Skip to main content

LUP Student Papers

LUND UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

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

Kolm, Daniel LU (2014) JURM02 20141
Department of Law
Abstract
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... (More)
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. (Less)
Abstract (Swedish)
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... (More)
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. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Kolm, Daniel LU
supervisor
organization
course
JURM02 20141
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Principle of Effective Judicial Protection, Effective Judicial Protection, Principles of Equivalence and Effectiveness, National Procedural Autonomy, EU-law, European Union, Effective Legal Protection, Charter of Fundamental Rights, ECHR, European Convention on Human Rights, Lisbon Treaty
language
English
id
4451509
date added to LUP
2014-06-12 09:06:56
date last changed
2014-06-12 09:06:56
@misc{4451509,
  abstract     = {{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.}},
  author       = {{Kolm, Daniel}},
  language     = {{eng}},
  note         = {{Student Paper}},
  title        = {{Self Preserving Policy or Fundamental Rights Adjudication? – Mapping EU limitations of National Procedural Autonomy in the Name of Effective Judicial Protection}},
  year         = {{2014}},
}