As far as the Charter is concerned, the Judge held that the establishment of a fee linked to the provision of a public service, the cost of which can reach up to 10,500 euro, constituted an obstacle to the right
of effective judicial protection, as it is laid down in Article 47 of the Charter.
This the Court achieved by claiming that the principle
of effective judicial protection constitutes a «a general principle of EU law stemming from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States», enshrined in Articles 6 and 13 of the ECHR and «reaffirmed» by Article 47 of the Charter (para. 35).
In the following paragraphs, the Court then examined the penalty system in the light of EU fundamental rights, but found it — essentially based on its features as already set out previously under Article 12 of the Directive — to be compatible with the principles
of effective judicial protection and respect for the rights of the defence.
Before arriving at this conclusion, the CJEU started its analysis under Article 47 of the Charter (which provides that «everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law») and its related principle
of effective judicial protection (paras 77 - 78 (references derive from the Kendrion judgment)-RRB-.
The point would be to milden the firm obligation to enforce Article 325 TFEU and disapply the statutes of limitations periods, imposed upon national courts in Taricco I, to the extent that the ICC could decide that the considerations
of effective judicial protection and legal certainty preclude in general the disapplication of statutes of limitations periods.
During the annulment proceedings Germany argued that the EU lacked competence in the matter and acted in violation of the principle of conferral, the obligation to state reasons, the principle of sincere cooperation, together with the principle
of effective judicial protection.
The case concerns the principle
of effective judicial protection (laid down in Article 47 of EUCFR) and the private enforcement of competition law.
The main controversy in the case was whether the principle
of effective judicial protection was adequately safeguarded.
The CJEU separately analyzed three different elements of the principle
of effective judicial protection: right of access to a tribunal and principles of nemo iudex in sua causa (no one can be a judge in his own cause) and equality of arms.
The Court was called to examine the compatibility of this system with the Directive, with the freedom of establishment and with the principle
of effective judicial protection and the rights of defence as enshrined in Articles 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights and 6 (2) of the European Convention on Human Rights.
Not exact matches
The Government
of Catalonia has announced that it will challenge the constitutionality
of the Ley, on the basis that it is contrary to Article 24
of the Spanish Constitution, which guarantees
effective judicial protection.
«does not enable an organisation such as LZ to be ensured
effective judicial protection of the various specific rights inherent in the right
of public participation, within the meaning
of Article 6
of the Aarhus Convention» (para 68).
This choice has led to much criticism because many considered the Plaumann formula too strict and liable to compromise the
effective judicial protection of individuals affected by EU legal acts.
This right is one
of the aspects
of the right to
effective judicial protection enshrined in Article 47
of the Charter.
The Court's contention that EU law provides for a complete system
of remedies, or at least remedies «sufficient to ensure
effective judicial protection for individual parties in the fields covered by EU law» (Case C - 64 / 16, para. 34) has to be understood as a formalistic conception in the sense that BITs clearly provide more complete and
effective remedies to investors than EU law or domestic law — and this understanding has been at the heart
of the reasoning
of arbitral tribunals in cases where they have rejected the argument that intra-EU BITs are incompatible with EU law.
This abstract idea is complemented by the more practical concern about the «full effectiveness
of EU law» (para. 56), a central part
of which is the availability
of «remedies sufficient to ensure
effective judicial protection for individual parties in the fields covered by EU law».
The obligation imposed on an individual to stand criminal trial regardless
of previously established statutes
of limitations periods interferes undoubtedly with the fundamental right to
effective judicial protection, safeguarded by Article 47
of the Charter.
Hence, national courts must balance between the obligation to protect the financial interests
of the EU and the fundamental right to
effective judicial protection.
the measures did not involve any breach
of the Council's obligation to state reasons, nor
of Rosneft's right
of access to the file, rights
of defence or right to
effective judicial protection, nor any misuse
of power, or breach
of the principle
of proportionality;
The banks thus argued that their fundamental rights
of defence and their right to
effective judicial protection were breached and that the Council violated its obligation to give reasons for their designation.
In the case
of the CFSP the national courts replace the CJEU and have to ensure
effective judicial protection of individuals also in the absence
of the Court's competence to make preliminary rulings and monopoly to annul EU law (AG view, para 102).
Through its last finding, the Court affirms unequivocally that fundamental rights in EU law (or, to be more precise, at least the rights to non-discrimination and
effective judicial protection enshrined, respectively, in Articles 21 and 47 EUCFR) are capable
of producing horizontal direct effect.
This was buttressed, by Art 47
of the Charter
of Fundamental Rights which guarantees
effective judicial protection.
The newly enriched requirement
of «
effective judicial protection», it turns out, demands nothing more or less than to having «courts and tribunals» in the sense that that concept has been defined in qualifying bodies entitled to send preliminary references to the Court.
The ECJ's decision followed the opinion
of an advocate - general that the right
of access to a national court was a fundamental right under EU law and denial
of such right would be contrary to the right to
effective judicial protection.
8.19 We recognise that an
effective system
of civil
judicial cooperation will provide certainty and
protection for citizens and businesses
of a stronger global UK.
it is for the national court, in order to ensure
effective judicial protection in the fields covered by EU environmental law, to interpret its national law in a way which, to the fullest extent possible, is consistent with the objectives laid down in Article 9 (3)
of the Aarhus Convention.
Judicial authorisation is an important safeguard to ensure
effective protection of the rights
of an incapacitated person to freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment, and to respect for their physical and moral integrity under the European Convention on Human Rights, Art 3 and Art 8.
Likewise, the Court observes that legislation not providing for any possibility for an individual to pursue legal remedies in order to have access to personal data relating to him, or to obtain the rectification or erasure
of such data, compromises the essence
of the fundamental right to
effective judicial protection, the existence
of such a possibility being inherent in the existence
of the rule
of law.