DOCSLIB.ORG

Access to Justice

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Access to Justice Final paper LL.M. in Natural Resources and International Environmental Law Access to Justice Non-judicial Remedies in EU Law Veronika Suchnová Supervisor: María Elvira Méndez Pinedo 30 ETCS September 2017 Abstract Existence of remedies is absolutely essential in every legal state which is based on justice and integrity. It is not possible to ignore their importance, they are the main instrument for preserving and developing the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals. These rights should always be at the top of the interests of any state or supranational institution. Still, there are many elements that weaken the position of an individual in seeking justice, or even prevent him / her from attaining it. The protection of individuals’ rights is offered not only by the judicial apparatus – nowadays, there are also many alternative methods available. And the European Union is making a substantial contribution. More than half of Europe’s countries have joined together to create a political and economic legal entity, inter alia, to improve the living standards of their people. Their rights are at the forefront of the Union’s interest and as such are protected by Union law. In the event of their breach, the European Union allows citizens to turn directly to its institutions as part of its complaints mechanism. The aim of this thesis is to examine in detail the process of access to non-judicial institutions of the Union – to the European Commission in the context of the infringement procedure, the European Parliament in the petitions procedure and the European Ombudsman, which are competent to investigate cases of breaches of Union law protecting citizens’ rights and also to ensure proper redress. Key words Access to justice. Direct effect. EU law. EEA law. European Commission. European Parliament. European Ombudsman. Citizens’ initiative. Complaints. Infringement proceedings. Petition. I would like to thank Professor María Elvira Méndez Pinedo for her valuable advice and remarks, willingness and generally very helpful approach to the supervising of this final thesis. Abbreviations ADR Alternative Dispute Resolution BGC British Gas Corporation EC European Commission ECI European Citizens’ Initiative EEA European Economic Area EEC European Economic Community EFTA European Free Trade Association EIA Environmental Impact Assessment EO European Ombudsman EP European Parliament EU European Union MEP Member of European Parliament TEU Treaty on European Union TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union UK United Kingdom US United States Table of Contents Abstract ............................................................................................................................ 3 Key words ........................................................................................................................ 3 Abbreviations .................................................................................................................. 5 I. Part: Introduction ....................................................................................................... 8 II. Part: Access to Justice ............................................................................................... 9 2. Development and obstacles from the perspective of international law .................... 9 3. Direct effect of law ................................................................................................. 13 3.1 EU law .............................................................................................................. 14 3.2 International law ............................................................................................... 15 3.3 EEA law ............................................................................................................ 16 III. Part: Access to the non-judicial European Union institutions ........................... 19 3. European Commission ............................................................................................. 21 3.1 Complaint to the Commission .............................................................................. 24 3.1.1 Who can file a complaint ............................................................................... 25 3.1.2 What can you complain about ....................................................................... 26 3.1.3 Whose actions can you complain about ......................................................... 26 3.1.4 How do you complain – the infringement proceedings ................................. 31 3.1.4.1 EU Pilot ................................................................................................... 36 3.1.4.2 Letter of formal notice ............................................................................ 38 3.1.4.3 Reasoned Opinion ................................................................................... 38 3.1.5 Statistics ......................................................................................................... 42 3.1.6 Suitability of the infringement procedure ...................................................... 46 3.1.7 Example of the infringement case ................................................................. 47 3.2 Summary of the infringement proceedings ........................................................... 49 4. European Parliament ............................................................................................... 50 4.1 Petition to the European Parliament ..................................................................... 57 4.1.1 Legal basis for petition the Parliament .......................................................... 58 4.1.2 Who can submit a petition ............................................................................. 60 4.1.3 What can I claim for a petition ...................................................................... 61 4.1.4 How does it work ........................................................................................... 62 4.1.4.1 Formal and material requirements of a petition ...................................... 62 4.1.4.2 Assessment of a petition ......................................................................... 64 4.1.5 Statistics ......................................................................................................... 70 4.1.6 Case study – how it works in real life ............................................................ 73 4.2 Summary of the petition system in the EU ........................................................... 74 5. European Ombudsman ............................................................................................ 76 5.1 Complaint to the European Ombudsman .............................................................. 80 5.1.1 Who can file a complaint ............................................................................... 82 5.1.2 What a complaint may concern ..................................................................... 83 5.1.3 Who do people complain about ..................................................................... 86 5.1.4 How is the procedure with the European Ombudsman ................................. 88 5.1.5 Complaints to the Ombudsman in numbers ................................................... 91 5.1.6 Sample case of handling a complaint by the Ombudsman ............................ 94 5.2 Summary of the European Ombudsman’s complaints mechanism ...................... 95 6. European Citizens’ Initiative ................................................................................... 97 6.1 Organization and registration of the ECI .......................................................... 98 6.2 Collection of statements of support .................................................................. 99 6.3 Verification and certification of the ECI ........................................................ 100 6.4 Examination of the ECI .................................................................................. 100 6.5 ECI and its comparison with other mechanisms of redress ............................ 101 IV. Part: Conclusions ................................................................................................. 103 Bibliography ................................................................................................................ 106 I. Part: Introduction In this work, I deal with instruments enabling private persons to reach the European Union institutions in order to achieve justice. This thesis will concern only non-judicial instruments, thus the Court of Justice of the European Union will not play a big part in this work and the main focus will be on the institutions such as the European Commission, the European Parliament and the European Ombudsman. I will also discuss briefly the European Citizens’ Initiative, which is a relatively new European instrument. Each section will be explained mainly from the theoretical point of view and then accompanied by practical examples and relevant case law. However, the individual sub-chapters will vary according to the nature of each institution. The first main section, the introductory part, is about the access to justice in general. Given that this work is intended to examine methods of operation of non- judicial authorities, access to the bodies of the judicial power is assessed with a critical eye in this section. In the first chapter, I try to comprehensively highlight the difficulties that an individual can struggle
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Europeanisation of Contract Law
    Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 20:52 09 May 2016 The Europeanisation of Contract Law A process of Europeanising contract law has been driven by the legislative activity of the European Union (EU), which has adopted a string of Directives touching on various aspects of contract law, mainly consumer law. Many of these Directives have dealt with a fairly isolated aspect of contract law. Consequently, the European infl uence has hitherto been rather fragmented, and lacks overall coherence. This book traces the process of Europeanisation of contract law by critically examining the developments to date and their impact on English law, in particular, as well as the implications of the EU’s desire to move towards greater coherence. The arguments for and against greater convergence in the fi eld of contract law are also covered. This second edition has been fully updated to refl ect the most recent developments in EU contract law. It includes coverage of the Principles, Defi nitions and Model Rules of European Private Law (the Draft Common Frame of Reference), and the Consumer Rights Directive and its likely impact on consumer contracts as well as the proposed Common European Sales Law. Christian Twigg-Flesner LLB (Hons) PCHE PhD is Professor of Commercial Law and Head of the Law School at the University of Hull. He is also a member of the Acquis Group, working on the Principles of existing EC Private Law, and on the Consulting Board of the Society of European Contract Law (SECOLA). Downloaded by [University of Defence] at 20:52 09 May 2016
    [Show full text]
  • To Read the Report of the EFTA Court 2020
    REPORT OF THE EFTA COURT 2020 eftacourt.int Reproduction is authorised, provided that the source REPORT is acknowledged. The recommended mode of citation of the EFTA Court’s case law is either of the following: – Casenumber,namesoftheparties(option1). – Casenumber,dateofthejudgment,namesofthe OF THE parties(option2). EFTA Court 1rueduFortThüngen EFTA COURT L-1499Luxembourg www.eftacourt.int 2020 Concept and Design by Imprimerie Centrale, Luxembourg Printed by Imprimerie Centrale, Luxembourg 4 | Foreword Foreword | 5 Theyear2020willberememberedfortheCOVID-19pandemic,whichhas hadamajorimpactallovertheplanet.TheoperationsoftheEFTACourt were no exception, as we had to close the premises when Luxembourg enteredintolockdowninMarch2020.Fortunately,theCourtwasableto continue to function close to normal and we have continued to deliver judgmentsthroughoutthepandemic.Afewdaysbeforethelockdown was announced, we were able to hold two oral hearings at the Court. Subsequently, the pandemic required us to organise hearings via video conference, which, thanks to the effort and dedication of our staff, were successful.In2020weorganisednineoralhearingsinsuchamanner andmorearescheduledforearly2021.Toensuretheaccessibilityand transparency of the hearings, they have been streamed live on the Court’s website. I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to everyone who participated in the hearings, and to those who helped make them possible. LastyearsawseveralnoteworthyjudgmentsfromtheEFTACourt. I would,inparticular,liketohighlightthatinCampbell,
    [Show full text]
  • The Horizontal Effect of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: a Constitutional Analysis
    The Horizontal Effect of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights: A Constitutional Analysis Eleni Frantziou A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy University College London, Faculty of Laws Declaration ‘I, Eleni Frantziou, confirm that the work presented in this thesis is my own. Where information has been derived from other sources, I confirm that this has been indicated in the thesis.’ 2 Abstract This thesis analyses the horizontal effect of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union from a constitutional perspective. It advances two main arguments: firstly, it argues that the horizontal effect of the Charter cannot be usefully discussed based on the existing EU horizontality doctrine. In the case law, horizontality is primarily associated with the exercise of horizontal direct effect. It is characterised by a series of technical rules as to how the latter may be produced and has a case-specific nature that lacks overall constitutional coherence. However, the horizontal effect of a fundamental rights list has organisational implications for society, which go beyond specific intersubjective disputes. Secondly, the thesis argues that a constitutional model of horizontality is required. This model necessitates constitutional reasoning by the Court of Justice, in the sense of public justification. In light of the Charter’s inherently political role in the EU project, its application to private relations rests upon a reconstruction of the EU public sphere. It requires an explicit recognition of the public character of certain private platforms of will formation (e.g. the workplace) and a discussion of the role of fundamental rights therein.
    [Show full text]
  • Fairhurst, Morano-Foadi and Neller's Law of the European Union
    FOUNDATIONS SERIES FAIRHURST, MORANO-FOADI AND NELLER’S LAW OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Sonia Morano-Foadi Jen Neller Thirteenth Edition FAIRHURST, MORANO-FOADI AND NELLER’S LAW OF THE EUROPEAN UNION At Pearson, we have a simple mission: to help people make more of their lives through learning. We combine innovative learning technology with trusted content and educational expertise to provide engaging and effective learning experiences that serve people wherever and whenever they are learning. From classroom to boardroom, our curriculum materials, digital learning tools and testing programmes help to educate millions of people worldwide – more than any other private enterprise. Every day our work helps learning flourish, and wherever learning flourishes, so do people. To learn more, please visit us at www.pearson.com/uk FOUNDATIONS SERIES FAIRHURST, MORANO-FOADI AND NELLER’S LAW OF THE EUROPEAN UNION Sonia Morano-Foadi Jen Neller Thirteenth Edition Harlow, England • London • New York • Boston • San Francisco • Toronto • Sydney • Dubai • Singapore • Hong Kong Tokyo • Seoul • Taipei • New Delhi • Cape Town • São Paulo • Mexico City • Madrid • Amsterdam • Munich • Paris • Milan PEARSON EDUCATION LIMITED KAO Two KAO Park Harlow CM17 9SR United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)1279 623623 Web: www.pearson.com/uk First published 1996 (print) Second edition published under The Financial Times/Pitman Publishing imprint 1999 (print) Further editions published 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2010 (print) Further editions published 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018 (print and electronic) Thirteenth edition published 2020 (print and electronic) © Pearson Professional Limited 1996 (print) © Pearson Education Limited 1999, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2010 (print) © Pearson Education Limited 2012, 2014, 2016, 2018, 2020 (print and electronic) The rights of Sonia Morano-Foadi and Jen Neller to be identified as authors of this work have been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
    [Show full text]
  • The Effects of EFTA Court Jurisprudence on the Legal Orders of the EFTA States
    ARENA Working Papers WP 04/18 The Effects of EFTA Court Jurisprudence on the Legal Orders of the EFTA States By Hans Petter Graver Professor dr. juris Department of Private Law University of Oslo 1 Abstract Establishment of the EEA with a court for the EFTA Countries ten years ago gives an opportunity to examine more facets of interrelations between courts and legal orders of different jurisdictions. The EEA differs from the Community legal order in that it is constructed as an agreement under public international law without the referrals of power included in the EC-treaty. On the other hand, the object of the agreement is to mirror the law of the Single Market into the relations between the EFTA states and the EC. Formally, the EFTA Court has a position more of an international tribunal than that of a supranational Court. Figures from the first ten years do not reflect this difference between the EFTA Court and the ECJ. Differences between the two courts regarding matters like legal basis, history, recruitment, workload and duration of proceedings, at least taken together, do not seem to influence the supply of referrals from national courts. Other factors such as similarities between the Nordic countries and construction of the national legal order have greater explanatory potential than differences between the EEA and the EC and in the institutional arrangements of the two courts. In the reception of the jurisprudence of the EFTA Court and the ECJ, the Norwegian Supreme Court does not distinguish according to legal obligations, but seems to take an approach similar to national courts in Member States of the EU.
    [Show full text]
  • References for Preliminary Rulings
    1 REFERENCES FOR PRELIMINARY RULINGS 1. Introduction 1 5. Other Ways of Obtaining 1.1. Preliminary rulings in the Legal Guidance from Community judicial system 1 Community Bodies 17 1.2. The structure of this book 3 5.1. Asking the European 2. History and Development Commission for guidance on of the Preliminary the interpretation of Reference Procedure 4 Community law 17 3. Outline of the Different 5.2. Asking the European Possibilities of Making Ombudsman for guidance References to the Court on the interpretation of of Justice 8 Community law 22 3.1. Overview 8 6. The Preliminary Reference 3.2. Article 68 of the EC Treaty 9 System in the Future 25 3.3. Article 35 of the EU Treaty 10 6.1. Overview 25 3.4. The Euratom Treaty 11 6.2. Transfer of preliminary cases to 3.5. Conventions 11 the Court of First Instance 26 3.6. Preliminary references and the 6.3. Green light procedures 30 Common Foreign and 6.4. Docket control 31 Security Policy 13 6.5. Limiting the right to refer to 3.7. The Treaty of Lisbon 13 courts of last instance 33 4. References to the 6.6. Decentralised Community courts 34 EFTA Court 16 6.7. The best way forward? 35 1. Introduction 1.1. Preliminary rulings in the Community judicial system A reference for a preliminary ruling is a request from a national court of a Member State to the Court of Justice of the European Community to give an authoritative interpretation on a Community act or a decision on the validity of such an act.
    [Show full text]
  • European Economic Area
    EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AREA JOINT PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE Ref. No. 1066093 12 May 2006 Brussels WORKING DOCUMENT on The implementation of EEA legislation Elaborated by Ms Diana WALLIS (ALDE-UK) Mr Gudlaugur Thór THÓRDARSON (Independency Party-Iceland) 2 I INTRODUCTION The aim of the EEA Agreement is to establish a dynamic and homogenous European Economic Area, based on common rules and equal conditions of competition. It extends the four fundamental freedoms of the Internal Market of the European Community, as well as a wide range of accompanying European Community rules and policies, to Iceland, Liechtenstein and Norway, the EFTA States that are signatories to the Agreement. A well functioning internal market is the cornerstone of economic integration in Europe. It brings benefits such as lower prices, better services and more work opportunities. The citizens and businesses of the EEA-countries will not be able to reap these benefits unless efforts are made to implement the common rules and principles according to which the internal market functions. All Member States will suffer if some Member Stats do not deliver. Two separate legal systems are employed within the EEA. On one side, the EEA Agreement applies to relations between both the EFTA and the European Community sides and between EFTA States themselves. On the other side, European Community law applies to relations between the EU Member States. For the EEA to persuade its aim of homogeneity, the two legal systems must develop parallel and be applied and enforced in a uniform manner. Figure 1: EEA Member States Transposition Deficits The main legal instrument of the Internal Market is that of directives, which must be transposed into national legislation in the EEA States.
    [Show full text]
  • The Troubled Relationship Between the Supreme Court of Norway and the EFTA Court – Recent Developments
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives The Troubled Relationship between the Supreme Court of Norway and the EFTA Court – Recent Developments Dr. Halvard Haukeland Fredriksen, University of Bergen I. Introduction – ‘New’ Courts, Old Problems Given the EEA Agreement’s near impossible goal of extending the internal market to the EF- TA States without the latter having to relinquish legislative, administrative or judicial sover- eignty to the EU, the assessment almost 20 years after its entry into force in 1994 can only be that the Agreement has worked, and continues to work, well.1 A significant part of the credit for this accomplishment is due to the many courts which are entrusted with the interpretation and application of EEA law – the EFTA Court, the Court of Justice of the EU (ECJ) and the national courts of the 30 EEA States. In general, the various courts have all, albeit arguably to a greater or lesser extent, contributed towards the realisation of a homogeneous European Economic Area with equal conditions of competition and respect of the same rules (Article 1 EEA).2 It may therefore seem unfair to devote this paper to the troubled relationship between the Supreme Court of Norway and the EFTA Court. As will emerge from the following dis- cussion, the difficulties in the relationship between the judges in Oslo and Luxembourg are primarily of an institutional character and thus, fortunately, of limited practical interest for the judicial protection of EEA based rights and obligations.
    [Show full text]
  • The European Court of Justice and Its Inconsistent Approach to the Doctrine of Direct Effect
    14. Resolution CM/ResCMN(2011)8 on the implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by Ukraine (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 30 March 2011 at the 1110th meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) [Електрон. ресурс]. – Режим доступу: https://wcd.coe.int/ViewDoc. jsp?id=1769033&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=C3C3C3&BackColorIntranet= EDB021&BackColorLogged=F5D383. 15. Resolution CM/ResCMN(2013)8 on the implementation of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities by Ukraine (Adopted by the Committee of Ministers on 18 December 2013 at the 1187bis meeting of the Ministers’ Deputies) [Електрон. ресурс]. – Режим доступу: https://wcd.coe.int/ ViewDoc.jsp?id=2143699&Site=CM&BackColorInternet=C3C3C3&BackColo rIntranet=EDB021&BackColorLogged=F5D383#P79_13700. V. Isakova1 THE EUROPEAN COURT OF JUSTICE AND ITS INCONSISTENT APPROACH TO THE DOCTRINE OF DIRECT EFFECT The issue pertaining to the circumstances under which individuals may seek enforcement of EU directives has proven to be one of the most contro- versial areas of EU law [17, p. 328]. This is primarily due to the Court of Justice’s approach to and application of the principles surrounding this practice. This article will critically consider the development and current application of the doctrine of direct effect in a bid to determine whether there is any justification for the Court’s approach to the matter. It will ulti- mately be argued that there is no apparent justification for the Court’s in- consistent and arbitrary application of the doctrine and that this therefore undermines the underlying purpose of the doctrine: to protect individuals from Community law violations.
    [Show full text]
  • The Distinctive Role of the EFTA Court in the European Economic Area
    The EFTA Court: Providing Safe Anchorage to the Single Market Michael-James Clifton, LL.B., LL.M. [Adv.], Barrister Chef de Cabinet, Chambers of Judge Bernd Hammermann, EFTA Court Workshop: “Market Access: Legal Parameters in Europe and Beyond” 26 October 2018, University of Bern All views expressed are personal, and do not necessarily represent those of the EFTA Court. Outline A.The European Economic Area B. The EFTA Court A. Composition and Procedure B. Principles of EEA Law C. Distinctive Character of the Court’s jurisprudence D. Relationship with the CJEU C. Future Dispute Settlement for Switzerland and the UK A. The Present (UK) B. Draft Withdrawal Agreement C. The White Paper D. Switzerland’s Situation E. Docking i. A Comparison ii. Potential Benefits D. Concluding Remarks 2 The European Economic Area 3 The EEA Agreement: an overview Recital 4 of the Preamble to the EEA Agreement: ‘CONSIDERING the objective of establishing a dynamic and homogeneous European Economic Area, based on common rules and equal conditions of competition and providing for the adequate means of enforcement including at the judicial level, and achieved on the basis of equality and reciprocity and of an overall balance of benefits, rights and obligations for the Contracting Parties’ How is this goal to be achieved? 4 The EEA Legal Framework Goal: • The EEA single market can only function in an undistorted way if there is a regulatory level playing field for individuals and economic operators • “the EEA Agreement is an international treaty sui generis which contains a distinct legal order of its own. The EEA Agreement does not establish a customs union but an enhanced free trade area[…] The depth of integration of the EEA Agreement is less far-reaching than under the EC Treaty, but the scope and the objective of the EEA Agreement goes beyond what is usual for an agreement under public international law.” E-9/97, Sveinbjörnsdóttir para.
    [Show full text]
  • The EEA 15 Years on – the Role of the EFTA Court Carl Baudenbacher, President of the EFTA Court 41
    European Economic Area 1994-2009 EFTA commemorative publication 2 EFTA Commemorative Publication Project leader: Marius Vahl Project team: Magne Hareide Eléonore Maitre Lars Erik Nordgaard Gudrun Sigridur Saemundsen Copy editing: J.W. Wójtowicz Production: Elin Bjerkebo Printed by Drifosett, Brussels Layout by Orangemetalic Printed May 2009 You can get more copies of this issue free of charge by contacting [email protected]. For more information about the European Free Trade Association, please visit our website: www.efta.int. Table of contents Foreword Kåre Bryn, Secretary-General of EFTA 5 The starting point The Luxembourg Declaration (9 April 1984) 8 The Way It All Started: A very personal account of events leading up to the Agreement on the European Economic Area Georg Reisch, former Secretary-General of EFTA 9 The Delors initiative Statement on the broad lines of Commission policy (17 January 1989) Jacques Delors, former President of the European Commission 12 Gro Harlem Brundtland, former Prime Minister of Norway 14 The Oslo Declaration (15 March 1989) 15 Delors’ Baby Jón Baldvin Hannibalsson, former Minister of Finance and Foreign Affairs of Iceland 16 The negotiations EEA 15 Years – A Vassal Contract? Eivinn Berg, former State Secretary and chief negotiator of Norway 20 The negotiation of the EEA Agreement: a Swiss view Franz Blankart, former State Secretary and chief negotiator of Switzerland 23 EFTA-EC Joint Declaration (19 December 1989) 25 The EEA Negotiations: Bumpy Road, Worth Travelling Veli Sundbäck, former State Secretary
    [Show full text]
  • The EFTA Court: an Actor in the European Judicial Dialogue
    Fordham International Law Journal Volume 28, Issue 2 2004 Article 4 The EFTA Court: An Actor in the European Judicial Dialogue Carl Baudenbacher∗ ∗ Copyright c 2004 by the authors. Fordham International Law Journal is produced by The Berke- ley Electronic Press (bepress). http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/ilj The EFTA Court: An Actor in the European Judicial Dialogue Carl Baudenbacher Abstract The vertical dialogue with the national courts of the EEA/EFTA States, in particular the Supreme Courts, has assisted the EFTA Court in developing its case law concerning effect and State liability. Through this jurisprudence, EEA homogeneity in the field of effect and State liabil- ity has been maintained. The EEA Main Agreement has been implemented in the domestic legal orders of the EFTA States. EEA secondary law is being implemented in an ongoing process. The same holds true for the rulings of the EFTA Court. There has, to this writer’s knowledge, never been a case in which a national court refused to set aside a conflicting rule of domestic law, at least not in a vertical context. That fact is also important from a reciprocity perspective. With respect to the horizontal dialogue with the Community Courts, one must remember that in its Opinion 1/91 on the first version of the EEA Agreement the ECJ struck down a provision according to which the Community courts would have been under an obligation to take into account the case law of the EEA courts. In practice, the Community courts have shown openness in cases in which they agree with the outcome as well as with the reasoning of an EFTA Court decision.
    [Show full text]