Ensuring Effective Judicial Review of EU Soft Law via the Action for Annulment Before the EU Courts: A Plea for a Liberal-Constitutional Approach

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giulia Gentile
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
The Eu

Ensuring Effective Judicial Review of EU Soft Law via the Action for Annulment before the EU Courts: a Plea for a Liberal-Constitutional Approach

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 466-492
Author(s):  
Giulia Gentile
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Liberal Constitutionalism ◽  
Judicial Protection ◽  
Constitutional Jurisprudence ◽  
The Eu

Judicial review of EU soft law – Liberal-constitutionalism – Principle of effective judicial protection – The liberal-constitutional jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice – Action for annulment – Formalistic understanding of the concept of ‘legally binding effects’ – Preliminary ruling procedure – Limitations of the preliminary ruling procedure in granting effective judicial protection in relation to EU soft law – A plea for a liberal-constitutional reading of Articles 263 and 288 TFEU in relation to direct review of EU soft law

The use and Enforcement of Soft Law by Australian Public Authorities

2014 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-37 ◽  
Author(s):  
Greg Weeks
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Public Law ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Public Authorities ◽  
Regulatory Aspects ◽  
Highly Effective ◽  
Judicial Remedies

Soft law is a pervasive phenomenon which is highly effective as a means of regulation in Australia, as it is in many other jurisdictions. This article will not focus on the regulatory aspects of soft law, but will examine the capacity of individuals to obtain remedies where public authorities fail to adhere to the terms of their published soft law. The available judicial remedies apply in very limited circumstances, both in private law actions (in tort or equity) and public law (judicial review) actions. Ultimately, the most effective ways to remedy breaches of soft law appear also to be ‘soft’, such as recommendations of the Ombudsman and discretionary schemes for ex gratia payments.

Judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy by the ECtHR and the (re)negotiation on the accession of the EU to the ECHR

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2198824
Author(s):  
Maria José Rangel de Mesquita
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Regional Level ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
Conclusion Section ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

The article addresses the issue of judicial control of the implementation of Common Foreign and Security Policy at international regional level within the framework of the relaunching of the negotiation in view of the accession of the EU to the ECHR. Considering the extent of jurisdiction of the CJEU in respect of Common Foreign and Security Policy field in the light of its case law (sections 1 and 2), it analyses the question of judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy within international regional justice by the ECtHR in the light of the ongoing negotiations (section 3), in the perspective of the relationship between non-national courts (section 3.A), having as background the (2013) Draft Agreement of accession (section 3.B.1). After addressing the relaunching of the negotiation procedure (section 3.B.2) and the issue of CFSP control by the ECtHR according to the recent (re)negotiation meetings (section 3.B.3), some concrete proposals, including for the redrafting of the accession agreement, will be put forward (section 3.B.4), as well as a conclusion (section 4).

Judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy by the ECtHR and the (re)negotiation on the accession of the EU to the ECHR

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 356-370
Author(s):  
Maria José Rangel de Mesquita
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Review ◽  
Security Policy ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Regional Level ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
Conclusion Section ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
The Eu

The article addresses the issue of judicial control of the implementation of Common Foreign and Security Policy at international regional level within the framework of the relaunching of the negotiation in view of the accession of the EU to the ECHR. Considering the extent of jurisdiction of the CJEU in respect of Common Foreign and Security Policy field in the light of its case law (sections 1 and 2), it analyses the question of judicial review of Common Foreign and Security Policy within international regional justice by the ECtHR in the light of the ongoing negotiations (section 3), in the perspective of the relationship between non-national courts (section 3.A), having as background the (2013) Draft Agreement of accession (section 3.B.1). After addressing the relaunching of the negotiation procedure (section 3.B.2) and the issue of CFSP control by the ECtHR according to the recent (re)negotiation meetings (section 3.B.3), some concrete proposals, including for the redrafting of the accession agreement, will be put forward (section 3.B.4), as well as a conclusion (section 4).

scholarly journals Has the Action for Failure to Act in the European Union Lost its Purpose?

2014 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Inga Daukšienė ◽  
Arvydas Budnikas
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Case Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Eu Legislation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Legal Remedy ◽  
The Eu

ABSTRACT This article analyzes the purpose of the action for failure to act under article 265 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The statements are derived from the analysis of scientific literature, relevant legislation, practice of the European Union Court of Justice (CJEU) and the European Union General Court (EUGC). Useful information has also been obtained from the opinions of general advocates of the CJEU. The article of TFEU 265, which governs the action for failure to act, is very abstract. For this reason, a whole procedure under the article 265 TFEU was developed by the EU courts. The original purpose of the action for failure to act was to constitute whether European Union (EU) institution properly fulfilled its obligations under the EU legislation. However, in the course of case-law, a mere EU institution’s express refusal to fulfill its duties became sufficient to constitute that the EU institution acted and therefore action for failure to act became devoid of purpose. This article analyzes whether the action for failure to act has lost its purpose and become an ineffective legal remedy in the system of judicial review in the EU. Additionally, the action for failure to act is compared to similar national actions.

Cannons over the EU legal order: The decision of the BVerfG (5 May 2020) in the Weiss case

2021 ◽  
Vol 28 (1) ◽  
pp. 123-142
Author(s):  
Filippo Annunziata
Keyword(s):  
Monetary Policy ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Legal Order ◽  
Banking Union ◽  
Preliminary Ruling ◽  
Banking Supervision ◽  
The Public ◽  
Changes Over Time ◽  
Over Time ◽  
The Eu

The Weiss affair, culminating in the BVerfG ruling of 5 May 2020 ( Weiss II), marks a break-up point in the long-standing dialogue between the BVerfG and the CJEU. The judges in Karlsruhe refused to follow the decision rendered by the CJEU in a preliminary ruling ( Weiss I) and ordered EU institutions to provide further clarifications on the proportionality assessment of the Public Sector Purchase Programme. This paper claims that the principles applied by the BVerfG in Weiss I are quite similar to those employed in the Gauweiler and Landeskreditbank-Banking Union cases. Considering that background, it will be argued that the construction of the principles employed by the BVerfG for the judicial review of EU acts did not undergo dramatic changes over time. The different outcome of Weiss II is due to the fact that, according to the BVerfG, insufficient elements of explanation and justification were provided by the ECB and the CJEU. Therefore, the central problem of Weiss II ends up being a procedural question of allegedly insufficient statements of reasons. From Gauweiler to Weiss II, one also sees the development of the standards for the judicial review of the ECB’s decisions, in the fields of both monetary policy and banking supervision.

EU Soft Law in Domestic Legal Systems: Flexibility and Diversity Guaranteed?

2009 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 271-290 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emilia Korkea-Aho
Keyword(s):  
Holistic Approach ◽  
Soft Law ◽  
New Governance ◽  
Member States ◽  
Regulatory Instruments ◽  
Modes Of Governance ◽  
Judicial Recognition ◽  
The Eu ◽  
New Modes Of Governance

New modes of governance are proliferating at all levels, most prominently in the EU. One main characteristic of new governance is adjustability and revisability in the form of soft law. The non-binding nature of soft law is said to contribute to flexibility and diversity in Member States and to secure national autonomy. However, this article argues that while soft law may not be legally binding, it nevertheless has legal effects that throw flexibility and diversity of national action into doubt. Beginning by demonstrating that soft law may have discernible effects on practices in Member States, at the same time restricting Member State choices, the article goes on to develop a categorisation of those effects and to document them in detail. These are: judicial recognition by the European courts, explicit terms of soft law instruments, which demand special types of national implementing measures, the role played by non-state actors, and hybrid forms of regulatory instruments comprising soft and hard law provisions. The analysis shows a need to add variety to existing research on EU soft law, which has traditionally focused on the role of the judiciary in giving legal effects to soft law. Instead, we should be more attentive to the other three factors when discussing soft law. Besides the more holistic approach, research should also analyse soft law in a more case-specific manner in order to fully grasp the implications of choice of soft law in a domestic legal system.

scholarly journals Insights from the Slovak Hybrid Mail Services Case. Case Comment to the Judgement of the General Court of 25 March 2015 and Order of Court of Justice of the EU of 30 June 2016 Slovenská pošta v Commission (Cases T-556/08, C-293/15P)

2017 ◽  
Vol 10 (16) ◽  
pp. 191-203
Author(s):  
Karolis Kačerauskas
Keyword(s):  
European Commission ◽  
Judicial Review ◽  
Strange Situation ◽  
Member States ◽  
Commission Decision ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Article 102 Tfeu ◽  
The Eu

The Slovak hybrid mail services case (or Slovenska posta case) is truly unique in EU jurisprudence. Within the last decade, the European Commission rarely applied Article 106(1) in conjunction with Article 102 TFEU to challenge competition distortions in individual cases. Thus Slovenska posta constitutes one of the rare examples of such enforcement. Slovenska posta also constitutes a very rare example of a judicial review of Commission decisions based on Article 106(1) and 102 TFEU. Slovenska posta is only the second case when European courts were called upon to review the application of Article 106(1) and 102 TFEU by the Commission and the first when the judicial review was conducted over a Commission decision regarding “failure to meet the demand”. Indeed, since 1989–1990 (when the Commission commenced to apply Article 106(1) and 102 TFEU to challenge competition distortions introduced by the Member States) and until 2014, when the Court of Justice adopted its decision in Greek lignite (DEI) case, none of the Commission decisions was reviewed by EU courts. Such lack of appeals resulted in a rather strange situation under which the Commission and CJEU developed their own jurisprudence on the application of Article 106(1) and 102 TFEU and occasionally interpreted the same legal criteria differently. In this regard, a court review in Slovenska posta was eagerly awaited in the hope it would reconcile these diverging positions and provide more clarity on the application of Article 106(1) and 102 TFEU.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document