Cover of book: Effectiveness versus Procedural Protection
Buy in shop
, to see if you have full access to this publication.
Book Titles No access

Effectiveness versus Procedural Protection

Tensions triggered by the EU law mandate of ex officio review
Authors:
Publisher:
 2019

Summary

Die Arbeit untersucht das Spannungsfeld zwischen einem fairen Resultat und Fairplay im Rechtsverfahren. Bislang hat der Europäische Gerichtshof es traditionell abgelehnt, hier eine klare Wahl zu treffen, indem er sich in Vorabentscheidungen im Zusammenhang mit der ex officio-Überprüfung weitgehend dem nationalen Recht unterwirft. Diese Arbeit zeigt, dass spezifische Schutzvorrechte zunehmend substantiell korrekte Urteile hervorgebracht haben, während ein neuer Grundrechtsansatz den individuellen Verfahrensschutz nicht gefördert hat.

Bibliographic data

Edition
1/2019
Copyright year
2019
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-6004-6
ISBN-Online
978-3-7489-0114-3
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series
Luxemburger Juristische Studien - Luxembourg Legal Studies
Volume
19
Language
English
Pages
325
Product type
Book Titles

Table of contents

ChapterPages
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis No access 1 - 18
    1. 1.1 Research objectives No access
    2. 1.2 Delimitations and structure No access
      1. 2.1.1 Legal foundations of the principle of national procedural autonomy No access
      2. 2.1.2 National institutional autonomy No access
      3. 2.1.3 Procedural, remedial and institutional rules vs. substantive rules No access
      1. 2.2.1 Legal basis in the duty of sincere co-operation or primacy No access
        1. 2.2.2.1 “Insofar as no provisions of Community law are relevant…” No access
        2. 2.2.2.2 Proposed legal bases for EU procedural competence No access
        1. 2.2.3.1 What to do in the meantime: Implied competence? No access
        2. 2.2.3.2 The duty of sincere co-operation to fill the shoes of direct effect No access
        3. 2.2.3.3 From consistent interpretation to legal protection of individual rights No access
        4. 2.2.3.4 The principle of Rewe-equivalence No access
        5. 2.2.3.5 The principle of Rewe-effectiveness No access
        6. 2.2.3.6 Assessing procedural obstacles in light of their role and function No access
        7. 2.2.3.7 Linking the remedial mandate to effective judicial protection No access
      1. 2.3.1 Evolution of the principle of effective judicial protection No access
      2. 2.3.2 Enjoyment of rights cannot be effective unless protected by courts No access
      3. 2.3.3 Mere access is not enough: Requirements on the judiciary No access
      4. 2.3.4 The creation of new remedies to ensure de facto judicial protection No access
      5. 2.3.5 Convergence of effectiveness and effective judicial protection No access
    4. 2.4 Interim conclusions No access
      1. 3.1.1 The “poor client” dilemma – ex officio review for the protection of the procedurally weaker litigant No access
      2. 3.1.2 The “savvy lawyer” dilemma – safeguarding mandatory law in the public interest No access
      3. 3.1.3 The objective of the proceedings – truth-seeking or dispute resolution? No access
      4. 3.1.4 The type of court proceedings – greater need for intervention in vertical litigation? No access
      5. 3.1.5 Even if the court knows the law, how can it know the facts? No access
      6. 3.1.6 Ex officio review – in the service or disservice of the right to a fair trial under the ECHR? No access
        1. 3.2.1.1 Empowering national courts to co-operate with the Court of Justice to ensure the full effectiveness of Union law No access
        2. 3.2.1.2 An embryonic power of ex officio review No access
        3. 3.2.1.3 Power or obligation of ex officio review for national courts? No access
        4. 3.2.1.4 Legal bases for the constitutional and Rheinmühlen mandates No access
        1. 3.2.2.1 Obligation of ex officio review under Peterbroeck No access
        2. 3.2.2.2 Discretion under national law triggering Union obligation of ex officio review No access
        3. 3.2.2.3 Rule-of-reason for weighing procedural protection against effectiveness No access
        4. 3.2.2.4 Reconciling Peterbroeck and van Schijndel No access
        5. 3.2.2.5 Use it or lose it: Litigants’ procedural omissions No access
        6. 3.2.2.6 Protection of individuals against enforcement of EU law No access
        1. 3.2.3.1 Identifying procedural public policy via mandatory contract law No access
        2. 3.2.3.2 Public policy in ordinary courts’ review of arbitration awards No access
        3. 3.2.3.3 Procedural public policy in the case-law of the Court of Justice No access
        1. 3.2.4.1 Origins of the Union mandate of ex officio review in consumer litigation No access
        2. 3.2.4.2 Substantive scope of the ex officio mandate No access
        3. 3.2.4.3 Ex officio review as mandatory Union mandate No access
        4. 3.2.4.4 Consumer protection as Union public policy No access
        5. 3.2.4.5 A fundamental rights approach to justifications No access
        6. 3.2.4.6 Rationale and reach of the consumer protection prerogative No access
    3. 3.3 Interim conclusions No access
    1. 4.1 Tracing beneficiaries through the protective scope of substantive rights No access
    2. 4.2 Beneficiaries of effectiveness under the ex officio mandate No access
      1. 4.3.1 Financially weak beneficiaries of EU law No access
      2. 4.3.2 Legal bases for protecting procedurally vulnerable beneficiaries No access
      3. 4.3.3 Responsibility for litigation lapses by the EU law beneficiary No access
    4. 4.4 Interim conclusions No access
      1. 5.1.1 Complementarity between Rewe-effectiveness and effective judicial protection No access
      2. 5.1.2 Components of effective judicial protection No access
      1. 5.2.1 Procedural protection vs. (other) procedural protection No access
      2. 5.2.2 Procedural protection vs. effectiveness of EU substantive law No access
      3. 5.2.3 Individual procedural protection vs. effectiveness of EU procedural mechanisms No access
      1. 5.3.1 Justifications for procedural obstacles based on the rule-of-reason No access
      2. 5.3.2 Art. 53 CFR and the level of effective judicial protection No access
      3. 5.3.3 Art. 52(1) CFR and modulation of judicial protection in EU secondary law No access
      4. 5.3.4 Balancing effectiveness against legal certainty under the full effect approach No access
    4. 5.4 Interim conclusions No access
    1. 6.1 Ex officio review: Striking a balance between substantive and procedural protection No access
    2. 6.2 Beneficiaries of ex officio review and effective judicial protection No access
    3. 6.3 Effective judicial protection: Striking a balance between substantive and procedural protection No access
    4. 6.4 Procedural harmonization of the principle of party disposition? No access
    5. 6.5 Looking ahead No access
  8. Bibliography No access 295 - 325

Bibliography (233)

  1. Andrews, Neil H., English Civil Procedure: Fundamentals of the New Civil Justice System (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  2. Beka, Anthi, The Active Role of Courts in Consumer Litigation. Applying EU Law of the National Courts’ Own Motion (Cambridge: Intersentia, 2018). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  3. Bernitz, Ulf, and Anders Kjellgren, Europarättens grunder (Vällingby: Norstedts juridik AB, 2007). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  4. Bertrand, Brunesse, Le juge de l’Union européenne, juge administratif (Brussels: Bruylant, 2012). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  5. Cadiet, Loïc, Jacques Normand, Soraya Amrani-Mekki, and Jacques Normand, Théorie générale du procès (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2013). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  6. Claes, Monica, The National Courts’ Mandate in the European Constitution (Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2006). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  7. Corrias, Luigi, The Passivity of Law. Competence and Constitution in the Court of Justice (Amsterdam: Springer, 2011). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  8. Corthaut, Tim, EU Ordre Public (Croydon: Kluwer Law International, 2012). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  9. Craig, Paul, and Gráinne de Búrca, EU Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. 5 edn. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011 a). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  10. Craig, Paul, EU Administrative Law. Vol. 2 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2012). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  11. Diesen, Christian, and Annika Lagerqvist Veloz Roca, Bevis 7: Bevisprövning i förvaltningsmål (Stockholm: Norstedts juridik, 2003). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  12. Dougan, Michael, National Remedies before the Court of Justice: Issues of Harmonisation and Differentiation, Modern studies in European law (Oxford: Hart, 2004). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  13. Douglas-Scott, Sionaidh, Constitutional Law of the European Union (Harlow: Longman, 2002). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  14. Ekelöf, Per Olof, and Henrik Edelstam, Rättegång: Första häftet (Stockholm: Norstedts Juridik, 2002). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  15. Ergec, Rusen, and Jacques Velu, Convention européenne des droits de l’homme (Brussels: Bruylant, 2014). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  16. Esaiasson, Peter, Mikael Gilljam, Henrik Oscarsson, and Lena Wängnerud, Metodpraktikan. Konsten att studera samhälle individ och marknad. 2 edn. (Stockholm: Nordstedts Juridik, 2004). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  17. von Essen, Ulrik, Processramen i förvaltningsmål: ändring av talan och anslutande frågor (Stockholm: Norstedts juridik, 2009). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  18. Galetta, Diana-Urania, Procedural Autonomy of EU Member States: Paradise Lost? A Study on the “Functionalized Procedural Competence” of EU Member States (Heidelberg: Springer, 2010). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  19. Gilliaux, Pascal, Droit(s) européen(s) à un procès équitable (Brussels: Bruylant, 2012). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  20. Gray, John Chipman, The Nature and Sources of the Law. Vol. 2 (New York: Macmillan, 1921). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  21. Harris, David, Michael O’Boyle, Edward Bates, and Carla Buckley, Harris, O’Boyle & Warbrick: Law of the European Convention on Human Rights (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  22. Hay, Colin, Political Analysis. A Critical Introduction (Hampshire: Palgrave, 2002). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  23. Hofmann, Herwig C.H., Gerard C. Rowe, and Alexander Türk, Administrative Law and Policy of the European Union (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  24. Jans, Jan H., Roel de Lange, Sacha Prechal, and Robert J. G. M. Widdershoven, Europeanisation of Public Law (Groningen: Europa Law Publishing, 2007). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  25. Kaczorowska-Ireland, Alina, European Union Law (Routledge, 2012). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  26. Klamert, Marcus, The Principle of Loyalty in EU Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  27. Lenaerts, Koen, Ignace Maselis, and Kathleen Gutman, EU Procedural Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  28. Lind, Allan, and Tom Tyler, The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice (New York: Plenum Press, 1988). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  29. Motulsky, Henri, Gérard Cornu, Jean Foyer, Berthold Goldman, and Philippe Fouchard, Ecrits (Paris: Dalloz, 1973). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  30. Paunio, Elina, Legal Certainty in Multilingual EU Law: Language, Discourse and Reasoning at the European Court of Justice (New York: Routledge, 2016). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  31. Prechal, Sacha, Directives in EC Law. 2 edn (New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  32. Robberstad, Anne, Mellom tvekamp og inkvisisjon: straffeprosessens grunnstruktur belyst ved fornærmedes stilling (Oslo: Universitetsforlaget, 1998). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  33. Schermers, Henry G., and Denis Waelbroeck, Judicial Protection in the European Union. 6 edn. (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2001). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  34. Schütze, Robert, European Constitutional Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  35. Schütze, Robert, European Union Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  36. Storskrubb, Eva, Civil Procedure and EU Law: A Policy Area Uncovered (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  37. Tridimas, Takis, and Paolisa Nebbia, European Union Law for the Twenty-First Century. Rethinking the New Legal Order. Vol. 1. Constitutional and Public Law External Relations (Oregon: Hart Publishing, 2004). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  38. Tridimas, Takis, The General Principles of EU Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2006). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  39. Wallerman, Anna, Om fakultativa regler. En studie av svensk och unionsrättslig reglering av skönsmässigt beslutsfattande i processrättsliga frågor (Uppsala: Iustus förlag, 2015). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  40. Ward, Angela, Judicial Review and the Rights of Private Parties in EC Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  41. Wejedal, Sebastian, and Allison Östlund, Advokatens roll. Om ändamålsenlig rollfördelning i mål om tvångsvård av barn (Stockholm: Santérus, 2016). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  42. Wennerås, Pål, The Enforcement of EC Environmental Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  43. Werlauff, Erik, Common European Procedural law. European Law requirements imposed on national administration of Justice (Gylling: DJOF Publishing Copenhagen 1999). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  44. Westberg, Peter, Civilrättskipning (Stockholm: Norstedts juridik, 2013). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  45. White, Robin C. A., and Claire Ovey, Jacobs, White & Ovey: The European Convention on Human Rights. 5 edn. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  46. Wilman, Folkert, Private Enforcement of EU Law before National Courts: The EU Legislative Framework (Northampton: Elgar European Law and Practice, 2015). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  47. Edited books and book chapters Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  48. Andrews, Neil H., ‘Nurturing Civil Justice’, in Festschrift für Rolf Sturner zum 70. Geburtstag. 2. Teilband, eds. Bruns, A., C. Kern, J. Münch, A. Piekenbrock, A. Stadler and D. Tsikrikas (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 1393. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  49. Arabadjiev, Alexander, Marko Pavliha, Marko Ilešič, Ada Polajnar-Pavčnik, and Boštjan Koritnik, eds., Challenges of Law in Life Reality, Liber Amicorum Marko Ilešič (Ljublana: Pravna faculteta Univerze v Ljubljani, 2017). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  50. Arnull, Anthony, ‘Judicial Activism and the European Court of Justice: How Should Academics Respond?’, in Judicial Activism at the European Court of Justice, eds. de Witte, B., E. Muir and M. Dawson (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  51. Arnull, Anthony, Catherine Barnard, Michael Dougan, and Eleanor Spaventa, eds., A Constitutional Order of States? Essays in EU Law in Honour of Alan Dashwood (Cornwall: Hart Publishing, 2011). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  52. Avbelj, Matej, and Jan Komárek, eds., Constitutional Pluralism in the European Union and Beyond (Portland: Hart Publishing, 2012). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  53. Barnard, Catherine and Okeoghene Odudu, eds., The Outer Limits of European Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2009). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  54. Barnard, Catherine, ed., The Fundamentals of EU Law Revisited: Assessing the Impact of the Constitutional Debate (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  55. Bobek, Michal, ‘Why There is no Principle of ‘Procedural Autonomy’ of the Member States’, in The European Court of Justice and the Autonomy of the Member States, eds. de Witte, B. and H. Micklitz (Antwerp: Intersentia, 2012). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  56. Brenninkmeijer, Alex Franciscus Maria, ‘The Influence of Court of Justice Case Law on the Procedural Law of the Member States’, in Administrative Law Application and Enforcement of Community Law in the Netherlands, eds. Vervaele, J. A. E. and K.-A. Andrean-Gellert (Deventer-Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publ., 1994). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  57. Brownsword, Roger, Hans-W Micklitz, Leone Niglia, and Stephen Weatherill, eds., The Foundations of European Private Law (Oxford: Hart, 2011). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  58. Bruns, Alexander, Christoph Kern, Joachim Münch, Astrid Stadler, Andreas Piekenbrock, and Dimitrios Tsikrikas, eds., Festschrift für Rolf Stürner zum 70. Geburtstag (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  59. de Búrca, Grainne, ‘National Procedural Rules and Remedies: The Changing Approach of the Court of Justice’, in Remedies for Breach of EC Law, eds. Lonbay, J. and A. Biondi (Michigan: John Wiley & Sons, 1997). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  60. Caoimh, Aindrias Ó, ‘Issues of EU Law Raised by National Courts of their Own Motion’, in Constitutionalising the EU Judicial System: Essays in Honour of Pernilla Lindh, eds. Cardonnel, P., A. Rosas and N. Wahl (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2012). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  61. van Cleynenbreugel, Pieter, ‘Effectiveness through fairness? ‘Due process’ as an institutional precondition for effective decentralized EU competition law enforcement’, in Procedural Fairness in Competition Proceedings, eds. Nihoul, P. and T. Skoczny (Northhampton: Elward Elgar, 2015). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  62. Craig, Paul, and Gráinne de Búrca, eds., The Evolution of EU Law, Vol. 2 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011 b). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  63. Cremona, Marise, ed., Compliance and the Enforcement of EU Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  64. da Cruz Vilaça, José Luís, ‘Le principe de l’effet utile du droit de l’Union dans la jurisprudence de la Cour’, in The Court of Justice and the Construction of Europe: Analyses and Perspectives on Sixty Years of Case-Law (The Hague: Asser press, 2013). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  65. Dougan, Michael, ‘In Defence of Mangold?’, in A Constitutional Order of States?, eds. Arnull, A., C. Barnard, M. Dougan and E. Spaventa (Cornwall: Hart Publishing, 2011 b). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  66. Dougan, Michael, ‘The Vicissitudes of Life at the Coalface: Remedies and Procedures for Enforcing Union Law before the National Courts’, in The Evolution of EU Law, eds. Craig, P. and G. de Búrca (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011 a). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  67. Drake, Sara, ‘More Effective Private Enforcement of EU Law Post-Lisbon: Aligning Regulatory Goals and Constitutional Values’, in New Directions in the Effective Enforcement of EU Law and Policy, eds. Drake, S. and M. Smith (Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2016). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  68. Dubos, Olivier, ‘Que reste-t-il de l’autonomie procédurale du juge national ? Histoire de l’attribution d’une compétence au nom de l’effectivité et de l’efficacité du droit de l’Union’, in Renvoi préjudiciel et marge d’appréciation du juge national, ed. Neframi, E. (Brussels: Larcier, 2015 a). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  69. Hartkamp, Arthur S., Martijn Hesselink, Ewoud H Hondius, Chantal Mak, and Edgar du Perron, eds., Towards a European Civil Code. Vol. 4 (Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer Law International, 2011). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  70. Hofmann, Herwig C.H., ‘Effective Judicial Remedies Before the National Courts’ in The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, eds. A. Ward, S. Peers, T. Harvey and J. Kenner, (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2014 a). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  71. Hofmann, Herwig C.H., ‘The International Market in a Context of Deepening Integration – Long on Content and Short on Modes of Delivery?’, in Of Courts and Constitutions: Liber Amicorum in Honour Of Nial Fennelly, eds. Bradley, K., N. Travers, A. Whelan and N. Fennelly (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2014 b). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  72. Jolowicz, John A., ‘Da mihi factum dabo tibi jus: A Problem of Demarcation in English and French Law’, in On Civil Procedure, ed. Jolowicz, J. A. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  73. Jolowicz, John A., ‘Substantive and Procedural Justice in Civil Litigation: A Measure of the Role of Civil Litigation’, in De tous horizons. Mélanges Xavier Blanc-Jouvan, ed. Fauvarque-Cosson, B. (Paris: Société de législation comparée, 2005). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  74. Jones, Clifford A., ‘Into the Parallel Universe: Procedural Fairness in Private Litigation after the Damages Directive’ in Procedural Fairness in Competition Proceedings, eds. Nihoul, P. and T. Skozcy (Cheltenham: Elgar, 2015). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  75. Law, Stephanie, ‘The Transformation of Consumer Law in Times of Crisis: The Ex Officio Control of Unfair Contract Terms’, in Transformation of Civil Justice, eds. Uzelac A. and C. van Rhee (Chem: Springer, 2018). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  76. Leczykiewicz, Dorota, ‘Effectiveness of EU Law before National Courts: Direct Effect, Effective Judicial Protection, and Member State Liability’, in Oxford Handbook of European Union Law, eds. Arnull, A. and D. Chalmers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  77. Lindahl, Hans, ‘Discretion and Public Policy: Timing the Unity and Divergence of Legal Orders’, in The Coherence of EU law, eds. Prechal, S. and B. van Roermund (New York: 2008). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  78. Lindholm, Johan, ‘‘DCFR, Please Meet National Procedure’: Enforcing the Frame of Reference Using National Procedural Law’, in The Foundations of European Private Law, eds. Brownsword, R., H.-W. Micklitz, L. Niglia and S. Weatherill (Oxford: Hart, 2011). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  79. Loos, Marco, ‘Individual Private Enforcement of Consumer Rights in Civil Courts in Europe’, in The Foundations of European Private Law, eds. Brownsword, R., H.-W. Micklitz, L. Niglia and S. Weatherill (Oxford: Hart, 2011). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  80. MacQueen, Hector L., ‘Illegality and Immorality in Contracts: Towards European Principles’, in Towards a European Civil Code, eds. Hartkamp, A. S., M. Hesselink, E. H. Hondius, C. Mak and E. du Perron (Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer, 2011). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  81. Meij, Arjen, ‘The Rules of the Game. Party Autonomy in the EU Courts’, in De Regels en het Spel, Opstellen over Recht, Filosofie, Literatuur en Geschiedenis aangeboden aan Tom Eijsbouts, eds. J-H. Reestman, A. Schrauwen, M. van Montfrans and J.H. Jans (The Hague: Asser, 2011). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  82. Micklitz, Hans-Wolfgang, and Bruno de Witte, eds., The European Court of Justice and the Autonomy of the Member States (Cambridge: Intersentia, 2012). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  83. Neframi, Eleftheria, ‘Exigence de cohérence et action extérieure de l’Union européenne’, in Le Droit, les Institutions et les politiques de l’Union européenne face à l’impératif de coherence, ed. V. Michel (Strasbourg: Presses Universitaires de Strasbourg, 2009). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  84. Neframi, Eleftheria, ‘La force intégrative du statut de l'Etat membre sur la fonction juridictionnelle’, in Le statut d'Etat membre de l'Union européenne, ed. Potvin-Solis, L. (Brussels: Bruylant, 2018). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  85. Neframi, Eleftheria, ‘La rôle du juge national dans le cadre du renvoi préjudiciel : une marge d’appréciation?’, in Renvoi préjudiciel et marge d’appréciation du juge national, ed. Neframi, E. (Brussels: Larcier, 2015). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  86. Neframi, Eleftheria, ‘Quelques réflexions sur l’article 19, paragraphe 1, alinéa 2, TUE et l’obligation de l’État membre d’assurer la protection juridictionnelle effective’, in La Constitution, l’Europe et le droit, Mélanges en l’honneur de Jean-Claude Masclet, ed. Boutayeb, C. (Paris: Publications de la Sorbonne, 2013). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  87. Neframi, Eleftheria, ed., Renvoi préjudiciel et marge d’appréciation du juge national (Brussels: Larcier, 2015). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  88. Neframi, Eleftheria, and Mauro Gatti, ‘Autonomy and EU Competences in the Context of Free Trade Investment Agreements’, in Negotiation and Conclusion of the New Generation Trade Agreements, eds. I. Bosse Platière and C. Rapoport (Edward Elgar, forthcoming 2019). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  89. Nihoul, Paul, and Tadeusz Skozcy, eds., Procedural Fairness in Competition Proceedings (Cheltenham: Elgar, 2015). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  90. Peters, Christopher J, ‘Legal Formalism, Procedural Principles, and Judicial Constraint in American Adjudication’, in General Principles of Law – The Role of the Judiciary, ed. Pineschi, L. (Switzerland: Springer, 2015). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  91. Pineschi, Laura, ed., General Principles of Law – The Role of the Judiciary (Switzerland: Springer, 2015). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  92. Piquani, Darinka, ‘The Role of National Courts in Issues of Compliance’, in Compliance and the Enforcement of EU Law, ed. Cremona, M. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  93. Plender, Richard, ‘The Role of National Judges in Implementing Uniform Rules of Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in the European Union’, in A Constitutional Order of States? Essays in EU Law in Honour of Alan Dashwood, eds. Arnull, A., C. Barnard, M. Dougan and E. Spaventa (Cornwall: Hart Publishing, 2011). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  94. Potvin-Solis, Laurence, ed., Le statut d'Etat membre de l'Union européenne (Brussels: Bruylant, 2018). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  95. Prechal, Sacha, ‘Between Effectiveness, Procedural Autonomy and Judicial Protection’, in Challenges of Law in Life Reality, Liber Amicorum Marko Ilešič, eds. Alexander Arabadjiev, A., M. Pavliha, M. Ilešič; A. Polajnar-Pavčnik and B. Koritnik (Ljublana: Pravna faculteta Univerze v Ljubljani, 2017 a). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  96. Prechal, Sacha, ‘Direct effect, indirect effect, supremacy and the evolving constitution of the European Union’, in The Fundamentals of EU Law Revisited: Assessing the Impact of the Constitutional Debate, ed. Barnard, C. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  97. Prechal, Sacha, ‘The Court of Justice and Effective Judicial Protection: What Has the Charter Changed?’, in Fundamental Rights in International and European Law, eds. Paulussen, C., T. Takácz, V. Lazić and B. van Rompuy (The Hague: Springer, 2016). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  98. Prechal, Sacha, and Rob Widdershoven, ‘Effectiveness or Effective Judicial Protection: A Poorly Articulated Relationship’, in Today’s Multi-layered Legal Order: Current Issues and Perspectives, ed. Baumé, T. (Paris: Zutphen, 2011 a). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  99. Ravo, Linda Maria, ‘The Role of the Principle of Effective Judicial Protection in the EU and its Impact on National Jurisdictions’, in Sources of Law and Legal Protection (Trieste: Edizioni Università di Trieste, 2012). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  100. Reestman, Jan-Herman, Annette Schrauwen, Manet van Montfrans, and Jan H. Jans, eds., De Regels en het Spel, Opstellen over Recht, Filosofie, Literatuur en Geschiedenis aangeboden aan Tom Eijsbouts (The Hague: Asser Press, 2011). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  101. Reich, Norbert, ‘Legal protection of individual and collective consumer interests’, in European Consumer Law, eds. Reich, N., H. Micklitz, P. Rott and K. Tonner (Cambridge: Intersentia, 2014). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  102. Reich, Norbert, Hans-Wolfgang Micklitz, Peter Rott, and Klaus Tonner, eds., European Consumer Law (Cambridge: Intersentia, 2014). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  103. Rosas, Allan, ‘The National Judge as EU Judge: Opinion 1/09’, in Constitutionalising the EU Judicial System. Essays in Honour of Pernilla Lindh, eds. Cardonnel, P., A. Rosas and N. Wahl (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2012). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  104. Rosas, Allan, Egils Levits, and Yves Bot, eds., La Cour de Justice et la Construction de l’Europe : Analyses et Perspectives de Soixante Ans de Jurisprudence (The Hague: Asser Press, 2013). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  105. Schütze, Robert, ‘Federalism as Constitutional Pluralism: ‘Letter from America’’, in Constitutional Pluralism in the European Union and Beyond, eds. Avbelj M. and J. Komárek, (Portland: Hart Publishing, 2012). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  106. Skouris, Vassilios, ‘The Principle of Procedural Autonomy and the Duty of Loyal Cooperation of National Judges under Article 10 EC’, in Tom Bingham and the Transformation of the Law: A Liber Amicorum, eds. Andenæs, M. T., D. Fairgrieve, B. Markesinis, E. McKendrick and S. B. A. Rix (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  107. St Clair Bradley, Kieran, ‘Powers and Procedures in the EU Constitution: Legal Bases and the Court’, in The Evolution of EU Law, eds. Craig, P. and G. de Búrca (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  108. Vahlne Westerhäll, Lotta, ed., Tvångsvård och psykisk ohälsa (Gothenburg: School of Business, Economics and Law, Legal Publications series 012, 2012). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  109. Vesterdorf, Bo, ‘Le relevé d’office par le juge communautaire’ in Une Communauté de Droit. Festschrift für Gil Carlos Rodríquez Iglesias, eds. Colneric, N., D. Edward, J.-P. Puissochet and D. Ruiz-Jarabo Colomer (Berlin: Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2003). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  110. Wallerman, Anna, ‘Manoeuvering Procedural Autonomy in Sweden: Is Materielle Prozessleitung the Answer?’, in Procedural autonomy: Room for Manoeuvre, eds. Nylund, A. and B. Krans (Intersentia, forthcoming 2019). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  111. Weatherill, Stephen, ‘Interpretation of the Directives: The Role of the Court’, in Towards a European Civil Code, eds. Hartkamp, A. S., M. Hesselink, E. H. Hondius, C. Mak and E. du Perron (Alphen aan den Rijn: Kluwer, 2011). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  112. de Witte, Bruno, ‘Treaty Revision Procedures after Lisbon’, in EU Law after Lisbon, eds. Biondi, A., P. Eeckhout and S. Ripley (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  113. Zetterquist, Ola, ‘Out with the New, in with the Old – Neo-Roman Constitutional Thought and the Enigma of Constitutional Pluralism in the EU’, in Constitutional pluralism in the European Union and beyond, eds. Avbelj, M. and Komárek, J. (Portland: Hart Publishing, 2012). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  114. Ziller, Jacques, ‘Les concepts d’administration directe, d’administration indirecte et de co-administration et les fondements du droit administratif européen’, in Traité de droit administratif européen, eds. Auby, J.-B. and J. Dutheil de la Rochère (Brussels: Bruylant, 2007). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  115. Journal articles and papers Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  116. Accetto, Matej, and Stefan Zleptnig, ‘The Principle of Effectiveness: Rethinking Its Role in Community Law’, European Public Law, 11 (2005), 375. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  117. Andrews, Neil H., ‘The Passive Court and Legal Argument’, C.J.Q., 7 (1988), 125. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  118. Arnull, Anthony, ‘The Beat Goes On’, E.L. Rev., 12 (1987), 56. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  119. Arnull, Anthony, ‘The Principle of Effective Judicial Protection in EU law: An Unruly Horse?’, E.L. Rev., 36 (2011), 51. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  120. Barents, René, ‘EU Procedural Law and Effective Legal Protection’, CMLR, 51 (2014), 1462. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  121. Beka, Anthi, ‘Commentary Note on Case C-618/10 Banco Español de Crédito SA v. Joaquín Calderón Camino, Judgment of 14 June 2012’, Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht, 9 (2012), 326. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  122. Beyer-Katzenberger, Malte, ‘Judicial Activism and Judicial Restraint at the Bundesverfassungs-gericht: Was the Mangold Judgment of the European Court of Justice an Ultra Vires Act?’, ERA Forum, 11 (2011), 517. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  123. Biondi, Andrea, ‘Effectiveness Versus Efficiency: Recent Developments on Judicial Protection in EC Law’, European Public Law, 6 (2000), 311. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  124. Bobek, Michal, ‘Cartesio – Appeals Against an Order to Refer under Article 234 (2) EC Treaty Revisited’, C.J.Q., 29 (2010), 307. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  125. Boccaccini, Marcus, Jennifer Boothby, and Stanley Brodsky, ‘Development and Effects of Client Trust in Criminal Defense Attorneys: Preliminary Examination of the Congruence Model of Trust Development’, Behav. Sci. Law, 22 (2004), 197. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  126. van den Bossche, Anne-Marie, ‘Private Enforcement, Procedural Autonomy and Article 19(1) TEU: Two’s Company, Three’s a Crowd’, YEL, 33 (2014), 41. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  127. Bossuyt, Marc, and Willem Verrijdt, ‘The Full Effect of EU Law and of Constitutional Review in Belgium and France after the Melki Judgment’, ECL, 7 (2011), 355. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  128. Broberg, Morten, ‘National Courts of Last Instance Failing to Make a Preliminary Reference: The (Possible) Consequences Flowing Therefrom’, European Public Law, 22 (2016), 243. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  129. Brulard, Yves, and Yves Quintin, ‘European Community Law and Arbitration – National Versus Community Public Policy’, J. Int’l Arb., 18 (2001), 533. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  130. Buhai, Sande, ‘Access to Justice for Unrepresented Litigants: A Comparative Perspective’, Loy. L.A. L. Rev., 42 (2008), 979. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  131. de Búrca, Gráinne, ‘The Legal Effects of Directives: Policy, Rules and Exceptions’, ELR, 34 (2009), 349. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  132. Burley, Anne-Marie, and Walter Mattli, ‘Europe before the Court: A Political Theory of Legal Integration’, International Organization, 47 (1993), 41-76. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  133. Cafaggi, Fabrizio, ‘Towards Collaborative Governance of European Remedial and Procedural law’, Theoretical Inquiries in Law, 19 (2018), 235. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  134. Cazet, Safia, ‘Le relevé d’office et la protection du justiciable’, Revue du droit de l’Union européenne, 3 (2017), 53. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  135. Chayes, Abram, ‘The Role of the Judge in Public Law Litigation’, Harv. L. Rev., 89 (1976), 1281. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  136. Claes, Monica, ‘Constitutionalizing Europe at its Source: The ‘European Clauses’ in the National Constitutions: Evolution and Typology’, YEL, 24 (2005), 81. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  137. van Cleynenbreugel, Pieter, ‘“Meroni” Circumvented? Article 114 TFEU and EU Regulatory Agencies’, MJECL, 21 (2014), 64. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  138. van Cleynenbreugel, Pieter, ‘Judge-Made Standards of National Procedure in the Post-Lisbon Constitutional Framework’, E.L. Rev., 12 (2012 a), 90. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  139. van Cleynenbreugel, Pieter, ‘The Confusing Constitutional Status of Positive Procedural Obligations in EU Law’, REALaw, 5 (2012 b), 81. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  140. Couronne, Vincent, ‘L’autonomie procédurale des États membres de l’Union européenne à l’épreuve du temps’, Cah. dr. eur., 46 (2010), 273. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  141. Coutron, Laurent, ‘Cour de Justice, 13 janvier 2004, Kühne & Heitz NV/Productschap voor Pluimvee en Eieren’, Rev. Aff. Eur., 13 (2003-2004), 417. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  142. Craig, Paul, ‘The ECJ and Ultra Vires Action: A Conceptual Analysis’, CMLR, 48 (2011), 395. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  143. Davidson, Jenny M., ‘The Full Effect of Community Law – An Increasing Encroachment upon National Law and Principles’, REALaw, 1 (2008), 113. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  144. Dederke, Julian, and Daniel Naurin, ‘Friends of the Court? Why EU governments file observations before the Court of Justice’, EJPR (2017), 1. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  145. Díez-Picazo, L.M., ‘Towards a Unified Judicial Protection in Europe (?)’, ERPL, 9 (1997), 975. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  146. Dougan, Michael, ‘Who Exactly Benefits from the Treaties? The Murky Interaction Between Union and National Competence over the Capacity to Enforce EU Law’, Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 12 (2012), 73. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  147. Dubey, Bernard, ‘Administration indirecte et fédéralisme d’exécution en Europe’, Cah. dr. eur., 39 (2003), 87. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  148. Dubos, Olivier, ‘The Origins of the Proceduralisation of EU Law: A Grey Area of European Federalism’, REALaw, 8 (2015 b), 7. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  149. Dubout, Edouard, ‘Le niveau de protection des droits fondamentaux dans l’Union européenne : unitarisme constitutif versus pluralisme constitutionnel – Réflexions autour de l’arrêt Melloni’, Cah. dr. eur., 49 (2013), 293. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  150. Düsterhaus, Dominik, ‘Procedural Primacy and Effective Judicial Protection – A Trilogue. Case C-112/13 A v. B and Others, EU:C:2014:2195’, MJECL, 23 (2016), 317. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  151. Ebers, Martin, ‘ECJ (First Chamber) 6 October 2009, Case C-40/08, Asturcom Telecomunicaciones SL v. Cristina Rodríguez Nogueira – From Océano to Asturcom: Mandatory Consumer Law, Ex Officio Application of European Union Law and Res Judicata’, Eur. Rev. Pr. L. (2010), 823. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  152. Efrat, Asif, ‘Assessing Mutual Trust among EU Members: Evidence from the European Arrest Warrant’, JEPP (2018), https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2018.1478877, 1. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  153. Eliantonio, Mariolina, ‘Case C-240/09, Lesoochranárske zoskupenie VLK v. Ministerstvo životného prostredia Slovenskej republiky, Judgment of the Court of Justice (Grand Chamber) of 8 March 2011’, CMLR, 49 (2012), 767. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  154. Eliantonio, Marioloina, ‘The Application of EC Law Ex Officio – Some News from the Italian Administrative Courts’, REALaw, 1 (2008), 101. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  155. Eliantonio, Mariolina, ‘The Future of National Procedural Law in Europe: Harmonisation vs. Judge-Made Standards in the Field of Administrative Justice’, EJCL (2009), 1. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  156. Engström, Johanna, ‘Effektivt rättsskydd i förvirring - Nationell process- och sanktionsrätt i ljuset av C-253/00 Muñoz’, ERT, 1 (2003), 167. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  157. Engström, Johanna, ‘National Courts’ Obligation to Apply Community Law Ex Officio – The Court Showing New Respect for Party Autonomy and National Procedural Autonomy?’, REALaw, 1 (2008), 67. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  158. Engström, Johanna, ‘The Principle of Effective Judicial Protection after the Lisbon Treaty. Reflection in the Light of Case C-279/09 DEB Deutsche Energiehandels- und Beratungsgesellschaft mbH’, REALaw, 4 (2011), 53. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  159. Ereciński, Tadeusz, ‘When Must National Judges Raise European Law Issues on Their Own Motion?’, ERA Forum, 11 (2011), 525. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  160. Franck, Jens-Uwe, ‘Rights, remedies and effective enforcement in air transportation: Ruijsenaars. Joined Cases C-145/15 and C-146/15, K. Ruijssenaars and Others v. Staatssecretaris van Infrastructuur en Milieu, Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 March 2016, EU:C:2016:187’, CMLR, 54 (2017), 1867. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  161. Fuller, Lon L., ‘The Forms and Limits of Adjudication’, Harv. L. Rev., 92 (1978), 353. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  162. Galetta, Diana-Urania, ‘The Jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice on the Procedural Autonomy of EU Member States’, Ius Publicum Network Review (2011), 1. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  163. Gattinara, Giacomo, and Fabrice Picod, ‘L’autorité de la chose jugée après l’arrêt Pizzarotti’, Rev. Aff. Eur., 3 (2014), 623. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  164. Gerbrandy, Anna, ‘The Dual Identity of National Judges in the EU and the Implausibility of Uniform and Effective Application of European Law throughout the European Union’, REALaw, 7 (2014), 33. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  165. van Gerven, Walter, ‘Of Rights, Remedies and Procedures’, CMLR, 37 (2000), 501. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  166. Graf, Bernd U., and Arthur E. Appleton, ‘Elisa Marioa Mostaza Claro v. Centro Móvil Milenium: EU Consumer Law as a Defence against Arbitral Awards, ECJ Case C-168/05’, ASA Bulletin, 25 (2007), 48. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  167. Groussot, Xavier, and Timo Minssen, ‘Res Judicata in the Court of Justice Case-Law: Balancing Legal Certainty with Legality’, ECL, 3 (2007), 385. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  168. Groussot, Xavier, ‘Spirit, Are You There? Reinforced Judicial Dialogue and the Preliminary Ruling Procedure’, The Eric Stein Working Papers (2008), 1. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  169. Groussot, Xavier, Gunnar Thor Petursson, and Jörgen Hettne, ‘General Principles and the Many Faces of Coherence: Between Law and Ideology in the European Union’, Lund University Legal Research Paper Series (2016), 1. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  170. Hacker, Philipp, and Max Fabian Starke, ‘European Union Litigation’, European Review of Contract Law, 12 (2016), 141. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  171. Hallberg, Jonas, and Östlund, Allison, ‘Början på slutet för skiljeförfaranden i internationella investeringsskyddsavtal? EU-domstolens avgörande i Achmea’, JT, 4 (2017/2018), 841. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  172. Hancox, Emily, ‘Meaning of Implementing EU Law under Article 51 (1) of the Charter: Åkerberg Fransson’, CMLR, 50 (2013), 1411. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  173. van Harten, Herman, ‘National Judicial Autonomy: The Example of National European Law Precedents in the Dutch Case-Law on the Free Movement of Services and the Freedom of Establishment’, REALaw, 2 (2009), 135. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  174. Heukels, Ton, ‘Joined Cases C-430/93 and C-431/93, van Schijndel and van Veen v. Stichting Pensioenfonds voor Fysiotherapeuten; and Case C-312/93, Peterbroeck, van Campenhout & Cie SCS v. Belgian State, Both Judgments of the Court of 14 December 1995 (Full Court)’, CMLR, 33 (1996), 337. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  175. Hinton, Eric F, ‘Strengthening the Effectiveness of Community Law: Direct Effect, Article 5 EC, and the European Court of Justice’, JILP, 31 (1998), 307. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  176. Hofmann, Herwig C.H., ‘Legislation, Delegation and Implementation under The Treaty of Lisbon: Typology Meets Reality’, European Law Journal, 15 (2009), 482. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  177. Hoskins, Mark, ‘Tilting the Balance, Supremacy and National Procedural Rules’, E.L. Rev., 21 (1996), 365. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  178. Houyet, Yves, ‘L’application d’office du droit de l’Union européenne par les juges nationaux’, J.D.E., 3 (2010), 69. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  179. Jans, Jan H., and Albert. T. Marseille, ‘Joined Cases C-222-225/05, Van der Weerd and others v. Minister van Landbouw, Natuur en Voedselkwaliteit, Judgment of the Court (Fourth Chamber) of 7 June 2007, [2007] ECR I-14233’, CMLR, 234 (2009), 853. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  180. Kakouris, Constantinos, ‘Do the Member States Possess Judicial Procedural “Autonomy”?’, CMLR, 34 (1997), 1389. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  181. Kitsos, John, ‘Public Procurement – Meaning of ‘Public Works Contract’ – Scope of the Principle of ‘Res Judicata’’, Eur. Procurement & Pub. Private Partnership L. Rev., 10 (2015), 207. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  182. Kleist, David, and Sebastian Wejedal, ‘Tala är silver, tiga är guld. Om muntlig förhandling i förvaltningsmål, särskilt i skattemål’, FT, 4 (2013), 345. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  183. Kmiec, Keenan D, ‘The Origin and Current Meanings of “Judicial Activism”’, CLR, 92 (2004), 1441. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  184. Komninos, Assimakis P., ‘New Prospects for Private Enforcement of EC Competition Law: Courage v. Crehan and the Community Right to Damages’, CMLR, 39 (2002), 447. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  185. Krommendijk, Jasper, ‘Is There Light on the Horizon? The Distinction Between “Rewe Effectiveness” and the Principle of Effective Judicial Protection in Article 47 of the Charter after Orizzonte’, CMLR, 53 (2016), 1395. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  186. Lang, John Temple, ‘The Duties of National Authorities under Community Constitutional Law’, E.L. Rev., 23 (1998), 109. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  187. de Lange, Roel, ‘The European Public Order, Constitutional Principles and Fundamental Rights’, Erasmus Law Review, 1 (2007), 4. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  188. Lauwaars, Richard, ‘The Application of Community Law by National Courts Ex Officio’, Fordham International Law Journal, 31 (2007), 1161. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  189. Mahlmann, Matthias, ‘The Politics of Constitutional Identity and its Legal Frame – the Ultra Vires Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court’, German Law Journal, 11 (2010), 1407. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  190. Mann, Frederick A., ‘Fusion of the Legal Professions?’, Law Quarterly Review, 93 (1977), 367. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  191. Martin, Raymond M., ‘La crise du contradictoire entre juge et avocat’, La Gazette du Palais, 1 (1978), 419. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  192. le Masson, Jean-Marc, ‘La recherche de la vérité dans le procès civil’, Droit et société, 38 (1998), 21. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  193. Mohr, Pamela, ‘Report of the Working Group on the Allocation of Decision Making’, Fordham Law Review, 64 (1996), 1325. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  194. Mounts, Suzanne E, ‘Public Defender Programs, Professional Responsibility, and Competent Representation’, Wisconsin Law Review (1982), 473. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  195. Nebbia, Paolisa, ‘The Double Life of Effectiveness’, Cambridge Yearbook of European Legal Studies, 10 (2008), 287. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  196. Neframi, Eleftheria, ‘L’État membre au service de l’Union’, Annuaire de droit européen 2004 (2006), 51. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  197. Neframi, Eleftheria, ‘Principe de coopération loyale et principe d’attribution dans le cadre de la mise en œuvre du droit de l’Union’, Cah. dr. eur., 1 (2016), 221. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  198. Nový, Zdeněk, ‘Arbitration Clause as Unfair Contract Term: Some Observations on the ECJ’s Claro case’, Cofola, 1 (2008), 76. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  199. Ortlep, Rolf, and Maartje Verhoeven, ‘The Principle of Primacy Versus the Principle of National Procedural Autonomy’, Netherlands Administrative Law Library, April-June (2012). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  200. Prechal, Sacha, ‘Community Law in National Courts: The Lessons from van Schijndel’, CMLR, 35 (1998), 681. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  201. Prechal, Sacha, ‘Does Direct Effect Still Matter?’, CMLR, 37 (2000), 1047. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  202. Prechal, Sacha, ‘Mutual Trust Before the Court of Justice of the European Union’, Mutual Recognition and Mutual Trust: Reinforcing EU Integration? (Second Part) European Papers, 2 (2017 b), 75. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  203. Prechal, Sacha, and Kees Cath, ‘The European Acquis of Civil Procedure: Constitutional Aspects’, Uniform Law Review – Revue de droit uniforme, 19 (2014), 179. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  204. Prechal, Sacha, and Natalya Shelkoplyas, ‘National Procedures, Public Policy and EC Law. From Van Schijndel to Eco Swiss and Beyond’, Eur. Rev. Pr. L., 5 (2004), 589. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  205. Prechal, Sacha, and Widdershoven, Rob, ‘Redefining the Relationship between “Rewe-effectiveness” and Effective Judicial Protection’, REALaw, 4 (2011 b), 31. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  206. Ritleng, Dominique, ‘De l’articulation des systèmes de protection des droits fondamentaux dans l’Union. Les enseignements des arrêts Akerberg Fransson et Melloni’, Revue trimestrielle de droit européen, 49 (2013), 267. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  207. Roeben, Volker, ‘Judicial Protection as the Meta-Norm in the EU Judicial Architecture’, Hague J Rule Law (2019), https://doi.org/10.1007/s40803-019-00085-3, 1. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  208. Šadl, Urška, ‘The Role of Effet Utile in Preserving the Continuity and Authority of European Union Law: Evidence from the Citation Web of the Pre-Accession Case Law of the Court of Justice of the EU’, European Journal of Legal Studies, 8 (2015), 18. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  209. Šadl, Urška, and Sabine Mair, ‘Mutual Disempowerment: Case C-441/14 Dansk Industri, acting on behalf of Ajos A/S v Estate of Karsten Eigil Rasmussen and Case no. 15/2014 Dansk Industri (DI) acting for Ajos A/S v The estate left by A’, ECL, 13 (2017), 347. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  210. Safjan, Marek, and Dominik Düsterhaus, ‘A Union of Effective Judicial Protection: Addressing a Multi-level Challenge through the Lens of Article 47 CFREU’, YEL (2014), 1. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  211. Sandefur, Rebecca, ‘Effects of Representation on Trial and Hearing Outcomes in Two Common Law Countries’, International Sociological Association, (2005), 1. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  212. Sandefur, Rebecca, ‘The Impact of Counsel: An Analysis of Empirical Evidence’, Seattle Journal for Social Justice, 9 (2010), 51. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  213. Sandin, Erik, ‘Åberopsbörda i mål om offentlig upphandling? Två steg framåt, ett steg bakåt’, JT, 10 (2009), 917. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  214. Schebsta, Hanna, ‘Does the National Court Know European Law? A Note on Ex Officio Application after Asturcom’, Eur. Rev. Pr. L., 4 (2010), 847. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  215. Shin, Hyan S., ‘Adversarial and Inquisitorial Procedures in Arbitration’, The RAND Journal of Economics, 29 (1998), 378. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  216. Simon, Denys, ‘Autorité de chose jugée des décisions juridictionnelles nationales’, Europe, 10 (2016). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  217. Simon, Denys, ‘Les fondements de l’autonomie du droit communautaire’, Droit international et droit communautaire. Perspectives actuelles (2000), 228. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  218. Smith, Susie, ‘Impresa Pizzarotti v. Comune di Bari (Case C-213/13): Is a Contract for the Leasing of a Building which has not yet been Built a Works Contract, and must a National Court Revisit a Ruling which has led to a Situation which is Incompatible with EU Procurement Legislation?’, Public Procurement Law Review (2014), 171. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  219. Snyder, Francis, ‘The Effectiveness of European Community Law: Institutions, Processes, Tools and Techniques’, The Modern Law Review, 56 (1993), 19. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  220. Spigelman, James, ‘Judicial Accountability and Performance Indicators’, C.J.Q., 21 (2002), 18. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  221. Thibaut, John, and Laurens Walker, ‘A Theory of Procedure’, CLR, 66 (1978). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  222. Timmerman, Mikhel, ‘Balancing Effective Criminal Sanctions with Effective Fundamental Rights Protection in Cases of VAT Fraud: Taricco’, CMLR, 53 (2016), 779. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  223. de la Torre, Fernando Castillo, ‘Le relevé d’office par la juridiction communautaire’, Cah. dr. eur., 41 (2005), 395. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  224. Tridimas, Takis, ‘Constitutional Review of Member State Action: The Virtues and Vices of an Incomplete Jurisdiction’, I•CON, 9 (2012), 737. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  225. Tulibacka, Magdalena, ‘Proceduralisation of EU Consumer Law and its Impact on European Consumers’, REALaw, 8 (2015), 51. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  226. Wallerman, Anna, ‘Överklagande av beslut att begära förhandsavgörande: Några reflektioner med anledning av EFTA-domstolens avgörande i Irish Bank’, ERT, 2 (2013), 308. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  227. Wallerman, Anna, ‘Towards an EU Law Doctrine on the Exercise of Discretion in National Courts? The Member States’ Self-Imposed Limits on National Procedural Autonomy’, CMLR, 53 (2016), 339. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  228. Ward, Angela, ‘Effective Sanctions in EC Law: A Moving Boundary in the Division of Competence’, ELJ, 1 (1995), 205. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  229. Warin, Catherine, ‘Individual Rights and Collective Interests in EU Law: Three Approaches to a Still Volatile Relationship’, CMLR, 56 (2019), 463. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  230. Wattel, Peter J., ‘National Procedural Autonomy and Effectiveness of EC Law: Challenge the Charge, File for Restitution, Sue for Damages?’, LIEI, 35 (2008), 109. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  231. Whittaker, Simon, ‘Who Determines What Civil Courts Decide? Private Rights, Public policy and EU Law’, Oxford Legal Research Paper Series, 46 (2012). Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  232. de Wilmars, J. Mertens, ‘L’efficacité des différentes techniques nationales de protection juridique contre les violations du droit communautaire par les autorités nationales et les particuliers’, Cah. dr. eur. (1981), 379. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143
  233. Östlund, Allison, and Jonas Hallberg, ‘Kan nya EU-domar läggas till grund för förnyad prövning av slutgiltiga internationella skiljedomar?’, JT, 3 (2018/19), 675. Open Google Scholar doi.org/10.5771/9783748901143

Similar publications

from the series "Luxemburger Juristische Studien - Luxembourg Legal Studies"
Cover of book: Interfaces between National and EU Law
Book Titles No access
Giovanni Chiapponi
Interfaces between National and EU Law
Cover of book: Experimental Law
Edited Book No access
Stefan Braum
Experimental Law
Cover of book: Studies on Enforcement in Multilevel Regulatory Systems
Edited Book No access
Katalin Ligeti, Kei Hannah Brodersen
Studies on Enforcement in Multilevel Regulatory Systems
Cover of book: Implications of Blockchain-Based Smart Contracts on Contract Law
Book Titles No access
Chantal Bomprezzi
Implications of Blockchain-Based Smart Contracts on Contract Law
Cover of book: Data Protection by Design in the E-Health Care Sector
Book Titles Full access
Giorgia Bincoletto
Data Protection by Design in the E-Health Care Sector

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Give feedback

We welcome your feedback on content and features. Your message helps us to continuously improve our service.

Rating
Attach images
or drag and drop
PNG or JPG (max. 3 MB)

Login

Forgotten your password?
Login via your Institution (SSO, Shibboleth, OpenAthens)
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex