No CrossRef data available.
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.
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.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 06 March 2019
1 Case 26/62, N. V. Algemene Transp. And Expeditie Onderneming van Gend & Loos v. Nederslandse administratie der belastingen, 1963 E.C.R. 1, 12.Google Scholar
2 Carsten Nowak / Wolfram Cremer (Eds.), Individualrechtsschutz in der EG und der WTO, Baden-Baden: Nomos, 2002, p. 5. [Hereinafter “Individualrechtsschutz”]Google Scholar
3 Ibid., p. 7.Google Scholar
4 “Individualrechtsschutz gegen Rechtsakte der Gemeinschaft: Grundlagen und neuere Entwicklungen”, (individual legal protection against legal acts of the Community: basic principles and recent developments), Ibid., p. 27ff.Google Scholar
5 Ibid., p. 28.Google Scholar
6 “Verfahrensrechtlicher und gerichtlicher Individualrechtsschutz im EG-Beihilfekontrollrecht aus der Sicht der Praxis” (procedural and judicial individual legal protection in EC state aid control law from a practice perspective), Ibid., p. 161ff.Google Scholar
7 “Der deutsche Individualrechtsschutz im Wandel – Gemeinschaftsrechtliche Vorgaben und Möglichkeiten ihrer Rezeption im Verwaltungsprozeβrecht” (German individual legal protection in flux – Community measures and the possibilities of their adoption in administrative process law), Ibid., p. 81ff.Google Scholar
8 “Individualrechtsschutz in Genehmigungsverfahren der Europäischen Gemeinschaft im Recht der Biotechnologie” (individual legal protection in Approval Processes of the European Community in Biotechnology Law), Ibid., p. 103ff.Google Scholar
9 Ibid., p. 103.Google Scholar
10 Ibid., p. 130ff.Google Scholar
11 “Wechselwirkungen zwischen verwaltungsverfahrensrechtlichem und gerichtlichem Individualrechtsschutz in der EG” (interactions between administrative procedural and judicial individual legal protection in the EC), Ibid., p. 135ff.Google Scholar
12 “Verfahrensrechtlicher und gerichtlicher Individualrechtsschutz im EG-Antidumpingrecht aus der Sicht der Praxis” (procedural and judicial individual legal protection in EC antidumping law from a practice perspective), Ibid., p. 177ff.Google Scholar
13 Ibid., p. 136.Google Scholar
14 or, The private enforcement of WTO law, Ibid., p. 201ff.Google Scholar
15 or, Is there a deficit of legal protection in the WTO dispute settlement system?, p. Ibid., p. 221ff.Google Scholar
16 Ibid., p. 220.Google Scholar
17 Case T-177/01 (Judgment of 3 May 2002) and Case C-50/00 P (Judgment of 25 July 2002), respectively, available at http://curia.eu.int/en/jurisp/index.htm.Google Scholar
18 See Hanf, Dominik, Facilitating Private Applicants’ Access to the European Courts? On the Possible Impact of the CFI's Ruling in Jégo-Quéré, GLJ Vol. 3 No. 7, 01 July 2002 and, same, Kicking the ball into the Member States’ field: the Court's response to Jégo-Quéré (Case C-50/00 P Unión de Pequenos Agricultores, Judgment of 25 July 2002), GLJ Vol. 3 No. 8, 1 August 2002.Google Scholar
You have
Access