding the legal security protection , will be made proposals for legislative changes to ensure full judicial integration and effective judicial protection in the European Unioninfo:eu-repo/semantics/draf

A Commentary on the Right to an Effective Remedy in the Case Law of the CJEU

The right to an effective judicial remedy is an essential element of realising the rule of law. It is the fundamental right granting individuals the possibility to request independent review of compliance with the legal provisions. The genius of protecting as an individual fundamental right this structural notion of independent judicial review, has much contributed to the prominence and the protection of judicial accountability and effective enforcement of EU law. Yet, this critical commentary on the right to an effective remedy shows that the case law of the CJEU has predominantly aimed at ensuring Member State compliance with the right to an effective remedy. When it comes to reviewing EU law provisions against this right, the general considerations of ensuring effective judicial remedies are a lot less pressing, and accordingly, the CJEU has decided to be less stringent in its application of the right. Such case law of the CJEU has left gaps in protection. The commentary ends with the observations that additional problems for the enforcement of the right to an effective remedy arise from the often-composite nature of procedures, linking one or several Member State bodies with European institutions and bodies in one single procedure

Self Preserving Policy or Fundamental Rights Adjudication? – Mapping EU limitations of National Procedural Autonomy in the Name of Effective Judicial Protection

This thesis examines the complex legal landscape of situations where the national procedural autonomy of EU Member States is affected by the general principle of EU law known as the principle of effective judicial protection. The meaning of effective judicial protection is unclear in the legal doctrine as well as in the case law from the Court of Justice of the European Union. It is often linked to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness, which also limit the national procedural autonomy of the Member States, as well as to several statutes in the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention on Human Rights. The discrepancy in the ECJ’s application of the principle of effective judicial protection risks a situation of legal uncertainty, problematic for both individuals seeking to ensure rights derived from EU law in courts, and for Member States seeking to fulfil their obligation to provide effective judicial protection of fundamental rights. Since national courts are entrusted with the task of applying and upholding EU law this legal uncertainty also risks a situation where the principle of effective judicial protection is not applied correctly throughout the EU. Therefore, this thesis maps the current legal landscape in regard of effective judicial protection by examining its development in the case law of the ECJ. The case law developing the principles of equivalence and effectiveness is also analysed, as is the potential codifications of the principle of effective judicial protection in Article 19(1) TEU, Articles 47 and 41 of the Charter and Articles 6(1) and 13 of the ECHR. For the purpose of analysing how the principle of effective judicial protection relates to the principles of equivalence and effectiveness as well as to the abovementioned statutes the thesis then analyses four judgments from the ECJ. Lastly, it examines the purposes of the principle of effective judicial protection, and whether the EU is providing sufficient protection of them. It finds that the principle of effective judicial protection is an independent principle that should not be bundled with the principle of effectiveness since it has a different legal basis, different characteristics and a different purpose. Furthermore, the principle of effective judicial protection is enshrined in Article 47 of the Charter, and likely in Article 41 of the Charter and Article 19(1) TEU. There is also a clear link between the principle of effective judicial protection and Articles 6(1) and 13 ECHR, both through established case law and through the EU treaties. The thesis finds that the purpose behind the principle of effective judicial protection is the obligation of EU Member States to secure the protection of individual rights derived from EU law. It thus differs somewhat from the purpose underlying the principle of effectiveness, which is to secure the effectiveness of EU law. It is hard to draw definitive conclusions on the adequacy of the ECJ’s protection of this objective, due to a lack of case law. The ECJ’s ambiguity in the existing case law is criticised.Denna uppsats analyserar det komplexa rättsläget i situationer när principen om effektivt rättsskydd, som är en allmän princip inom EU-rätten, påverkar medlemsstaternas nationella processautonomi. Det är oklart, såväl i doktrin som i EU-rättslig praxis, vad principen om effektivt rättsskydd innebär. Den kopplas ofta samman med både likvärdighets- och effektivitetsprinciperna, som också begränsar den nationella processautonomin, och med flera bestämmelser i Europeiska unionens stadga om de grundläggande rättigheterna och i Europeiska konventionen angående skydd för de mänskliga rättigheterna och de grundläggande friheterna. EU-domstolens motsägelsefulla tillämpning av principen om effektivt rättsskydd riskerar att skapa rättsosäkerhet både för individer som vill få sina rättigheter fastställda av domstol och för medlemsstater som vill fullfölja sin skyldighet att säkerställa ett effektivt domstolsskydd av grundläggande rättigheter. Eftersom nationella domstolar är ansvariga för att tillämpa och upprätthålla EU-rätten riskerar denna rättsosäkerhet också att leda till ett rättsläge där principen om effektivt rättsskydd inte tillämpas korrekt i hela EU. Därför är syftet med denna uppsats att kartlägga rättsläget kring principen om effektivt rättsskydd genom att undersöka dess framväxt i praxis. Likvärdighets- och effektivitetsprincipernas framväxt i praxis analyseras också, liksom de eventuella kodifikationerna av principen om effektivt rättsskydd i artikel 19(1) EUF, artikel 47 och 41 i stadgan och artikel 6(1) och 13 i EKMR. Därefter analyseras fyra fall från EU-domstolen där domstolen hade möjlighet att tillämpa såväl principerna som deras kodifikationer i syfte att undersöka hur principen om effektivt rättsskydd förhåller sig till likvärdighets- och effektivitetsprinciperna å ena sidan och till de relevanta bestämmelserna i EUF, stadgan och EKMR å andra sidan. Slutligen undersöks vilka syften som principen om effektivt rättsskydd grundar sig på och huruvida EU-domstolen skyddar dessa syften tillräckligt. Uppsatsen kommer fram till att principen om effektivt rättsskydd är en självständig princip, som inte ska klumpas ihop med effektivitetsprincipen eftersom den har en annan rättslig grund, andra egenskaper och ett annat syfte. Principen om effektivt rättsskydd är vidare kodifierad i artikel 47 i stadgan och troligtvis också i artikel 41 i stadgan och artikel 19(1) EUF. Det finns också en tydlig koppling mellan principen om effektivt rättsskydd och artikel 6(1) och 13 i EKMR, både i praxis och i EU-fördragen. Uppsatsen finner att syftet med principen om effektivt rättsskydd är medlemsstaternas skyldighet att säkerställa ett skydd av individuella rättigheter som härstammar från EU-rätten. Det skiljer sig alltså från syftet med effektivitetsprincipen som är att säkerställa EU-rättens effektivitet. På grund av knapphändig praxis är det svårt att dra några slutgiltiga slutsatser om huruvida EU-domstolen skyddar detta syfte tillräckligt. EU-domstolens tvetydighet i den praxis som finns kritiseras

Los plazos para promover la acción contencioso administrativa y el derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva. Un abordaje a los interrogantes planteados en el Derecho argentino y español

[Resumen] El presente trabajo analiza los plazos para promover demandas contencioso administrativas en el derecho tanto español como argentino, desde la perspectiva del derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva. En primer término se conceptualiza el derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva, se delimita su alcance y se precisan los mecanismos de su incorporación normativa a los ordenamientos jurídicos estudiados. A continuación, se analiza la naturaleza de los plazos para interponer demandas contencioso administrativas en el derecho argentino y español, los planteos de inconstitucionalidad que se formularon en ambos países y los problemas específicos en la aplicación del instituto. Finalmente, se formulan pautas de aplicación de los plazos para promover demandas contencioso administrativas que armonicen con el derecho a la tutela judicial efectiva.[Abstract] This work analyzes the time limits to bring litigous administrative claims in both Spanish and Argentine law, from the perspective of the right to effective judicial protection. First, the right to effective judicial protection is conceptualized, its scope is delimited, and the mechanisms of its normative incorporation to the legal systems under study are made precise. Then, an analysis is performed on the nature of the time limits to file litigous administrative claims in Argentine and Spanish law, the unconstitutionality claims raised in both countries, and the specific problems in the application of the institute. Finally, guidelines are formulated for the application of time limits to bring litigous administrative claims harmonius with the right to effective judicial protection