100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
Previously searched by you
Previously searched by you
logo
European Union Law - National Procedural Autonomy and State Liability Summary R193,04   Add to cart
Quickly navigate to
Preview
  2.  
  3. Oxford University (OX)
  4.  
  5. EU Law

Summary

European Union Law - National Procedural Autonomy and State Liability Summary
 0 view  0 purchase
  • Course
  • EU Law
  • Institution
  • Oxford University (OX)

Comprehensive summary/exam notes on national procedural autonomy and state liability under EU law. This document sets out a timeline from an emphasis on national procedural autonomy (Rewe-Zentralfinanz and Comet) to the cases of Francovich, Factortame (No.1) and Kobler. This document also contains ...

[Show more]

Preview 1 out of 4  pages

Document information

  • October 7, 2024
  • 4
  • 2022/2023
  • Summary

Subjects

  • eu law
  • european union law
  • state liability
  • francovich
  • factortame no1
  • kobler
  • equivalence
  • effectiveness
  • national procedural autonomy

Written for

  • Oxford University (OX)
  • Unknown
  • EU Law
All documents for this subject (10)

Seller

avatar-seller
bethjscott5713

Content preview

National Procedural Autonomy and State Liability
1. National Procedural Autonomy
C-33/76 Rewe-Zentralfinanz and C-45/76 Comet
National courts are deemed to have autonomy to determine procedural rules
in cases involving EU law, subject to the principles of equivalence and
effectiveness.
Equivalence = national procedural rules cannot be less favourable than those relating
to similar actions of a domestic nature.
Effectiveness = it must not be impossible to ensure respect for an individual’s rights
under domestic law.
2. Period of judicial activism:
Dominated by the increasing frequency and vitality of EU intervention in the national
systems of judicial protection.
Dougan: this was achieved almost entirely through a renewed conception and
application of the principle of effectiveness.
The key underpinning justification given by the CJEU is ensuring the
effectiveness of EU law.
BUT – this justification has often been lacking in the Court’s
judgement and perhaps this idea of effectiveness does not go far
enough to sufficiently justify the principle of Member State liability.
The Court has focused too much on upholding effectiveness
in the abstract without considering the actual indirect
consequences of the decision which may, ultimately, lead to
undermining the effectiveness the Court so desperately seeks
to protect.
a. Francovich:
C-6/90 & 9/90 Francovich – concerned a claim against the Italian state for damages
to compensate the claimant for losses on account of a failure to implement the
Insolvency Protection Directive.
Court’s judgement was revolutionary, holding for the first time that EU MS
could be liable to pay compensation to individuals who suffered a loss by
reason of that MS’s failure to transpose an EU directive into national law.
In other words, they had to “make good loss and damage”.
Justification = “the full effectiveness of Community rules would be impaired and the
protection of the rights which they grant would be weakened if individuals were
unable to obtain redress when their rights are infringed by a breach of Community
law for which a Member State can be held responsible”.
As such, the principle of state liability was inherent in the system of the
Treaty.
Clear that the key underpinning justification is ensuring the effectiveness of
EU law.
Departure from NPA – says no new remedies.
Is this justification enough?
In the Francovich ruling, the focus on ensuring the effectiveness of EU law
was arguably necessary.
Dougan – if the Court had placed its faith in the underlying adequacy (and
therefore equivalent application) of domestic rules, that faith would have
been overly optimistic.
He relies on disputes such as Von Colson on compensation to victims
of sex discrimination and Factortame (No.1) on interim relief for the
protection of Community rights as evidence that national law often
offered less than satisfactory levels of protection and as such EU
intervention was necessary to fully protect the rights of individuals.

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through EFT, credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying this summary from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller bethjscott5713. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy this summary for R193,04. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

78834 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy summaries for 14 years now

Start selling
R193,04
  • (0)
  Buy now