Non-Judicial Remedies and EU Administration

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paola Chirulli ◽  
Luca De Lucia
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Remedies

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 Remedies and the Constitution

1994 ◽  
Vol 57 (2) ◽  
pp. 213-227 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sir John Laws
Keyword(s):  
Judicial Remedies

Small steps towards a comprehensive approach after Lisbon

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 109-137
Author(s):  
Elodie Sellier
Keyword(s):  
Security Policy ◽  
Implementation Process ◽  
External Action ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Judicial Cooperation ◽  
Foreign And Security Policy ◽  
The Common ◽  
Criminal Matters ◽  
Institutional Architecture ◽  
Judicial Remedies

This article examines the changes brought about by the Lisbon Treaty (LT) in the overall institutional architecture of the European Union’s Common Foreign and Security Policy (CFSP), alongside their impact on the operation of the internal–external nexus in counterterrorism (CT) policies. It argues that the inclusion of CFSP actors in the making and implementation process of CT policies eased the legal, institutional and policy boundaries between the CFSP and the field of Justice and Home Affairs (JHA). This is despite the specific status granted to the CFSP in the Treaties, the former remaining subject to intergovernmental procedures and unanimity in decision-making, even after the strides towards the ‘communautarization’ of policies achieved by the LT, in Police and Judicial Cooperation in Criminal Matters in particular. Central to the analysis is the interplay and division of competences between ‘new’ CFSP actors endowed with a coherence mandate, such as the European External Action Service and the upgraded office of High Representative, and ‘old’, pre-Lisbon, CT actors, JHA structures and member states in particular. This article finds that the involvement of the CFSP and more particularly its defence component, that is, the Common Defence and Security Policy, to realize CT objectives ‘affected’ the very content of foreign and security policies and heralded a process of ‘judiciarization’ of CSDP missions deployed in third countries resulting from the integration of criminal justice and law components in their mandate. The article concludes that the ensuing blurring of frontiers between the realms of CSDP and JHA raises fundamental rights concerns as to the judicial remedies available to individuals suspected or accused of terrorist activities.

General

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew Burrows
Keyword(s):  
Rigorous Analysis ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Self Help ◽  
Judicial Remedies

The concept of a remedy has rarely been subjected to rigorous analysis. Views may differ as to precisely what one is talking about. In this book, a remedy is used to denote the relief that a person can seek from a court. The focus is therefore entirely on judicial remedies; and not on what are sometimes termed ‘self-help’ remedies, which are available without coming to court, such as out of court settlements, termination of a contract, and the ejection of trespassers. Put another way, this book examines what a person can obtain from a court to counter an infringement (or threatened infringement) of his or her rights by a tort or breach of contract (or, in chapter 26, by an equitable wrong); but it is not concerned with any other legally permissible options open to a person to counter such an infringement.

Part VIII Remedies For Default, 27 Debt and Other Agreed Sums

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrews Neil
Keyword(s):  
Common Law ◽  
Practical Importance ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Principle ◽  
Breach Of Contract ◽  
Self Help ◽  
Liquidated Damages ◽  
Specific Performance ◽  
The Common ◽  
Judicial Remedies

This Part mostly concerns judicial remedies for breach of contract (the self-help remedy of forfeiture of a deposit is noted at [27.109]). The chapter sequence reflects both the division between Common Law (chapters 27 and 28) and Equity (chapter 29) but, more importantly, the practical importance of the judicial remedies, debt mattering more than damages, and in turn damages more than specific performance or injunctions. And so chapter 27 concerns ‘Debt’ (but agreed damages, ie liquidated damages clauses, are treated in the same chapter because the sum payable is, by definition, fixed or calculable in advance; but technically, agreed damages are damages and not a cause of action sounding in debt). Chapter 28 concerns damages, that is, compensation. Damages is a branch of the law which continues to generate a mass of intricate case law. Finally, chapter 29 concerns the equitable remedies of specific performance, injunctions, account of profits, and declarations. It is a fundamental principle that specific performance can be granted only if the Common Law remedies (debt and damages) are inadequate on the relevant facts. Chapter 27: The predominant claim for contractual default is the action for debt, to compel payment. Statistically this is the front-runner amongst remedies for breach. The availability of interest is also noted in this chapter.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document