1 Nicolai Böcker, Wirksame Rechtsbehelfe zum Schutz der Grundrechte der Europäischen Union, 2005.Google Scholar

2 Case T-177/01, Jégo Quéré v. Commission, 2002 E.C.R. II-2365.Google Scholar

3 Case C-50/00 P, Unión de Pequeños Agricultures v. Council, 2002 E.C.R. I-6677; Case 263/02 P, Commission v. Jégo Quéré, 2004 E.C.R. I-3425.Google Scholar

4 Böcker, , supra note 1, at 40-48.Google Scholar

5 Id. at 135.Google Scholar

6 See e.g. BVerfGE 24, 33, 49–51.Google Scholar

7 See James and others v. The United Kingdom, ser. A No. 98 at para. 85 (Eur.Ct. H.R. 21 February 1986), on the one hand, and Silver and others v. The United Kingdom, ser. A No. 61 at paras. 118-119 (Eur. Ct. H.R. Judgment of 25 March 1983), on the other hand.Google Scholar

8 Böcker, , supra note 1, at 44.Google Scholar

9 Id. at 230-233.Google Scholar

10 Id. at 48-83.Google Scholar

11 Id. at 83-112.Google Scholar

12 Id. at 112-123.Google Scholar

13 The short section E is dedicated to legal protection against measures under the second and third pillar of the EU, followed by a résumé and an appraisal (section F).Google Scholar

14 Böcker, , supra note 1, at 51-57, 77.Google Scholar

15 Case 25/62, Plaumann v. Commission, 1963 E.C.R. 199.Google Scholar

16 Böcker, , supra note 1, at 57-76.Google Scholar

17 There is no effective means against a judge who is not prepared to do so, even if he is under a legal obligation, see id. at 97-105. See also id. at 130: “paternalistic character” of the preliminary ruling procedure.Google Scholar

18 Id. at 108.Google Scholar

19 Id. at 108-109.Google Scholar

20 Case 314/85, Foto-Frost v. Hauptzollamt Lübeck-Ost, 1987 E.C.R. 4199.Google Scholar

21 Böcker, , supra note 1, at 129-130. – A fifth argument is not elaborated in detail: In cases where the national judicial system is incomplete, the preliminary ruling procedure fails because there is no national judge to refer the case to the ECJ. Although there are allegations that under certain conditions, such “gaps” exist in the French and Spanish judicial system (id. at 89) Böcker leaves this question to future comparative law studies (id. at 129). This is regrettable since, in the eyes of the reviewer, it would have made the argument of deficient judicial protection in the EU even more compelling.Google Scholar

22 Id. at 117-120.Google Scholar

23 Id. at 131-132.Google Scholar

24 Id. at 135.Google Scholar

25 Id. at 129.Google Scholar

26 Case 224/01, Köbler v. Austria, 2003 E.C.R. I-10239; for further reading, see Marten Breuer, State liability for Judicial Wrongs and Community Law: the case of Gerhard Köbler v. Austria, 29 Eur. L. Rev. 2, 243-254 (2004).Google Scholar

27 “Der EuGH besitzt zwar das letzte Wort, aber kein Auslegungsmonopol. Eine Nichtvorlage kann daher bei Auslegungsfragen keine vollständige Rechtsverweigerung bewirken“, Böcker, supra note 1, at 182; similarly id. at 214, 218.Google Scholar

28 Id. at 141-147.Google Scholar

29 Id. at 148.Google Scholar

30 Id. at 151-153.Google Scholar

31 Id. at 175.Google Scholar

32 Id. at 215.Google Scholar

33 Id. at 180.Google Scholar

34 Id. at 192.Google Scholar

35 Id. at 196-199.Google Scholar

36 Id. at 164.Google Scholar

37 Case C-50/00 P, Unión de Pequeños Agricultures v. Council, 2002 E.C.R. I-6677, para. 60 (opinion of AG Jacobs).Google Scholar

38 Case T-177/01, Jégo Quéré v. Commission, 2002 E.C.R. II-2365, para. 51.Google Scholar

39 Böcker, , supra note 1, at 220-228.Google Scholar

40 Id. at 243-244.Google Scholar

41 Id. at 229-234, 244.Google Scholar

42 Id. at 233-234.Google Scholar

43 Id. at 148-151.Google Scholar

44 Id. at 234-243.Google Scholar

45 Id. at 245.Google Scholar

46 Id. at 246-248, 248-251.Google Scholar

47 Id. at 248.Google Scholar

48 Id. at 251.Google Scholar

49 See supra note 21.Google Scholar