Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T17:08:39.010Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Index

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  aN Invalid Date NaN

Edited by
Melanie Fink
Melanie Fink
Affiliation:
Leiden University
Type
Chapter
Information
Redressing Fundamental Rights Violations by the EU
The Promise of the ‘Complete System of Remedies'
 , pp. 461 - 490
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This content is Open Access and distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/cclicenses/

Index

Page numbers: bold = table, italics = figure.

AA, 193, 194, 197, 201, 204
Accession Agreement of EU to ECHR (‘AA’ agreed at Reykjavik, March 2023), 177, 191, 201
Article 01(1) (in footnote), 186
Article 03(1), 194
Article 03(2), 195, 197
Article 03(3), 195
Article 03(3) in footnote, 180
Article 03(5), 195
Article 03(7), 197, 198
Article 03(8), 196
Article 04a, 202
Article 36(4), in footnote, 198
EU accesstion to ECHR, 179
protocols not ratified by all EU Member States (in footnote), 186
AA (2013 version), 195, 196, 201
Aarhus Compliance Committee, 190, 217
Aarhus Convention (2005), 191, 217
abilities doctrine, 66, 67, 74
ability to give evidence, 68, 70, 86
interrelationship with effective judicial protection, 70, 71–77
abuse of power, 15, 277
access to court, 212, 213, 283
DG COMP, 293–294
ESMA, 286–288
OLAF, 301–302
‘severely limited’ (EU), 212
access to justice, 9, 151, 153, 212, 346
applicable fundamental rights, 274, 276–280
beyond judge, 280–284
beyond nation-state, 280–284
chapter structure, 274–275
co-existence of judicial and non-judicial remedies, 309, 310
definition, 272
division of competences, 309
elements, 272
enforcement by EU authorities, 274, 275–284
enforcement stages, 274, 275, 276–280, 285, 307
investigation, 278–279, 282, 287, 291, 292
monitoring, 276–278, 287
sanctioning, 279–280, 291, 292
evolution of concept, 274, 280–284
functional role, 272
identification of gaps, 306–310
implementation, 274, 275, 284–305
DG COMP, 289–297
ESMA, 285–289
OLAF, 297–305
judicial versus non-judical remedies, 284–305
legislative design of enforcement, 309
legislative practice, 275
lessons, 309–310
‘must be more than access to court’, 283
procedural limb, 272
recommendations, 275, 310
socio-legal literature, 274, 275
testing of remedies systems, 271–310
accessibility, 100, 145, 248, 256, 331, 338, 371
Accession Agreement. See AA
accountability, 127, 129, 130, 252, 253, 265, 429
diffusion, 171
‘effective orchestration through public messaging’, 153
political, 284
public appearance versus substantive, 131
accountability forums, 146, 151, 153
actio popularis, 214, 215, 225, 226
action for annulment, 8, 17–21, 93, 94, 152, 168, 192, 198, 200, 216, 301, 307, 425, 428, 429. See also Article 263 TFEU
admissibility, 60, 70, 86, 319, 322, 341
in footnote, 340
applicants (non-privileged), 18
applicants (privileged), 18
applicants (semi-privileged), 18
‘centrepiece of remedies system’, 422
Court of Justice (jurisprudence), 28–35
crucial instrument to review lawfulness of EU action, 20
directives not yet transposed into national law (systematic inadmissibility), 85
EU factual conduct, 319–322
fundamental rights, 13–35
General Court (jurisprudence), 21–28
looking beyond, 426
pleas, 17, 20
possible outcomes, 13
procedural fundamental rights dominate case law, 35
procedural rules (constraint), 20
procedure over substance (thus far), 35
rules, 17
standing, 18–21
standing (heavy burden of proof), 77–82
standing (pleas to lighten burden of proof), 82–87
standing for bringing (broad view), 100
strengths and weaknesses, 35
unavailability (soft law), 381
action for damages, 8, 36–63, 216, 301, 363, 424, 426. See also TFEU Article 268 juncto Article 340
admissibility, 60
in footnote, 340
charter rights (successful damages cases), 45
conclusion (better utilisation of for fundamental rights protection in EU), 60–63
damages liability as remedy for fundamental rights violations, 38–43
EU factual conduct, 324–327
against Frontex (pending), 218
fundamental rights remedy, 36–63
harm and compensation (types), 41
joint liability between EU and Member States, 55–60
establishing joint liability (attribution and causation), 56–59
implementing joint liability (court competence and parallel proceedings), 59–60
lack of clear admissibility/substance stages, 70
liability law (main functions), 38–43
compensating harm caused by fundamental rights, 38–40
condemning undesired behaviour, 41–42
vindicating rights, 42–43
literature (in footnote), 37
‘might be admissible, but will always fail on merits’ (soft law cases), 382
‘not very effective for fundamental rights remedy’ (two factors), 61
quantitative glance (CJEU damages case law in proceedings), 43–47
soft law, 381–382
‘unlawfulness’ as condition for EU fundamental rights liability, 47–55
CJEU’s approach to ‘sufficiently serious breach’ test in fundamental rights cases, 53–55
no conferral of rights by charter principles, 48–49
three arguments against applying ‘sufficiently serious breach’ test to fundamental rights, 49–53
action for damages (requirements on evidence)
ability to seek judicial redress, 87–93
effective participation (restriction), 87–93
action for failure to act, 189, 192, 216, 319, 362. See also TFEU: Article 265
EU factual conduct, 322–323
against Frontex (pending), 218
actori incumbit probatio: initial burden to give evidence falls on claimant, 69
adjudication, 125, 136, 140, 146, 150
right to within reasonable time, 54
usage (in footnote), 125
administrative action, 50, 130, 313, 317, 326, 329, 347, 348, 357, 364
in footnote, 318
administrative review: soft law, 384–388, 390
administrative tribunals (Australia/UK): in footnote, 126
admissibility of evidence, 65, 69, 86
in footnote, 65
Advocates General, 70
AG Bobek, 85, 86, 374, 381, 382
AG Bot, 376
AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona: in footnote, 389
AG Cruz Villalón, 48
in footnote, 186
AG Hogan, 77
AG Jacobs, 99, 189
in footnote, 4
UPA Opinion (2002), 82
AG Mengozzi, 42
AG Rantos, 32, 59
AG Roemer
‘ontological grounds’ of Article 173, 78
Plaumann case (1963), 78, 79
AG Saugmandsgaard Øe
Associação Sindical dos Juízes Portugueses case (2017), 375
AG Sharpston, 32
AG Wathelet, 376
Association de médiation sociale (AMS) case (2013), 48
Opinions (full list), xxvii–xxviii
aerial surveillance, 391, 402, 405, 406, 421
Frontex, AI-powered, 393–399
‘Agency’. See Frontex
AI, 9, 250, 253, 423, 428
EU border surveillance, 392–406
Frontex, 393–399
AI-powered aerial surveillance, 397–399
risks to fundamental rights
diverse nature, 399–406
risk of discrimination, 403–405
risks to ‘other substantive rights’, 405–406
risks to privacy and data protection, 400–403
‘human-centric approach’, 410, 420
manual-review requirement, 404, 408, 409, 414
AI Act Proposal, 391, 409, 410–417, 421
application to border surveillance (scope), 411–412
double-hatting EDPS, 417–421
interplay with data protection rules, 412–417
AI Act Proposal (Articles)
Annex III, 411
Article 01, 410
Article 02, 412
Article 05(a), 411
Article 05(b), 411
Article 05(c), 411
Article 10(3), in footnote, 412
Article 10(5), in footnote, 416
Article 53, 418
Article 53(1b), 419
Article 53(1f), 420
Article 53(a), 419
Article 57(a), 418
Article 59(8), 417
Article 63(6), 418
Article 68(a), 415, 418
recital 41, 416
AI and fundamental rights, 391–421
conclusion, 421
double-hatting EDPS, 417–421
protection gaps, 421
remedial possibilities, 406–417
access, 407–410
AI Act Proposal, 410–417
AI Act Proposal (application to border surveillance), 411–412
AI Act Proposal (interplay with data protection, 412–417
reviewability, 409, 410
risks (EU border surveillance), 392–406
AI Liability Directive (proposed, 2022), 63
AI Office, 418
AI systems, 393, 410, 411, 412, 415, 419
definition, 392
in footnote, 416
AI tools, 392, 393, 394, 397, 398, 404
AIRE Centre, 220
Albania, 143
algorithmic risk assessments, 397, 404, 408
algorithms, 250, 393, 394, 396, 398, 402, 403, 406, 408. See also ETIAS
alliance and conflict systems in courtroom (Andersen), 212
Alonso de León, Sergio, 354
alternative dispute resolution (ADR), 8, 228, 234
EU directive (2013), 256
in footnote, 234, 256
passim, 245–257
amicus curiae (friend of court), 219, 220
Amsterdam, 225
Andersen, Ellen, 212
Anderson, Terence: in footnote, 77
annulment. See action for annulment
antitrust proceedings, 290, 291, 295, 296
appeals procedures, 329
ARAs. See automated risk assessments
arbitral tribunals, 230, 231, 235, 237, 238, 240, 243
area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ), 392, 394
soft law, 377–379
Arnull, Anthony, 381, 383
Article I tribunals (USA): in footnote, 129
artificial intelligence. See AI
Asylum Procedures Directive (2013)
Article 14, 377
Article 15, 377
Article 15(3)(c), 377
asylum seekers, 111, 220, 374. See also EUAA
in footnote, 136, 216
attributability problem, 358–359
attribution
and causation (sequential questions), 56
clear rules required, 63
definition (action for damages), 56
threshold, 59
austerity, 163, 170, 375, 376, 377
EU-induced, 167–170
Austria, 80, 160
automated risk assessments, 393–397, 401, 402, 404, 410
definition, 393
Azoulai, L.: in footnote, 106
Belgium, xxix, 111, 173
Bentham, Jeremy, 96
Treatise on Judicial Evidence (1825), 95
binding legal effects, 20, 50, 320, 321, 348, 381
in footnote, 322
Bitcoin blockchain, 251
Blomgren Amsler, Lisa, 252, 253
in footnote, 253
Boards of Appeal. See BoAs
BoAs, 123, 124, 125, 129, 140, 150, 151, 152, 341, 388, 389, 426
access to justice perspective, 150
administrative review bodies, 334
authority and measures, 139–140, 146
decisions ‘legally binding’, 134
one exception (in footnote), 134
definition (broad), 133
expertise and funding, 146, 147–148, 149
increasingly ‘judicialized’, 129, 130
‘individual interest orientation’, 137
judicative function, 134
offer accountability ‘in quintessentially adjudicative fashion’, 129
‘often conceptualised as quasi-judicial’, 139
portrait, 133–134
‘share many characteristics with judicial institutions’, 139
Bogucki, Artur: in footnote, 416
Bosphorus doctrine. See ECtHR (cases)
Bourdieu, Pierre (in footnote), 126
Bovend’Eerdt, Koen, xi, 9, 271–310, 423, 425, 426
Briggs LJ, 254, 255
Brito Bastos, Felipe, 355
Broberg, M.: in footnote, 108
Brussels Convention, 235
Brussels I bis Regulation (2012), 235
Bundesverfassungsgericht, 159, 174, 175
CJEU ruling rejected (ECB PSPP case, 2020), 173, 175
non-publication of complaints not accepted for decision (in footnote), 175
Bundesverfassungsgericht (cases)
Atlanta case (2000), 167
full list, xxix–xxx
Maastricht case (2000), 172
Solange I case (1974), 163, 164, 165, 166, 167
Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft (Solange II) case (1986), 166
Bündnis 90/Grünen, 172
Bündnis Bürgerwille, 173
burden of proof, 65, 93, See also onus probandi
in footnote, 65
Campact, 173
Canada: British Columbia, 248
Canada-EU Trade Agreement (CETA), 174
capabilities (Nussbaum), 66
Cappelletti, M., 2
case law, 107, 139, 155, 183, See also (for example) CJEU (cases)
CJEU versus ECtHR, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 190, 193
causal link, 58, 59, 91, 92, 325, 326, 381, 382
in footnote, 88, 325
causation, 59, 88
clear rules required, 63
definition (action for damages), 56
threshold, 58
ceremony (neo-institutional organisation theory), 131
CFR, 1, 3, 19, 109, 110, 171, 428
actions for damages, 43, 44
‘can guide interpretation of Treaties’, 426
determination of whether provision contans ‘right’ or ‘principle’, 49
entry into force (2009), 158
EU soft law, 374
incorporation into EU law, 2, 423
‘rights’ versus ‘principles’, 48
only violations of former risk damages, 48
‘should extend to soft law’, 380
social and economic rights, 168
CFR (Articles)
Article 01, 316, 399
Article 02, 316, 405
Article 03, 316
in footnote, 188
Article 04, 316
in footnote, 188
Article 06, 315, 405
Article 07, 45, 114, 214, 215, 278, 298, 306, 315, 316, 349, 400
in footnote, 45, 188
Article 08, 45, 114, 214, 215, 315, 400, 414
in footnote, 45
Article 11, 380
Article 15, 374
Article 16, 45, 85, 316, 374
Article 17, 45, 85, 316, 374
Article 18, 144, 316, 400
Article 19, 316
Article 20, 114, 378
Article 21, 45, 114, 352, 378, 400, 404
right to non-discrimination (qv), 403
Article 22, 114
Article 23, 114
Article 24, 351, 380
Article 25, 49
Article 26, 49
Article 31, 44
Article 34(1), 49
Article 34(3), 49
Article 35, 49
Article 35(3), 380
Article 36, 49
Article 37, 49
Article 38, 49, 380
Article 41, 27, 31, 44, 46, 52, 134, 291, 306, 343, 407
right to sound administration (qv), 330
Article 41(1), 330, 342
Article 41(2), 330
Article 41(3), 43, 331
Article 43
in footnote, 330
right to lodge complaints with Ombudsman (qv), 331
Article 47, 2, 5, 32, 36, 42, 44, 46, 47, 50, 62, 64, 76, 77, 85, 86, 94, 97, 129, 134, 231, 240, 306, 308, 318–319, 320, 325, 343, 385, 418, 424, 426. See also effective judicial protection
Article 47(2), 74
Article 48, 44, 306
Article 49, 306
Article 51, 17, 375
Article 51(1), 103
Article 51(2), 188
Article 52, 32
Article 52(1), 47, 368, 382, 400, 415
Article 52(3), 33, 52
Article 52(4), 52
Article 52(5), 48
CFSP, 46, 47, 178, 181, 424
EU accession to ECHR, 199–204
benefits, 196–204
current gap in effective protection, 199–201
key to abbreviation (Common Foreign and Security Policy), 24
Chamon, Merijn, xi, 9, 366–390, 422, 423, 425, 427
‘Charter’. See CFR
Charter of Fundamental Rights, See CFR
Civil Courts Structure Review (UK), 254
civil law, 248
in footnote, 38
civil liberties, 156, 174, 190
challenges to EU intrusion on personal liberties, 170–171
civil service (of EU), 45, 192
Civil Service Tribunal, xxvi
in footnote, 44
civil society, 155, 156, 160, 161, 162, 169, 170, 174, 175, 414
CJEU, 1, 9, 14, 192
acte clair and acte éclairé, 158
action for annulment, 36
action for damages (appeals on points of law only), 43
annuls EU regulations (rather than acts), 114
approach to action for damages, 47
association between evidence and effective judicial protection, 67
attribution tests, 57
‘axiological assumptions’, 95, 96
‘broad interpretation of own jurisdiction’, 199
competence limited to pleas of law, 20, 21
‘complements jurisprudence of General Court’, 35
composite procedures (case law), 346
composite procedures (‘failure to clarify essential aspects of judicial review’), 365
conditions for liability, 43
deference to national courts ‘almost absent’, 115, 118
direct access ‘limited’, 219
economic sanctions case law, 87
EU accession to ECHR (Opinion 2/94 and Opinion 2/13), 178
fundamental rights reasoning, 424
‘has not developed coherent approach to attribution’, 57
‘has seldom qualified an act as both regulatory and self-executing’, 84
‘incoherent approach to attribution’, 58
‘inconsistent terminology’, 57
internal market, 70, 262, 371, 373, 390
joint liability between EU and Member States, 55–60
legality of Frontex’s activities (2021–2023), 4
looking beyond, 426–427
‘may not annul or declare primary EU law invalid’, 180
preliminary reference procedure, 16, 114
procedures of decisional nature, 357
purpose, 371
reliance in decisions on ECB’s Administrative Board of Review, 139
restriction of fundamental rights (notion ‘not properly clarified’), 371
sole authority claimed to review validity of EU acts, 156
sufficiently serious breach test, 49–55, 61
refusal to lighten burden of proof, 93
third-party interventions (‘not easily allowed access’), 211
treatment of fundamental rights complaints, 114–115
‘two-speed effective judicial protection’, 94
two-step test (criminal cooperation), 184
understanding of hierarchy of European legal norms, 158
‘very reticent to annul EU acts’, 118
view of Article 47 CFR, 424
will be subject to jurisdiction of ECtHR (upon EU accession to ECHR), 183
CJEU (cases)
Abdulrahim case (2013), 40
Achbita case (2017), 187
Achmea case (2018), 236, 237
Addis case (2020), 378
Akzo and Akcros joined case (2007), 320, 328
Al-Aqsa case (2012), 33
Aranyosi case (2016), 185
Association Greenpeace France ruling (1999), 362
Asturcom case (2009), 239
Atlanta case (1995), 166
Bank Refah Kargaran case (2020), 200
Baustahlgewebe case (1998), 183
Belgium v Commission (2018), 381, 382, 384
Bergaderm case (2000), 88, 89, 93
Berlusconi ruling (2018), 359, 360–363, 365
Bevándorlási és Állgmpolgársági Hivatal case (2018), 374
Bollman case (1973), in footnote, 105
Borelli case (1992), 359–363, 365
Brasserie du Pêcheur case (1996), 88, 93
Case Opinion 1/17 (2019), xxi, 16
Centraal Israëlitisch Consistorie van België case (2020), 111
Codorníu case (1994), 82
Digital Rights Ireland case (2014), 183, 214, 215
Eco Swiss case, 239
Elitaliana v Eulex Kosovo case (2015), xix, 200, 201
ERTA case (1971), in footnote, 312
Factortame case (1990), 73
Fédération bancaire française (FBF) case (2021), 288, 382, 384, 390
FIAMM case (2008), 93
Foto-Frost case (1987), 158, 171, 282, 307, 358, 359
French Republic v People’s Mojahedin Organization of Iran (2011), 30–32
full list, xiii–xxii
Funke ruling (2023), 364
Gascogne Sack Deutschland case (2013), 54
Grimaldi ruling (1989), 358
Groupe Gascogne v Commission (2013), 54
Hauer case (1979), 165
Homoki v Commission (2021), 300
Hungary v European Parliament and Council of EU (2022), 34–35
IBM v Commission (1981), 301
Internationale Handelsgesellschaft case (1970), 164
Inuit case (2013), 318, 327
in footnote, 83
Jeanningros ruling (2020), 361
Jégo-Quéré case (2004), 81, 99, 383, 384
Johnston case (1986), 73, 95
in footnote, 73
Kadi judgment (2008), 30, 87
established two principles, 24
Kampffmeyer case (1967), 59, 60, 89
Kempter case (2008), in footnote, 105
Kendrion case (2013), 54
Kočner v EUROPOL (currently under appeal), 58
Komstroy case (2021), 236, 237
KS and KD case (pending), 200, 203
La Quadrature du Net case (2020), 188
Laval case (2007), 187
Ledra Advertising joined case (2016), 376, 381
Les Verts case (1986), 4, 17, 95, 327, 365
Liga van Moskeeën case (2018), 114
Ligue des droits humains judgment (2022), 404
Lisrestal case (1996), 353
Mallis joined case (2016), 376
Mediocurso case (2000), 354
Mellifera case (2020), 217
Mostaza Claro case (2006), 238, 239
Mulder (milk quotas) case (1992), 103
N.S. and M.E joined case (2011), 220
Nölle case (1991), 407
Nord Stream 2 appeal, 84–87
Opinion 2/13 (2014), xviii, 178, 195, 196, 197, 201, 236, 237
Otero Ramos case (2017), 74, 81
Plaumann case (1963), 78, 79, 82, 83, 87, 93, 94, 133, 155, 164, 168, 170, 189, 211, 216, 217, 218, 226, 383, 387
Poland v European Parliament and Council of EU (2022), 34–35
Pringle case (2012), 375
Randstad [variously spelled] Italia case (2021), 77
Rewe case (1976), 73, 95
in footnote, 73
Rosneft case (2017), 200
San Giorgio case (1983), 74, 81
Schecke case (2010), 103
Schindler Holding Ltd v European Commission (2013), 33–34
Schrems I case (2015), 183, 215
Sharpston case (2021), 32
Steffensen case (2003), 75
Stichting Greenpeace Council case (1998), 217
Sturgeon case (2009), 102
Sweden v Commission (2007), 355
T.Port case (2003), 91
Tillack case, xvi, 316, 324, 326, 330, 332, 339
in footnote, 323
TUM case (1991), 407
TWD rule (1994), 100
Unibet case (2007), 384
UPA case (2002), 82, 88, 383, 384
Van Gend en Loos case (1963), 72, 78, 95, 273
Vendrame v Commission (pending), 300
Viking case (2007), 187
Wünsche Handelsgesellschaft case (1982), 166
CJEU (procedural fundamental rights reviews)
circumscribed, yet not inconsequential, 30–35
lawfulness of limitations to fundamental rights (fourfold requirement), 32
legally-structured tests, 32
CJEU (Rules of Procedure), 104, 106, 107
Article 023(2), in footnote, 106
Article 060, in footnote, 115
Article 094 (in footnote), 104
Article 096, 106, 220
Article 097, 219
Article 097, in footnote, 106
Article 130(2), 85
CJEU case law
action for damages proceedings (quantitative glance), 43–47
effective judicial protection ‘central fundamental right’, 22
principles of evidence (ability to give evidence), 68
principles of evidence (distribution of evidentiary duties), 68
principles of evidence (two families), 68
procedural entitlements recognised by, 68
CJEU Statute
Article 23, 106
Article 25, 152
Article 42, 152
Article 58a(3), in footnote, 125
recent reforms, 134
CJEU’s jurisprudence
action for annulment (qv), 28–35
action for annulment involving fundamental rights (numerical evidence), 29–30
appeals against General Court decisions, 29
‘virtually impossible to win an appeal’, 29
ClientEarth, 217
Coman-Kund, Florin, xi, 9, 311–344, 423, 426, 427
commercial arbitration, 237, 243
Commission. See European Commission
Commission Delegated Regulation (2012), 285
Common Agricultural Policy, 103, 112, 350
Common Foreign and Security Policy. See CFSP
common law, 220
in footnote, 38, 129, 371
communications, 101, 250, 278, 292, 298, 349
in footnote, 188, 314
Community Plant Variety Office, 386
BoA attached to, 134
companies, 37, 109, 111, 156, 158, 161, 163, 167, 170, 174, 277, 296
competition law, 183, 300, 307, 314, 316, 349, 350
Commission’s guidelines, 369
in footnote, 66, 186
parallel behaviour ‘strong evidence’ of concerted practice, 70
competition policies, 26, 294
complaints mechanism, 50, 143, 259, 262, 265, 338, 342
complete system of remedies, 4, 8, 16, 227, 244, 327, 424, 430
EU accession to ECHR, 177–205
completeness principle, 95
composite procedures
access to justice, 365
access to justice (difficulties), 357
access to justice (factual action), 357, 358–359
access to justice (problem of attributability), 357, 358–359
‘administrative action criterion’, 348
admissibility, 359
available remedies (to violations of fundamental rights), 347
case law, 346, 349, 353–356, 359–364, 365
categorisation, 346
chapter structure, 346–347
chapter thesis, 347
conclusions, 364–365
of decisional nature, 350
definition, 9, 345
discretion, 360, 361
factual conduct, 348–350, 364
finding competent court, 356–364
separation of jurisdiction, 356–357
fundamental procedural rights, 352–356
fundamental rights violations, 345–365
fundamental rights which might be violated, 346, 348–350
further research, 364, 365
‘horizontal’ versus ‘vertical’, 346
identification of appropriate judicial forum, 348
judicial protection (gaps), 347, 357, 365
lack official definition and clear conceptualisation, 345
literature review available, 345
structural shortcomings, 365
‘substantive’ fundamental rights, 350–352
sufficient remedies (availability), 345–365
term coined by Herwig C. Hofmann (in footnote), 345
conferral, 172, 234, 243, 423
confidentiality, 96, 140, 230, 292
in footnote, 140, 252, 299
configuration of elites (Andersen), 212
constitutional courts, 159, 160, 161, 162, 175
constitutional identity, 159, 175
constitutional review, 161, 162
Constitutional Treaty, 423
constitutions, 168
rights (first-generation versus second-generation), 159
consumer law, 245, 256
consumer protection, 238, 242, 256, 380
Consumidor.gov.br, 251
contradictory debate, 68, 69, 87
Convention. See ECHR
corporate procedures: admissibility, 359
Council of Europe. See also ECtHR
guidelines on ODR mechanisms (2021), 256, 264, 266
Reykjavik Summit (May 2023), 177
Steering Committee for Human Rights, 202
Council of European Union, 18, 24, 26
Court of First Instance, 183, 217, 354
in footnote, 183
later ‘General Court’ (qv), 189
Court of Justice of EU. See CJEU
COVID-19 pandemic, 173, 249
credit rating agencies (CRAs), 285, 286, 287
Credit Rating Agency Regulation (CRAR, 2011), 286, 287, 288
Annex III, 287
Article 23(b), 287
Article 23(e), 287
Article 36(a), 287
Article 36(e), 287
cultural and legal frames (Andersen), 212
culture, 252, 264, 284
Curia database, 109
Curtin, Deirdre: in footnote, 127, 153
cybersecurity, 253, 256
Cybersettle, 248, 250
Cyprus: pension system, 377
Data Governance Act (DGA, 2022), 379
data protection, 23, 183, 214, 220, 262, 315, 396. See also CFR Article 8
AI risks, 400–403
data protection authorities (DPAs), 415
Ireland, 223
data protection rules. See also right to data protection
‘far from homogeneous’, 413
interplay with AI Act Proposal, 412–417
Data Retention Directive, 214
data sharing, 350, 365
De Coninck, Joyce, xi, 8, 36–63, 424, 425, 426, 429
de facto, 280, 284
De Fazio, Gianluca: legal opportunity structures (three dimensions), 212
de Gregorio, Giovanni: in footnote, 258
de jure, 280, 284, 287, 289, 307, 309
Demková, Simona, xi, 9, 391–421, 423, 427, 428
Denmark: constitutional identity, 175
DG COMP, 275, 284, 289–297, 300
access to court, 293–294
access to justice, 294–297
acts in parallel with national authorities, 275
Hearing Officers, 295–296, 297, 308
independence, 296–297
investigative and sanctioning powers, 291
legal framework (safeguards and defence rights), 291–293
manual of procedures, 292
political accountability, 294–295
powers mostly ‘of coercive nature’, 291
Regulation (2003), 290, 291
Article 11(6), 290
Regulation (2004), 291
remedies (judicial), 293–294
remedies (non-judicial), 294–297
Digital Rights Ireland, 214, 215
Digital Services Act (DSA), 246, 254, 258, 259, 262
adoption (2022), 379
Article 02(h), in footnote, 258
Article 21, 265
Article 34, 380
out-of-court dispute settlement bodies (prospective), 266
digital sphere: soft law interferences with fundamental rights (practice), 379–380
direct actions, 8, 61, 64, 95, 97, 100, 104, 117, 211, 318, 328
evidentiary requirements (limitation to private parties’ seeking of judicial redress, 70
evidentiary requirements (obstruction of access to legal remedy), 70
possibility for third-party interventions, 221
strategic litigation, 216–219
direct concern, 78, 83, 84, 98, 155, 168, 189, 410, 424
applied talis qualis in failure to act proceedings, 79
possibility to establish in name of ‘effective judicial protection’, 85
probandum, 86
direct effect doctrine, 78, 95
Directorate General for Competition. See DG COMP
discretion, 51, 53, 92, 369, 370, 409
absence of, 79
can relate to policy choices and assessment of fact, 361
definition, 361
form a decision might take, 361
whether to exercise a power, 361
dispute resolution mechanisms, 227, 229, 230, 234, 236, 240, 241, 243, 244, 245
addition of fourth party (technology), 249
eBay, 247
in footnote, 253
traditional (three-party), 249
distributed ledger technologies (DLTs), 251
domestic law, 189, 243, 370
in footnote, 194
double jeopardy. See ne bis in idem
drones, 391, 398, 402, 405
Dublin system, 220
due process, 17, 252, 256, 310
Dutch Council for Refugees (DCR), 224
duty of care, 407, 408
duty to give reasons, 355, 356
Article 41 CFR, 353
Dworkin’s Herculean judge, 149
eBay, 246, 247
eBay: Resolution Centre, 245
EBCG Agency. See Frontex
EBCG Regulation (2019), xxxviii, 336, 337
Article 097(3), in footnote, 337
Article 098, 338
Article 098(1), in footnote, 338
Article 111, 335
Article 111(2) (in footnote), 335
Article 111(3) (in footnote), 336
in footnote, 135
recital 24 (in footnote), 135
recital 42 (in footnote), 135
ECHR, 17, 33, 50, 158, 236, 370, 428
EU accession, 177–205, 424
‘just satisfaction’ for violations, 40
ECHR (Articles)
Article 03, 182
in footnote, 188
Article 06, 33, 188, 190, 256, 296, 308. See also right to fair trial
Article 06(1), 188, 189, 190
Article 08, 349
in footnote, 188
Article 09, 372
Article 13, 190, 256. See also right to remedy
in footnote, 272
Article 35, 192
Article 36, 194
Article 36(4), 197
Article 46, 40, 184
ECN+ Directive (2019), 292, 295, 297
e-commerce, 245, 247, 250, 252
economic operators, 19, 37, 90, 289
economic rights, 156
challenges to EU trade regimes, 163–167
ECtHR, 8, 178, 226, 371, 372, 428
admissibility requirements, 191–193
case law, 52, 278
case law (quantitative analysis), 40
diagnostic test (five main stages) (Letsas), 371
exhaustion rule, 192
‘Greek hot spots for asylum seekers’, 2023 (in footnote), 136
judgments (‘binding nature’), 185
third-party interventions, 211
ECtHR (cases)
A, B and C v Ireland (Grand Chamber, 2010), 372
Al-Jedda v United Kingdom (2011): in footnote, 203
Behrami and Saramati case (2007), 203
in footnote, 203
Bivolaru and Moldovan case (2021), 182
Bosphorus case (2005), 181, 182, 187, 190, 204
Cha’are Shalom Ve Tsedek v France (2000), 372
Connolly case (2008), 181
Dangeville v France (2002), 189
Dhahbi case (2014), 188
full list, xxviii–xxix
Menarini Diagnostics Srl v Italy (2011), 34
Posti and Rahko v Finland (2002), 190
Sanofi Pasteur v France (2020), 188
Spasov case, 189
ECtHR (intensity of review: four aspects), 187–191, 204
doctrine of positive obligations, 187, 204
locus standi requirements, 189
margin of appreciation, 187
‘rather procedural Dhahbi case law’, 188
ECtHR: Practical Guide on Admissibility Criteria (2022), in footnote, 372
EDPS, 342, 343, 392, 412, 413, 415, 421, 426
clear obligation when dealing with complaints, 339
conformity assessments, 418
double-hatting, 417–421
key to abbreviation (European Data Protection Supervisor), 338
offers ‘quite effective legal protection’, 340
participate in organisation of regulatory sandboxes, 419
role (protecting fundamental rights), 420
role in AI Office, 418
supervisory role, 420
Edwards, Lilian: in footnote, 412
effective judicial protection, 8, 16, 22, 23, 25, 64, 67, 93, 97, 205, 231, 240, 319, 366, 383, 425, 429. See also Article 47 CFR
access to remedy ‘the procedural guarantee’, 73
by third country, 25
choice of procedures, 95
competition policies, 26
EU and national institutions (various fields of law), 26
holistic reading (some scholarly endorsement), 75
holistic reading (some support in case law), 75
holistic reading of ‘procedure’, 76, 94
interrelationship with effective ability to give evidence, 70, 71–77
lato sensu understanding (Wildemeersch), 75
limit, 32
restricted by evidence requirements, 77–87
standard of ‘effectiveness’, 73, 75
standard of ‘effectiveness’ (uniformity between EU and Member states), 76, 77, 94
‘two-speed’, 94
effective participation, 68, 70, 94
definition, 67
definition (in footnote), 67
effective participation (restriction in action for damages), 87–93
effectiveness
Article 47 CFR, 76, 87, 94
‘clear definition lacking’, 71
national systems of procedures and remedies, 76
‘outcome-oriented notion’, 71, 72
preliminary observations, 71
scope, 71
uniformity, 71
effectiveness test (rules on evidence), 74
effectiveness-rights correlation, 72
effet utile, 72
electronic communications, 188, 245
Electronic Frontier Foundation, 214
Eliantonio, Mariolina, xi, 9, 345–365, 368, 370, 423, 425, 427
English High Court, 171, 203
entrepreneurs, 163, 167
Entry/Exit System (EES), 394, 395, 396, 412
environmental law, 216, 217, 219
e-Privacy Directive (2002): in footnote, 413
equal opportunities: in footnote, 66, 226
equal treatment, 23, 28
in footnote, 66, 226
equivalence, 75, 238, 239, 384
in footnote, 281
error in law, 31, 238
ESM, 167, 173
MoUs, 375, 377, 381
ESM Treaty (2012), 375
ESMA, 274, 307, 308, 309
access to court, 286–288
access to justice, 285–289
availability of judicial review, 287
founding regulation (2010, amended 2019), 288
Article 03, 289
Article 05, 289
Article 10-16, 287
Article 42, 46, 49, 52, and 59, 289
Article 60(a), 289
Article 62, 289
independence, 289
‘independent agency lacking fully-fledged input legitimacy’, 287
‘intentional’ or ‘negligent’ violations by private actors, 288
on-site inspections, 307
positioned above national authorities, 275
procedural safeguards (‘clarity’ question), 287
remedies (judicial), 286–288
remedies (non-judicial), 288–289
ESMA: Board of Appeal, 287, 308
ESMA: Independent Investigation Officer (IIO), 287
ESMA: Recommendations (2013) on scope of CRAR, 286
ETIAS, xxxvii, 394–397, 399, 401–404, 405, 408, 412, 421
risk algorithm, 397, 409, 410, 413, 414
ETIAS Central System, 395
ETIAS Central Unit, 395, 410, 414
identical to ‘Frontex’ (qv), 395
ETIAS National Units, 397, 409
ETIAS Regulation (2018), 409, 410
Article 14, 403
Article 33(1), 396
in footnote, 395
EU
asylum acquis, 377
border surveillance (risks to fundamental rights), 392–406
burgeoning transnational executive (cloak of legitimacy), 130
closed legal opportunity structures, 211–212
common asylum policy, 262
executive actors’ ‘lack of electoral accountability’, 153
‘expanding competence’, 227, 242
foreign missions, 171
‘functionally-tailored non-state actor’, 53
fundamental rights violations (ODR as redress mechanism), 261–266
fundamental rights violations (role of national courts in redressing), 155–176
general system of evidence, 64–71
as lawmaker, 6, 7
as lawmaker (outdated vision), 422–423
level of democratic accountability ‘lags behind’ (in footnote), 128
multiple legal orders (challenge of ensuring protection of rights in same fashion), 307
positive obligations (sometimes lacks means or competence), 53
power, 3, 5
range of action ‘ever growing’, 99
response to Russian invasion of Ukraine (soft law), 378–379
rule intended to confer rights on individuals (mode of determination), 48
specific interest in upholding fundamental rights, 13
‘vast executive expansion since 1990s’, 123
EU accession to ECHR, 177–205, 424
benefits of accession, 179–191
external remedies filling two protection gaps, 179, 180–183
greater coherency between EU and ECHR, 179, 183–186
substantive effects of accession on practices, 179, 186–191
CFSP, 199–204
conclusion, 204–205
procedural practicalities after accession, 191–198
co-respondent mechanism, 194–197, 204
ECtHR admissibility requirements, 191–193
prior involvement procedure, 197–198, 204
shared or concurrent responsibility, 194–197
would silence ‘charges of double standards’, 180
EU administrative authorities
acountability, 351
infringement of EU fundamental rights, 347
EU agencies, 127, 385
list of, with own BoA (in footnote), 133
soft law, 369
EU Agency for Asylum. See EUAA
EU Agency for Large-Scale IT Systems. See eu-LISA
EU authorities, 6–7
definition (broad versus narrow), 6
EU Aviation Safety Agency, 134
EU citizen, 99, 137, 331
EU consumer ODR platform, 256–258
design shortcoming, 264
EU DPR. See GDPR (2018/1725)
EU enforcement authorities (EEAs), 200, 308, 309, 310
EU factual conduct, 9, 311–344, 359, 364
act with ‘binding legal effects’, 320–321
in footnote, 322
act without ‘binding legal effects’ (way to review legality), 321–322
acts of ‘physical’ conduct, 315
and fundamental rights, 311, 312–316
closing legal protection gap, 344
composite procedures, 358–359
conceptual reflections, 311, 312–315
conclusion, 344
judicial remedies, 311, 318–329, 340
action for damages, 324–327
action of annulment, 319–322
failure to act, 322–323
gaps and shortcomings, 327–329
plea of illegality, 327
preliminary reference procedure, 323–324
right to effective judicial remedy, 318–319
legal protection against fundamental rights violations, 317–318
non-judicial remedies, 311, 329–340, 341
BoAs, 334–335
Frontex fundamental rights complaint mechanism, 335–338
legal review of EU executive agencies acts, 333–334
Ombudsman, 331–333
right to good administration, 329–331
overall assessment, 311, 340–342
‘prescribed and confined by law’, 317
reflections and recommendations, 311, 342–344
risk for fundamental rights, 315–316
underpinning implicit legal act, 322
underpinning implicit physical act, 321
way forward (effective administrative remedies plus judicial review), 344
EU Human Rights Review Panel, 200
EU institutions, 116, 151
failures, 322
‘failures’ (examples), in footnote, 322
invocation of fundamental rights protection, 18
non-judicial, 222–224
procedural obligations, 14
EU Integrated Border Management (EIBM), 405
EU integration
centrality of CJEU, 227
challenges (political rights), 172–174
EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)
BoA attached to, 134
in footnote, 133
EU Intellectual Property Office Regulation (2017), 385
EU judicial architecture, 427
composite procedures, 345–365
international arbitration (constitutional limits), 235–240
separation of jurisdiction, 364
separation of jurisdiction ‘cornerstone’, 356–357
EU law, 99, 103, 111
challenge to legality of before CJEU, 16
declarations of invalidity, 183
full list, xxxiii–xxxix
looking beyond, 427–428
principle of autonomy, 236
uniform application (argument to limit international arbitration), 238–239
uniformity, 107, 118, 120
uniformity of interpretation, 237
EU law enforcement
direct, 281
indirect, 280
‘necessitates other forms of control’ (functional perspective), 283
EU law enforcement authorities, 9
legal frameworks, 284–305
testing of remedies systems, 271–310
EU law enforcement authorities (examples)
DG COMP (qv), 289–297
ESMA (qv), 285–289
OLAF (qv), 297–305
EU legal order, 7, 14, 16, 17, 18, 24, 35, 36, 107, 185, 238, 239, 301, 317, 346, 356, 406
arbitration (role), 233, 243
backbone, 34
court-centricity (literature survey, in footnote), 124
effectiveness, 239
maturity, 35
preliminary reference procedure, 99
principle of freedom of proof, 85
‘shaped like few others by single judicial institution’, 124
soft law, 367
uniformity, 120
EU legislator, 118, 246, 256, 280, 302, 310, 365, 379, 385, 386, 390, 410, 418, 428, 430
‘can do no wrong’, 96, 422
EU Review Bodies. See Review Bodies
EU sanctions, 19, 24, 30, 54, 199, 282, 349
absence of duty to notify before adoption, 31
factual basis for imposition, 25
illegality (whether breach of fundamental rights), 54
judicial review (approach), 24
Kadi judgment (principles), 24
maintaining individual on list, 31
procedure followed to adopt these measures, 24
statement of reasons (appropriateness), 25
third-country compliance with fundamental rights, 25
EU Travel Information and Authorisation System. See ETIAS
EUAA, 135, 144, 148, 262, 265, 266, 350, 351
Article 13 of establishing Regulation (2021 version), 377
focus, 143
FROs (authority and measures), 140, 142, 143–144
guidance (2019), 377
soft law interferences with fundamental rights (practice), 377–378
EUAA: Management Board, 377
eu-LISA, 351, 392, 395, 413
EURODAC, 339, 394, 395
Euro-expertise, 213, 225, 429
European Anti-Fraud Office. See OLAF
European arrest warrant, 185
in footnote, 109
European Artificial Intelligence Office. See AI Office
European Asylum Policy Regulation (2021), 262
European Asylum Support Office, 135
European Banking Authority (EBA): in footnote, 313, 316
European Board for Digital Services (EBDS), 379
European Border and Coast Guard Agency. See Frontex
European Border and Coast Guard Regulation. See EBCG Regulation (2019)
European Border Surveillance System (EUROSUR), 339, 398, 399
fusion services, 398
European Central Bank, 18, 125, 173, 314, 375
Administrative Board of Review, 139
arrangements (procedural and institutional), 140
opinions ‘not legally binding’, 139
whether may be referred to as a ‘BoA’ (in footnote), 139
European Central Bank: Joint Inspection Teams, 358
European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control (ECDC) Regulation (2022 revision), 385
European Chemicals Agency (ECHA)
BoA attached to, 134
in footnote, 134, 334
European Code of Good Administrative Behaviour: in footnote, 331
European Commission, 18, 26, 194, 292, 314, 349, 351, 362, 369, 378, 382, 385, 396
annual reports, 295
confidentiality of documents (General Court), 96
ESM MoUs, 375–377
Guidelines to DG COMP on method of setting fines, 292
‘independence questioned’, 297
rules of political accountability to European Parliament, 294
European Commission: Framework Agreement with EP, 294
European Competition Network (ECN), 290, 307
‘lacks legal personality’, 293
passim, 293–297
rules for case allocation (in footnote), 290
European Consumer Centre, 257
European Convention for Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. See ECHR
European Council, 233, 262
European Court of Auditors (ECA), 18, 221–222, 223, 295, 302
European Court of Human Rights. See ECtHR
European Criminal Records Information System (ECRIS-TCN), 394
European Data Innovation Board (EDIB), 379
European Data Protection Board (EDPB), 223, 379, 412, 419
European Data Protection Supervisor. See EDPS
European Economic Community, 1
European exceptionalism, 178
European Food Safety Authority, 386
in footnote, 355
European Investment Bank, 224
European Ombudsman. See Ombudsman
European Parliament, 18, 27, 145, 262, 289, 294, 295, 388, 415
AI legislation (2023 amendments), in footnote, 391
Committee on Petitions, 223
European Public Prosecutor’s Office (EPPO), 315
in footnote, 299, 315, 317, 339
European Research Council Executive Agency (ERCEA), 333
European Research Executive Agency (REA), 333
European Securities and Markets Authority. See ESMA
European Social Charter, 158
European Stability Mechanism. See ESM
European Supervisory Authorities (ESAs): in footnote, 313
European Supervisory Authorities: Joint Board of Appeal, 147
European Supervisory Authority Regulations (2010, amended 2019), 386–389
Europol, 63, 395, 396, 409, 420
in footnote, 317
Europolis, 173
Eurozone crisis, 172, 173, 375
Eurozone Member States, 375
evidence
associative view, 67
‘can hinder judicial protection provided by Treaty provisions’, 70
concept and system in EU law, 65
definition (in footnote), 64
EU law or general system ‘cannot exist’, 66
general system (EU), 64–71
harm suffered (abnormality), 90
national rules, 66
probative value, 69
procedural perspective, 65
processual perspective, 66
secondary law instruments, 66
sectoral systems, 66
evidence as enabler or filter (action brought by private parties), 64–97
action for damages, 87–93
conclusion, 93–97
effective ability to give evidence, 71–77
effective judicial protection, 71–77
evidence requirements restricting effective access to remedy, 77–87
general system of evidence (EU), 64–70
evidence requirements (restriction on effective access to remedy), 77–87
burden of proof (pleas to lighten), 82–87
direct concern criterion, 78
individual concern, 78
legality review, 77–87
standing (heavy burden of proof), 77–82
evidence rules, 8, 229
evidentiary duties: distribution (definition), 69
evidentiary entitlements: main purpose (fairness), 68
ex ante authorisation, 292, 308
ex ante consultation, 278, 287
ex hypothesi argument, 80
ex post, 58, 123, 178, 302, 303, 306, 309
Excessive Deficit Procedure, 168
executive agencies
legal review (EU factual conduct), 333–334
Regulation (2003), xxxiv, 333
in footnote, 329
Facebook, 215, 254, 260
facti probandi
admissibility, 78, 81
‘relevant facts’, 65
facti probans (facts that prove probandum), 80
factual action
composite procedures, 348–350
factual conduct, 50, 348, 423
examples, 313
two different senses, 313
failure to act proceedings
admissibility, 70
standing (heavy burden of proof), 77–82
standing (pleas to lighten burden of proof), 82–87
‘fake validity’ question (Krajewski), 102
Fenger, N.: in footnote, 108
Fink, Melanie, xi, 1–9, 36–63, 142, 422–430
in footnote, 101
Foodstuff Directive (1989), 75
Foodwatch, 173
foreign policy, 17, 30
‘largely exempt from judicial review’, 171
formal legally-binding acts. See legal acts (binding)
forum shopping, 225, 288
fourth branch: in footnote, 128
France, 82, 130, 160
Frankfurt administrative court, 164, 165, 166
Atlanta case, 166
free movement, 235, 372, 373, 374
free proof system, 69
in footnote, 69
freedom from harm, 157, 163
freedom of assembly, 159, 170
freedom of expression, 13, 159, 170, 181, 259
Article 11 CFR, 380
freedom of religion, 114, 187
freedom of speech, 150, 258, 261
Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ): in footnote, 81
Freiwillige Selbstkontrolle Multimedia-Diensteanbieter (FSM), 260
Frontex, 4, 7, 56, 125, 133, 135, 140, 216, 265, 266, 315, 316, 332, 339, 349, 351, 393, 402, 405, 406, 413, 420, 421, 429
ability to file complaints against, 138
AI systems, 391
AI-powered aerial surveillance, 393–399
automated risk assessments, 393–397
complaint mechanism (EU factual conduct), 335–338
complaints mechanism, 342, 427
revision (2022), in footnote, 335, 338
complaints mechanism (alleged shortcomings), 336–338
forefront of border surveillance, 393–399
FROs (authority and measures), 140–143
FROs (complaint mechanism), in footnote, 126
FROs (expertise and funding), 148, 149
fundamental rights violations, 4
fundamental rights-sensitivity (criticism and praise), 142
‘lack of individualised accountability mechanisms’, 145
maritime operations in Mediterranean, 171
Ombudsman’s ‘special report’ to European Parliament (from 2013), 152
Ombudsman’s ‘strategic inquiries’, 145
structural problems (identification), 143
‘team members’ (in footnote), 144
Frontex Executive Director (ED), 336–338
Frontex Management Board: in footnote, 336
Frontex Regulation (2019), 263
front-LEX, 216, 218
FROs, 123, 131, 150, 264, 265, 266, 426
access to justice perspective, 150
authority and measures, 140–144, 146
EUAA, 140, 142, 143–144
expertise and funding, 147, 148–149
Frontex, 140–143, 148, 149, 336–337, 339
‘handle serious incident reporting’ (internal complaint mechanism), 141
‘hardly silver bullet against structural flaws’, 142
lack of enforcement powers, 265
main task, 137
no authority to remedy complaints, 141
‘not yet subject to intense academic scrutiny’, 124
‘only review admissibility of complaints’, 141
recommendations, 124
‘relatively novel institutions’, 140
responsibilities, 136
roles, 140
situational embeddedness, 140
short portrait, 135–136
‘various tools’, 138
‘fundamental principle of EU law’, 42, 231. See also ‘general principle of EU law’
fundamental rights, 1, 7–8
AI, 391–421
compliance (procedural), 13
compliance (substantive), 13
conceptualised as individual entitlements, 19
concretisation process, 52
courts ‘the guardians’, 138
essential values of society, 15
EU factual conduct and, 312–316
joint responsibility (EU and Member States), 425
protection through action for annulment (constraint), 20
regulate relationship between EU/Member States versus individuals, 48
reluctance to engage in reasoning, 423–424
risks (EU border surveillance), 392–406
risks (EU factual conduct), 315–316
Fundamental Rights Agency, 138, 140, 152, 398
fundamental rights complaints, 8
framing, 118
further research required, 118
preliminary reference procedure (qv), 98–120
‘secondary part’ of claims, 117
fundamental rights liability
‘clarity’ requirement, 52, 53, 61
‘unlawfulness’ as condition, 47–55
Fundamental Rights Monitors, 141, 143
Fundamental Rights Officers. See FROs
fundamental rights protection
action for damages, 36–63
better utilisation of action for damages, 60–63
EU-specific regime, 1
Review Bodies, 123–154
three levels, 9
fundamental rights violations
committed by EU itself, 6
composite procedures, 345–365
EU factual conduct, 311–344
EU liability to damages (three conditions), 47
international aribitation (as supplementary tool), 227–244
legal protection against EU factual conduct, 317–318
ODR mechanisms, 258–261
online dispute resolution (ODR), 245–266
role of national courts in redressing), 155–176
‘simple’ versus ‘reprehensible’, 55
structural root causes, 427
Galanter, Marc, 225
Garthy, B., 2
Gas Directive (2009, amended 2019), 84
GC. See General Court
GDPR (2016/679 version), xxxvi, 379, 413
Article 09(2), 415
Article 22, 414
Article 22(3) as revised in 2017 and 2018, 402, 408
in footnote, 396
GDPR (2016/680). See Law Enforcement Directive (2016/680)
GDPR (2018/1725), xxxvii, 338–340, 413, 417, 418, 420, 421
Article 52(2), 417
Article 63, 417, 418
Article 64, 417, 418
Article 64(1), in footnote, 341
General Court, 14, 20, 134, 192
annulment of EU law in 312 cases, 22
cases alleging breaches of substantive rights, 28
cases relating to procedural issues, 23
in charge of most cases against EU institutions, 20
competence to hear actions for damages at first instance, 43
confidentiality of Commission documents, 96
fundamental rights (types) receiving special attention, 22
inadmissibility rulings, 168
previously ‘Court of First Instance’, 189
quantitative influence of EU fundamental rights ‘relatively limited’, 22
‘recent expansion’, 382
‘remarkable contribution’, ‘significant role’, 28
standing rules, 24
‘sufficiently serious breach’ test, 50
General Court (cases)
ADDE v Parliament (2019), 27
Aisha Muammer case (2021), 24
Belgium v Commission (2015), 381
Bowland (2009), 363
Branco I ruling (1995), 356
Dole Fresh Fruit International case (2003), 91
Edinger case (2001), 80
FIAMM case (2005), 92, 93
France-Aviation case (1995), 354
full list, xxii–xxvi
Hautala case (1999), xxiii, 200, 201
Italy v Commission (2020), 28
Klymenko v Council (2019), 25
Kočner v EUROPOL (2021), 59
Malagutti (2004), 363
Minister for Justice and Equality (2018), 26
Nord Stream 2 case (2020), 84, 85
Pharma Mar v Commission (2020), 27
Prodifarma e.a. v Commission (1990), 71
Sison v Council (2011), 54
Sped-Pro S.A. v Commission (2022), 26
T.Port case (2001), 91
ThyssenKrupp (2018)
also General Court case (2011) and CJEU case (2021), xxi, xxiv–xxv, 369, 379
Tillack case, xxiv
in footnote, 316, 323, 324, 326, 330, 339
Wilson-Holland case (2001): in footnote, 354
WS and Others v Frontex (2023), 429
General Court’s jurisprudence (action for annulment in EU law), 21–28
influence of procedural rights, 23–28
numerical evidence, 21–23
General Data Protection Regulation. See GDPR
general interest, 18, 32, 33, 51, 400
‘general principle of EU law’, 17, 22, 33, 186, 317, 342, 399, 407
General Product Safety Directive (2002), 351
Geneva Convention (1951) and Protocol (1967), 144
Gentile, Giulia, xii, 8, 13–35, 422, 424, 426, 429
Gerards, Janneke, 372
German constitutional court. See Bundesverfassungsgericht
Germany, 59, 78, 79, 91, 160, 161, 162
constitution, 174
federal administrative court, 166
ODR process, 259
rules on evidence, 75
Gkliati, Mariana, 144
good administration, 14, 137, 317, 408, 428, See also right to good administration
Gragl, Paul, 186
Grand Chamber, 108, 115, 115, 119
Greece, xxx, 144, 168, 169, 218
asylum-seekers (in footnote), 136
constitution, 169
highest administrative court, 169
in footnote, 376
Greenpeace, 217
Grimheden, Jonas, 141, 148
Grimmenstein, Marianne, 174
Grozdanovski, Ljupcho, xii, 8, 64–97, 422, 424, 425, 426
Gündel, Jörg, 383
Halberstam, Daniel, 152
Hanf, Dominik: in footnote, 134
hard law, 367, 388
harm, 93, 160
Hauer, Liselotte, 165
Hearing Officers (DG COMP), 295–296, 297, 308
Hertog, Leonhard den (in footnote), 337
hierarchy of legal norms, 158
higher law: sources, 15
Hillion, Christophe, 203
Hofmann, Andreas, xii, 8, 155–176, 425
Hofmann, Herwig: in footnote, 345, 367
home, 278, 316. See also CFR Article 7
human dignity, 399, 400. See also right to human dignity
Hungarian constitutional court, 175
impartiality, 27, 69, 74, 280, 284, 296, 330, 342, 407
in footnote, 252
‘in law we trust’ presumption, 72
indicia, 70
individual concern, 79, 80, 82, 83, 98, 155, 173, 189, 190, 216, 410, 424
individual concern probandum, 86
redefinition suggested by Jacobs (2002), 83
individuals, 8, 9, 18, 111, 116, 156, 161, 174, 179
access to justice, 273
‘central role within EU legal system’, 36
important actors, 273
individuation: desired level (two criteria), 80
informalisation, 142, 144, 366, 368, 389
instant implicit decision (concept), 321, 322, 325
in footnote, 323
institutions. See EU institutions
inter partes stage, 291
Inter-American Court of Human Rights: in footnote, 40
international arbitration, 428
benefits, 229–230
CJEU approach, 235–239
argument of uniform application of EU law, 238–239, 240
interim conclusion, 239–240
principle of autonomy, 236–237, 239, 243, 244
conclusion, 243–244
constitutional limits within EU judicial system, 228, 235–240
constitutional potential within EU judicial system, 228, 240–243
practical implications, 242–243
way forward, 241–242
defining, 228–229
EU law, 228, 232–235
EU’s competence and arbitration, 232–234
regulation of arbitration (legal instruments), 234–235
limitations, 230–231
model, 228–231
new way forward (EU fundamental rights violations), 227–244
no provision in ‘the Treaties’, 232
‘should in no way replace EU judicial system’, 242
supplementary tool for EU fundamental rights violations, 227–244
international commercial arbitration
definition, 228
International Council for Online Dispute Resolution (ICODR): in footnote, 252
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: compensation for violations, 40
international human rights, 39, 42, 158, 406
international law, 36, 92, 428
list, xxxix
private, 228, 232–234, 241
public, 38, 39, 57, 233
international trade, 90, 243
Internationale Handelsgesellschaft case (1969–1974), 163–165
internet, 246, 254, 258
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), 245, 247
in footnote, 253
interoperability, 401
definition (in footnote), 401
Interpol, 395
investor-state arbitration, 237
Ireland, 160, 169, 182, 214, 215, 220
Isiksel, T. (in footnote), 185
Italy, 74, 77, 175, 213
IUROPA dataset, 109
Jääskinen, Niilo, 384
Johansen, Stian Øby, 171, 205
joint liability
EU and Member States (action for damages), 55–60, 62
literature (in footnote), 55
judicial protection
essence of EU system of, 425
‘two-speed’, 424
judicial remedies
DG COMP, 293–294
ESMA, 286–288
EU factual conduct, 318–329, 344
ex ante, 306
limits, 422–423
OLAF, 301–302
versus non-judicial remedies, 284–305
judicial review
definition, 15
EU executive agencies acts, 333–334
evidence requirements restricting effective access to remedy, 77–87
hallmark of rule of law, 16
modalities according to which litigants give evidence, 82
overview of EU model, 15–17
plea for lightening admissibility burden (two types), 82
justice (concept): ‘humanist approach’, 67
justiciable rights, 212
EU remedies system, 212
Karagianni, Argyro, xii, 9, 271–310, 423, 425, 426
Kelsenian model of hierarchy of norms, 17
Kelsenian pyramid of legal sources, 15
Kenner, Jeff, 374
Kerber, Markus C., 173
Kosovo, 171, 200
in footnote, 203
Krajewski, Michał, 6, 19, 145, 148
Krommendijk, Jasper, xii, 8, 177–205, 424, 428
Latvia, xxx, 168
law enforcement, 241, 423
definition, 271
Law Enforcement Directive (2016/680), xxxvi, 413
Article 11, 414
in footnote, 413
law of evidence: ideal principles, 65
Łazowski, Adam, 201
LED. See Law Enforcement Directive
legal action, 209, 218, 277
legal acts, 2, 314, 321, 327, 334, 407, 423, 424, 427
EU factual conduct underpinning implicit, 322
in footnote, 84, 314, 317, 327, 340
legal acts (binding), 9, 311, 313, 317, 318, 320, 322, 323, 325, 333, 339, 343
definition, 312
in footnote, 312, 313, 328, 376
legal acts (non-binding), 313
in footnote, 313
soft law (qv), 311
legal aid, 170, 255
legal certainty, 34, 55, 230, 306, 307, 428
legal culture, 161, 210, 425
legal expertise, 157, 213, 219, 224, 225, 229, 429
in footnote, 147
legal mobilisation
definition, 210
literature, 210
legal opportunities, 210, 213, 226
dimensions (Andersen), 212
legal opportunity structures, 157–160, 211, 212, 217, 219, 226
access to courts, 160
availability of rights to challenge EU acts, 158–159
closed, 211–212
legal orders, 103, 156, 186, 273, 281, 307
coherence, 15
legal persons, 38, 116, 192, 222, 263, 276, 289, 298, 315, 329, 331, 383, 386, 416
legal profession, 162, 174
legal professional privilege, 279, 291, 292, 296, 299, 306
legislation: full list, xxxiii–xxxix
legislative acts: versus ‘regulatory acts’ (in footnote), 84
legislative clarity, 34, 310
legislative courts (USA): in footnote, 129
legitimacy assets, 128, 140, 152
legitimate expectations, 55, 103
Lenaert, Koen, 129
Leskinen, Charlotte (in footnote), 186
Letsas, George, 371
lex arbitri, 229
liability law, 38–43, 62
compensating harm, 38–40
compensation can be of pecuniary or non-pecuniary nature, 40
preventing undesired behaviour, 41–42
use of term, 38
in footnote, 38
vindicating rights, 42–43
Libya, 222, 223, 405
litigant characteristics, 160–162
locus standi, 98, 217
in footnote, 83
lack of argument, 218
national rules, 100
strict requirements, 178, 183, 189, 192, 198, 204, 217, 221
López Zurita, Lucía, xii, 8, 98–120, 425, 428
Lucke, Bernd, 173
Lustig, D., 15, 16
Luxembourg, 82
shorthand for ‘CJEU’, 106, 224, 307
Maas, Herman: in footnote, 369
maladministration, 132, 133, 137, 145, 149, 224, 289, 305, 331, 332, 385
examples (in footnote), 332
Massachusetts Amherst Center, 247
Mehr Demokratie, 173
Member States, 18, 425, 427
action for damages (joint liability with EU), 55–60
enforcement autonomy, 281
invocation of fundamental rights protection, 18
Memoranda of Understanding (MoU), 167, 168, 170
Meta, 223
Meta Oversight Board, 254, 258
annual report, 265
charter (2019), 260
first annual report (2022), 261
passim, 260–266
procedures for appeals, 260
statistics, 261
Meyer, John W.: in footnote, 126, 130, 131, 142
migration and asylum: further reading (in footnote), 135
migration law, 7, 213, 222, 225
Migration Law Clinic (Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam), 225
Moldova, 237
Möllers, Christoph: in footnote, 128
Montaldo, Stefano, 280
Montesquieu, Spirit of Laws (1748): in footnote, 128, 130
multi-level administration, 55, 61
naming and shaming, 143, 151
in footnote, 313, 316
national apex courts, 156, 159, 160, 161
national authorities, 26, 63, 155, 181, 189, 265, 275, 279, 285, 300, 309, 394
passim, 345–363
soft law, 369, 370, 377, 379
national competent authority: definition, 417
national competition authorities (NCAs)
‘independence questioned’, 297
passim, 289–297
powers laid down in national law, 292
national courts, 9, 59, 68, 98, 102, 105, 113, 114, 185, 238, 247, 324
central role (bringing preliminary reference procedures to CJEU), 104–105
central role within model established by Article 267 TFEU, 117
composite procedure cases, 345, 356–363
EU remedies system (over-reliance on), 424–426
inclusion of pre-emptive opinion, 114
judicial protection of private parties, 78
lack competence to rule on OLAF’s investigative acts, 307
obligation to review preparatory measures, 362
role, 8
stripped of jurisdiction by CJEU (‘certain composite procedures’), 360
national courts (lists of cases), xxix–xxxi
Belgium, xxix
England and Wales, xxxi
Germany, xxix–xxx
Greece, xxx
Latvia, xxx
Netherlands, xxx
national courts (role in redressing fundamental rights violations by EU), 155–176
access to courts, 157, 160
availability of rights to challenge EU acts, 157, 158–159
chapter offering (limitations), 175
conclusions, 174–176
legal opportunity structures, 156, 157–160
litigant characteristics, 156, 157, 160–162
rights-based litigation against EU Acts (empirical overview), 156, 162–174
civil liberties, 163, 170–171
economic rights, 163–167
political rights, 172–174
social rights, 163, 167–170
national judges, 5, 157, 383
national law, 73, 84, 104, 158, 303, 308, 383
national litigation culture, 425
national procedural rules, 117, 214, 241, 281, 360
effectiveness (CJEU case law), 81
national rules, 74, 81, 100, 163, 220, 221, 425
in footnote, 281
national sources of rights: legal mobilisation against EU acts, 155–176
national sovereignty, 307
in footnote, 66
natural language processing (NLP), 250
ne bis in idem, 23, 290, 291
Netherlands, xxx, 213, 224, 248
district court (in footnote), 185
system of constitutional adjudication ‘missing’, 162
welfare allocation scandal, 404
Netzwerkdurchsetzungsgesetz (NetzDG), 260
Neustadt an der Weinstraße administrative court, 165
New Public Management, 127
New York City, 248
New York Convention, 230, 234, See also international arbitration
signed (1958), in footnote, 234
NextGenerationEU, 173
NGOs, 19, 109, 111, 116, 171, 210, 217, 218, 222, 263
non-binding measures, 131, 150, 373
non-contractual liability, 50, 55, 63, 87, 88, 92, 326, 344, 381
Article 340 TFEU (qv), 87, 341
may not differ between EU and Member States, 88
system of evidence (overall design), 88
non-discrimination, 23, 34, 114, 213, 352, 404, 414, See also right to non-discrimination
in footnote, 66
three EU directives, 226
non-judicial mechanisms, 6, 274, 302, 312, 318, 426, 430
non-judicial remedies, 306, 308
DG COMP, 294–297
ESMA, 288–289
EU factual conduct, 329–340, 344
versus judicial remedies, 284–305
limits, 308
non-pecuniary compensation, 40, 52, 62
in footnote, 328
non-pecuniary harm, 38, 40, 326
‘broad notion’ in EU liability law, 39
remedies, 39
non-privileged applicants, 2, 333
in footnote, 189
non-refoulement, 143, 316, 349, 351, 406, See also CFR Articles 18 and 19
norms: types (Terpan), 367
noyb, 215, 223
Nussbaum, Martha C., 66
obiter dictum, 203
OCMC. See Online Civil Money Claims
ODR [online dispute resolution (qv)] Regulation (2013), xxxv, 256, 262
OLAF, 284, 297–305, 307, 316
access to court, 301–302
access to justice, 302–305
acts in support of national authorities, 275
complaints mechanism, 304–305
digital forensics operations, 299
external investigations, 298, 301
in footnote, 339
internal investigations, 298
investigatory body, 298
judicial remedies, 301–302
key to abbreviation, 275
legal framework, 299
legal framework (revised, 2020), 302
legal framework (safeguards and defence rights), 299–301
mission, 297
non-judicial remedies, 302–305
review (external), 303–305
review (internal), 303
role of Ombudsman, 305, 308
OLAF: Controller of Procedural Guarantees, 303–305, 308
OLAF: Review Team, 303
Ombudsman, 123, 140, 150, 223, 264, 265, 266, 289, 339, 426, 428
access to justice perspective, 150
authority and measures, 145–146
criticism of Frontex, 152
duties, 132
EU factual conduct, 331–333, 342
expertise and funding, 148, 149
lack of enforcement powers, 265
legal basis (Article 228 TFEU), 263
‘major limitation’, 332
mandate, 145
‘non-binding and structure-focused approach’, 145
orientation ‘towards improving administrative procedures’, 137
own initiative inquiries, 132, 145
‘quasi-legal route’, 284
recommended (twice)establishment of individual review mechanisms to Frontex (in footnote), 135
reports, 124, 145
right to lodge complaints with (Article 43 CFR), 331
role vis-à-vis OLAF, 305, 308
short portrait, 132–133
soft law, 385
strategic inquiries, 133, 145
‘various tools’, 138
Online Civil Money Claims, 249, 250, 251, 254–256, 258, 263
online dispute resolution, 8, 428
definition, 245
elements, 246–253
from private actors to public sector, 246–253
redress mechanism for EU fundamental rights violations, 261–266
design options, 263–266
legal basis, 261–263
redressing fundamental rights violations, 245–266
technological component, 249–251
online dispute resolution mechanisms
Blomgren Amsler framework, 252–253
design, 251–253
examples, 246, 254–261
EU consumer ODR platform, 254, 256–258
ODR mechanisms set up by judiciary, 254–256
redress of fundamental rights violations, 254, 258–261
stages, 251, 253
online dispute resolution redress mechanism for EU fundamental rights violations (design options), 246, 263–266
1. establishment of goals, 263
2. engagement with stakeholders, 263
3. consideration of context and culture, 264
4. decisions regarding structure and procedure, 264–265
5. funding, 265
6. periodic evaluations, 266
online platforms, 258
DSA definition (in footnote), 258
internal complaint handling system (right to appeal), 259
onus probandi, 93, See also burden of proof
organisational expertise, 137, 147, 148, 149, 152
Owusu-Bempah, Abenaa: procedural abilities, 67
pacta sunt servanda principle, 92
para-law function, 368
Passalacqua, Virginia, 213
passenger name record (PNR), xxxvi, 394, 404
in footnote, 394
Peake, Katrina, 374
Pergantis, Vassilis Pergantis, 205
personal data processing operations, 315
personal interview, 377, 378
personal liberties, 170–171
Pescatore, Pierre, 99
physical acts, 313, 320, 321, 322, 323, 325, 332, 333, 344
in footnote, 327
Pijnenburg, Annick, 171
Plaumann doctrine. See ‘CJEU (cases)’
plea of illegality
Article 277 TFEU, 319
EU factual conduct, 327
pleas, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 29, 82
pluralism, 34, 35, 175, 259, 380
PNR. See passenger name record
Polakiewicz, Jörg (in footnote), 186
policy cycle, 368, 370
Polish constitutional court, 175
political accountability, 289, 306, 308
DG COMP, 294–295
OLAF, 302
political opportunity structures, 211
political rights, 156
challenges to EU policies and EU integration, 172–174
political will, 152, 284
Portugal, 160, 168, 169, 170, 375
Portuguese Constitutional Court: in footnote, 376
post-legislative guidance, 368, 377
post-legislative soft law, 368, 369
Poulou, Anastasia, 376
praemissa maior (higher law), 15
praemissa minor (secondary measures), 15
preliminary reference procedure, 8, 95, 190, 211, 224, 225, 282, 371, 425, See also TFEU: Article 267
admissibility, 323
constraints, 383–384
EU factual conduct cases, 323–324
judicial review (difficulties), 323
limitations, 119
mobilisation (strategic litigation), 213–216
possibility for third-party interventions, 219
role, 99
soft law, 382–384
whether also ‘citizens’ infringement procedure’, 99
‘works as decentralised infringement procedure’, 99
preliminary reference procedure (fundamental rights complaints), 98–120
conclusion, 119–120
empirical material and research process, 100, 109–111
claimants, 109
framing of claim, 110
fundamental rights treatment, 110
empirical material and research process (limitation of study), 109
inherent limitations in procedure
limit (1) central role of national courts, 104–105
limit (2) reduced role of parties in proceedings, 104, 105–106
limit (3) procedural freedom of court, 104, 107–108
private applicants and fundamental rights
claimants, 112
framing of claim, 112
fundamental rights treatment by CJEU, 112
private applicants and fundamental rights (assessment), 100, 116–119
private applicants and fundamental rights (mapping), 100, 111–115, 116
case distribution among chambers, 115
claimants, 111–113
framing of claim, 113–114
framing of claim (breach of fundamental rights or CFR used without specific fundamental rights framing, 113
fundamental rights treatment by CJEU, 114–115
intervention of EU institutions, 116
policy areas, 113
summary of findings, 112
questions of interpretation, 102, 108, 110, 113, 118, 119
raison d’être, 107
references on validity, 101, 102
reformulation, 108, 114
use against EU (inherent limitations), 100, 103–108, 118
use against EU (possibilities), 100–103
challengeable acts, 100–101
types of grounds, 103
types of questions, 101–102
validity rulings, 102, 108, 110, 113, 114, 118, 119
‘prescribed by law’, 368, 370, 372
presumption of innocence, xxxvi, 23, 69
pre-trial ODR, 254
primary law, 2, 76, 96, 101, 102, 117, 119, 120, 172, 180, 195, 331, 423
in footnote, 341, 414
includes CFR, 99
principle of equality, 170
between men and women, 74
principle of equality of arms, 68, 85
in footnote, 68
principle of legality, 280, 291, 306, 317
privacy, 13, 183, 223, 253. See also ‘right to privacy’ and ‘right to respect for private life’
AI risks, 400–403
Privacy International, 214
private actors, 155, 266, 276, 277, 285, 286, 287, 289, 306, 307, 308, 428
private applicants: fundamental rights complaints (assessment), 100, 116–119
private law, 38, 39, 232, 246
in footnote, 133
private parties, 9, 386, 425
action before EU courts (evidence as enabler or filter, qv), 64–97
availability of remedies (judicial and non-judicial), 306
vindication of fundamental rights within EU remedies system, 4
pro bono legal clinics, 161, 171
probandum, 79, 84, 93
in footnote, 83
probatio diabolica, 81
procedural abilities, 67, 82, 86, 90, 93
effectiveness, 93
litigants’ entitlements, 67
theoretical vantage point, 73
procedural autonomy, 74, 77, 94, 306, 307, 383
procedural entitlements, 68, 74, 75, 87
procedural fairness, 23, 25, 28, 67, 96, 308
procedural law, 65, 94, 95, 117, 232, 362
procedural rights, 75, 295, 307, 330, 348, 391, 421
CJEU, 30–35
composite procedures, 352–356
General Court, 23–28
professional associations, 169, 174
profiling, 396, 401
GDPR definition (in footnote), 396
prohibition of torture, 171, 188, 316
Article 4 CFR, 349
in footnote, 52
proportionality, 32, 51, 164, 234, 243, 280, 291, 292, 306, 317, 373, 386, 415
public administration, 312, 314
accountability, 331
public interest, 18, 33, 51, 136, 160, 214, 231
public sector purchasing programme (PSPP), 173
pushing boundaries, 8, 245–266
international arbitration (supplementary tool for EU fundamental rights violations), 227–244
online dispute resolution (ODR), 245–266
strategic litigation, 8, 209–226
quasi-judicial, 334, 415
in footnote, 258
meaning ‘often remains unclear’ (in footnote), 139
quid iuris, 353
Rademacher, Timo, 50, 344
in footnote, 319, 325, 328
Ranchordás, Sofia, 420
Rapid Exchange of Information System (RAPEX), 351, 352, 363, 364
ratione personae, 181
Rauchegger, Clara, xii, 8, 36–63, 424, 425, 426, 429
Raz, Joseph: in footnote, 15
receptivity of judiciary, 157, 162, 174, 212
CJEU judgment on politically salient issues, 212
Rechtwijzer platform (2014–2017), 248, 250
in footnote, 248
recurso de amparo, 3
Redressing Fundamental Rights Violations by EU
book aim, 4–5
book scope, 5–8
three lines of enquiry, 4
Redressing Fundamental Rights Violations by EU (book scope), 5–8
EU authorities, 6–7
fundamental rights, 7–8
remedies system, 5–6
Redressing Fundamental Rights Violations by EU (book structure), 8–9
conclusion, 422–430
final remarks, 429–430
pushing boundaries, 8, 245–266
remedies before CJEU, 8, 98–120
remedies beyond CJEU, 8, 123–154
testing of remedies systems, 8–9, 391–421
Regulation 1049/2001 (right to access documents), 85
Regulation 2019/1896. See EBCG Regulation (2019)
regulatory acts, 18, 83, 84
in footnote, 84
regulatory sandboxes, 418, 419, 420
Regulatory Scrutiny Board, 389
relevance, 65, 70, 77
definition (in footnote), 77
remedies before CJEU, 8, 98–120
action for annulment, 13–35
action for damages, 36–63
evidence as enabler or filter (action brought by private parties), 64–97
preliminary reference procedure (fundamental rights complaints), 98–120
remedies beyond CJEU, 8, 123–154
EU accession to ECHR, 177–205
national courts (role in redressing violations by EU), 155–176
Review Bodies, 123–154
remedies system, 4, 5–6, 9
creative use, 221–225
definition, 5
filling the gaps, 430
final remarks, 429–430
gaps, 423
jewels in crown, 16
‘simply outdated’, 429
testing, 391–421
whether has potential to enable individuals to vindicate their fundamental rights, 5
whether infringements of rights should be treated differently from other breaches of EU law, 5
whether tailor-made required, 5
remedies system (limits), 422–426
judicial remedies and outdated vision of EU as lawmaker, 422–423
over-reliance on national courts, 424–426
reluctance to engage in fundamental rights reasoning, 423–424
remedies system (potential), 426–429
applicants with agency, 428–429
looking beyond action for annulment, 426
looking beyond CJEU, 426–427
looking beyond EU law, 427–428
technology as opportunity, 428
repeat litigants, 172, 174, 222, 225
res judicata, 230, 231, 238, 239
Research Network on EU Administrative Law (ReNEUAL): in footnote, 343
Ress, J., 190
Review Bodies, 8, 123–154, 426, 427
access to justice perspective, 150
advantages, 126
ambivalent new normal, 124–132
complementarity and structural focus, 125–126
functional differentiation, 127–128
interim conclusion, 132
peril of ceremony (mimicry of justice), 130–131, 150
tripartite government, 128–130
authority emerges ‘only incrementally’, 145, 146, 148, 149
characteristics (taxonomy), 124, 136–150
authority and measures, 136, 138–146, 149
expertise and funding, 137, 146–149, 150
interim conclusion, 132–150
orientation towards public or individual interest, 136, 137–138
complentarity, structure, ambivalence, 123–154
conclusion (key takeaways), 124, 151, 153–154
crucial advantage, 151
definition, 124
‘issue non-binding normative material’, 140, 146
‘less formal authority than courts’, 126
‘most efficient when teaming up with other accountability forums’, 146
non-binding normative output, 151
possibilities for reform, 124, 150–153
more money, more wit, 152–153
teaming up, 150–152, 153
‘quick fix to EU executive’s accountability and legitimacy deficits’, 130
role in protecting fundamental rights, 123–154
short portraits, 124, 132–136
structural issues, 151
Review Bodies (three types)
Boards of Appeal (qv), 133–134
Fundamental Rights Officers (qv), 135–136
Ombudsman (qv), 132–133
reviewable act, 35, 321, 328, 346, 357, 409
Article 263 TFEU, 322, 341
right to access courts, 68, 281, 293, 306
right to access documents, 27, 85, 291, 292, 296, 300, 306
right to access lawyer, 292, 299, 306
right to asylum, 316, 349, 377, 391, 398, 406
Article 18 CFR, 405
right to avoid self-incrimination, 279, 291, 296, 299, 306
‘right to remain silent’, 292
right to be heard, 27, 28, 31, 68, 280, 291, 292, 296, 306, 348, 353, 354
Article 41 CFR, 353
general obligation, 28
right to conduct business, 45, 46, 85, 103, 164, 187, 276, 279, 316, 351
Article 16 CFR (qv), 352
right to consumer protection: Article 38 CFR, 380
right to data protection, 45, 332, 338–340, 380, 400
Article 8 CFR (qv), 352
right to decent living, 169, 170
‘right to fair working conditions’, 44, 45
‘right to work’, 159
right to effective defence, 25, 31, 44, 68, 91
right to effective remedy, 9, 14, 37, 42, 50, 61, 73, 74, 75, 82, 85, 86, 93, 114, 130, 241, 256, 281, 318, 323, 341, 346, 365, 408, See also effective judical protection
Article 13 ECHR (in footnote), 272
Article 47 CFR (qv), 53, 353, 406
EU factual conduct, 318–319
procedural, 82
right to fair trial, 44, 67, 68, 74, 75, 85, 166, 185, 256, 278, 291, 298, 306
Article 47(2) CFR, 75
Article 6 ECHR, 256
in footnote, 14, 296
right to good administration, 22, 27, 44, 141, 277, 306, 310, 391, 407, 408, 421
Article 41 CFR (qv), 52, 353, 407
EU factual conduct, 329–331
right to health care, 157, 159, 169
right to housing, 159, 167
right to human dignity, 170, 316, 377
Article 1 CFR (qv), 380
right to liberty, 315
Article 6 CFR, 349
right to life, 53, 157, 163, 170, 171, 316, 332, 372
Article 2 CFR, 405
right to non-discrimination, 45, 391, 403, 405, 421
Article 21 CFR (qv), 380, 403
right to occupational freedom, 156, 165, 166
right to physical integrity, 38, 332
Article 3 CFR, 316
‘right to integrity of person’, 316
‘right to security of person’, 315
right to privacy, 23, 170, 278, 282, 291, 298, 306, 332, 400
Article 7 CFR, 306
in footnote, 271
right to property, 23, 33, 38, 45, 46, 85, 156, 159, 165, 166, 169, 182, 279, 316, 376
Article 17 CFR, 316
right to respect for private and family life, 45, 278, 315, 352, 375. See also ‘right to privacy’
Article 7 CFR (qv), 380
in footnote, 188
right to respect for rights of child, 351
Article 24 CFR, 380
right to social security, 157, 167
right to vote, 157, 159, 174
‘right to democracy’, 174
‘right to free and fair elections’, 172
rights enforcement, 241, 244, 428
Rocca, Penelope, 368
Romania, 168, 170
Rowan, Brian: in footnote, 126, 130, 131, 142
rule (supremacy) of law, 2, 14, 34, 140, 317, 362, 365, 399, 400, 419, 426, 429
crucial manifestion, 16
different visions, 35
essence, 406
EU notion (CJEU articulation), 34
requirements on individuals, 271
requirements on those who govern, 271
role, 271
Rule of Law Conditionality Framework, 34
evidence-based approach, 34
rule of law crisis, 156, 297
rule of law debate, 272
rules (tenets) of law, 88, 89, 325, 332
rules of evidence
national, 74
national (unrealistic burdens on private parties), 81
Rules of Procedure of Court of Justice. See CJEU (Rules of Procedure)
Russian Federation
EU soft law, 378–379
exclusion from Council of Europe, 177
Sarmiento, Daniel, 105
Scandinavia, 160, 161
Schengen Area, 392, 395, 397, 399
Schengen Information System (SIS), 351, 352, 363, 394, 395, 412
in footnote, 317
Schengen Visa Code, 378
Schermers, H.: in footnote, 106
Schmidt-Kessen, Maria José, xii, 8, 245–266, 428
Scholten, Miroslava, xii, 9, 271–310, 423, 425, 426
Schramm, Moritz, xii, 8, 214–215, 262, 426, 427
in footnote, 6
Schrems, Maximilian, 215, 223
secondary law, 96, 99, 102, 191, 198, 199, 289, 426
secondary legislation, 47, 63, 101, 102, 117, 234, 238, 242, 311, 342
concretisation of CFR (greater chance to hold EU liable), 46
in footnote, 341
secondary measures, 15, 17
security threats, 394, 397
Senden, Linda, 367, 368
separation of powers, 128, 145
shield, 271, 273
in footnote, 271
Single Supervisory Mechanism (SSM), 314
small claims, 254, 258
Snowden, Edward, 215
social movements, 210, 211
social rights, 156
challenges to EU-induced austerity, 167–170
soft law, 6, 9, 50, 276, 277, 287
admissibility requirements, 388, 389
author and addressee, 369
challenges to access to justice, 366–390
conclusion, 389–390
constitutional relevance, 371
definition (Senden), 367
ex ante participation of private actors, 287
features, 367
in footnote, 314
functions, 368–370
implementation (different ways), 374
interferences with fundamental rights (practice), 375–380
area of freedom, security and justice (AFSJ), 377–379
digital sphere, 379–380
economic coordination and Euro crisis, 377
EU’s response to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, 378–379
EUAA, 377–378
interferences with fundamental rights (theory), 370–375
judicial remedies, 390
‘no watertight system of remedies’, 423
non-binding nature, 366, 382, 388
not easily amenable to judicial review, 306
possibility to question through preliminary reference procedure, 288
remedies, 380–389
action for damages, 381–382
administrative review, 384–388, 390
possible way forward (three issues), 388–389
preliminary reference procedure, 382–384
unavailability of action for annulment, 381
risks for EU executive overreach, 371
‘unclear legal status’, 288
soft-law documents, 277, 285
soft-law guidance, 277, 310, 368, 420
soft-law instruments, 277, 292, 294, 306, 307
software, 248, 249, 250, 251, 398
solange (German, ‘as long as’), 164
Solum, Lawrence B.: definition of effective participation (in footnote), 67
Spain, 160, 239
stakeholders, 252, 255, 258, 263
standards of proof, 65, 69
beyond reasonable doubt, 69
in footnote, 65
preponderance of evidence, 69
standing, 333. See also locus standi
heavy burden of proof, 77–82
strict rules under Article 263(4) TFEU (in footnote), 83
state liability: system of evidence, 88
statement of objections (SO), 292
Stefan, Marco (in footnote), 337
Strasbourg: shorthand for ‘ECtHR’ (qv), 185
strategic litigation, 8, 209–226
creative use of remedies system, 210, 221–225
calling upon non-judicial institutions, 222–224
informal involvement, 224–225
petition to European Court of Auditors, 221–222
definition, 209
EU as system with closed legal opportunity structures, 210, 211–212
lessons (informing future action), 211, 225–226
successful mobilisation before CJEU (examples), 210, 213–221
direct actions, 216–219
mobilising preliminary reference procedure, 213–216
third-party interventions, 219–221
structural issues, 151, 152, 153
structure and internal practice: literature survey (in footnote), 126
subsidiarity, 17, 234, 243
substantive expertise, 137, 147, 148, 151
substantive law, 95
in footnote, 189
sufficiently serious breach, 47, 49–53, 61, 62, 93, 325, 382
CJEU’s approach in fundamental rights cases, 53–55
decisive test, 89
non-contractual liability cases, 88
sword, 271, 273
in footnote, 271
Taobao platform (Alibaba), 250
TEC: Articles 288(1) and 288(3), in footnote, 88
technology as opportunity, 428
TEEC
Article 173 (currently Article 263 TFEU, qv), 78, 79
Article 220, 232
Terpan, Fabien, 367
territoriality, 357, 364
testing of remedies systems, 391–421, 423
access to justice, 271–310
AI, 391–421
composite procedures, 345–365
EU factual conduct, 311–344
EU law enforcement authorities, 271–310
soft law, 366–390
TEU
Article 02, 2, 16, 34, 399
Article 03, 72
Article 03(2), 234
Article 04(3), 282
Article 06, 16
Article 06(1), 188
Article 06(3), 186
Article 17(8) (power of EP to dismiss Commission), 294
Article 19, 16, 86
Article 19(1), 384
Article 24, 199
Article 40, 201
Article 40(1), 199
Title V, 200
Title V, chapter 2, 18
TFEU
Article 016, 262
Article 019, 200, 262
Article 026, 262
Article 067, 234
Article 075, 17
Article 078, 262
Article 078(2)(d), 262
Article 081, 234
Article 081(2)(g), in footnote, 234
Article 087(2)(a): in footnote, 413
Article 101, 289, 290
in footnote, 317
Article 102, 71, 289, 290
Article 114, 262, 410
in footnote, 234
Article 126(7), 375
Article 215, 17
Article 226, 294
Article 227, 222
Article 228, 263, 266
in footnote, 330
Article 228(1), 132
Article 245, 297
Article 256(1), 43
Article 257, 134
Article 258, 70
Article 263, 2, 16, 24, 32, 50, 62, 64, 78, 82, 83, 86, 98, 101, 104, 117, 189, 190, 277, 282, 319–322, 327, 333, 334, 338, 341, 343, 344, 362, 370, 376, 381, 386, 387, 388, 389. See also action for annulment
admissibility requirements, 335, 370
in footnote, 328
narrow interpretation ‘remains contested’, 99
Article 263(4), 3, 77, 81, 82, 83, 84, 94, 192
in footnote, 84, 189
Article 265, 64, 80, 81, 82, 86, 218, 322. See also action for failure to act
Article 265(3), 192
Article 267, 16, 117, 119, 190, 193, 323–324, 341, 357, 382
drafting ‘minimalistic’, 98
passim, 100–104
primary purpose, 213
Article 267(3), 83, 94
Article 268, 3, 192
Article 268 juncto 340, 324
action for damages (in footnote), 319
Article 270, 192
Article 272, 192
Article 275, 18, 24, 199, 200, 201
Article 277, 190, 319, 327
Article 278: in footnote, 328
Article 279: in footnote, 328
Article 285, 295
Article 286, 295
Article 287, 295
Article 288: in footnote, 312, 313, 314
Article 298(1): ‘open, efficient and independent administration’, 330
Article 340, 3, 61, 64, 87, 88, 89, 90, 93, 192, 216, 218, 324–327, 344
‘high restrictive thresholds regarding EU liability conditions’, 341
Article 340(2), 43, 47
Article 340(3): in footnote, 88
Article 344, 237
the Court. See CJEU
the Treaties, 4, 5, 16, 17, 18, 19, 65, 243, 324, 328, 340, 426
third parties, 20, 51, 152, 213, 215, 224, 226, 253, 296, 298, 305, 320, 321, 333, 339
strategic litigation, 219–221
Timmermans, Christiaan, 183
in footnote, 186
trade unions, 168, 169, 174, 187
transparency, 144, 231, 256, 338, 404, 409
OLAF, 302
Treaties of Rome (1957), 1
Treaties on which EU based. See ‘the Treaties’
Treaty Establishing European Economic Community. See TEEC
Treaty of Amsterdam, 233
Treaty of Lisbon, 3, 76, 83, 84, 100, 101, 172, 175, 234, 384, 385
entry into force (1 December 2009), 109
in footnote, 189
Treaty of Maastricht, 159, 172, 174, 233
Treaty on European Union. See TEU
Treaty on Functioning of EU. See TFEU
tripartite government, 128–130
trust, 72, 247, 248, 252, 264
Turkey, 218, 405
Uitelkaar.nl platform (2017–): in footnote, 248
Ukraine, 237
EU soft law, 378–379
ultima ratio, 72
ultra vires control, 159
UN Charter, 30
UN Guidelines on Violations of International Humanitarian Law
definition of ‘compensation’ versus ‘satisfaction’, 39
definition of ‘full reparation’, 39
UN Security Council, 30
UNCITRAL, 251, 253
undertakings, 92, 290, 292, 295
in footnote, 317
Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Directive (1998), 242
UNHCR, 220, 224
United Kingdom, xxxi, 73, 160, 193, 213, 220, 254
United States, 92, 215, 248
constitution, 161
federal rules of evidence, 65
unlawful conduct, 47, 48, 50, 56, 57, 87, 88, 91, 92, 93, 194
as condition for EU fundamental rights liability, 47–55
user interface, 264
USA (in footnote), 264
validity. See also reformulation
van den Brink, Ton, 368
van der Pas, Kris, xii, 8, 171, 209–226, 425, 429
Vanhala, Lisa, 212
Verfassungsbeschwerde, 3
vertical composite procedures. See composite procedures
Villiger, Mark Eugen:in footnote, 371
Visa Information System (VIS), 394, 395
Visa Requirement Regulation (2018), 379
von der Boegart, Sina, 152
Waelbroeck, D.: in footnote, 106
Weiler, Joseph H.H., 15, 16
Werkmeister, Christophe (in footnote), 84
Wessel, Ramses, 201, 203
WHO, 396
Wildemeersch, Jonathan, 75, 76
Wróblewski, Jerzy, 65
wrongful act, 376, 405
definition, 89
WTO, 92
Xanthoulis, Napoleon: in footnote, 313
Yefremova, Veronika, xii, 8, 227–244, 428

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

  • Index
  • Edited by Melanie Fink, Leiden University
  • Book: Redressing Fundamental Rights Violations by the EU
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009373814.025
Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

  • Index
  • Edited by Melanie Fink, Leiden University
  • Book: Redressing Fundamental Rights Violations by the EU
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009373814.025
Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

  • Index
  • Edited by Melanie Fink, Leiden University
  • Book: Redressing Fundamental Rights Violations by the EU
  • Chapter DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009373814.025
Available formats
×