‘Access to Justice’ and the Development of the Van Gend En Loos Doctrine: The Role of Courts and of the Individual in EU Law

Q3 Social Sciences
N. Daminova
{"title":"‘Access to Justice’ and the Development of the Van Gend En Loos Doctrine: The Role of Courts and of the Individual in EU Law","authors":"N. Daminova","doi":"10.1515/bjlp-2017-0015","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The ‘access to justice’ within the meaning of the Treaty of Lisbon and the pertinent CJEU jurisprudence is primarily seen as access to the EU judicial system, i.e. to the EU Member States’ national courts applying the EU Law or/and the CJEU. The concept of ‘access to justice’ is therefore developing such premises of the Van Gend en Loos judgment as direct effect, vigilance of the EU individual, and the symbiotic relationship between the CJEU and national courts via the preliminary reference procedure. This work aims to explore the development of two basic ideas of Van Gend en Loos, i.e. granting directly enforceable EU rights to individuals and authorizing national courts to protect those rights, in light of the ‘access to justice’ concept within the meaning of the Lisbon Treaty – considering their importance for the realization of EU individuals’ substantive rights and uncertainty surrounding this issue. The paper develops a critique of the theory of justice in EU Law, analyzing if and how the Van Gend en Loos premises influenced the role of individuals making an attempt to claim their EU rights and the role of the EU courts responsible for the enforcement of ‘access to justice’ in the European Union. The claim of this paper is that the new concept of ‘access to justice’ brought by the Lisbon Treaty may be seen as the further development of the Van Gend ‘federalizing effect’ for greater integration through law and an enhanced protection of the individual within the EU multilevel system of Human Rights protection.","PeriodicalId":38764,"journal":{"name":"Baltic Journal of Law and Politics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Baltic Journal of Law and Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1515/bjlp-2017-0015","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract The ‘access to justice’ within the meaning of the Treaty of Lisbon and the pertinent CJEU jurisprudence is primarily seen as access to the EU judicial system, i.e. to the EU Member States’ national courts applying the EU Law or/and the CJEU. The concept of ‘access to justice’ is therefore developing such premises of the Van Gend en Loos judgment as direct effect, vigilance of the EU individual, and the symbiotic relationship between the CJEU and national courts via the preliminary reference procedure. This work aims to explore the development of two basic ideas of Van Gend en Loos, i.e. granting directly enforceable EU rights to individuals and authorizing national courts to protect those rights, in light of the ‘access to justice’ concept within the meaning of the Lisbon Treaty – considering their importance for the realization of EU individuals’ substantive rights and uncertainty surrounding this issue. The paper develops a critique of the theory of justice in EU Law, analyzing if and how the Van Gend en Loos premises influenced the role of individuals making an attempt to claim their EU rights and the role of the EU courts responsible for the enforcement of ‘access to justice’ in the European Union. The claim of this paper is that the new concept of ‘access to justice’ brought by the Lisbon Treaty may be seen as the further development of the Van Gend ‘federalizing effect’ for greater integration through law and an enhanced protection of the individual within the EU multilevel system of Human Rights protection.
“诉诸司法”与范主义的发展:法院和个人在欧盟法律中的作用
在《里斯本条约》和相关的欧洲法院判例中,“诉诸司法”主要被视为诉诸欧盟司法体系,即适用欧盟法律的欧盟成员国的国家法院或/和欧洲法院。因此,“诉诸司法”的概念正在发展Van Gend en Loos判决的直接效力、欧盟个人的警惕性以及欧洲法院与各国法院通过初步参考程序之间的共生关系等前提。这项工作旨在探讨Van Gend en Loos的两个基本思想的发展,即根据《里斯本条约》意义上的“诉诸司法”概念,授予个人直接可执行的欧盟权利和授权国家法院保护这些权利-考虑到它们对实现欧盟个人实质性权利的重要性和围绕这一问题的不确定性。本文对欧盟法中的正义理论进行了批判,分析了Van Gend en Loos前提是否以及如何影响了试图主张其欧盟权利的个人的角色,以及欧盟法院在欧盟负责执行“诉诸司法”的角色。本文的主张是,《里斯本条约》带来的“诉诸司法”的新概念可以被视为范根德“联邦化效应”的进一步发展,通过法律实现更大的一体化,并在欧盟多层次的人权保护体系中加强对个人的保护。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊介绍: Baltic Journal of Law & Politics (BJLP) is a scholarly journal, published bi-annually in electronic form as a joint publication of the Faculty of Political Science and Diplomacy and the Faculty of Law of Vytautas Magnus University (Lithuania). BJLP provides a platform for the publication of scientific research in the fields of law and politics, with a particular emphasis on interdisciplinary research that cuts across these traditional categories. Topics may include, but are not limited to the Baltic Region; research into issues of comparative or general theoretical significance is also encouraged. BJLP is peer-reviewed and published in English.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信