{"title":"Access to justice and strategic climate litigation in the EU: Curing the incurable?","authors":"Angelika Krężel","doi":"10.1111/eulj.12487","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Access to justice in the EU is to be assured via both the CJEU and national courts through direct and indirect action procedures. Following this, the main argument developed throughout this analysis is that the CJEU differentiates the revision standard when interpreting the obligations of EU institutions and those of Member States. It is concluded that this kind of interpretation maintains the limitations to access to justice for individuals in the EU (the ‘incurable’), even when faced with the attempt to overcome this restrictive interpretation in the specific case of strategic climate litigation (‘curing the incurable’). The specific case of strategic climate litigation is used as an example to illustrate the negative consequences of limitations to access to justice for individuals in the EU. In conclusion, it is assessed whether there are any other ‘real cures’ for this deadlocked situation and what the rationale is behind these double standards.</p>","PeriodicalId":47166,"journal":{"name":"European Law Journal","volume":"29 3-6","pages":"265-280"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Law Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/eulj.12487","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Access to justice in the EU is to be assured via both the CJEU and national courts through direct and indirect action procedures. Following this, the main argument developed throughout this analysis is that the CJEU differentiates the revision standard when interpreting the obligations of EU institutions and those of Member States. It is concluded that this kind of interpretation maintains the limitations to access to justice for individuals in the EU (the ‘incurable’), even when faced with the attempt to overcome this restrictive interpretation in the specific case of strategic climate litigation (‘curing the incurable’). The specific case of strategic climate litigation is used as an example to illustrate the negative consequences of limitations to access to justice for individuals in the EU. In conclusion, it is assessed whether there are any other ‘real cures’ for this deadlocked situation and what the rationale is behind these double standards.
期刊介绍：
The European Law Journal represents an authoritative new approach to the study of European Law, developed specifically to express and develop the study and understanding of European law in its social, cultural, political and economic context. It has a highly reputed board of editors. The journal fills a major gap in the current literature on all issues of European law, and is essential reading for anyone studying or practising EU law and its diverse impact on the environment, national legal systems, local government, economic organizations, and European citizens. As well as focusing on the European Union, the journal also examines the national legal systems of countries in Western, Central and Eastern Europe and relations between Europe and other parts of the world, particularly the United States, Japan, China, India, Mercosur and developing countries. The journal is published in English but is dedicated to publishing native language articles and has a dedicated translation fund available for this purpose. It is a refereed journal.
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号
